George and Darren: The Finale
George Lippert
Darren Bell
George and Darren are having a conversation about faith and worldview. George is an artist/writer who is a christian, and Darren is an engineer who is an “agnostic.” The last several days they’ve been having a conversation on martyholman.com based on this question:
MH: In a world full of opinions and thoughts and gray, as opposed to previous eras of black and white, it can be tough to really know where someone’s coming from. As a writer/artist (George) and an engineer (Darren), What is the basis for your worldview?
They talked for some time of the Bible and rationalism and belief and knowledge and have shown the utmost respect for one another in the process. But coming to the end of the conversation, will it get intense? Here’s the finale of George and Darren. And in case you missed them -
part 1
part 2
part 3 – with Jeff
The first comment from George is from part 3, but is important to read before Darren responds, as Darren references several parts of George’s comments:
George Lippert: The claim that Truth is unknowable is, in itself, a Truth claim. What is the basis for this Truth claim? Using your previous comments, I’m led to the next few questions.
I appreciate that you use analogies. You describe us as people wandering aimlessly in a foggy wood. We are unable to know the full Truth about this wood because none of us can see the whole of it. I’ll call this the Holistic Quotient.
On the other hand, you compare Truth about spiritual matters (vague and disparate) to the Truth about the mass of an electron (measurable and uniform). I’ll call this the Disparity Quotient, and I think it is a very fair question, one that I consider myself at length.
The Holistic Quotient is one you already addressed by acknowledging that, eventually, one has to make logical assumptions based on the available evidence. Thus, you do not need to measure every electron on earth to determine a logical assumption of its mass. And yet you say that since we cannot experience the absolute totality of God’s alleged omnipotence, said omnipotence cannot be assumed. Why?
The Disparity Quotient is admittedly trickier, methinks. Still, how does disparity of beliefs about spiritual matters deny that there might be one absolute Truth? Many people might disagree about the contents of a mysterious box (think of the classic thought experiment of Schrodinger’s Cat), but that does not imply that there is not one constant truth regarding what actually IS in the box.
To claim that disparity of beliefs means there is no such thing as Truth seems to me like saying that in a world of second graders there would be no such thing as algebra. Mathematical Truths exist even if the second graders have no concept of them (although they themselves may deny it vehemently).
So. All that to say, how do you back up your Truth claim that there is no way of knowing Truth? I believe I know Truth (albeit in a limited form, revealed by God’s revelation through the Bible, and through NO act of wisdom, wit, or worth on my part). Your worldview denies mine. Therefore, I would be curious to know what your basis is for it. Why, in short, am I wrong?
Darren bell: I don’t actually have a problem with faith, but I believe faith should be put within reasonable limits. Faith should be salted by an understanding that as humans our perspectives are very limited, and we cannot make claims larger then what we actually have knowledge of.
I don’t believe any ground exists where it is possible to say that one religion is right and one is wrong, or that there is one true path, etc. To say that you need the top of the mountain view, and no human being has that.
All tertiary claims of having a top of the mountain perspective to me are no better. To say, “I do not have knowledge of the top of the mountain, but I know the creator of the mountain, and he told me what the mountain looks like from the top” or any variation of divine revelation through a secondary source whether person or book still claims to have irrefutable knowledge of the source. The source makes claims greater then humans can reasonably make, but you trust the source, so you allow it to make greater claims then you would yourself. At different points in our lives we all do this. I had a conversation with a friend of mine earlier this week about a relationship, and she was giving me advice and I recognized that in my current circumstances she had more perspective on my life then I did so I listened to her. Because I know her I trusted her and I recognized that my decision making ability was impaired.
I have three problems with extending what I mention above about my friend to religion. 1) I’m still responsible for that decision, and almost all of the facts surrounding the decision are obtainable by me, it’s just confusing. Meaning that the advice I accepted wasn’t out of the circle I have drawn around myself for what I can and cannot know, she was just helping me make sense of the facts I had in my circle. That I had observed or experienced firsthand and involve people I know. 2) The evidence required to substantiate the claims that because you know God in your own sphere means he is God everywhere and over everyone in order for you to extrapolate his seeming omnipotence to you to the universe are very high, and as far as I can tell unobtainable. 3) The subjectiveness of the argument, and the fact that the subjectiveness of spirituality does not lead to consensus but leads to dissent and that there are literally millions of people all claiming to know absolute truths, or claiming to know the creator that has told them the Truth, that contradict each other should concern any person. It is highly concerning.
In the 21st century we literally lock people up that say they have received divine revelation or know personally the God of the universe, unless they are part of an established church. I don’t believe any of the evidence of the Bible stands up to modern critique and the rigorousness by which we judge it is watered down because of it’s antiquity and the mysticism surrounding it. If anyone claimed that someone rose from the dead today we don’t believe them, it doesn’t matter how much proof they have or what they say. As modern people we believe that to be impossible. But it was possible 2000 years ago!
But in the end I concede that to my mind there is enough room for God even in the most reasonable and rigorously defined formulation of knowledge. Our doubts and unknowable are just too great. And though I have serious concerns about that moral compass of mine leading me towards religion just being sociological and cultural baggage . . . there the needle rests none the less.
Faith salted in this way leads to respect of other people, it leads to humility when viewing yourself and it leads to you putting yourself in a worldview that includes other people and is able to be widened by others experiences also.
GL: Thanks Darren.
Just to respond to a few things:
1) I actually don’t have a problem with a subjective experience of religion/God, although I can see how it might seem that way from what I said. Any religious experience is a very personal, subjective thing. I DO believe it is a problem when one’s subjective/speculative experience of God is the primary basis of their belief. We humans are simply too unreliable, distracted, fallen, and selfish to be trustworthy in that regard. This is why I choose to trust external revelation– i.e. the Bible.
2) I am intrigued by the idea of personal balance. We are more than purely intellectual beings, just as we are more than purely spiritual or emotional beings. I suspect that our beliefs (not only about spiritual things) become flawed when we rely too heavily on only one of those resources.
Darren, I admit that if I had your mind, I suspect it would be very hard for me not to filter all of my beliefs (or lack thereof) about Truth through the hard lens of empirical evidence. For another person, they might choose not to engage their clinical intellect at all, instead rejecting some beliefs based on the fact that they don’t “feel genuine”. Another person might believe or disbelieve based on some personal mystical speculation gleaned from spiritual meditations.
In short, I wonder if potential Truth can only be grasped (albeit imperfectly) when one balances all the facets of our humanity? Does that make sense?
I have not attained balance, but I will say this: where my intellect fails me in my belief, my spiritual experience of God’s truth takes over. Where my spiritual experience of God’s truth fails me, my emotional assurance of God’s fatherhood takes over. These are hardly perfect, and frankly I still struggle quite a lot from time to time (especially if I allow only one of those aspects of my humanity to exert too much influence), but all told, this is where my belief in Truth holds: in the web between intellect, spirituality, and emotion.
Thus far, I respect your perspectives Darren (and I sometimes share them, at least a little), but while I see that your worldview makes a certain kind of sense, I don’t see how it denies that there might indeed be a Truth– or that the revelation of God through the Bible might be wrong. Nor do I see exactly how a lack of PERFECT intellectual understanding of the totality of Truth means that one must reject any form of the concept (anymore than failing to grasp calculus is a reason to assume that it is impossible to know or does not exist). I appreciate that it is a struggle, though, and a messy one.
But honestly, here’s the nub of it: if Christianity isn’t true for everyone, then it isn’t true at all. That’s evident in Jesus’ own words. Call it arrogant, simple-minded, and culturally insensitive, but none of those things are arguments against the veracity of the claim.
But I appreciate being sharpened on these things and being pressed to think carefully about them. I look forward to more.
DB: I wouldn’t say that my worldview denies that there might be Truth, or even that the Bible reveals God through revelation. I like your analogy about the second graders and algebra, but the only thing I would say about it is that you say that second graders can’t comprehend something higher then them, but that that higher thing exists in spite of their knowledge of it. And yet, if you give second graders the chance to advance mathematics . . . you would wind up short of algebra or calculus. You would end up with a mess.
Sans an algebra book of course, which is what we all claim we have.
Here indeed is the crux of the whole issue:
“But honestly, here’s the nub of it: if Christianity isn’t true for everyone, then it isn’t true at all. That’s evident in Jesus’ own words. Call it arrogant, simple-minded, and culturally insensitive, but none of those things are arguments against the veracity of the claim.”
I agree with you that this doctrine is true. And it is the chief conflict of my religious thought at the moment.
Because I assert that you do not have the authority to say such a thing. To make such a claim. And more to the point: I think it is too far reaching to allow the Bible the authority to make such a point.
It is beyond what it is possible for a human to know. I do not believe that any amount of historical or psychological evidence can support the claim (especially in light of the conflict of other people against such views) that the Bible is the revelation from God that is applicable to all human beings.
The more I look at myself and the arguments and evidence I rely on. The more I see other people saying the opposite thing from me who rely on the same subjective experiences, cultural momentum and historical evidences backing up their antithesis. And it shakes my foundations and makes me questions the basis of all my beliefs, correctly so.
That being said, I don’t reject that God may exist. But my rationality forces me to frame God within my known limits of what I can have the ability to declare. I do not have the ability to know whether the Bible is God’s inerrant word for all human kind, and therefore I do not claim it is, regardless of the fact that according to it’s internal doctrine I must claim that in order to adhere to it perfectly. I can BELIEVE, I can have FAITH, but I cannot KNOW.
GL: I like it when we find places that we can agree upon, even if our perspectives on them are totally different. Again, I suspect this could go on forever, so for now I am content to say “good topic everybody!”
Related posts:
The more I read this, the more I realized how not intelligent I am. Although I've struggled with many of these same ponderings, these guys are thinking at a level above me (and pretty nearly writing/speaking above me as well). I guess it should be a little embarrassing to admit that, but hey… this conversation has been about honesty anyway, right?
One of the many thoughts that this conversation again brings up to me is how fascinating–and confusing–it is that if Christianity is true for all mankind, why did God place us here with: 1. abilities to think and analyze the search for truth such as the ones demonstrated by this conversaton, and 2. Enough "truth" in historical and scriptural form to make the foundation but still require the elusive faith needed to commit?
And all this is further confounded by the fact that you have people like me, who function at a level a bit below these two very smart guys, and ever more people who are far below me in their ability to comprehend the conundrum. (Although when dealing with faith I think that might be more of an asset)
Thanks for the time spent in delivering this. As usual, not sure what we accomplished, but I appreciate knowing that others are working through the same questions.
Tony! I am SO glad you commented.
Intellectualism is wildly overrated. Jesus himself said that we should aim to have faith like little children. This is something that is very hard to do for an overly analytical person. In fact, I really believe that intelligence (unbalanced by the other facets of who we are, what C. S. Lewis called the "chest", as opposed to the "head") can be a serious stumbling block to one's faith.
For those who can simply cling to the reality of Jesus and his love, untainted by the lawyer-like cross-examination of intellectual analysis (my wife, for one), I envy them.
I believe we humans do have a divine instinct for what is innately right (the Bible is pretty clear on this) but we can easily spoil that if we lean too heavily on intellectual reasoning. Unfortunately, child-like faith is extremely difficult for some of us. The task before us is to work, everyday, to balance intellect with instinct, fact with faith, and revelation with relationship.
Thanks for sharing, Tony. Truly, being able to approach the gospel simply and trustfully is a VERY good thing.
My biggest problem with child like faith is what is your safeguard whtn it gets poisoned?
For me this is kind of what the whole rationalism thing is about. Faith to me leads people to do good but also very horrible things. And I am no stranger to that personally; and I don't mean that I have had things inflicted on me, I mean I feel the pull of black and white and have been there in my life previously. Wrapping faith in rational thought and sifting it carefully not merely with the Bible but also with other peoples worldviews and your own expereicne and a good does of liberalism in my mind helps protect against the excess of religion.
The excess of religion to me are a very real thing that are floating around our world, from Chrisitians hating on gays, other Christinas and just about anyone that is not themselves to suicide bombers.
I think all of these people believe they are following their God with child like faith. I think they believe it is heresy to double check his Word. I think they expect Him to be their safeguard and protect them from erring from his way because of their fervrent heart. And I think they are doing a great amount of damage to other people. Additionally, I fear becoming one of them.
I do not believe wrapping faith in rationalism is the only way to protect myself from that. But at 26 it is currently what I am walking through. Which probably came out really strong in the conversations with me
We'll see though . . .
I've been hearing this argument (that religion is the cause of great evil in the world) a lot lately. I know it is very popular. But it is not true.
What is being called religion is actually extremism. The Muslim religion is not responsible for political extremists who wear that religion like a mask. Nor is the Christian religion responsible for the bigoted extremism of the Ku Klux Klan, despite their claims. The best of Christians and Muslims reject the extremists, and call them what they are.
Extremism exists in absolutely every human institution. To judge religion (any religion) as bad because of its minority extremists is truly like abandoning a solid house because it has mice in the walls.
Of course, there is lesser evil in the church, as you rightly point out. Not all errors of extremism result in bombings and hate. But again, any human institution is full of these imperfections because (gasp) it is full of humans. We can no more abandon religion because of the flaws of its members than we can abandon family, nationality, politics, or any other conceivable fraternity.
And in the interests of real fairness, I wonder, if one were to balance the good that religion (ANY religion) has done against the bad, how the scales might surprise us? It is a human tendency (and I am just as guilty of it as the next) to rest on a sense of superiority by passing lofty judgments on previously respected institutions.
Sorry if that sounded confrontational. I do mean it with respect. This is just one of those premises that I cannot accept without challenging.
George–I'm glad you challenged it. I never know how to, and yet the argument frustrates me no end, because, if it's not outright false, it is at least extremely slanted and narrow. I remember sitting with my devout Muslim friends in East London right after 9/11/2001 and listening to them talk with confusion and horror about how it could be possible for fellow Muslims to perpetrate such an atrocity. I think the reason one might reasonably fear perpetrating atrocities onesself is because we're human and all people are a mix of darkness and light. I don't think it has anything (real) to do with religiosity or the lack thereof. Religion (or some other fraternity, as George points out) may provide a convenient justification for one's behaviour, but it isn't the religion that DOES it. It's the person. Blaming extremism, from whatever corner, is a lot more accurate than blaming a certain segment (albeit a large one) of people who believe in God/absolute Truth.
I totally agree with Jenn and Gnormanlippert on the distinction between extremists and adherents to a faith tradition.
But I wanted to toss something else into the mix: The bottom line for me is that the extremists are not embracing a child-like faith at all. I don't mean this to sound flippant. But I've never known a kid to contemplate a crusade, a jihad, or a suicide bombing.
Extremists, as a general rule, have very carefully formulated creeds which they are intense and dogmatic about.
A child like faith is one which recognizes that God is bigger than our words and thoughts, much as a child trusts his parents to protect him from dangers he is not yet mature enough to understand.
I think it's a fair and reasonable to ask, "How do we guard against being misled, manipulated, and decieved?" if we have a child-like faith. (Which I think is what Darren was asking.)
I would respond with 2 thoughts.
The first is that when we believe we can cage God and contain him in our petty little creeds, that is when we are guarenteed to be decieved and manipulated.
The second is that at the core of a child-like faith sits a conviction that can't be fully expressed in words but which raises it's fierce head in the face of un-Godlike acts. I strive toward a child-like faith which is bordered by an understanding that there are things (such as acts of terrorism) which are simply not in God's nature. If a voice is asking me to engage in these acts, it is certainly not coming from God.
Very well said, Jeff! Wow! I love it.
I do think that there is room in certain quarters of the faith– even a necessity– for creeds and doctrine, so long as those things are, at their heart, fed by that child-like faith you described. Doctrine may be the skeleton that frames the organism of the church, but simple faith is its heart and center.
"…at the core of a child-like faith sits a conviction that can't be fully expressed in words but which raises it's fierce head in the face of un-Godlike acts." WOO! That's so good and true. Preach it.
Thanks Jenn. It's a touchy topic that I know snags a lot of people on both sides. Now, out of raw curiosity, I am going to go to my local Borders and seek out "Trees in the Pavement".
NICE! Thank you! You won't find it, though. You'll have to get them to order it for you.
Amen! No, seriously, Jeff. Preach it. Tell Marty to let you preach again or something.
Thanks, folks. This is a topic I'm actually quite intense about at the moment… and I'm always priviliged and honored to speak whenever Marty invites me to.
The discussion of extremism reminds me of what is likely the single largest dilemma I find myself debating (with myself and a couple of unfortunate others) regarding Christianity: That Jesus was either the unequivocal son of God in flesh or he was a complete liar and lunatic. And if indeed he was who he said he was, and is the Son of God, that is pretty extreme, and so is the Bible. Yet I see very few people living extremely. This is a huge discussion regarding our comforts of life here in America while billions around the globe are hurting and hungry, but most 'christians' you can find around you are fat and happy (even with common 'struggles' we all face, which are NOTHING relative to other nations) and fairly comfortable with embracing God as their convenient buddy, much like the $5 coffee every morning. And I will be the first to tell you that I am not living extremely. I'm scared of it and debating it, for some reason. But at least I'm debating it, I guess. Has anyone read "Radical" by David Platt? Our pastor mentioned it recently, but I haven't read it yet.
So my basic question is… If Jesus was God, and we really believe that, along with the teachings in the Bible, most specifically the New Testament, how the heck can we even have the audicity to build 'bigger barns', stock our 401k, spend thousands on a new deck, boat, carpet, (insert random item you want here), etc. while millions yearly die and burn? Seems like some extreme "Francis Chan living" should be a bit more common among us, yet how many people do you know who are truly concerned with living this type of extremism? Not me… not yet, but maybe soon. I don't know…
What I see is that through a combination of forces that religions operate very powerfully in peoples lives. Religion operates on a social and psychological level and also involve a Truth claim. Because of it's power and the far reachingness of it's claims on my own life and what it says about the world I find it difficult to balance it with other forces in my life. And in fact there are a number of people that claim it should not be balanced with any other forces in your life, that this is itself heretical.
Because of this power that it has the ability to excerpt over people I believe it to be necessary to have some mechanism in place to keep it spiraling out of control.
Jeff suggested conscience and humilty. Conscience I don't think cuts it, but humility is what I was saying in all my writing up to this point.
To use a CS Lewis analogy: the greater the angel the greater the demon. Religion operates on the same principal: the more power it has in a persons life to effect good, the more power it has in a persons life to effect evil.
That being said. I think a great deal of evil is being done in the world today in the name of religion and the chief artifact that all of these evil-doers have in common is a lack of humility.