« Clinton's Character | Main | The Art of Self-Marginalization »

Be Not Afraid?

11 May 2007 10:15 am

Eve Tushnet, in a post from a while back, had some thoughts that seem relevant to the "should atheists envy believers" question:

I would never deny that Christianity is ultimately a faith that proclaims a hopeful, joyful, and comforting truth: Despite so much apparent evidence to the contrary, truth can be found, we can be cleansed of sin, and life can end as a comedy (with marriage--in this case, communion with God) and not as a tragedy.

But. To fully imagine the inner life of a Christian, I think it's necessary to acknowledge that there are doubts, terrors, and pains that are as native to Christianity as the corresponding terrors of an atheist are native to that belief. I find it much more terrifying (and difficult, not philosophically but personally) to believe in Hell than to believe in nothing after death. This is one of the things that keeps me up nights. I think that, overall, I'm happier now than before I converted (in large part because I'm morally steadier--yes, I know, but you didn't know me before! We're working from a low platform here, people...), but there's been a lot of tumult, upheaval, and drinking-in-self-defense. It is often difficult to believe, to trust, the promises of Christ, no matter how good your philosophical reasons for faith. The joyful aspects of Christianity must also be struggled with, and struggled for. Mother Teresa knew this from her own experience.

I notice a similar worldview in the women I counsel at my volunteer job. The belief that it's the comforting or joyous parts of Christianity that are hardest to believe is not unique to overeducated ex-atheists. Many of the women I counsel find it all but impossible (that "all but" is crucial...) to believe that God loves them; that living as a faithful Christian is possible; and that they have enough strength to live rightly. They're not "leaning on the everlasting arms"--they're struggling to escape what feels like God's vise-grip. I remember riding on a Metrobus in 1997, when I was first beginning to realize I might have to enter the Church, and literally feeling like it was hard to breathe because I felt so trapped by the philosophical and experiential evidence for Christianity. Now, I can find comfort in God's presence, even if I also find fear or doubt; but not in 1997.

Another way of looking at this - which I think Eve is getting at - is that the Christian experiences both the worries and doubts and terrors native to Christianity and many of the terrors native to atheism. We're just as likely to oscillate between the fears Eve describes - of unworthiness, of damnation, of losing too much of ourselves if we surrender to God - and the fear that there is no God at all and life ends with death and annihilation, as we are to bask in the comforts of the Easter story. We're enjoined, of course, to be not afraid, but we're also informed at the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and many people - myself included - don't get too far past the latter point. (I said earlier that the idea of the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting corresponds to my heart's deepest longings, but that doesn't mean that I feel at all secure about it.) There are fearless Christians out there: we call them saints. But even the saints have dark nights of the soul, and in the rest of us fear and hope, doubt and belief, are intermingled till the end.

But then again perhaps they're intermingled in the atheist as well. This is the current Pope's argument in his Introduction to Christianity - that "on both sides" of the gulf between believers and unbelievers, "the same forces are at work, if in different ways":

The believer is always threatened with the uncertainty which in moments of temptation can suddenly and unexpectedly cast a piercing light on the fragility of the whole that usually seems so self-evident to him .. [but] even the non-believer does not represent a rounded and closed existence. However vigorously he may assert that he is a pure positivist, who has long left behind him supernatural tendencies and weaknesses, and now accepts only what is immediately certain, he will never be free of the secret uncertainty whether positivism really has the last word. Just as the believer is choked by the salt water of doubt constantly washed into his mouth ... so the nonbeliever is troubled by doubts about his unbelief, about the real totality of the world which has has made up his mind to explain as a self-contained whole.

"In short," Benedict - then Ratzinger - concludes, "there is no escape from the dilemma of being a man." Which is a pretty good way of putting it.

Comments (49)

Eve's a woman, actually, not a man.

what the ross, tushnet and the pope have failed to grasp is that people who have no superstition *embrace* their doubt, and in doing so embrace their adult humanity. superstitious people try to remain in a coccoon of childish comforts by trusting in stories about magic princes with scary, invisible dads.

Lucretius:

Why is embracing your adult humanity a good thing? Make an argument. Your post is a collection of bumper stickers.

Lucretius,

I think you might be missing the point a little bit. What the Pope is saying is that atheists have doubts and believers have doubts. A believer’s doubt is, “hmm…maybe there really isn’t a God.” And a nonbeliever’s doubt is, “hmmm…maybe there is a God.” So in order for you to “embrace your doubt” in this context would mean you are embracing your nagging feeling that there may be a God, which I don’t think you are trying to say. If I’m wrong and you are embracing your doubt that there may be a God, calling believers “superstitious” and “childish” makes me think you aren’t embracing hard enough.

Also, the other point of Ross’s post that I think you might be missing is that Christianity is not a “cocoon of childish comforts.” But, in fact, a sometimes scary and uneasy set of beliefs. Hell and damnation, feelings of unworthiness, etc. are all things that Christians struggle with and it’s not just a big Sunday morning smiley faced opiate we happily indulge in.

bruno - if you're a christian, and thus believe in stuff like virgin births, the resurrection, the holy ghost and heaven, then i fail to see why there is any burden of proof on me and my bumper stickers. furthermore, i didn't make 'assertions', i made observations. is it not true that christians believe in a magic prince and his scary dad? isn't that a bit childish, really, when you think about it?

thomas, christianity is maybe sometimes 'scary and uneasy', but it resolves that anxiety in the fantasy of redemption - which is my point.

however, you're right on 'embracing doubt', i.e. that i wasn't sufficiently clear. i have no doubt whatsoever that there is no christian / jewish / muslim god, in the same way that i have no doubt there is no zeus: however, i do sometimes doubt the 'point of it all' - as hume said, (i paraphrase a little) so far as the universe is concerned, a man is no more important than an oyster. that doesn't mean i don't have an enjoyable and fulfilling life. hume took consolation in dancing, friends and literary fame, i stick to my work, red wine, family and friends and golf.

Lucretius:

Oh no! You're right! Christianity is just a collection of childish superstitions. You must know. You read David Hume! I'm just a big dummy living in Jesusland. You are a genius who knows about philosophers. What wound up convincing me were your smug analogies and the oyster quote. Maybe if there were more people like you in times past, other Catholics like Evelyn Waugh, Flannery O'Connor and St. Francis could have educated themselves and become smart people.

Thanks for the constructive criticism!

In all seriousness, I'd love to hear Ross's take on the sort of sophmoric taunting exhibited in Lucretius's post. I see this sort of thing all the time in the comments sections of lefty blogs; aggresive baiting of Christians by half-educated athiests who read Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion in a Philosophy 101 class, and now see themselves as intellectual super-beings. As I said, I think it is worth addressing because it is so common in leftwing comments threads. See e.g. the Yglesias post linked above.

My take is that there is a tendency among educated liberals to doubt the existence of intelligent Christians. Why?

bruno - read back the posts, mine and yours: who's being sophomoric and taunting? i'd happily refer to arbitartion.

if you want to offer an argument based on evidence for why i should believe in christianity rather than, say, islam or zoroastrianism, fire away.

also, there are lots of intelligent religious people, i don't deny that. there are also lots of intelligent racists.

and if you want to offer a refutation of hume, the world is waiting.

oh, and bruno, it wasn't reading hume that made me an athesit, it was reading the bible.

Lucretius:

Why are you so angry? You're debut in this thread was to mock Christian belief. No one is trying to convince you of anything. I just suggested that you explain why "embracing one's own humanity" is a good thing. It sounds good. But, is it? I was just asking for some clarification of a fairly glib stement.

I was talking about the "magic prince" stuff when I used the term "sophmoric;" primarily because just about every nineteen year old with questions of faith has made the same "joke;" usually at the dinner table while home for Christmas break.

It sounds like you have some issues with Christianity; issues that make you say insulting things for no reason. Why? Why are you so upset, Lucretius?

angry? moi? not in the slightest. in fact, i have a suspicion that it's you, bruno, who are a little agitato.

and when you've demonstrated why the 'magic prince' phrase is inapt, i'd be happy to abandon it. i would just observe that in the holy book of your religion jesus is referred to as 'the prince of peace', and that he performs magic tricks (e.g. turning water into wine). or are those two bits of your holy book inaccurate in some way?

anyway, i welcome a good old argument based on a rational exchange of views, but all i'm getting is aggression, sarcasm and flouncing, so have a nice weekend, and a truly magical sunday.

Lucretius post #1: " . . . superstitious people try to remain in a coccoon of childish comforts by trusting in stories about magic princes with scary, invisible dads."

Lucretius post #5: "i welcome a good old argument based on a rational exchange of views."

riiiiiight. Happy golfing.

tell me what isn't rational about my statement? you can't. you haven't offered ONE argument in ten posts. come on - just once explain to me why christianity isn't a superstition. or, explain to me why people are attracted to notions like heaven, if it isn't because they want to be coccooned from reality. just ONE argument.

you obviously feel under threat and so have reacted with anger, incoherence, name-calling and adolescent sarcasm. how great it must be to be filled with love of jesus.

Lucretius:

I didn't realize we were having that argument. My purpose has been to explore the weird anger and rote sarcasm of half-informed athiests. What I've learned: It has something to do with Oysters, David Hume, and golf.

I have zero interest in rationally arguing the existence of God. Least of all with someone whose jumping off point is a cheap joke insulting my entire world view.

bruno - if you're a christian, and thus believe in stuff like virgin births, the resurrection, the holy ghost and heaven, then i fail to see why there is any burden of proof on me and my bumper stickers.

A phrase like "and in doing so embrace their adult humanity" is notable not for whether the phenomenon to which it refers is subject to proof, but for its absence of discernable meaning.


i didn't make 'assertions', i made observations.

The phrase "superstitious people try to remain in a coccoon of childish comforts by trusting in stories about magic princes with scary, invisible dads" is not an observation but a statement of what is in your imagination.


is it not true that christians believe in a magic prince and his scary dad? isn't that a bit childish, really, when you think about it?

You are caricaturing, not thinking.

Re: is it not true that christians believe in a magic prince and his scary dad?

No. Or at least I do not believe in any sort of "magic" (a word I associate with sleight of hand trickey) when it comes to Christ, nor would I append the adjective "scary" to God as if we were talking about Count Dracula or even Osama bin Laden. If you really want a serious discussion you might try to drop the biased language and agree that all assumptions are to be on the table, yours as well as ours.

hey, artdeco, anyone ever told you that you are a patronising boor?

hey jonF, all my assumptions are on the table. my main one is that the christian god is in essence no different from zeus. you don't believe in zeus, i don't believe in the christian god. how should i be persuaded?

also, it is *your* religion which posits an 'awesome' 'wrathful' god, and describes its own adherents as 'god-fearing'. why is 'scary' and inappropriate term? is your religion that has its central figure do things like walk on water, turn water into wine, come back to life and fly up in to the sky. why are these not magic tricks?

Re: "God-fearing"

The term "fear" here should not be translated in its narrow modern English sense. It's more like "awe-inspiring". This is a common linguistic development: words for "awesome" devolve into words for "fear" (for the very good reason that things that do indeed surpass us ontologically can be as terrifying as they are wonderful) See: For a foreign example of this, see: Ivan Grozny in Russian-- originally grozy=awesome, but in later Russian "terrible", granted it fits old Ivan! And also the fact that in English "awful" has the same root as "awesome".
You risk making the same error,-- excess literalism, that Fundamentalists do.

but JonF, i'm not translating anything: 'god-fearing' is an exceedingly common current usage. the two terms i use from the bible are 'wrathful' and 'awesome'.

also, you're doing what most christians do: 'MY understanding of the bible is correct, everyone else's is wrong', hence the innumerable sects / 'heresies'. throughout most of post-christ history such textual niceties translated into a succession of vicious sectarian wars. yet another advertisement for christianity and its adherents.

now, how about my zeus point?

but those sectarians were, of course, just obeying orders. herewith a statement that jesus makes in the new testament: Matthew 10:34 - "I came not to send peace but a sword". or is "sword" a mistranslation of "tickling stick" or something?

Hey Lucretius, anyone tell you that your Hunter Thompson impersonation is weak? Quit trying to be cute and treat people with a little respect.

hey, aaron, why not engage with the substantive points rather than hurling patronising insults? notice, if you will, that throughout the entire thread not one of my interlocutors has offered any form of counter-argument: they've just tried to tell me off or shut me up, thus, in fact, (probably unwittingly) following hundreds of years of christian tradition. i will now shut up, and go and wage war on my family to the sword, as recommended in the gospel according to matthew.

hey, lucretius. don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Re: also, you're doing what most christians do: 'MY understanding of the bible is correct

Huh? I pointed out a fact about etymologies and semantic drift. Do you wish to argue that I am incorrect in what I wrote? Indeed, you do not address my point at all. Do you have a reply?

Re, Zeus: there are several "takes" within Christianity on the old Pagan gods. Some thought them demons masquerading as gods, while others thought they were much-corrupted and distorted memories of God and perhaps the angels. Very few Christians in antiquity (when these gods were still current) thought they weren't real in any way at all.

my point JonF, is that a christians read the bible in differing ways, depending on what sect they belong to - some, for instance, take "wrathful" and "awesome" in a certain way and make a straight leap to the literal meaning of "god-fearing". that would be different from your understanding.

you're saying your interpretation is the right one, some chrsitians say thet *their's* is the right one. from such disputes, millions of deaths have sprung.

same with the matthew 10 verse i cited above: some christians see it as a recommendation of violence, some as a mere prediction of same. either way, not the sort of stuff one might expect from 'the prince of peace'. and read the rest of the chapter for excellent stuff on sending non-believers to an eternity of suffering. love thine enemy indeed...

as for aaron, why so touchy today?

and JonF, you're stuff about zeus is unclear - my question is, do you believe in him? (or allah? or ganesha?) if not, then it's probably for the same reasons i don't believe in the christian god, e.g., amongst other things, it all seems like such dreadful gobbledygook.

hey, artdeco, anyone ever told you that you are a patronising boor?

Not that I remember.


that throughout the entire thread not one of my interlocutors has offered any form of counter-argument:

The material which you have given them to argue against has been somewhat thin, and has been presented in distracting packaging;


you're stuff about zeus is unclear - my question is...

1. God, not a pantheon of gods, is apprehensible as to his existence through philosophical discourse;

2. The Greek pantheon appear to be anthropomorpizations of phenomena in nature or society (God of War, God of Thunder, etc.);

3. The revelation out of which an understanding of God is more fully realized is incorporated within a set of historical narratives;

same with the matthew 10 verse i cited above: some christians see it as a recommendation of violence,

Who?

throughout most of post-christ history such textual niceties translated into a succession of vicious sectarian wars. yet another advertisement for christianity and its adherents.

The span of time between 1618 and 1648 does not constitute 'most of Christian history'.


you're saying your interpretation is the right one, some chrsitians say thet *their's* is the right one. from such disputes, millions of deaths have sprung.

Millions? Just out of curiousity, how did you come by that enumeration, and to what times and places does it refer?

The bloodiest period of Christian history was that of the Wars of the Reformation. These did not, however, involve merely minutiae of interpretation of Sacred Scripture, though the sects differed from the Church on these points. The dispute concerned the validity of the sources of authority generally: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium; and the locomotive for the violence was fueled not just by doctrinal disputes but by secular political struggles.

Re: you're saying your interpretation is the right one

No, I am saying that my interpretation is the only one I can (hoenstly and sincerely) give you. That's true for everyone, on every topic imaginable. Why make a big deal about it? Reality contains an irreducible element of subjectivism and we should simply take it as it is. I gave you my opinion on the matter. If you want some other opinion you can ask someone else. But don't scold me because I gave you my thoughts and not someone else's.

Re: and JonF, you're stuff about zeus is unclear - my question is, do you believe in him? (or allah? or ganesha?)

Um, "Allah" is simply the Arabic word for God, just as "Dieu" is the French word, "Bog" the Russian word and so forth. So that part of your question is rather moot, I'd say. As for Zeus, I suspect that something underlay him in the beginning; myths usually do have some sort of real foundation; even unicorns were based on distant reports of rhinoceri. So, yes, I will allow that Zeus was a perception of God in one of the fragments of the mirror into the Divine that the ancient Greeks had available to them.
I do not know of Ganesha (I assume the name is Hindu?) so I will refrain from comment there.

jonF > 'irreducible subjectivity' - hmm, so it's just as valid to believe in zeus as it is the christian god? what about the small sponge god i have in my bath tub? if you're just saying christianity is 'true to you' then i have every reason to maintain my belief that religious feeling is just a more sanctimonious version of 'if it feels good, do it'.

>>Um, "Allah" is simply the Arabic word for God.

as you well know, 'allah' is the commonly accepted word for the islamic god. the fact you evade the issue with pettifoggery is instructive. anyway, why should i believe in the christian god and not the islamic god?

art deco's stream of gibberish has given me the best laugh i've had in ages. his blog is also THE most amusing on the web - not sure it's intentional humor, but i urge everyone to check it out.

'allah' is the commonly accepted word for the islamic god.

I believe this term of address is also used in Maronite, Melkite, and Chaldean services conducted in Arabic.

Re: as you well know, 'allah' is the commonly accepted word for the islamic god.

The Islamic god IS the Christian god. And here's proof: Arabic-speaking Christians say (and write) "Allah" for English "God" to. Let's not argue over the fact that different languages use diffrerent words. I don't think even Fundamentalists go that far.

Re: Zeus

If you check out ancient Greek philosophy and literature you will find that over time Zeus was continually refined in perception until he became the "God of the philosophers" who in turn was indetified by Christian theologians with the "God of Israel".

so, JonF, does this mean you believe in zeus and think islam is at root the same as christianity? why can't you answer this question straight? or are you saying you believe in all the gods, all the time? in which case, i'm not sure christianity has any time for you.

i think maybe all you're saying is that cultures have often had apprehensions of big, paternalistic, invisible figures in the sky - in which case, congratulations on your insight.

What most skeptics who direct their skepticism specifically toward Christianity seem bound and determined not to understand is that we're not all Jonathan Edwards anymore. They hear the word "Christian" and all they can think of is Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God.

pills

mimpei insomnolent atrepsy antihemisphere ti unfabled carbimide polypide
http://taximauritius.mauriclick.com/ >Taxi Mauritius
http://www.emedia.com.my/TECH/BizComp/bizcomp_html

my best mp3 goa music download library ;)

xanax

kubis

kubis

blodulv

blodulv

earshot

earshot

shinedown

stromkern

stromkern

stromkern