Faith As Doubt

James McGrath has to be one of my favorite persons of faith. Understand that this observation is coming from a person who largely rejects faith as a necessary component of human existence. Oh, it may be important at some level for individuals and I don’t doubt that many find a kind of strength in their personal faith experience. What I reject is the notion that faith necessarily serves any societal value beyond the individual. Moreover, individual faith is never consistent and can reflect any flavor at any particular time – there are as many varieties of faith as there are humans who have ever lived. I largely accept the notions put forward by Harris and Hitchens that faith en masse poses a threat to human society.

Nonetheless, I cannot completely let go of the idea that there is something else out there, currently beyond human comprehension (although ultimately reachable). This view stems from my knowledge of science and not religion – I would in fact argue that religion in its current forms, far from being the vehicle to “god”, actually prevents humans from attaining any kind of spiritual truth. Religion is and always has been, a political institution, and regardless of what form it takes there will always be doubt as to whether its leaders serve the pursuit of spiritual truth or their own human ambitions.

I find James McGrath refreshing largely because he seems to accept the idea that “there’s something else out there” and our current religions don’t necessarily grasp that fundamental truth. Whether or not he actually sees it that way, his writing certainly sustains my own perspective from time to time. Consider his most recent post about the nature of faith:

Fundamentalists increasingly take measures to try to insulate themselves, and in particular their children, from other viewpoints, and in particular discussions of topics related to science or the academic study of the Bible… Instead, the behavior of many extreme fundamentalists reveals what they really have, deep down: doubt, fear, and uncertainty. If there is one thing that they seem in general to be certain of, it is that exposure to intelligent, rational discussion is something dangerous. Their faith, when they have any, is in insulation of themselves into “holy huddles” as protection against the onslaught of reason, discussion, investigation and even honesty. Is it any wonder that apocalyptic is so popular in such circles?

In my mind, this describes fundamentalism exactly. I would go further and call fundamentalism’s need to hide from other viewpoints “intellectual cowardice”. This largely why fundamentalists don’t accept such scientific realities as evolution –a position that would make no difference to me except for the extraordinary efforts creationists make in trying to force the rest of us, typically via government fiat, to accept their position. But fundamentalists also hide themselves and others from potential enlightenment:

Honest investigation, on the other hand, involves faith. Faith that it is worth getting to know the Bible better, even if it turns out to be a far more human and far less perfect collection of writings than we had hoped. Faith that seeking after the truth is a good thing, even if it doesn’t lead us to places we would have foreseen. Faith that when we change our minds as we learn, grow and mature, this is healthy and helpful.

To allow the simplistic understanding we had as children, and the childish and immature attitude that went along with it, to be shattered and transformed, involves great faith, in the sense of trust in a process of growth, in the sense of confidence in the ability of honest inquiry to lead to truth and understanding, and also in the sense of courage.

 

Fundamentalism may be tolerable as a personal belief system, but that’s where it needs to stay. Humans cannot advance intellectually or spiritually if fundamentalism’s grip on broader aspects of our culture is allowed without significant and constant challenge.