Belief and Pretending. (Again)

[Jax Agnesson]

My very first topic on Theo was about the nature of faith. Was it, I wondered, a greatly-extended version of the 'suspension of disbelief' we all practise whilst reading a good story or watching a gripping drama. (I actually blubbed all the way theough 'Truly Madly Deeply'. Doesn't mean I believe in ghosts.)

Every now and again, a cleric comes out and says something like THIS, and I think back to that same question.

What is religious belief?

[Jax Agnesson]

I see what you mean, Joanne, and feel broadly the same; once Holloway came to the conclusion  that there is no God, the more honourable course would have been an open declaration of his position, and a resignation letter. But, as some here have pointed out, all believers have their moments of doubt, and the recommended course of action seems to be 'hang on in there and pray'. Perhaps the young priest did just that, hoping each day that his faith would come back to him. And days lead to years, and years become decades. . . .

So, let one who is without sin (one who has not doubted. yet continued to proclain belief) cast the first stone.

joanne guarnieri said:

If a research scientist were to privately come to this realization, "I arrived at a way of living within the scientific community and the professorship, almost as an existential gamble, that if there isn’t anything in this, there is a certain beauty and courage in living as if it were true,” and continued to publish papers with what they believed were false conclusions (as Bishop Holloway did, preaching one homily after another), they would lose all credibility in the scientific community, once they were exposed.

 

They would not be an inspiration, nor a delight, for "scientists, non-scientists and ex-scientists" alike.  Their example would be avoided at all costs.

 

That's the first thought that struck me as I read this article.

 

It seems that for Bishop Holloway, belief in God is not central to his world view, only to his job, and somehow he managed to live with himself representing, teaching and promoting something that he felt was untrue, just.... rather lovely.

 

Doesn't that feel sort of deceitful to you all?

[Francis Drake]

Holloway is just what the bible describes as a wolf in sheep's clothing.

He is, by admission the hypocrite that Jesus describes in the gospels, which in the Greek means a stage actor, his "spirituality" a mere pretense. 

He is evidence as to why we should never ever follow leaders just because they have a dog collar, or an education, but only follow leaders who show fruit!

If he had any honesty, he should have departed the ministry when he started to have doubts about what he professed. 

[Raquel]

"Doesn't that feel sort of deceitful to you all?"

Yes but more by the way of those in authority over him.  This is partly why I found his whole stance to be saddening.  Both because it is apparent that his faith isn't Faith and also because he shouldn't be in a position of teaching Faith if he has none.  And Jax, no judgement on where he's at.

[Daniel]

Jax Agnesson said:

Religious faith, OTOH, does seem to include  this sense of commitment to the 'truth' of a particular account, even in those times when you don't feel sure whether that account is actually true or not.

I agree.  I think a faith or belief that is supported by theology leads to a commitment to a belief that is harder to shake. 

[Raquel]

oh man.  I had such a long, thought out response to you Jax and my puter refreshed.  I'll work on it more later.

[Francis Drake]

I sense in the OP, that we are mixing faith and religion. ie. the "nature of faith" and "What is religious belief". These are two very different and opposing concepts. It is the difference between flesh and spirit.

In my view, religion is the discipline that man invents as a substitute for faith in God. We can easily do religion without the slightest faith in God, as Holloway has obviously demonstrated through most of his life. 

When God made Adam, he gave him a choice. He was clearly warned NOT to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, on the pain of death. There was however another tree in the garden, the Tree of Life. Although it isn't spoken, there is an implicit understanding that Adam could and should have chosen to eat from the Tree of Life. The Tree of Life represents the Lord himself. 

The question of the two trees was all about what, or who, ruled supreme over God's created Earthly order. Would it be Adam as a viceroy of, and subject to a loving God, or would Adam go it alone, based on his own intellectual prowess.

The bible makes it clear that Adam chose to displace God and run the show himself. Adam decided that he, Adam himself, could be just like God, and be the boss, ruling independently of God.

Adam thought that using his knowledge alone would be the deciding factor of what was good or evil, right or wrong. In doing so, he decided that he didn't need his spirit's association with God. His spiritual relationship with God died, just as God had warned. Adam did it when cut himself off. Yes Adam still had a spirit, but it was now separated from God. Once made, the awfulness and nakedness of the decision hit Adam and he fled into hiding. Thankfully God's love did not abandon Adam.

Mankind is not merely an intellect or soul in a fleshly body. We each and everyone have a spirit personality within.  Most would acknowledge that we have a trinity of body, soul, and spirit. Sadly, as a consequence of Adam's decision, our spirit man is a silenced, rarely considered part of our personal trinity. 

Our human flesh is deaf and blind to all things of the spirit, and mankind's pride and independence always works to keep our spirit subservient to our flesh.

To the degree alone that we heed our spirit, this is the degree that we sense the promptings of God. The quiet whisper of God in our spirit man is the only witness to things of heaven. 

Like Adam, we all have a choice. Sadly we are taught from day one, that our intellect alone is the "be all and end all" of all things. If our intellect runs short, we just borrow from someone else, even if its Bishop Holloway!

Jesus said that unless we come as a little child we will never see or enter the kingdom of heaven. (This is about today, not about going to heaven when we die). This is because a child's intellect unlike an adult, has not developed sufficient to overpower his spirit man. 

We might hear the gospel with our natural ears, but it is the burning in our spirit that causes it to be understood and take root. The gospel cannot merely be understood with our intellect. It is foolishness to the natural or intellectual man.

In Luke 24, as the despondent disciples walked along the road to Emmaus after the resurrection, an unrecognised Jesus joins them and starts to expound the prophecies regarding the Messiah. When they finally realise who he is, he disappears. Their exclamation is most revealing. "were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the scriptures to us?" Although their hearts burned, their intellect overruled it, right till the end.

This is what it is about. This is the witness the bible talks about. It is the heart where the witness is found. It is never found in our intellect, it is in our spirit. All the time we let our intellectual pride rule, our spirit will remain unheard.

I believe that Jax has hit the nail on the head in his description of faith.- "Was it, I wondered, a greatly-extended version of the 'suspension of disbelief'"  

Wow Jax!

Faith is indeed about choosing to suspend unbelief. The only witness we can ever truly have against that unbelief is God's whisper in our spirit. What choice will we make? There is a war going on within us as to where we take our direction from.

I make the choice to suspend unbelief on a daily basis. I make a choice to be sensitive to my spirit at work on a daily basis. Hearing the whisper of God in my spirit has actually saved my life on occasion!

We may also recognise the whisper of the spirit as the pricking of our conscience. Unfortunately, we often limit this to crisis situations where we are being tempted into wrongdoing, and are battling with that conscience. Let it be understood that each time we bury our conscience, we damage it. As Paul says, it becomes seared with a hot iron!

In simple terms, we do not need to heed our spirits to do religion. We can simply make it up as we go along! We can even reinvent it every few years, and give it a new name. We can get the best marketing company to promote it.

Our religion might look good, but it is still from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and not from the Tree of Life, otherwise it would not be religion.

[Jax Agnesson]

Bummer!

Look forward to seeing it when it's ready. Thanks for the effort, Joanne.

Raquel said:

oh man.  I had such a long, thought out response to you Jax and my puter refreshed.  I'll work on it more later.

[Norrin Radd]

This is difficult.  It is difficult to find the words to adequately characterize "faith" or "belief" in a way that satisfies ME, and I'm sure it is even more difficult to satisfy most readers.

Many people take what I find to be an excessively Western, rationalist, objectivist view of faith.  I find that the "objective" testimony of Scripture is that faith is largely if not mostly a "subjective," experiential thing.  Plus, there's the fact that Scripture knows little of the idea of atheism; the question there is not, "Is there a god to believe in," it is, "Should I believe THIS God?"

I don't recall a time when I was not at least a theist.  My family is mostly Lutheran, and I was baptized as such, but other than that baptism, my parents were non-practicing.  There was little "God talk" around the house.  I spent much time with my grandparents, as my parents both worked (and Mum often did shift work in the office at the mill).  My grandma got me into the practice of saying generic "bedtime" prayers, and got me a "Children's Bible" where I became familiar with the famous characters and stories.  Grade-school acquaintances sometimes invited me to a week of "Vacation Bible School" (a rather uniquely American thing, I  think) in the summer.  But I don't recall ever learning about being "saved"or "born again," or even the meaning of the expression, "Jesus came to save us from our sins."  I don't recall any real talk about "faith" or "belief"; the cultural milieu here was such that it was tacitly assumed that everyone was a "Christian" of some sort, unless they specifically identified as something else, which was rare.  I think probably the first time I really became aware of the expression, "born again" was when that expression gained a bit of press during the Carter Presidency.

It was only after encountering some "fundygelicals" in my freshman and sophomore years at college that I needed to be "born again."  I like to say that I thought I was a Christian for years before I became a Christian; I was born again during the winter trimester of my sophomore year, alone in my dorm room.

For me, I guess the biggest change is the perception that God went from being "way up there" to "in here."  I don't recall ever doubting His existence.  The "perception" of His "nearness" varies, and I can't say I'm always totally sanguine about my life experiences or His plans for me, but I never wonder if He's "there."

[Jax Agnesson]

A reseach scientist would certainly have a difficult time carrying out work without believing the evident results.

A theoretician, OTOH, is free to play with the most outlandish mathematical structures, with not much concern for their real-world application. In science, such 'play' is encouraged, and even (for the fortunate few) funded!

A religious leader resembles an abstract theoretician; Lacking concrete evidence of the 'truth' of this or that faith, one might feel free to explore beyond the accepted models.

Cf Gretta Vosper. There have been others, brave enough to come out and say things like this.

At the other extreme, Humanist websites are often visited by people who don't believe in the faith professed by everyone else in their community, but haven't had the strength to 'come out', for fear of anathematisation, 'shunning',  loss of social positions, jobs, etc; worry about their children being isolated or worse, in school; or even fear of violence. It happens a lot. And not just in US 'Bible Belt' areas.

How can anyone know, in such environments, how many of the people attending church mosque or temple, actually believe a word of what is being preached?

Do you believe? - -Oh, yessss, I believe, I truly believe!!! -- Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?

joanne guarnieri said:

If a research scientist were to privately come to this realization, "I arrived at a way of living within the scientific community and the professorship, almost as an existential gamble, that if there isn’t anything in this, there is a certain beauty and courage in living as if it were true,” and continued to publish papers with what they believed were false conclusions (as Bishop Holloway did, preaching one homily after another), they would lose all credibility in the scientific community, once they were exposed.

 

They would not be an inspiration, nor a delight, for "scientists, non-scientists and ex-scientists" alike.  Their example would be avoided at all costs.

 

That's the first thought that struck me as I read this article.

 

It seems that for Bishop Holloway, belief in God is not central to his world view, only to his job, and somehow he managed to live with himself representing, teaching and promoting something that he felt was untrue, just.... rather lovely.

 

Doesn't that feel sort of deceitful to you all?

[Raquel]

(I wish I had more time to think this through but I wanted to post a much delayed answer regardless).

You pointed out a distinct difference, Jax.  Science creates itself and insists on being termed as 'true.'  The go-to for science are the brilliant minds (no sarcasm) that flourish within its’ community.  Christianity says that it was created by God.  The go-to is the Bible, which insists that the author is also the Creator.  The Bible also insists on being termed as ‘true.’

As far as I can tell, it all boils down to trust.

 Persuasive arguments can be made either way on all manner of things in both spheres - no doubting that.  But when a brilliant mind tells us that black holes exist, do we believe him/her?  No one has ever seen one, there is no actual proof, but the brilliant mind insists ‘true.’  When the Bible says, Christ died on the cross, do we believe it?  No one I know was a witness and while the proof that we have is a bit more substantial then a brilliant mind, it still isn’t something that we can touch. 

Again, trust.

My go-to in times of doubt is remembering.  Remembering what God has done.  How He’s never lied to me, nor anyone else.  How without that trust in Him, my life was an absolute mess.  The Bible agrees with my experience.  It offers a Savior and, oh man, how I need to be saved from Self.  There are times when I question what it is that my husband does all day.  Not because he’s proven himself to be untrustworthy (the opposite, actually) but because doubt rises up and demands my attention.  This isn’t my husband’s issue, this is the problem of Self.  MYSelf.  I brought that crap to the table.  In the same way, I believe that we bring doubt into the equation of us and God.  Not because He’s done anything to deserve it.  Rather I suspect the worst regardless of the proof (as exhibited by what is written in the Bible).

What I could do with the doubt that says, ‘your husband is messing around on you.  Find evidence,’ is let it flourish.  I could follow its’ long list of demands and become paranoid, and thusly ruin a relationship that wasn’t broken until I doubted it’s wholeness in the first place.  Because when Doubt asks the questions, no answer it receives is sufficient.   When Faith asks the questions, it settles on an answer using What Has Been to gauge whether the answer is ‘true’ or not.  Satisfied, Faith gives the nod to Belief.

Okay, I’m running way late and this is long winded anyhow.  I’ll be back later.

[Bit Brush]

Yet we put our trust in many things unseen today. For example, you trust that the water company is staying on top of its bacteria control so that the water you just sipped won't make you sick. What did you see to give you that faith? Yet the result that you didn't sit on the toilet the rest of the day speaks to well placed faith.

With God, he is substance because he can be seen and heard. Such experiences are written in the Bible. Not just anybody can experience such presence but God let's his presence known in many ways. His affects on a changed life can be clearly seen. When one finally understands the lunacy that millions of years and evolution really are can see God's handiwork in nature. Evidence that he is involved with his creation.

Can we see a figure standing in front of us? No. Does that mean he doesn't exist or just doesn't exist as a humanoid figure. According to the Bible, Jesus came and was just that. God and man. We have a record of that. We have a record of many things God has said and done.

Religious belief and faith can be separate things. Religious practice is just rituals done in hopes that you will please whatever god you have decided to follow. There is no ritual when following Jesus. It is a lifestyle change from the very heart of a person. No amount of bowing, praying before statues, chanting, crossing, etc. found in religions will make you any holier, righteous or forgiven. Faith, a visible manifestation of a deeply held conviction of God's existence, his authority, forgiveness and faithfulness, is not planted, cultivated or harvested in religion. 

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Hard to have faith in a rock that is before you. It doesn't have to convince you one bit that it exists...now if that rock were invisible...

Jax Agnesson said:

Bit Brush; You invite me to "analyze the statement' 'faith is evidence of the existence of the unseen'".

Very well, I'll try. Afterwards, I would like to compare your statement to the one from which you have derived it; viz  

'. . .faith is the evidence of things unseen'.

It strikes me immediately that there is a sharp difference betwween the two statements.

Heb 11.1 seems to exhort faith precisely because there can be no evidence in spiritual matters.

You seems to present your reworking as if it meant to be evidence.

But this doesn't really meet its purpose, IMO.

According to you, 'faith is evidence of the existence of the unseen'.

Well, ok, in a completely obvious way, that's true.

The fact that people believe things, whilst their mental processes are invisible, is indeed strong evidence that 'unseen things' (mental processes, in this case) do indeed exist.

'Cogito ergo sum' and all that.

But surely you didn't go to all the trouble of typing out this sentence just to make a really obvious point?

I am assuming your statement has rather more intended meaning than that. 

Perhaps your are referring to belief in microbes, and magnetic fields, and quarks. All of them invisible to the human eye. But it is precisely the distinction between this kind of mundane 'belief', and religious faith, that is being explored here.

I wonder if perhaps your attempt to restate the phrase in Heb 11.1 missed out the vitally important definite article unintentionally.

"Faith is the evidence of things unseen' seems to me to mean something much more specific. To me this statement seems to say that, whereas material things can be examined through material evidence, in the case of 'the unseen' (matters of the heart, or of the spirit) we cannot have material evidence, and we must have 'faith' instead.

Rather than a trite statement of the obvious, this is a bold challenge; where evidence is not applicable, one must have faith. A bold challenge indeed, in terms of a spiritual worldview, but definitely unusable in an 'evidentialist' context. 

[joanne guarnieri]

(I love what Raquel wrote, and good thoughts to Brit too, that helped me articulate to myself some things I was thinking about faith.)

 

(From Jax) "A religious leader resembles an abstract theoretician; Lacking concrete evidence of the 'truth' of this or that faith, one might feel free to explore beyond the accepted models."

 

You and I don't see religious leaders the same way at all.  Like, actually, totally opposite views on this one.  To my mind, a leader is someone who is leading the way from somewhere to somewhere.  A "religious" leader leads to whatever the goal of the "religion" is.  For a leader among believing Christians, the goal is deeper communion with the Lord Jesus Christ, and by default also with each other, along with a host of other ramifications.

 

A leader cannot lead where s/he has not first gone, even if it's only one step ahead.  Therefore, a leader of believing Christians must have a deep communion with the Lord Jesus Christ. 

 

 

This communion is actually quantifiable, not theoretical, but it is difficult to describe to those who do not have His Spirit.

 

"Cf Gretta Vosper. There have been others, brave enough to come out and say things like this."

 

Grett Vosper admitted, finally, that she did not have this communion.  My guess is that the believers in her congregation had already guessed this and either were leaving, or staying in order to "minister" to her and to the others in the church.  Since she proposed leading in her direction (eminently sensible suggestion, since this was the only way in which she was qualified to lead), the church rightly divided.

 

Believers would not have gone along with her in her direction, which would have been away, not toward, deeper communion with Christ. 

 

At the other extreme, Humanist websites are often visited by people who don't believe in the faith professed by everyone else in their community, but haven't had the strength to 'come out', for fear of anathematisation, 'shunning',  loss of social positions, jobs, etc; worry about their children being isolated or worse, in school; or even fear of violence. It happens a lot. And not just in US 'Bible Belt' areas."

 

There's no way of knowing whether those fears are individually founded upon reality.  I can see loss of job for someone whose job is like Gretta's, they're a pastor or leader in the church. 

 

But honestly, now.  Would you like someone to hold a leadership position in something they didn't agree with or believe?  You would wonder, wouldn't you, how many ways they might be undermining the organization, even unconsiously, simply because they are not committed to what it stands for, or the "product," it produces -- like a judge who no longer believes in the laws of his community, or a CFO who no longer believes in math, or whatever.

 

This is a question of integrity