These were the Christian people who nurtured me and taught me my faith.
There was a leeetle problem though. Early on it became apparent that something was different about me. I couldn't make myself believe some parts of the bible. I was a natural born skeptic.
When told the Noah and the Ark story in Sunday School, I quickly figured out that two of every kind of animal would not fit on one boat. No one else seemed to be doing the math. I could no more believe the ark story than I could believe the sky was green. I wanted to believe. Believing seemed nice, but I couldn't. I COULD NOT.
I can really relate to that. In my recent conversations with my buddy from Texas, it occurs to me that I am a very rational person. That doesn't mean smarter than him, or anyone, for that matter. But I am a skeptical person. And have been for some time. I don't think that is a bad thing.
The Preacher discovered that faith was an action, not a feeling. He chooses to believe despite the voices of doubt in his head. I respect the hell out of that. And I try very hard to do that myself.
I watched Bill Maher last night. Normally I avoid because even though he is funny, his guests usually bug me and I find myself angrier than before. Last night, his guests were Andrew Sullivan, Ben Afleck and Salman Rushdie. The conservative Andrew Sullivan was more angry with Bush than anyone. That was entertaining.
But in the middle of that conversation, Maher (as he often does) blamed religion for Bush. All religion. He thinks that people of faith are stupid for believing "nonsense." I think Bootleg Blogger has had the very same reaction. It frustrates us that he would dismiss all people of faith. And Sullivan and Afleck jumped him for it.
But Maher raises an interesting point and helps me clarify my own skepticism and struggle with faith. I respect faith, because it is asking questions about those things we cannot know for sure. We cannot, as flawed human beings, know for sure that God even exists. We don't know why there is suffering and death or why we are even here. Faith is that conversation of trying to figure out meaning and hope and understanding. It is a good thing.
But my conservative evangelical friends want me to apply that faith in other areas--other areas where there are other "ways of knowing." For example, I don't need faith to study history. I need documents and a keen mind. I can speculate on what those people believed and thought, but I don't need faith for that. Likewise with science. I don't need faith to understand evolution or cell biology. I need empirical evidence.
But my conservative evangelical friends want to apply faith to everything. I am supposed to have faith that God wanted George Bush in office. (Bucky U. Badger sent this essay that is on point) That reminds me of a discussion regarding how the Aztecs must have seen Cortez. Previous explanations suggested that Cortez's armor and horses must have convinced the natives that he was some kind of God. But, as Al Crosby (I think) noted, they only had to spend any kind of time near them--smelling them, watching them eat, etc., to know they were not gods. I feel that way about Bush. I have seen too much stupidity to ever believe that God chose this man. Don't ask me to believe something that is so clearly wrong.
Don't ask me to have faith about Bush, and don't ask me to have faith about science. Global warming is real, and faith won't change that. Evolution is real, and faith doesn't change that, nor is it destroyed by it.
There is much room for faith in our world--and much need. But there is much, much room and need for reason and rationality. Christians who simply apply faith to everything are not helping us. In other words, I will work on my faith, but you all need to work on being more rational in the things that demand rational thought. Deal?
5 comments:
People forget that Martin Luther King Jr was a baptist preacher. The abolitionist mov't was spearheaded by evangelical Christians. Liberals who push for human rights causes, equality among people and peoples, and individual freedom are living off a borrowed religious heritage. Christianity (real Christianity - not the domesticated, ideological brand touted by the Religious Right, which is not Christianity at all) for all it's historic and contemporary flaws, has, at its core, a fundamental love for the world and has, on the whole, been a force for good in the world.
What many skeptics see is a bastardization of revelation. Historically, very few people claimed special knowledge outside of what was agreed upon by the church community, be it scripture for Prots) or the Tradition (for RCs). This "God personally told me..." bullshit is a contemporary abboration.
Historic Christianity has always lived in the tension between faith and doubt. Doubt makes faith more compelling. The opposite of Faith is not doubt, but certainty. A stance the bible shuns.
Your Noah example is a good one. It shows how non-thinking biblicism has been the dominant voice in the church. To suggest that the Noah isn't a newspaper account, rather a telling of a story that meant something to a group of believers, is usually met with hostile reactions. As if literal truth is the purest truth.
kgp
while i respect moderates who use their religious faith to influence their compassion and goodness, i still find that religious belief in general tends towards irrationality. its one thing to have a general belief in the greater spiritual unknown and to seek personal knowledge outside of the realm of science and reason, but once you start down that path, all the problems that have arisen from religion throughout history keep coming up. it promotes tribal warfare, as one group, convinced of its own divine blessing, invariably demonizes the others.
religion in society has had mixed results. i would not say that religion has been a net positive. i tend to see religion, especially fundamentalism, as a huge weight around the neck of modern civilization, and an impediment to real progress.
Bruce,
Fundamentlism comes in many forms. Religion doesn't corner the market on fundamentalist extremism. The Committee for Public Safety during the French Revolution comes to mind. Not to mention more recent form of nationalistic fundamentalism from folks like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and the Bush administration. It's the black and white, us vs them, certainties that discourage any self-critical thinking that are at the heart of the world's problems. Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism; capitalism, socialism, libertarian, all have fundamentalists among their ranks.
But, yes, religion does tend toward irrationality. There's no debating that. I think that's because people have experiences of such transcendant quality that history's best poets, artists, and musicians even have difficulty describing. Religion helps people find words, however indequate, for those experiences.
The issue is not religion/non religion. The issue is fanaticism. Which rears its ugly head no matter where you go, church or other.
kgp
Bruce,
I understand your point and think that Kevin is right. What you are describing is fundamentalism more than it is a representation of religious faith. True faith, in my opinion, includes a healthy dose of humility. Fundamentalism lacks that.
Thanks for posting this, Streak. I really, really needed it this week.
Post a Comment