Cloud of Unknowing

Do not hang back then, but labor until you experience the desire. For when you first begin to undertake it, all that you will find is a darkness, a sort of cloud of unknowing; you cannot tell what it is except that you experience in your will a simple reaching out to God. This darkness and cloud is always between you and your God, no matter what you do and prevents you from seeing him clearly by the light of understanding in your reason and from experiencing him in a sweetness of love in your affection. So set yourself to rest in this darkness as long as you can, always crying out after him who you love. Fo if you are to experience him or to see him at all, insofar sit is possible here, it must always be in this cloud and in this darkness. So if you labor at it with all your attention as I bed you, I trust, in his mercy, that you will reach this point. 

Anonymous 14th Century monk who, unwittingly, expressed some key postmodern tenets. 

More thoughts spurred by Westphal

Note: In this post, when Truth is capitalized it refers to the absolute, conceptual notion; personal truth is not in capitals. 

The idea that everything is symbol in need of interpretation really resonates with me. The unreliability of the epistemological process is something I have always found troubling. Post-modernism embraces and validates this uncertainty as justified, and goes even further by making it an essential part of the human experience. We never perceive things as they are, we interpret them through our filters and limitations. As I mentioned before, these ideas are not new to me (or anyone, really), but Westphal is fairly poetic in the way he discusses them.

When you have grown up in a closed system that has rules about what is True and what is False, these ideas can be terrifying. Our inability to experience objectivity means that we never fully experience Truth. People on all sides of the ideological spectrum have taken this and distorted it to their purposes. Atheists will take the unavailability of Truth to mean that there is no Truth at all, and that religion, with all its claims to special insight, is categorically wrong. All absolutes are out, including the divine. These kinds of arguments are the exact ones that Christians use to accuse philosophers of denying the existence of Truth and of promoting an "anything goes" kind of relativism. But really, post-modernism doesn't deny the existence of Truth, it just comments on our ability to access it. Postmodernism isn't trying to say that there is no God or that there is no Truth. It just commenting on the way we experience it. "We can call our beliefs "true" when we apprehend the world as we should; but they are not "True," since that would require us to apprehend the world as we can't." 

Now, many would argue, from a religious perspective, that these ideas do not take the supernatural nature of divine revelation into account. And while the idea of revelation is certainly something that I want to discuss at length later, we must remember that revelation still needs to be interpreted; "The divine character of revelation does not cancel out the human character of my attempt to say what it means." This is especially true about anything that enters the realm of language (which everything does, many would argue). Holy scriptures are subject to these limitations most of all: divinely revealed misinformation about God." It almost sounds blasphemous until you begin to think about all the commentary, cultural explanation, and personal conviction that it takes to glean wisdom or applicable rules from texts like the Bible.

However, "that religious people are often, even always, idolatrous, worshipping a god created in their own image and in conformity with their own interests, does not mean that there is no God." In summary, the ineffability of "the thing" does not necessarily negate the existence of "the thing," it just means that experiencing pure "presence" is impossible. So far, I have seen no contradiction to this in the Bible, per se. Taken as a metaphor for this idea, when Moses climbed Mount Sinai, God could not appear to him in full because Moses would have been unable to take it.

I'll end with this quote by Westphal, which I find intriguing and hopeful:

"[the fact that we cannot access Truth] does not entail that the Truth has no access to us, or that we should abandon the attempt to determine how best to think about what there is."

Hermeneutics as Epistemology

If you look back a previous posts, you can see that I have quite a bit of reading material to get through in this next phase of my life. The book I decided to start with has been Overcoming Onto-Theology, by Merold Westphal. The book examines objections that post-modern philosophy has with religion and vice versa. It is a collection of pure philosophy essays and lectures, and as such it has been a slow, though enjoyable, read. I am not a philosopher, nor have I ever really studied pure philosophy so I often read a page and then have to go online to get a crash course in certain thinkers or ideas. Though, because so many post-modern philosophers (like Derrida, Lacan, Foucault, etc...) are linguistic in nature, my Lit background, with all its emphasis on critical theory, does help some. In fact, I would say that very little of what I have read so far is something that I hadn't already worked with or thought about, directly or indirectly, through the study of literature, though it has been useful to hear someone address the issue more directly in itself instead of seeing the issue as it trickles down into other disciplines and modes of expression. 

One of the issues of particular importance to me lately is epistemology, the study and acquisition of knowledge. How do you know that what you believe, or know, is actually true? How can you say something is true? The availability and reliability of personal knowledge has always been a big deal to me. The senses can be deceived, so perception isn't a great way to go about it. The mind and emotions can be preconditioned, traumatized, and repressed, so intuition isn't super useful either. The list could go on.

I enjoyed the chapter in Westphal's book entitled "Hermeneutics as Epistemology." In it he explores the idea that we never actually see things as they are, we see things as they come to us, in the symbols and signs that we create to make order of our experience. We never experience a "thing" purely, it is always systematized into a sign. As such, our only mode of acquiring knowledge is by analyzing and interpreting these signs. Again, these ideas aren't new to me (linguistically, they are the basic building blocks of Deconstruction theory), but I still like the way he verbalizes them. Allow me to highlight string together some quotes I enjoyed.

"In summary, radical hermeneutics finds that "there is nothing outside the text" and this means both, epistemologically, that "being must always be conceptualized" and, ontologically, that "the thing itself is a sign." 

"Like signs, things essentially point to beyond themselves. We must abandon the search of the transcendental signified and, what is the same, the distinction between sign and signified. For there is no signified that would place a reassuring end to the reference from sign to sign by failing to refer beyond itself. Things are not substances or atoms that stand alone. Their very being is constituted by their relations." 

[This theory] signifies our exile from sheer immediacy, pure presence. Texts as a veil that separates  from Truth as directly and fully present. Interpretation is what we do east of Eden, after the Fall, poor to the beatific vision. 

The task of interpretation is to retrieve the divine voice in the written word, to return as nearly as possible to the garden where truth is immediately present. The broken immediacy and the inevitable incompleteness of interpretation evoke nostalgia, and even guilt...[but we still dream of finding a truth that escapes the play and order of the sign]. 

"Hermeneutical traditions as an alternative to those epistemologies that seek to locate knowledge in some Alpha or Omega point beyond interpretation." 

I have struggled with this concept since college; not to understand it, but to assimilate it, to accept the possible ramifications. I think, in great part, my current crisis has to do with the fact that I have been suppressing and ignoring these ideas since first studying them back in the day. I have more to say on this, but I'll leave it for today. 

Thank God I Have Smart Friends

I am lucky to have friends that are much smarter and well read than me, so when I reached out to a few of them in regards to the questions that I have regarding faith, theology, and philosophy, I got some great responses back. Just to give you an idea of some of their backgrounds: they are all people of faith that have found meaning and truth in the tenets of Christianity, but they come from very different places. One is what could be called a secular philosopher, another is a well rounded intellectual, another is a graduate of a post-christian ivy league seminary, and another one is a practicing minister from a traditional seminary. Not too shabby.

In the past, a lot of my thoughts about God have already come from a place of Christian preconceptions or have worked themselves out from a biblical authoritarian position, so to speak. This time around, I am looking for a broader base of knowledge and study which includes thoughts on faith from people that may not come from my exact background, but that have also come to enlightening conclusions about faith. I very much doubt that I will get through all the materials my friends have recommended, but I am sure that I will be able to glean from many of them. Since I am sure many of you are curious, I will share some of them with you. (I hope my friends will not mind me passing on their thoughts and recommendations, which I am quoting with each : 

Philosophy

Figuring the Sacred: Religion Narrative and the Imagination

"Paul Ricoeur was one of the leading French philosophers of the 20th century. He also happened to be a Catholic and is a bit of hero of mine. Figuring The Sacred really helped me to understand the structure and dynamics of sacred experience. This was both demystifying in many ways and helped me to understand the inherently symbolic nature of sacred experience (i.e. it always points to something else). Not a quick or easy read but very worth it..."

Overcoming Onto-theology: Toward a Postmodern Christian Faith

"Merold Westphal is currently one of the leading english speaking continental philosophers. I believe he teaches at Fordham in NY. His text would be the first one I'd suggest you go to. It'll hit your doubts and concerns about religion head on. He looks at the post-modern objections to the sacred, takes them on board and tries to move to some kind of synthesis. You may not agree with all his conclusions, but I'm sure you'll find it a very useful text and perhaps a hopeful one as well. Again, not an easy read as it's unfettered philosophy but very worth it..."

After Virtue

"Alasdair Macintyre is another Catholic philosopher and one of the leading moral thinkers of our time. He teaches at Notre Dame. After Virtue might be one to pick up later on down the track, but definitely worth a read at some stage. A brilliant critique of the predominant moral systems we practice in various forms, whether religious or not."

Science:

Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life

"I read this book for a survey course on religion and spiritualism in the US. Gould was a big-time paleontologist and evolutionary biologist."

God's Undertaker

"I would also highly recommend listening, reading, and or watching anything John Lennox has done, a truly humble presence with an unbelievable sharp mind, he's done a series of lovely debates and conversations with skeptics and atheists in the past ten years, his writing isn't as good as his speaking but i have found many of his books to be compelling, one is called God's Undertaker :"Has science buried God", it's not the thickest tome out there but it gives some interesting direction and insight from a scientific perspective if that interests you."

Misc. Lectures on Religion and Atheism:

A Place for Truth: Leading Thinkers Explore Life's Hardest Questions

"... a compilation book of lectures from The Veritas Forum, which is a podcast of conversations between intellectuals, professors, scientists, historians, and philosophers of various faiths (and or no faiths) that has been very impactful on me and i imagine this series of compiled talks would be something you would find really thought provoking and connected to many of your questions, for me it's not so much the books but the people and thinkers behind them..."

Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate 

by Terry Eagleton

Theology and Spirituality:

Not the Way It's Supposed to Be

"I read this book by Cornelius Plantinga and it was one of the best books I read during seminary, both in theological depth and in plain old good writing. I haven't read this article, but I think it covers the same stuff. It kind of just explores sin and how it came about and what it is. Might be a good read on that end. Good to have read in any case, just because it is that good."

"Mapping the Doctrine of Atonement" from 

"Mapping Modern Theology"

"by Kevin Vanhoozer. Another great writer, this is a more technical piece on the different perspectives on what Christ came to do and why it was so strange. It kind of works through church fathers and other theologians and how they have understood Christ's roles. It helped me see a broader picture of how God dealt with sin in Christ. It might be helpful. This may be something completely different than what you are needing, and if so, disregard it."

The Spiral Staircase: My Climb Out of Darkness

"You may have heard of Karen Armstrong, as she is quite a prolific author, but in thus book she chronicles her internal struggles with issues of faith and it can be a good launching point to other stuff she has written. She is definitely not a Christian apologist, but perhaps more along the lines of a pluralistic mystic."


Other Authors:
 Diana Eck, David Lamberth, Greg Epstein, Dallas Willard, F.W. Boreham, 

Clearly I have a lot on my plate.... but what about you, readers of mine, what books have been influential in the foundation of your metaphysical world view?

Hello? Is anybody there?

Before I begin: I just want to let any readers know that I am not expecting, or even wanting, answers to the questions and doubts I express in my blog posts. The fact that I can pose them, express myself, and be received by a loving community of readers is, in itself, comforting and helpful. What I certainly don't want is someone starting a debate, but if you know me then you know I am not likely to respond to that anyway. Comments, thoughts, and personal suggestions are always welcome, but please don't feel like you need to "solve" anything.


One of the things that seems different about my current spiritual low point in my difficulty giving voice to my prayers. My words seem to catch in my throat, slowed and finally silenced by how absurd the exercise feels.

This is different than during my crisis ten years ago (I'm sorry if I keep referencing my collegiate crisis, but it was the biggest one I had ever experienced up to now, and therefore the one against which all other crises are measured). During my sophomore year, I would end up angry and yelling at whatever was up there, but my very oaths were prayers in their own way, an affirmation that there was something to be mad at. There were times of silence, but were usually a product of my anger, a silent treatment, or they were an act of pragmatism... "I probably shouldn't keep praying if I am not really sure if I believe in much of anything anymore"... despite my urges to keep railing against the almighty.

I would give anything to feel that anger towards God now, because right now I feel nothing towards him. I mean, there is nothing to feel anger towards. A simple conversation, or petition seems silly. If you were to raise your petitions to the sun or the moon, you would understand a bit of how I feel right now. Sure you could say some words, but half way through you would probably laugh and shake your head.

The times when prayer does seem to evoke some sort of emotional reaction from me, it is frustration at how pointless the whole thing seems when I am so unsure of what I believe in. How does one pray when you don't believe in God? That is also another difference this time around. This is the first time that the actual existence of a god seems to be so much in question. The existence of anything spiritual or transcendent seems farther than ever.

The first time I had a major crisis, it was the fact that man can perceive beauty and can find it in odd places compelled me to believe that there was something more to us than organic processes. From there somehow "beauty" led me to "soul," which led me to "spirituality," which led me to "God" which -eventually- led me to "Christianity." Oddly, that line of reasoning seems less compelling now, though I couldn't really say why.

Throughout all my doubts and as the years have passed, I have had plenty of doubts about certain theological ideas, but my faith in the idea that there is more to the universe than science. I could never really shake the a belief in a higher power of sorts and humans always seemed special. In fact, I was always flummoxed by the fact that someone could look around and truly believe that we were no more than advanced animals. However, lately, and for the first time, I can't help but look around and see a city like an organism, an anthill. To wake up and think of myself as just another piece in the evolutionary scheme.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that science doesn't demand a fair amount of "faith" and that it doesn't leave a lot of unanswered questions either. All I'm saying is that the certainty that I once held in certain regards seems... less certain. For what seems to be the first time in my life, or at least one of the very few, I find myself doubting the existence even of a god at all. 

The Problems with Scientific Debates...

A friend of mine, whom I respect highly, recently recommended a series of podcasts by recorded at the Veritas Forum after hearing about my recent series of spiritual doubts. The Veritas Forum (VF) is an organization dedicated to giving Christianity a voice in the broader intellectual conversations that are going on in academia. It began in Harvard, though it has extended to other prestigious centers of learning as well. So far, I have been very pleased with the quality of the speakers and debaters that have appeared on the episodes that I have listened to: Ivy League professors, world renown scientists,  Nobel laureates, etc. Now, VF is a wonderful organization and I wish there were more like it, but I believe that most of the debates end up running into the same problem:

So far all the debates have been science based, though there are probably other types out there that I haven't listened to yet. Now, I think it is important that science and religion are not kept in completely separate spheres, but most of the debates between Christian and atheist scientists really doesn't go anywhere. Neither can really convince the other of anything; at the very most they can come to a place where they agree on the inevitability of scientific uncertainty when it comes to matters of faith. In the end, the real issue is an issue of experience and belief, and that cannot really be argued. They speak different languages, and so the debates end up sounding quite hollow.

One of the main problem with these kinds of debates is that they seem so... outdated. What I mean is that the whole idea of debating Christianity between two scientists, of apologetics, seems like a relic of the modernist age. This makes sense, seeing as how most of these scientists are logicians and mathematicians at their core, ascribing to some form or descendant of logical positivism that has no place or interest in continuing a conversation that deals with that which is unprovable. So, while it is possible for two of these men to debate the effects of religion on society, or the apparent incongruities between a religious view of the universe and a purely scientific cosmology... they lack the dialectical tools to push the conversations into the realms of experience and philosophy.

Certainly I see value in knowing that men of faith are also men of science; I do take comfort in the fact that there are geniuses of science that are comfortable also holding spiritual, illogical beliefs and that one doesn't erase the other. But that is just the problem, the one doesn't cancel the other because they are, for the most part, separate conversations. It is good to know that they are not necessarily (or at all) mutually exclusive, but still... they are in different spheres. A Christian professor might be able to eloquently debate many of the atheist professor's arguments against a deity or a spiritual aspect to the universe, or to argue against the objectivity of a purely scientific world view, or argue for the value of religion, or for the historicity of biblical texts... but they all find it pretty impossible to make the jump from those kinds of logical arguments to explaining why they ascribe to the tenets of a pauline theology without bringing personal experience into the conversation. And since personal experience cannot be subjected to the scientific method, the conversation falls apart.

I feel like this might have been a satisfactory place to be 30 years ago. Heck,  maybe it's a satisfactory place to be for the more logical minded people who are attracted to debates in the first place, but I find it lacking. If there is one thing that post-modern philosophy has taught us it is the inevitability of uncertainty and the necessity to acknowledge personal experience and "revelation" as part of our process for finding "truth." I have always had a hard time with uncertainty, as this blog shows. 

The Habit (or There and Back Again)

Sometimes the paths that we expect to be linear turn out to be more like spirals that turn back over and around themselves. I say "spirals" hoping that it they will turn out to be more than circles, hoping that my feet are not simply trodding back over footprints that I expected to be faded and far behind me by now. Instead, I am back where I started, back where I didn't expect to be. Staring at the sky, wondering if it is really blue at all. Examining every inhalation for substance, testing every exhalation for warmth.

My first major crisis of faith came about 10 years ago as an undergraduate. It was partially to be expected of someone my age, though my crisis was certainly fed by the fact that my father, a minister for many years, had also lost his faith and left to see what his life would look like without God in it. So I spent the next four years wrestling with my own hang-ups, doubts, and bitterness until I was finally able to come out of the process with something that felt more authentically mine and meaningful. The process was genuinely excruciating.

I have always envied the kind of people that are able to simply accept or reject metaphysical matters without much thought. There were a lot of people in college that, about half-way through their sophomore year, decided: "Naw. I don't think I believe this anymore" and never really looked back. Conversely, there are churches filled with people who believe what they are told without a second thought or doubt. There have been times that I have tried to survive off simple faith replacing understanding, but have never been able to survive that way for long. I have always had to find ways of reconciling my heart and my mind... and I have... which is why it is so strange and frustrating to wake up one morning to find that the last five years of relative spiritual peace have vanished without a trace or warning.

You would think that my previous victories would have left me with at least a few things to hold on to, but I am surprisingly back at square one in terms of metaphysical conclusions. It is odd, because I can -intellectually- remember the ontological and epistemological conclusions that came to me at different stages of my life, but for once they don't provide the comfort that they once did. I can even remember the times and places in which those "eureka" moments occurred, but they seem as flat and lifeless as polaroids. And so, I am back here again, trying to find some sort of solace in writing and friendship. Damn, but the doubter's habit is a hard one to kick.