I was very encouraged this week by an e-mail sent to me from a German pastor. In the e-mail, he asked wouldn't it be better to take part in a religious epistemology that is more concerned with truth rather than questions?I thought about his question, and my initial response was, "No." However, as with many initial responses I have regarding religion, I had no thought out reason as to why my conviction was logically sound.
Ironically, I was reading through Elie Wiesel's book Night that evening and I came across this passage, which, I feel, has deep meaning to those who participate in the emergent conversation:
"After the day I saw him [the rabbi] often. He explained to me with great insistence that every question possessed a power that did not lie in the answer. 'Man raises himself toward God by the questions he asks Him,' he as fond of repeating. 'That is the true dialogue. Man questions God and God answers. But we don't understand His answers. We can't understand them. Because they come form the depths of the soul, and they stay there until death. You will find the true answers, Eliezer, only within yourself.'"
As I'm sure many have and will be, I was encouraged by these words. Often I find others put my thoughts into words much better than I can.
6 comments:
I'm working on these issues myself - and here's where I'm stuck. (Just a note, I'm ok being stuck there for now, it's not a bad place...)
Your German friend asked if answers were better than questions... and your initial response was *an answer.* How do we hold the questions?
Or, to put it another way:
The claim that "there is no knowable truth" or "no certainty" is, itself, a truth claim.
I don't offer these things up to be picky, I just note that I'm struggling there.
I do like your quote from Wiesel a lot. Thank you for sharing it. I think I shall use it in a review of a book (by another Rabbi) that I'm currently reading.
Huw
I've reflected on this aspect of postmodern epistemology for a few months as well, and I'll just briefly offer where I seem to be right now.
As Wiesel's quote shows, there is certainly inherent power in questions. Yet, Huw's comments are also incisive - It is logically impossible (or at least difficult) to only ask questions, or only claim to know truth's un-knowability.
In a discussion based on Peter Rollins' book, some friends shared the analogy that only the experts in their fields really know how much they do not know. For example, my ignorance of the human anatomy is a limit not only of my knowledge, but also of the possible questions I could ask. A neuro-surgeon is obviously much more knowledgeable, but she also knows how much she (and we as humans) do not know about the mystery of the human brain.
That is a brief example of what I think the necessary approach is: Holding firmly to knowledge of some things, all the while recognizing that our understanding is only in part, not only in the amount of facts I know, but also in depth of knowledge and comprehension (ala the classic theological understanding of God's incomprehensibility).
The tendency is to over simplify truth, forgetting that it is multi-faceted both in absolute existence and in personal apprehension. Nevertheless, I have to say to be able to say that I possess some truth, otherwise even the words are write are nonsensical.
I think all truth claims are both relative and contextual. In that sense, I am in complete agreement with folks like Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard, and the whole postmodern gang.
My problem is with people who keep trying to surpass narratives and contextuality and find the neutral and "objective" truth. We simply can't reach back that far. Take for instance the statement that Allah is God. Is he? According to the Koran he is; according to the Hebrew Bible he isn't - Yahweh is. Narratives, I believe, outline what is true or false for a community, nothing more. There is no objective and neutral yardstick to measure truth claims despite what modernists tell us . . . sorry Mr. Scientific Method and Mrs. Objective Rationality. These things are themeselves narratives.
One more example: Jesse's statement - "Nevertheless, I have to say to be able to say that I possess some truth, otherwise even the words are write are nonsensical."
But these words are nonsensical to those who aren't participating in the English narrative and speak/write a different lanuage! Thus, Jesse is following the rules and boundaries of the English language which our community has agreed to communicate in. In other words, his/her statement is contextual and relative. It's sensical only to English speakers.
I totally agree with the power of the question. In the book of Job, Job asks God a bunch of questions as to why he is suffering. When God finally speaks, he "answers" only by asking Job a huge series of questions. Questions force us to think. That is the power that I believe they provide. The only problem that I see with Wiesel's comments are with this one line: "You will find the true answers, Eliezer, only within yourself.'"
How convenient if we were narcissists to claim that truth lies within ourselves.
I believe humility is a key to finding truth. In humility we find what we usually call objectivity. Humility and objectivity always look beyond one's self, recognizing that the biases of self create self-serving delusions that might make us feel better, but in the end are to our disaster, much like the alcoholic who won't admit his/her addiction, or the battered wife who insists that her husband really loves her.
Caleb wrote: "There is no objective and neutral yardstick to measure truth claims..."
This is a truth claim. And Caleb goes on to try and provide a measuring stick:
"Take for instance the statement that Allah is God. Is he? According to the Koran he is; according to the Hebrew Bible he isn't - Yahweh is."
You can claim truth is relative but as soon as you argue against the counter opinion, your very action of argumentation betrays your statements.
Actions speak louder than words.
I do believe in absolute truth. Maybe I'm simple minded, but I don't see what the hangup is about believing it.
For instance the earth has been round as long as it has existed, even when certain people throughout history thought otherwise.
This is an example of a truth that is independent upon people's opinions. If the opinions of "flat-earthers" were correct, we wouldn't have a rising and setting sun.
Technology authenticates science. The science that says the earth is round has been authenticated by each satellite, space station and Shuttle that we have sent into orbit.
If the "laws" (truths) change, then science ceases to exist. In such a world, we could only say that gravity exists now. We could not say that it will exist even tomorrow. But are any of you willing to hedge such a bet? If so, I'll gladly take your money.
What is the meaning of life?
That question is answered when you no longer ask it...when you aren't even thinking about it...when you no longer think to ask it because you are engaged in your daily life, involved with someone or something that tells you what to everyday, some cause that IS the meaning of your life. And that cause cannot be philosophical, that is, cannot be "reflective" where you disengage, get "disinterested" or "objective" and rationally reflect on the question.
TRUTH IS SUBJECTIVITY - Soren Kierkegaard.
Truth is your "ultimate concern"...for example...falling in love...that person becomes the center of your world, and gives your life meaning, everything you do relates to them.
Falling in love is not a rational, objecive process...you can't get to the bottom of it...you can't reflect on the nature of "falling in love" or question it...that is a philosopher's business.
Now you christians are SUPPOSED to love Jesus in such a way...such that he gives you your life, such that he is your great cause...just like falling in love.
But there's one problem...Jesus isn't real...not in the sense that your spouse is real...its hard to fall in love with a literary character.
That is why you emergent types are having such a hard time.
Here's a little tidbit for ya...it was Wittgenstein who replaced "beliefs" with "practices". There is no such thing as "beliefs". Beliefs are just linguistic representations of your practices. It sounds simple, but its implications are profound.
"Questioning" is a philosophers business...I would rather replace it with "wondering"...which acknowledges "the mysterious". IT is a stage along the way...that is all...eventually you will get over questioning-answering...you will get over reflecting ("mediation" as Kierkegaard calls it) and go on to a "higher immediacy" which is a devotion to a cause that gives you the meaning in your life.
Post a Comment