Matching Tracksuits

fun in fours

faith

The Will to Believe

Tuesday 08 February 2005

The will to believe. Choosing to believe. Avoiding error. Seeking truth.

It all seems so simple from the outside.

I once chose to believe. At a point in my life, I went through the motions, hoping unconsciously that I could cultivate a belief (like a gay friend I had who was vaguely attracted to a girl, a feeling he hoped to “cultivate” into bisexuality) and knowing that I was fooling myself (much like my gay friend eventually admitted to himself).

And I did try. I wrote in my journal about belief and faith and the wonder of God’s love. I talked to friends at university about the marvel of forgiveness and what God did for us through Jesus. I prayed.

In early 1995, I began acknowledging in my personal journal the doubts I was having.

What is this thing, Christianity? It is the worship of a Jewish carpenter who lived two millennia ago. It is a religion based on a book, allegedly written by God's inspiration. Was Christ more than a radical social reformer? Were his miracles more than a fictional construction of the gospel writers?

No matter how much I want to believe, to feel the fervor that others experience, I cannot.

Could Christ be the creation of a codependent society? The ultimate father-figure who provides the love a fleshly father should give?

The lingering adolescence in my writing style aside, I was filled with clichés. Perhaps that was the problem.

Another few weeks passed and a faculty member of the college I was attending died from cancer. During the memorial chapel, I scribbled the following in my journal:

Death -- and my thoughts are again turned to religion. God is such an abstraction that I read about him and never feel him; not even death brings any real, any substantial emotion of which God is the source. The only feeling I get is doubt. Is that from God?

Doubt from God? It doesn’t seem possible, but from a liberal theology, it makes some sense. After all, if we can have Harvey Cox in The Secular City saying that God wants us to outgrow him and the whole “Death of God” theology of the sixties, why not divine doubt? Descartes, turned on his head.

Still later, again from my journal:

I find myself thinking of the whole God issue still. I am frustrated by the whole thing. I sit now in the library and just a moment ago I looked up at Rev. [Smith] and peered at his forehead, wondering what was in his mind, what books, what learning, what lectures. But mainly what beliefs. He firmly believes in God. He would stake his life on it, I would imagine. Yet that means nothing to me. No matter how important God is to him, God is still a mere abstraction to me. He’s a blurred, hazy idea, and little more than that. I can read Barth and Schleiermacher until I'm sick of them and yet it makes God no less concrete. I don’t believe in God. Not in a personal, substantial way. I read theology, talk about Christian ethics and doctrine, yet I don't really believe in the basis of it all. It’s not that I am an atheist. It’s not that I choose not to believe in God – I just can’t believe in God.

Many Christians would read that and respond, “You read only theology? What about reading the Bible?” Indeed – what about reading the Bible? The more I read, the less I found that I liked. &(insetL)I learned in graduate school that “Schleiermacher” means “veil maker” in German. Appropriate, most seem to think.%

Doing produces believing? Yes, and no. From my personal experience, I see that for me it was impossible. But I was “playing” (for lack of a better term) in the Protestant tradition, and there’s not much “doing” there. The “smells and bells” for the Catholic tradition bring all the senses into ritual. Indeed – who can really talk of Protestant “ritual” or “liturgy?” Perhaps that’s why charismatic churches are so attractive to some – full body contact.

Yet the ritual can be without meaning – empty repetitions. Jesus, according to the Gospels, found that in first century Judea.

It does seem to reduce down to the will. People choose to believe often by choosing not to challenge those beliefs. I’ve always found it odd that it seems more non-believers read theistic apologetic than believers read The Case for Atheism. It’s tempting to be smug about that, to say that, “Well, that just shows we non-believers are more open, more willing to challenge our worldviews.”

I’m not sure how I’d explain it, though.

Pascal, Kreeft, and the Will

Monday 07 February 2005

Most everyone knows Pascal’s Wager, drawn from a single paragraph in Pensces: belief in God is, in short, the safest bet. ("Read more on the Wager.) It’s interesting that people still apply it in earnest.

Most recently, I’ve heard Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft use it in his 1995 Texas A&M Veritas Forum lecture.

One of the objections is the supposed inability to chose one’s beliefs. Pascal foresaw such an argument:

You would like to attain faith, and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief, and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc... But to show you that this leads you there, it is this which will lessen the passions, which are your stumbling-blocks.

Action precedes faith. Praying, meditating, going to Mass, all lead to faith. Crazy as that might sound, Pascal might indeed have a point. Polish writer Czesław Miłosz made the same point in The Captive Mind:

The Catholic Church wisely recognized that faith is more a matter of collective suggestion than of individual conviction. Collective religious ceremonies induce a state of belief. Folding one’s hands in prayer, kneeling, singing hymns precede faith, for faith is a psycho-physical and not simply a psychological phenomenon.

Every Mass Catholics cite the Apostles’ Creed in one voice:

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth:

I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord; Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried; He descended into hell; on the third day He arose from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit; the holy catholic church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and life everlasting. Amen.

“I believe; I hear my neighbor beside me state that he believes; I am aware that my neighbor in front of me believes – we all believe. We all support each other in these beliefs.” That’s what I hear behind the words.

In that believing environment, which must be at least similar to Pascal’s environment, willing yourself to believe seems not only possible, but almost inescapable. Even as a “staunch” non-believer, I feel sometimes that tug toward belief, that desire not simply to fit in for the sake of fitting in, but to have what the parishioners around me seem to have.

There are two kinds of views on religion, wrote William James in The Varieties of Religious Experience:

  1. Seek truth
  2. Avoid error

For those who seek truth, the choice is obvious – bet on God. I’ve always been more the type to avoid error.

Got Soul, Part II

Wednesday 15 December 2004

Regarding my recent post on the soul, Isabella commented,

What loaded questions. That nobody can answer. I don’t know if you’re a reader of fiction (heck, I barely know you at all), but your entire post reminds me of an SF novel – Terminal Experiment, by Robert J Sawyer. I don’t think he’s a very good writer, but he grapples with some very interesting ideas, starting with the 21 grams that leave the body when you die.

Twenty-one grams that leave the body when you die? I'd never heard of this. Being a skeptic, I immediately thought, "Urban legend," but I thought I'd poke around on the internet a while and see what turned up.

In an article entitled "Soul Man", I found that the the 21-gram idea can be traced back to an early-twentieth century physician, Duncan MacDougall of Haverhill, Massachusetts. He did a relatively crude experiment in which the beds of six terminally ill patients were put on scales to check for weight loss at the moment of death. He claimed to have accounted for evaporation of any sweat that might be on the patients skin, and reasoned that the effect of bowel movement or urine elimination would be negligable because it would remain on the bed. His results were far from uniform, but they indicated some weight loss at death. (The full text of the 1907 AMA paper is here.)

From this, it's safe to say:

Urban Legend.

But were the questions I asked really "unanswerable?" That depends on what we mean by "unanswerable." Science is not usually about "definitely" answered questions, and after all, it is science than can answers this question for us while we're still alive.

All bets are off once we're dead, though.

The saddest part about not believing in a soul, though, is that we're right, we'll never know.

Reading Strobel

Tuesday 31 August 2004

I began reading The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel this week. My parents brought it to me in addition to the two books I’d requested. I’d read some reviews of it on Amazon, and the common complaint against it is that it doesn’t present the other side of the issue. There is a short chapter on the issues raised by the Jesus Seminar, but that’s about it other than occasional objections raised here and there by skeptics. I’ve no problem with this in a way, for the book is The Case for Christ and not Christ on Trial. In other words, even in the title it makes it clear that it’s presenting one side of the story.

One thing I do have a problem with is how much of the argument is based on something being “reasonable” or the alternative being “unlikely.” For example, “Given that Jesus’ followers looked upon him as being even greater than a prophet, it seems very reasonable that they would have done the same thing [(i.e., record his words accurately)]” (41, emphasis mine).

It’s often just conjecture. For example, concerning the casting of the demons into the swine, Strobel points out that Mark and Luke say it happened in Gerasa, with Matthew putting it in Gadara. After the scholar (Blomberg) suggests that one was a town and the other a province, Strobel adds, “Gerasa, the town, wasn’t anywhere near the Sea of Galilee.” Blomberg responds:

There have been ruins of a town that have been excavated at exactly the right point on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee. The English form of the town’s name often gets pronounced ‘Khersa,’ but as a Hebrew word translated or transliterated into Greek, it could have come out sounding something very much like ‘Gerasa.’ So it may very well have been in Khersa — whose spelling in Greek was rendered as Gerasa — in the province of Gadara (46, 47).

Goodness — proper understanding of the Bible requires knowing how people could have transliterated or misspelled words! Isn’t the Bible of divine origin? How could this happen?

This issue of divine origin comes up again when discussing the consistency between the gospel accounts. Blomberg says,

My own conviction is, once you allow for the elements I’ve talked about earlier — of paraphrase, of abridgement, of explanatory additions, of omission — the gospels are extremely consistent with each other by ancient standards, which are the only standards by which it’s fair to judge them (45).

The only standards? How about the standard of them coming from a supposedly omnipotent, omniscient source? Of course, apologists like to conjecture that if there was perfect consistency between the gospels, that would be suspect in itself. Perhaps, but there is such a level of inconsistency on basic issues (who saw the resurrected Jesus first, for example).

In some ways, the book is strangely persuasive. I guess it comes from this strange, nonsensical desire to believe again. A childish desire, I suppose — and Christians wouldn’t deny that. “Unless you become like a child” and all that.

Faith

Monday 29 March 2004

What is this thing, faith? I’ve been giving it a lot of thought lately. It seems that in the twenty-first century, it is, among other things, faith that science hasn’t figured it all out and won’t, and that will leave room for demons, souls, and other metaphysical entities. It’s a trust that you can believe the Bible, even though there are scores of contradictions in it, and it’s clearly rooted in archaic thinking.

Take demon possession, for instance. In the New Testament, there’s a lot of exorcisms going on, and most of it seems for things like epilepsy:

Just then a man from the crowd shouted, “Teacher, I beg you to look at my son; he is my only child. Suddenly a spirit seizes him, and all at once he shrieks. It convulses him until he foams at the mouth; it mauls him and will scarcely leave him. I begged your disciples to cast it out, but they could not.”

Jesus answered, “You faithless and perverse generation, how much longer must I be with you and bear with you? Bring your son here.”

While he was coming, the demon dashed him to the ground in convulsions. But Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, healed the boy, and gave him back to his father (Luke 9.38–42).

Today we look at this and think, “Very clearly the boy had epilepsy.” But that’s not what the Bible says. So we can take a liberal interpretation and say, “Well of course Jesus, even though he knew, would not have said, ‘Your son has epilepsy,’ because no one would have understood him or believed him. He simply healed the boy, and explained in language they could understand.” The other extreme is what my father said once: most of the people in mental hospitals today probably just have demons.

There’s also the question of the soul, which eventually could be shown to have very little to do with our personality and very little room in which to do it. Of course you can’t prove there’s not a soul, and scientists are not out to do that. What you can do, though, is show that all the things formerly associated with the soul—personality, memory, etc.—are in fact chemical reactions in the brain and nothing more.

It’s the question of faith in what, also. I know if I went through the motions, if I pretended to believe, I might eventually believe. But is that “the spirit working in me,” or a result of psychological and sociological phenomena?

Circumcision and the Bible, Part 2

Friday 19 March 2004

Suddenly spring arrives in full force. The snow has just about all disappeared—all that remains is the big mountains of it. Birds are singing outside, and I’d forgotten how the first birds of spring sound. I just lay in bed this morning for a little while listening to them.

Returning to the quote from Romans above: “The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.” When I read that, I think, “You know, Armstrongites have a point: it wasn’t just all love this love that.” And further I wonder if Christians (Catholics included) don’t just pick and choose the things they want to obey.

The problem is in the Bible itself, for after having made such a big deal out of keeping the law, Paul writes in Romans:

Do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to men who know the law—that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man. So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God (7.1–3).

This is the kind of stuff that the new WCG points out to the old Armstrongites and says, “See, the law doesn’t count now!” And yet the author of this had just finished going on and on about the law. So the problems arise from people trying to interpret a faulty book that contradicts itself at every turn.

Later, we find this:

What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “Do not covet.” But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead.

Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death.

So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

All I can say is, “What the hell is he trying to say?!” Paul is supposes to be this erudite but this is just nonsense. “Through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful?” Has he personified sin, like he personifies death sometimes? That’s like saying, “So that black might become utterly black.”

I swear, I try to read the Bible with an open mind, I try not to take preconceptions to it, but it continually shows itself to be nonsense.

Circumcision and the Bible

Tuesday 16 March 2004

I was reading this morning, of all things, the Bible. I found an interesting passage in Romans:

Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.

A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.

What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way!

First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God (2.25–3.2).

It is very clear here that Paul is not talking about starting a new religion but expanding an old one. Judaism is a religion passed on by blood with the surrounding culture—there aren’t many converts and there’s no effort at proselytizing. But here’s Paul, out converting people not to anything called Christianity (when did they get that name, anyway?) but to be Jews!

Second, he mentions that Jews are the ones who “have been entrusted with the very words of God.” No mention of anything that would eventually become the New Testament “words of God,” and here is a good opportunity at least to mention the oral traditions, if not the gospels if they were being circulated in some fashion. Proof? Of course not—and proof of what? That the gospels were written later? That’s widely acknowledged. It’s simply indications of the ordinariness of Christianity, of it’s non-divine nature.

And I didn’t set out looking for this—I just decided to read for a while, as I drank my coffee.

Marriage and Faith

Monday 08 March 2004

“Efekt konicowy.” That’s what Kinga’s dad is always talking about, and I’m starting to wonder if there’s any way I can get baptized without lying and saying I believe this and that.

And I find myself asking, “Why does anyone believe in the first place?” What does it give them? Then this morning I read something I’d taken from the internet some time ago:

Once I learned this way of making an examination of conscience. At the end of the day ask, What things did Jesus and I do together? For example, when I called that person who needed to hear from me, it was Jesus acting with me and thru me. But then later, I brushed someone off. Face it, I was acting on my own. Our life is a constant struggle to allow Jesus to take more authority, to extend his rule further in our hearts. (Secularism and the Authority of Jesus)

In this case, Jesus is simply—or even “just”—an ethical ideal. And I think, “Why not just ask yourself, ‘What good things did I do?’” And the answer from this priest would clearly be that “I, of my own accord, did nothing good. The good comes from Jesus.” I find such an attitude insulting to all those people who are not Christian and yet manage to be decent people.

More on Will and Belief

Sunday 15 February 2004

Peter Kreeft was talking at KC about the logical impossibility of religious pluralism, that all religions are true. “Either Mohammed was a prophet of God or he wasn’t,” he reasoned. I find it increasingly difficult to believe that he said that. As a Catholic, he believes, for example, that even though the host looks like bread, tastes like bread, feels like bread, and would be shown under scientific tests still to be bread, that it’s actually the body and blood of Jesus. That Jesus can be completely two different things.

It’s a question of faith, and I read an article on a Catholic website that took this even one step further. The author argued that only Jesus’ disciples — those who believed — could have seen him after his resurrection. In other words, if Jesus had appeared before Pilate, Pilate wouldn’t have seen him because he didn’t believe. That sounds suspiciously like willful self-deception.

Recall that Pieper writes that the chief obstacle to belief is the question, “Why should man be dependent upon information which he himself could never find and which, even if found, is not susceptible to rational examination?” Exposure to religion is a cultural experience, and it’s not something various individuals have independently worked out as they tried to figure out what this weird Unknown is that they’ve been experiencing. In other words, the seed is sown by cultural exposure to the idea of a crucified and risen god.

I wonder why that Franciscan bloke never wrote back. Perhaps he didn’t receive the email? Perhaps he thinks there’s no point? Perhaps he realizes that there’s no hope for me?

Will to Believe

Monday 09 February 2004

Just before Christmas, I sent a letter to “Ask a Franciscan” on a Catholic website. I’m not sure why. Silly thoughts of conversion that I’ve since (or rather “sense”) put aside. The original letter:

I’m an American living in Poland, and I’ve been thinking about conversion lately. A lot of it has to do with the fact that I'm marrying a Polish woman in a few months (June) and everyone is asking me why I don't convert. “It’s simple,” I say. “I don’t believe.”

However, I can’t deny a certain pull I feel toward Catholicism – the ritual and the beauty of the faith. I’m an atheist, though, and for more intellectual reasons than anything else. I don’t know that I could ever say, “I believe this faith is true,” but I’m finding myself thinking sometimes, “It would be nice if this is true.” Or even, “I hope this is true.”

So the question is this: is it enough simply to say, "I hope these things are true?" Where does hope that something is true end and faith that it is true begin?

The response:

Thanks for writing and I do appreciate your honesty both intellectual and moral. The Catholic Church has a very strong teaching that a person’s conscience is the ultimate criteria for that person’s decisions and behavior. At the same time, it is important that the conscience be correctly and well formed.

You are correct. You could not be true to yourself if you said, “Well, I just pretend I believe, go through the motions.” You could not do that nor would any real church want you to do that.

At the same time, it might help if I explore the idea of faith just a little bit with you. As Catholics, we believe faith “is a gift” of God…..and that that gift is offered to every person. The reason it is a gift is that faith means that we believe in what we cannot see or fully understand.

Yet, from a purely human point of view, you and I live by faith every day. You believe that when you shop for food, the labels on the cans say what they mean. You don’t have to presume to have every can tested “just to make sure because you never know.”

In fact, society is based on truth for its people. That’s why perjury is such a terrible crime….if a person lies under oath, then there is no way for true justice to be accomplished. No one could trust anyone any more and society would be thrown into chaos.

When it comes to religious truth, we are dealing with great and unfathomable mysteries. But one thing to keep in mind is that a mystery is not something about we know nothing; it’s really something about which we just don’t know EVERYTHING. I’m sure the deepest human mystery you’ve experienced is your love for your fiancé and her love for you. You know what that is but still I’m sure you stand back at times and realize that “this love is bigger than the both of us.” When a mother and father hold their first child, they are stunned by what they hold in their arms and what they feel and experience may not be able to be put into words. In fact, some of our deepest experiences deal with the mysteries of life and death and of our human relationships.

In regard to faith and religion, there are three questions that come to mind:

  • Where did I come from?
  • Where am I going?
  • What am I doing in the meantime?

In a way, the way I answer those question will determine to a very high degree the way I live my life and for that matter why I even care about how I live my life. If I say, “I came from pure chance out of nothing; in time (who knows when) I will go back into nothing; in the meantime I’ll just do what I think is right.” Those are questions, though filled with mystery, are questions your fiancé comes up with a different answer. And perhaps the best way to see what faith is, is to look at it in another person whom you love and admire. What is it that you love the most? She beautiful, loveable, and all those good things. But is there something inside her, her values, her convictions and her beliefs that make you wonder, “Why does she believe the very things I can’t make sense of?” When my Dad married my Mom in 1930, my Mom was an Irish Catholic and she jus his heart. He was a faithful man and he was an inspiration to me and my sister.

So, what I would suggest is that you ask your fiancé just for the opportunity to explore her faith, take instructions and see how it turns out. If after you are finished you are still where you are, then you have in good faith explored the faith and found it lacking. On the other hand, you never know what will happen. It’s still your conscience and you must follow it. I know your fiancé would not want you to pretend.

I liked your expression, “I hope this is true.” But the hope might well turn into faith in time as you learn more about our faith. Remember also, you don’t have to figure out everything…what you are looking for is an understanding of our view of those three questions. What from; Where to; What now?

I do hope this helps. And remember Gary, if you have any more question or issues, please feel free to write back. I’m the only one who answers on this website and I’ll remember your name.

And so after almost six weeks, I took him up on the offer and wrote this back — a desperate effort, I suppose.

Thanks for your answer to my question. I’ve been meaning to write back, but I’ve simply been too busy. And also, I’ve been working on this reply for some time — a little here, a little there.

I didn’t initially tell you the whole story, because I wanted it to be short. The thing is, I was raised in a Christian home; I studied at a private Christian college; I did a year of graduate work in philosophy of religion at Boston University; and I’m constantly obsessed with religion and theology. I’ve read Aquinas, Augustine, and Pieper among the Catholic “greats” and Luther, Niebur, Bonhoffer (sp?), and Calvin among the Protestant “greats.”

This is not to try to brag — “Oh, I’m so well read.” I know in fact I’ve barely scraped the surface. It’s simply to show that, as far as taking instruction, in some ways I don't need it. To a certain degree, I know more about the Catholic Church and theology than my fiancé does. That sounds a little presumptuous, but she’s even told me, “You know the Bible and theology better than I do!”

I say that in response to your comment that you suggested I “ask [my] fiancé just for the opportunity to explore her faith, take instructions and see how it turns out.” Lately, I’ve read a great deal about Catholicism, its history, theology, etc. I’m currently working my way through The City of God (slow going and I only read a few chapters every few days) as well as Przekroczyć Próg Nadziei, which is the Polish translation of “Crossing the Threshold of Hope.” (I would say it’s probably not a translation in reality, since, as I understand it, John Paul writes his encyclicals and such in Polish and then others translate it into Latin and Italian.) I’ve gone from knowing little about Catholicism to knowing quite a bit, from regarding it as essentially misled (the old Protestant upbringing still lingered/lingers in me though I have considered myself a complete non-believer for years now) to having a great deal of respect of many of its teachings.

In fact, I would even say (and have said, to my fiancé, Kinga, and her family) that if I ever “re-converted,” I would be a Catholic. Indeed, I’ve even defended the Church’s theology to fundamentalist, anti-Catholics! You might say I’m the ultimate debater, able to argue positions I don’t even believe. (To be fair, I wasn’t misrepresenting myself and saying I believed any of it; I was simply arguing that these fundamentalists were misrepresenting the Church and her teachings).

All this is not to brag or anything, simply to show you where I’m coming from. I’m cerebral to the point of — well, I don’t know what. I think too much, I’ve been told; I’m a “classic intellectual,” Kinga says. She wasn’t the first to say that! That always sounded corny to me and I resisted the label, but perhaps everyone’s right. Two examples perhaps further illustrate this: First, and somewhat amusingly, I was voted the “Most Intellectual” senior superlative in high school. Secondly and more of an indictment, in college I went to the school counselor for a while after the unexpected dissolution of a close friendship, and with her help I came to the realization that even with feelings, I think. I think first — analyzing the feeling — and “feel” later!

So, all that out of the way, you see that the issue for me is — an intellectual issue, in short.

You wrote, “Remember also, you don’t have to figure out everything. What you are looking for is an understanding of our view of those three questions. What from; Where to; What now?” I wonder. The thing is, I never think about those things. Honestly. Well, I should rephrase that — I never think of the first two questions. The third — well, we’ll get to that.

Regarding the first question, it’s always dumbfounded me that people can get so upset about the thought, for example, of evolution. “I did NOT evolve from monkeys!” some cry, as if suggesting that somehow affects their self-worth now. My point of view is this: my self-worth comes from me. That’s why it’s called “self-worth.” I don’t see how the prospect of “coming from monkeys” makes me any less valuable or any less human.

It seems we can’t conclusively answer the first. Even if we say we’re created by God, that doesn’t fully answer the question, for the specter of evolution and the “how’s” of it all still linger, with their shadowy, intellectual implications.

The same goes for the second question: where am I going? Again, I can’t conclusively answer that, and neither can anyone else. (What I mean by “conclusively” is “empirically provable,” I suppose.) That is more of a question of faith than the first question, it seems to me.

More important I would say is the third: What am I doing in the meantime? Good question. But the more I think about it, the more I’m convinced that it’s less what we believe and more what we do.

An improbable scenario: You’re a father, and in the country in which you live, it’s customary for the father to grant permission for the son to live beyond age eighteen. In making your decision, would you really say, “I’m afraid I’ll have to banish you or kill you, son, because you didn’t believe this or that?” Would you even take into consideration what he believes? For that matter, unless he’d committed some atrocious act — say, killing your wife, his mother — would you even consider what he’d done? And in the end, if you had to base the decision on one or the other, which would you chose? Belief or action?

Now of course, this improbable scenario is doubly so because it’s probably a false dichotomy. Neither actions nor beliefs would really come into the picture if you truly loved your son, right? You would want to say even if he’d killed a thousand innocent children, “Well, I don’t want to see him die.”

God — and I’m assuming here he/she/it (and if God is God, I don’t think any of those pronouns do justice) — is supposed to be the ultimate father. In fact, that’s what Freurbach suggested in the nineteenth century, if you recall: God is the projection of our ultimate, perfect father figure. (One of the best books I’ve ever ready is Peter Berger’s A Rumor of Angels, in which he says basically, “Even if God is a projection, atheism/the non-existence of God doesn’t necessarily follow from that premise.”) So if God is only as good as a human father, it seems fear of missing out on some eternal bliss is unfounded, that God would give us chance after chance, opportunity after opportunity.

So part of me is thinking, “What am I even considering this stuff? If God exists, he will certainly take care of me in spite of all my shortcomings and intellectual pride.”

You wrote, “At the same time, it might help if I explore the idea of faith just a little bit with you. As Catholics, we believe faith ‘is a gift’ of God…..and that that gift is offered to every person.” But how does one know that faith is from God and not simply wishful thinking? Self-deception?

One of the most useful and fruitful ways of looking at religion secularly is through the eyes of sociology, and one thing that sociology points out is the importance of plausibility structures: those things that make it easier for us to say, “I believe this.” For example, not many inhabitants of New York City believe in voodoo because there’s not support for it; in Haiti, there’s significantly more plausibility structures. Among the things that serve as a plausibility structure is Mass and the congregational recital of the various prayers. It’s visible and audible backing for our own beliefs. “What I believe isn’t so crazy! How can it be if all these other people believe it too?” Such might be an explanation of how plausibility structures work. (Forgive me if you’re well versed in all this.)

So where does this leave us? Faith in our faith? Faith that our faith is faith in God and not a form of willful self-delusion?

It seems to me faith is a faith in experience — something that happens, which some interpret as being from God. It’s not ultimately a question of logical proofs. It’s a question of experience.

Yet I lack that experience. I’ve never had anything happen that makes me think, “Undoubtedly this is from God.”

And yet I know that going to look for that experience means I’ll find it. It reminds me of what one of my professors said about Biblical interpretation: if you go to the Bible expecting to find something specific there — proof of this or that — no matter how ridiculous it is, you’ll find it. The proof of this is all the Protestant sects that derive the most bizarre beliefs out of the Bible because of their poor exegesis.

But it just brings us back to the willful self-deception question. As the devil says to Ivan in The Brothers Karamazov (probably the best novel ever written in my opinion), “What's the good of believing against your will? Besides, proof is no help to believing, especially material proof. Thomas believed, not because he saw Christ risen, but because he wanted to believe, before he saw.”

And I’m also reminded of Kirkergaard in Fear and Trembling: “Faith begins precisely where thinking leaves off.”

And Josef Pieper in Belief and Faith: “The obstacle [to religious belief] which must be leaped rather than climbed consists in the difficulty of understanding why man's nature and situation should be such that he cannot make do with what is naturally accessible to him. Why should man be dependent upon information which he himself could never find and which, even if found, is not susceptible to rational examination?”

So why the draw? Why did I even contact you in the first place? Why am I thinking these things which a year ago — less, even — I would have brushed aside as silliness?

The only answer I can come up with now is ritual. I go to Mass with Kinga, my fiancé, occasionally (only occasionally because we live in different villages), and I find the ritual of it all very enchanting. Hardly a reason to consider conversion, I know. And as I said, the idea is something I sort of hope is true at some level, but which I highly doubt is true

And it seems to me that no matter what I do, it would ultimately be an intellectual game for me. Or an intellectual exercise. A continual effort to justify rationally why I’m trying to believe the things I am, or even more remotely, why I want to try to believe.

All this is why I originally wrote, “I don’t know that I could ever say, ‘I believe this faith is true,’ but I’m finding myself thinking sometimes [. . .] ‘I hope this is true.’” I suppose in asking if that was enough I was more asking from a church law point of view (to which I knew the answer — don’t know why I asked) than a moral/philosophical point of view.

I could go on, but what for? I’ve already turned myself into so many mental knots that it seems of little use, and would simply be a reiteration of what I’ve already ramble. I just thought I’d share a little more of the situation and my reaction to your response.

And the corresponding response? Well, there is none. Perhaps he didn’t get the letter, but why waste my time and risk looking like an idiot for something I don’t even believe?

And why did I even do all that? It’s like admitting I’m gay or something, but the truth is that on some level, I want to believe this nonsense. I’m convinced it’s just that, but I’m still trying. Why? That’s why I can’t figure out. Why can I logically list the reasons I don’t believe and the reasons I can’t ever believe and yet still want to believe? Childlike innocence I’m seeking in some ways. No, not innocence, but naivety.

There is no soul. Jesus apparently thought he was coming back before his disciples died and 2,000 years have passed. Religion arose from a lack of understanding of what happens to a person at death. All these things make sense. And the first two are virtually empirically provable. And yet.