Initial letter from Edward

Letter to Rob, Perry's brother, regarding a talk with Perry and Armand

Dear Rob,

Let me first introduce myself. My name is Edward, I'm a colleague of Armand's and attend the same church as Perry and Armand. I'm a sociologist by occupation (MSc) and am preparing for a PhD in sociology of religion. I've heard the talk that you've had and some of your considerations that cause you to not believe in Jesus. I'm not trying to convince you of my or our stance with this letter. I want to present to with a few questions based on a book that I've read for my study and and have you think about it. I hope you appreciate that and that those thoughts will bring you closer to the truth.

Like I said, I'm a sociologist and am mostly interested in how Jesus' message and our current post-modern society coincide. That's why I was interested in the content of your talk and think I can contribute to it. If I understand it correctly you are a man of science. You consider knowledge and evidence as foundational and doubt everything that 'faith' requires. Because of your Roman Catholic background and personal experience you accept an idea of a god but cannot believe in the God as presented by Christians. It's not my intention to present you a better image of that God or doubt your idea of a god. With this letter I want to challenge you to make your believe more concrete. I purposefully say 'your believe' and now the aforementioned literature will surface.

Lesslie Newbigin was a theologian and missionary. He lived in India for 40 years to lead a local church before returning to England. When he returned to England with his theological and missionary baggage, he viewed the English society different than before. He started studying the society and posed critical questions. The results of his study was presented in multiple books, but referencing a summary of his book 'The gospel in a pluralist society' ¹ I want to pose some critical questions to you, if you let me. I take it that because of your study and interests you know a little about the pluralistic society, firmly founded on the Enlightenment and the science and technological knowledge it has lead to in the last few centuries. But on questions of the purpose of existence, the origin of Earth and the being of God we still lack definitive answers that are acceptable to all of us. Nowadays all answers are accepted side by side and everyone should decide for themselves what he of she believes. Despite all pros that this system has, it carries a few drawbacks and those center around the questions 'what is truth' and 'how can we know what truth is'.

In the first chapter of his book Newbigin starts his argument pointing to a wrong understanding of the words 'dogma' and 'doubt' in science. People who use dogmatic arguments are put away as stupid and people who doubt are considered smart. Newbigin thinks that's nonsense. He clarifies that our society is not based on 'modern' thinking but on humanistic thinking that dates back to the Greeks and Stoics. In the 17th and 18th century the church went along with the supposition of this thinking, that something should be considered true if it can be understood through reason and be measured by experience. Newbigin describes this process as a tactical drawback of the troops by fighting on the basis of reason while the underlying principles of this reasoning is left unattacked. While describing how Hindus in India accepted Jesus as one of their gods, Newbigin states: “It was slowly, through many experiences, that I began to see that something of this domestication had taken place in my own Christianity, that I too had been more ready to seek a “reasonable Christianity,” a Christianity that could be defended on the terms of my whole intellectual formation as a twentieth-century Englishman, rather than something which placed my whole intellectual formation under a new and critical light.”

Because of this process the claim of the bible has become one of many. The bible's influence has fallen to the critical scrutiny of reason and has lost some of that influence. That is the situation that you likely recognize and it's already clear that Newbigin considers this situation as problematic. He continues.

He presents the word 'dogma' as the essential solution. Nowadays this word resembles everything naive and arrogant, but it actually contains something else. In church settings it has always stood for something that is told with authority and should be accepted on faith. "This proclamation requires faith" are Newbigin's words regarding the message of the bible. That is what a dogma is for. It doesn't concern the evidence for something but the underlying authority which leads to it. That underlying part is 'the new thinking' that Jesus thought, the renewing of human life though His power. That is a radical message to the world, something you accept on faith because He says so, not because it can be demonstrated. And here's the rise of the humanist's protest. They want the ability to examine things critically, require experience and evidence etc. A humanist could say: “Only the open mind can hope to reach the truth, and dogma is the enemy of the open mind”. But then Newbigin replies: “In spite of the enthusiasm of many educational experts for encouraging their pupils to have an open mind and to make their own decisions about truth, a teacher who asks the class whether Paris is the capital of France or of Belgium will not appreciate the child who tells him that he has an open mind on the matter.” Here Newbigin reaches one of his most important points, i.e. that there is a difference in pluralism regarding values and facts. There is no pluralism on the last issue but there is on the first and according to many that is the environment for the church. Newbigin makes three statements on this issue.

1. Dogmas are not specific to the church but are a way we learn things. First you accept it, then you try to understand it, experience it or whatever to confirm it. No coherent thought is possible without the supposition that things are what they are. You cannot question a stance without accepting another.
2. In this, 'plausibility structures'² are important. In every society there are similar untold structures that are the basis for thought. Reason does not reside in a vacuum but is part of a plausibility structure. That explains the tension between church and the world at large because they are built of different structures.
3. The third point is that people do not tend to see that what they say is part of a claim as well. E.g. when someone says that truth cannot be known and you should not claim that it can, that is a claim in itself. Humbly saying that you should not make claims is just as arrogant as any other claim on the truth.

Ok, I don't know if you recognize this and if it's of use to you, but this poses to each one of us, including you and me, the hard to answer but still very important question, i.e. what our plausibility structure is. Besides that we need to think about the difference between facts and values. That's an important part of the plausibility structure of our society, but is it correct? Everyone is entitles to his own religion in our society, That is religious pluralism. This means that there is probably some truth but everyone is entitled to his own subjective opinion on that truth and that is beyond judgement. But how about the facts? What dow pluralism say about that?

In the past it was considered a fact that “men’s chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever”³. Now it's considered a faith and we 'know' that life is a struggle to survive based on random results. But what exactly is the difference between knowing an believing? In the second chapter Newbigin examines the origin of this divide. The answer in a study will depend on the questions you ask. If you seek to understand a complex object you need to question the purpose of that object. That's quite a feat when it comes to human beings because it's personal. The purpose of an object depends on the purpose its maker had with it. Only then can you judge if it fulfills its purpose. That's why, if you don't know why people exist you can't say if they act right or wrong. If Someone gave a purpose to humanity that is a fact of great importance. If you disagree you claim that this is a value subject and is subjective, and according to Nietzsche this leads to a lust for power. In this, the best convincing person (with or without the use of force) will win. This was underlying to the philosophy that started wit Descartes and ended with Kant, which claims that the world that cannot be seen, cannot be known. Only that which could be observed with our senses was something that we could make claims about. But with that we cannot make claims of that other world, like e.g. Christians do say that through nature we can know God. “Opinions about how it ought to function can only be personal opinions, and any assertion that the purpose for which human life exists has in fact been revealed by the One whose purpose it is, is treated as unacceptable dogmatism.” To this, Newbigin poses 5 points of criticism

1. First there is the criticism on the idea of doubt, i.e. that you cannot doubt something without believing something else. “It is impossible at the same time to doubt both the statement, and the beliefs on the basis of which the statement is doubted”. Doubt can take two shapes, either just plainly doubting the statement or doubting if the statement can be subjected to reality. In both cases there's a believe that either there's an alternative or no alternative can be found.
2. To be able to reason, Newbigin states that we first have to accept something before we can doubt it. So first there's believe, then there's doubt, then there's knowledge. In that order. Another order is irrational.
3. What is considered a fact is based on the theory that one accepts. In science the theory is current that the world is rational and based on coincidence. That is the basis through which science developed but the assumptions cannot be proven. It is an illusion to separate the facts and values / or what someone believes.
4. 'It is a preliminary symptom of dead'. Newbigin is firm in his statement that relativism stopped seeking but is satisfied with 'what's for me'. The real seeking always happens with an idea of what can be found where. Claiming that you know all there is to be known, that you have the truth, is arrogant. But so is the reverse ans it diminishes humanity, always seeking and curious.
5. What can apply to me but not everyone assumes that there is some objective knowledge that cannot be subjectively claimed by someone. Newbigin says you cannot claim to believe something while claiming that something else is true. You cannot know what's true apart from what you think is true. So objective knowledge does not exist. If you claim something is true you automatically assume that it is universally so and applies to everyone, not that it's just a feeling or something of the sort. That statement is not kept to yourself but made public so others can react to it. A private believe is never a believe that can make a truth claim.

In other words, every idea that you are convinced of is a subjective claim that you make against an objective truth. You suppose that whatever you consider true is true for everyone. This concerns both factual (measurable) items as well as issues that are immaterial or transcendental, like a God. So saying that multiple opinions on God can be 'true' is irrational. I hope you can follow me so far and that what I say is somewhat relevant to the questions you have and the thought process you're in. I myself am not completely clear on everything but maybe writing it down brings me closer to the truth.

I'd like to continue with that claim on the truth. What is the difference between knowing and believing that God exists. Can you really know that he does?

Here Newbigin uses the work of philosopher Polanyi⁴ to describe how we apply language. This is important, because language is the vehicle to get to knowledge. Language is a social product that is established to historical developments of a specific group. This social product influences other social products and that is important. But first it is good to notice that we see many things and fail to see some things that are still present and there is a difference between those. The difference is caused by your focus. If you hit a nail with a hammer you are aware of the force on the nail but not of the force that the hammer applies to your hand. You do not focus on that force but it's there. You rely on it but are not aware that you do. The same applies to the usage of words. Just like the hammer they become an extension of your body (indwelling). While you are not aware of it you trust on the correct effects of those words. These things: language, focus and the unwitting use of things you don't actually 'see' are central in Newbigin's argument. If you compare scientific and Christian traditions you would probably think they are completely dissimilar but actually they are not that much. Just like the church, science consists of a tradition that builds upon a few assumptions and applies doubt on that to reach knowledge. To do that you need to be a part of the scientific community (by getting a PhD, so first making assumptions and only then making discoveries) before you earn a place on the table. With that it is also the case that that scientific tradition self-determines what can be part of its tradition and what can't (through scientific literature) and keeps itself afloat that way, all that under the credo that the are 'in the right'. Just like it is for the church, it's hard for science to apply criticism to itself, just like it's hard for you to doubt the functioning of your eyes when you miss something while reading. You use them without criticism and not wittingly (at least not always). So just like in science a Christian should first make assumptions and then proceed to discover with the difference that science is in the tradition of human knowledge while Christians seek the knowledge of God's ongoing action.

Alright, I'll finish this letter. I ended with the comparison of scientific and Christian traditions. I noted that they are very similar. Actually, I've even heard a professor at my university saying that 'science is a faith'. I could say a lot more and tell you more about Newbigin but I want to end with posing a question to you. I'd like t state that science is as much a faith as Christianity and hope that you agree with me. I personally believe in both, science and Christianity, but I have the latter take the upper hand on the former. Why? Because I see, believe and experience that Christianity and especially the personal relationship with God that I've been allowed and able to develop, give me a complete vision of reality of which I can say: that is the truth, I'm happy with that and build my life on that. Science alone does not provide all answers because they can't and don't want to surpass what is 'reasonable'. In other words, they are unwilling to surpass what human reasoning can grasp. This implies that they cannot believe in something larger than themselves. The consider themselves God. Higher than them there can be nothing. And if I would believe in myself (my reasonable abilities) as the highest imaginable then there is absolutely no basis to judge my own behavior except for my passions, judge my life according to momentary feelings and judge my relations as good for my but only that. Then I'd be bigger than love, bigger than knowledge, bigger than whatever. I don't see myself like that. I want to believe in something larger than me that shows me my place. I want to hear from someone that I trust absolutely and who knows more than me what;s goof for me. I want to discover that when I fail, there's someone who gives me a second chance, and a third, and a fourth. I want to discover in the first place that there's more than me alone. That there are things I don't understand for the wonderful reason that the universe is bigger than me, isn't that beautiful? I could go on. I hope you get what I mean. This is faith, but it is also reasonable since all reason starts with a faith and this is mine, this is the Christian one even if it's strange to you.

So Rob, the question I's want to ask you is this: what is your faith? To which group do you belong that decides what you can believe and know (=plausibility structure)? What suppositions do you use unwittingly?

I hope this is of use to you. I think I did not answer questions you have on creation, God's omnipotence and omniscience and the person of Jesus. I told you why I believe and asked what you believe but I think that questing and my self justification are more capable to help you along than when I'd fire arguments on you. Arguments are made on a specific basis and I think that the basis that pure science provides me is too thin.

I look forward to your reaction. You are not obligated to react. If this leads you to think I'm happy enough. And I noticed that you have enough people around you to converse with. I enjoyed writhing this down.

Dearest greetings,
Edward Roderick
(email address omitted)

1. Lesslie Newbigin, The gospel in a pluralist society, Eerdmans publishing, Grand Rapids MI, 1987 ↩
2. See Berger, Peter L. The heretical imperative: contemporary possibilities of religious affirmation. Garden city, NY; Anchor press, 1978. ↩
3. From the English catechism ↩
4. Polanyi, Michael. Personal knowledge: towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago press, 1958 ↩