The pleasures of doubt
There lives more faith in honest doubt,
Believe me, than in half the creeds.
– Tennyson
While I can understand the appeal of certainty, I remain baffled by slavish devotion to a ruling body or canon, whether Church or State, abdicating any need for reflection.
Anyone who denies the possible validity of opposing viewpoints is a dangerous fool, and bound to end up bitter and confused (after a brief stint, perhaps, as a bestselling author).
Mob-think may provide an illusion of comfort but will eventually disappoint some restless night, rattled by the insomnia of ultimate solitude.
We love our theories to the point of institutionalizing them but, political or religious, they’ll forever be only theories, so we have to accept that we could be wrong about, well, everything. It’s the basis of all good faith, and the only way to begin to feel at home in the world.
Without doubt there would be no science, no art, nor political progress. Without doubt we’d be trapped in childhood beliefs, and view the world’s great and brutal complexities as a puerile duologue.
The madness and potential wrong-headedness of men and women have been constant throughout the ages, only our obsessions have changed (from witches to communists, and on it goes). Evolution of the human mind and spirit has consistently been triggered by doubt, the gall to question the status quo.
Our personal reality is only that, and all we have, and any tenets worth holding need to be able to withstand a good beating. They cannot be guided by mere sentiment and, unfortunately, what we call instinct is too often clouded by desire.
It’s a second rate mind that will kowtow to a doctrine so narrow that it only applies to one culture, and disparages other equally poignant realities.
Men are conservatives when they are least vigorous, or when they are most luxurious. They are conservatives after dinner.
– Emerson
It seems flagrant to me that earnest spirituality and a thirst for power are mutually exclusive, and their coupling plain cynical at best. Societies can be guided by goodwill, without bringing the name of some deity into it.
If I had my way, I’d have us all, big and small, go back and question our most fundamental beliefs, from the Ten Commandments that still hold sway, on up. “Shouldn’t” just isn’t good enough.
(Nor can “because I might get caught” be an option.)
· · • · ·
Comment
- i’m reminded of a hungarian proverb i read somehwere: “The believer is happy, the doubter is wise.”
— dlt Sep 8, 5:50pm # - It’s worth noting, before presuming that the Church requires ‘slavish devotion’ and ‘abdication of the need for reflection’, that the very idea of remaining open to the possible validity of opposing viewpoints—what modern philosophers call the principle of charity—is prefigured in the writngs of St Augustine. Ironically, though, he is most often singled out by critics of Catholicism for his rigidity and insistence on orthodox doctrine. There is a lesson in this about the proper places of doubt and certainty. It is a fine thing to acknowledge doubt about that about which one cannot be certain. It is not a fine thing to be doubtful about certainties, or to reduce truths to opinion. It is a good thing to acknowledge that what you believe may be wrong. It is a bad thing to say that nothing is right. It is an act of charity to seek the truth in the thoughts of others. It is no charity to deny that the truth is findable.
So how much doubt is too much doubt?
— John Hudson Sep 9, 3:25am # - One of the appellations often used in journalism for the doubting believers of any Faith is “sceptic”, as in a Christian sceptic or a Jewish sceptic etc. It’s fitting in its simplicity. Any ‘acceptance’ of a belief in a particular set of creeds always results in doubt. In all great teachings it is considered part of the human condition. A blind acceptance of any doctrine is a question of the mechanics of belief not necessarily the naivete of any Faith’s claims; it is almost anthropological. Forgetting (or refusing—from fear?) to doubt is an act of will that challenges the foundations of believing. The struggle—strictly speaking here with regards a believer’s relationship to her or his God—is a ‘to and fro’ in certitude. This has been my humble experience thus far after becoming a Baha’i more than twenty years ago, after being raised in (and always gracefully questioning) Catholicism. The evolution of western liberal thought has created this bizarre and easily accessible off-shoot of determinism—being left with nothing if there is no definitive answer. Long live Pyrrhonism…
— Ross McKie Sep 9, 11:13am # - If I had my way, I’d have us all, big and small, go back and question our most fundamental beliefs, from the Ten Commandments that still hold sway…
I don’t doubt that there are people who simply accept what they’re deliberately taught or have simply grown up with, and who probably accept the Ten Commandments as fundamental in the sense of being unquestioned or unexamined. [I prefer the word examining to questioning, because the contemporary hermeneutics of suspicion brook no questioning except radical questioning: questioning with an axe. The question is not ‘What is this thing?’ but ‘How quickly can I cut this thing down?’] However, if you are interested in questioning the Ten Commandments, you could begin by reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which questions the Ten Commandments at length and in great detail and which, helpfully, provides footnotes to 2,000 years worth of Catholic questioning of the Ten Commandments. And then of course there is the Talmud, and an even longer Jewish tradition of questioning. And then there is the question that the pharisees asked Christ about the commandments, and the answer.
— John Hudson Sep 9, 2:52pm # - Another great book is “Jesus – A revolutionary biography” by John Dominic Crossan. Essentially an examination of the New Testament from a sociological and archaeological perspective. Not to debunk the fundamentals of the faith, but to go beyond the literal recounting of Christ’s miracles and explain them in greater context. For example: Crossan doesn’t believe that Christ literally cured the sick. What he contends is that Christ simply did not shun the infirm as was the custom. He refused to accept their illness as a reason for being excluded from society.
Here’s a review from Library Journal:
“an engrossing, often startling exploration of key themes, in which Crossan weighs scriptural texts against anthropological, historical, and literary standards, sifting through accrued layers for evidence of earlier (if noncanonical) sources. He acknowledges his naturalistic assumptions (“I presume that Jesus… could not cure… disease”), which, together with his critical method, cause him to dismiss the virgin birth, say, or the passion/resurrection narratives, as historically invalid. Yet he also offers nuanced, powerful readings of Jesus’ teachings. Bound to disturb some people and stimulate others, this is recommended for all libraries where lay readers are likely to be interested in the issues raised.”
— dlt Sep 9, 4:57pm # - First, be careful with Crossan and the Jesus Seminar. Their attempt to restore the Christian Gospel to its “original,” historical form is at best misguided. One cannot simply clip presumed inaccuracies from the Bible (or another religious text) any more than one can take a Sharpie to the US Constitution (however much John Ashcroft may froth at the idea). We take our text and its tradition, bloody as it may be, or we leave it. Be sure to read the exchange between Crossan and Marcus Borg of the JS and Luke Timothy Johnson.
Second, as I think has been noted previously on this site, and as Mr. Hudson alluded, those for whom “slavish devotion” and “abdication of the need for reflection” are essential aspects of their religious practice historically comprise an unfortunately vocal minority. A tradition may rightly be judged according to the behavior of its adherents. However, the critic must consider equally those who would enforce conduct along with those for whom a creed is not bound to some “thirst for power” but cause to evangelize peace and hope.
— Justin Skolnick Sep 10, 12:12pm # - Truth is what is. Answers are what people will pay to hear. Philosophers deal in truths, politicians and priests in answers. That is why more people make their living as politicians and priests, than as philosophers.
— John B. Merryman Sep 13, 7:46am # - You seem to describe intolerance, a symptom of pride, more so than doubt. The intolerant are dangerous, not because they do not doubt, but because they do not love. They strive to win the argument, to force abdication because they are proud, and pride will not brook love.
Doubt, when justified is useful, for to continue doubting a truth that has been shown valid will lead to a life of discontent. To question is important, its the first step, to refuse an answer is foolish. What is the point of asking, if you do not wish to know?
— Jason Wall Sep 26, 5:50pm #
commenting closed for this article