“Doubt” is a very long history of the many proponents of doubt (494 pages plus notes). Jennifer Hecht was able to articulate the ins-and-outs of the various writers who questioned belief systems in their times. This books requires time (not an easy read) and a degree of commitment (why continue when there is a degree of consistency throughout time to question belief systems of their time).
Why did I continue to the end of the book?
Historically, my belief system “matured” from a relatively primitive system of compliance with a set of beliefs to a more differentiated perspective that recognized the fallacies of literalism and the benefits of “interpretation”. This process led me to be a member of the minority within the Christian community who saw a way to hold on to the “inherent truths” conveyed through different forms of writing. Then, reading theologies dealing with pluralism, e.g., Roger Haight’s "Jesus Symbol of God", Jacques Dupuis’ "Toward a Theology of Religious Pluralism", pushed me further along a road where so much of the traditional beliefs were questioned that there was little left over. Over the last few years, Darmuid O’Murchu articulated his understanding that religion, per se, was a paternalistic anachronism designed to sanction personal property when man was transitioning from the hunter-gathered stage to agriculture. We no longer needed religion to enforce a dysfunctional system.
The Catholic Church’s problems with sexual abuse only compounded the problem of its leader’s being unable to be honest. There was a lack of accountability regarding their system of protecting those who abused young people and the culture that protected the system rather than the people entrusted to their care. And then, the lies that bolstered a tradition lacking credibility were infuriating, e.g., statements about the necessity of priests being celibate or the reasons why women could not be ordained. The abuse of power is overwhelming!
Finally, the events of 9/11, the hatred experienced by sectarian Islamism, the continued arrogance of the Roman Church as being the only source of all the truth, coupled with the books by Sam Harris, Susan Jacoby, Jessica Stern, leaves one thinking that the benefits of religion are outweighed by negative outcomes noted throughout history and noted in current events, e.g., crusades, antisemitism, hatred of others who either identify with a different belief system or no belief system.
Two quick thoughts: 1. All of the negative effects seem as likely to be the results of power as of a belief system. Lord Acton was right. 2. Remember that religion is the "carrier wave" that allows the Shepherd of Takoa to continue to be heard, most recently throught the voice of Dr. King - "Let justice flow down as the waters ...."
ReplyDeleteA further thought: I think one must distinguish between a prophetic faith, and a creedal faith. The latter requires belief in specified propositions for "salvation". The former, looking at the world through senses attuned to justice. Buber says a lot on this point, especially in The Prophetic Faith. (He points out, among other things, that you can't say "I believe in" in Biblical Hebrew. The closest, he says, is "I trust". In other words, G-d is not a proposition.)
A further comment: The Hebrew Bible seems to be a book of verbs. Christian theology seems rapidly to have become not only Greek, but Platonic, based on the underlying view that basically all change is bad - a retreat from Plato's divine "forms". This view ultimately is the basis for totalitarianism and a closed society. (If you haven't read Popper's classic "The Open Society and its Enemies", take a look at it.) I think that the classic Christian creeds would have been incomprehensible to Moses. "Substance"? I don't think the Hebrew Bible had the gall to impose any definitions on divinity, accepting the reply to Moses's question - Ehyeh asher ehyeh, which Buber translates as "I will be however I will be."
ReplyDeleteA further comment: The Hebrew Bible seems to be a book of verbs. Christian theology seems rapidly to have become not only Greek, but Platonic, based on the underlying view that basically all change is bad - a retreat from Plato's divine "forms". This view ultimately is the basis for totalitarianism and a closed society. (If you haven't read Popper's classic "The Open Society and its Enemies", take a look at it.) I think that the classic Christian creeds would have been incomprehensible to Moses. "Substance"? I don't think the Hebrew Bible had the gall to impose any definitions on divinity, accepting the reply to Moses's question - Ehyeh asher ehyeh, which Buber translates as "I will be however I will be."
ReplyDeletePeter always adds so much to any discussion. The distinction between prophetic and creedal faith is important. However, all of my reading recently is focused exclusively on creedal faith where the written text results in some sort of tunnel vision.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that interpretation of actual text results in a more moderate perspective, I agree with the authors cited who chronicle the consistent negative effects of those who are associated with creedal faiths.