Two from AmbivaBlog

I must say I’m beginning to envy Amba’s gifts for serious reflective thought and for attracting those with similar capacities. There are two posts on the front page at AmbivaBlog, very different but both worthy of your attention. The first is a guest post that places the doubts expressed in Mother Theresa’s letters into context within the contemplative tradition in Roman Catholicism. Here’s a snippet:

The public response to the “revelation” that Mother Theresa was subject to doubts and long periods of spiritual dryness says more about the spiritual state of our culture than it does about her. People nowadays can’t understand why she would remain a Catholic if she wasn’t “getting off” on it.

Child-like faith, believing what your mother taught you without a moment’s doubt, is a great gift. Adult faith, carrying on with the apprehensions and cares that come with maturity, is a greater one. Adult skepticism—the ability to question and raise doubts without denigrating those with whom you disagree—is a great gift, too. Sophomoric doubt of the “if I can’t weigh it, see it, or touch it, it doesn’t exist and you’re a fool for thinking otherwise” sort maketh a blight on the face of the earth.

In the second post Amba considers different dichotomies in the political universe, left/right, authoritarian/libertarian, planners/liberals. Virginia Postrel suggested another: stasists/dynamists. Amba has produced an extremely useful one of her own: theoreticians/pragmatists. My gripe about the modern crop of libertarians is that they’re theoreticians, long on philosophy, short on history and anthropology. A fundamental requirement for a credible political philosophy is that it must be consistent with observed human behavior and one of the constants of human history is that we are a social species. A credible political philosophy must take into account people’s need to be members of a society. The implication of that is that societies, too, have rights. The challenge of politics is striking a balance between individual rights and societal rights. Today’s purist libertarians finesse this in a flurry of philosophy by denying that belonging to a society is a fundamental need, a finding that flies in the face of the entire human experience.

At any rate, two great posts. Excellent reading for a Sunday morning.

8 comments… add one
  • Sophomoric doubt of the “if I can’t weigh it, see it, or touch it, it doesn’t exist and you’re a fool for thinking otherwise” sort maketh a blight on the face of the earth.

    No, Dave, it maketh science. And science — mathematics, medicine, astronomy, physics — is, along with art, the glory of the human race.

  • The difference as I see it, Michael, is one of humility. It’s possible to doubt and be respectful of others.

  • I have yet to discover a believer’s humilty toward an unbeliever.

    On the contrary, we are denigrated and consigned to eternal torment. We are lectured on the impossibilty of our being moral. We are denied an equal role in our own national story. We are treated as second class citizens. We are suspected. We are excluded. We are, according to every poll, unelectable. We are greeted by near-hysteria when we have the temerity to advance our own opinions in a society where the opposing point of view is rammed down our throats constantly.

    And of course we are accused of arrogance — despite the fact that we are at best 3-5% of a population that is overwhelmingly composed of believers.

    The comfortable majority always accuses the vocal minority of arrogance. Jews were arrogant, blacks were arrogant, gays were arrogant. Challenging the status quo inevitably draws the charge of arrogance. Christians despise us and tell us we’re immoral and hell-bound no matter what we do, so why should we doff our caps and tug our forelocks?

  • Michael, I don’t seek to impose my views on you. I wouldn’t if I could.

    I believe as I believe. My views are somewhat Japanese in that respect. If my beliefs make me a better and happier person, that benefits you just as yours do me if they make you happier.

    I’ve seen you somewhat along the lines of what Eric Hoffer was describing when he wrote something to the effect that the opposite of the fanatical believer was not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who didn’t care whether there was a god or not.

    Over the years I’ve known atheists and pious Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists with whom I’ve felt a bond. I’ve also ardent Christians with whom I’ve felt no such bond, indeed, whom I’ve found frightening. For me the dividing line resides in tolerance.

  • Tom Strong Link

    That’s just silly, Michael. Dave is a believer and is consistently respectful of us nons. The same goes for true ancestor, pat @ stubborn facts, and really most others.

    Yeah, there are some arrogant ones, and they deserve the smackdown you lay down so well on them. But don’t be too broad about it.

  • I have yet to discover a believer’s humilty toward an unbeliever.

    That was intended as a generalization and very definitely not as a characterization of Dave, for whom I have the utmost respect, and from whom I have experienced only respect.

    As a generalization however, I stand by it. This society is highly intolerant of my ilk so I’ll be just a bit louder than might seem necessary under other circumstances.

    In all argument I try to begin with what Dave talked about as logos. Like all men I’m a sinner, and thus do not always live up to my own professed standards, but I do try to begin with reason.

    However. I also believe that other rhetorical tools — humor, even biting humor and satire — have a place. I also believe I have a right, when I conclude that a person is nothing but a bigot hiding their bigotry behind religion, to say so.

    Dave, I agree with Tom and you, that you never try to impose your religious views. But to the best of my knowledge there has not been a Christian denomination since the Shakers (extinct) that did not practice evangelism. And it is a matter of settled dogma in all major Christian denominations that not only will I go to hell for my beliefs, but that I deserve to do so. And so long as that is the opinion of the vast majority of Christians, I’ll feel that I have some leeway to address them with a sharpness justified by their desire to see me burning.

  • Tom Strong Link

    And it is a matter of settled dogma in all major Christian denominations that not only will I go to hell for my beliefs, but that I deserve to do so.

    Dave may correct me on this, but as I understand it this is not at all settled in Catholicism. In fact I believe the theologian Karl Rahner, who was quite influential in the second Vatican council, argued that many nonbelievers may be “anonymous Christians” who will be saved even though they disavow Christian theology. Though as for the “deserving” bit – well, I guess in Catholicism all are deserving of the fire. As I learned about him through a second-hand source, however, I may be wrong about the details.

    As for evangelism, I used to be more offended by it than I am now. I now see it as just kind of a nuisance, a sales pitch by people who think they’re happier than me even if they’re not. It’s no worse than any other pyramid scheme.

    I don’t disagree, however, that in the public sphere atheists are treated with unfair suspicion. If I wanted to run for office that would bother me more than it does.

  • Tom:
    I believe the central division on the topic of salvation is between those denominations that hold that you can be saved only but faith, and those that insist there be an element of good works to go along. Some few believe in predestination — that the die is already cast — but that’s a minority view.

    The Catholics have stopped pushing Jews off cliffs and baptizing them as they hit the water, but the evangelical urge persists in the RC as well as in protestantism. It doesn’t bother me, either, unless I’m being told that it is impertinent of me to put forward my own beliefs in opposition to theirs, and unless I’m being told that my tactics in promoting my world view must be much gentler than those Christians allow themselves. As one example, while I will make snarky remarks about believers, I never suggest that they are destined for eternal torment.

Leave a Comment