I believe it now so that one day it may be true
In this post I want to reflect briefly upon the nature of belief. I want to show that it is important to distance the idea of belief from an affirmation concerning the world that can be defended empirically. Indeed it is the idea that belief can be defended empirically that I argue actually eclipses the nature of belief itself. Instead belief must be understood as an affirmation concerning the nature of things that interacts with, but is not restricted to, facts. In short, beliefs are not placed into danger by being exposed as counter-factual.
Take the idea of universal human rights discourse. One does not argue that all people are equal by engaging in empirical research to compare such things as intelligence, awareness etc. between races or sexes. People would be rightly bemused by the researcher who heard we were all equal and then attempted to construct some quantitative research to prove it. The moment we place the belief into the realm of quantitative research the belief is fundamentally undermined. For example, as soon as someone argues that torture is wrong because it does not work, because it is not effective in the obtaining of reliable information, they have given too much ground to the advocate of torture and lost, even if they win. As Zizek points out, the truly disturbing thing about the Bush Administration admitting that they tortured people was not that it was a revelation (we already knew that they were doing it, we had evidence of rendition flights refueling in the UK etc.). Rather the horrific element of the disclosure was the way that they were making the unspeakable speakable. By opening up a debate about torture they took the US into very troubling water. As Zizek says, we all agree that rape is wrong, but we do not rationally defend this position around coffee tables. It would be a moral disaster if rape was to become acceptable for our society to discuss and something we critiqued on rational grounds.
To return then to the belief in universal human rights, it is an affirmation that may at times seem to sit well with empirical research and, at other times, sit badly with it. It is a belief insomuch as we live by it, are inspired by it and fight for it, all the while being able to acknowledge its lack of epistemic justification. In this way it is a tool for reforming the world rather than merely describing it. For instance, it may be true that a certain segment of society commits more crime than another. However, the belief that no specific group of people are more prone to crime, when acted upon, helps to reform the world in such a way that it begins to resemble what we affirm.
Here our belief about how things already are does not necessarily refer to the way the world exists in its present form, but can help us to build the world in such a way that it corresponds to the belief. Such claims turn out to have an eschatological dimension. What we claim to be the case ‘now’ is ‘not yet’. It is a claim that may have no factual legitimacy in the present, but which can create the factual legitimacy when one conforms ones actions to it.
In the battle between Christian fundamentalism and science what we are losing is the category of belief itself. For the Christian fundamentalist wishes to understand his or her theological claims in scientific terms. Here the Christian fundamentalist eclipses belief in the very claim that they can offer it an epistemic foundation. Yet, if we take a traditional Christian idea concerning say, the divinity of Christ, the point is not to attempt to ground this claim in some kind of empirical evidence, as if there were some divine spark in Christ’s eye that we could point to as proof of the claim. It is a belief insofar as it is not problematised by its absurdity (that a flesh and blood fragile being is the incarnation of the source of all). This is not to say that faith claims are always absurd, for there may be times when they appear to make more sense of the world, the point is merely that their experience as counter-factual is not a problem within the tradition.
A belief is thus an affirmation that can be fully asserted by a person at the same time as that person admits its absurdity and acknowledges their own doubt as to its veracity. Indeed this is often when belief is at its must luminous. Take the example of activists who protest against the building of a motorway through a forest. It is perfectly possible to find many, if not most, of the protesters acknowledging both the futility of their mission and even questioning its justification. The protesters may know that, on purely rational grounds, the motorway is needed. They may know that, were they to engage in a public debate, their position would be exposed as lacking the rational framework that would justify their actions. Why? Because, the hegemonic ideological matrix that we exist within dictates the scope and limitations of the rational framework itself. So why do they act? Because the activists are affirming now a reality that does not yet exist, a reality that would, if it was instantiated, justify the actions that they are presently engaged in. They are fighting without justification for a world that would offer that justification.
Tags: Belief, certainty, Fundamentalism, Peter Rollins, Protest, Zizek
April 12th, 2009 at 7:28 am
Insightful post Pete. It’s interesting to think about post-modernism being post-rational. Not that rationalism is thrown out the window but it being placed along side other forms of thought, instead of the end all.
April 12th, 2009 at 9:41 am
[...] würde Eure Meinung zu diesem Artikel von Pete Rollins interessieren … @Tom: read the original if you want [...]
April 12th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Challenging and Constructive thoughts, the most obvious parallel would be the kingdom Jesus preaches. Living as if G-d’s will is actually done on earth, brings about possiblity of the eschatological kingdom as well as the in breaking in through the present bogus world system.
can you explicate your understanding of how a belief in this fashion helps embody the Messiah’s divinity?
April 12th, 2009 at 10:35 am
“our belief about how things already are does not necessarily refer to the way the world exists in its present form.”
The founders of the USA called these beliefs “certain unalienable rights” that were said to be “self-evident.” Dealing with “belief” at a philosophical level (as you do) helps to moderate religious extremism, in a manner not unlike the U.S. Constitution. This is an important conversation.
The Jesus story might be pure novelistic fiction, but I live as if it were true – for it is the most compelling story I have ever known. I acknowledge and live with this ongoing intellectual tension, with this uncertain but hopeful possibility.
Religion rarely honors intellectual honesty. Most religious leaders and ideologies demand triumphal allegiance to one’s beliefs as if they were scientific fact. I refuse to pretend, or bow to my own (or anyone else’s) notions of “certainty.”
Western religion engineers “belief” with the same tools used to develop scientific certainty. As you’ve said, this sabotages the inherent power of an informed belief. I embrace the cross not as a scientific fact, but as the greatest example of universal love – a love which predates and inspires the sciences, a love which cannot be described by scientific method, and a love which will remain long after all religion has faded from memory.
Happy Easter, Peter.
April 12th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
This was a wonderful, and deeply true piece. Perfect for Easter, and truly calmed some of the personal challenges that I have with faith.
Thank you.
April 12th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
[...] seriously, his latest post on the nature of belief is well worth your read. It is interesting to observe how quickly a [...]
April 13th, 2009 at 10:33 am
This post offers a very important message about Christianity. When compassionate visionaries that emulate Christ in selflessness, like Mother Teresa, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and others, they not only fight for what they believe but the offer a vision of how the world could operate differently. They offer the possibility that the world could be changed by people acting out compassion instead of competition. We begin to change the world when we live as if the change had occurred (being compassionate in a non-compassionate world and not waiting for the world to change before we do).
April 13th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
James: I like that last sentence of yours, particularly the thought about not waiting for the world to change before we do.
The way in which belief has been articulated in some Christian circles since the Enlightenment has, I think, merely been a re-reflection of scientific method.
“A belief is thus an affirmation that can be fully asserted by a person at the same time as that person admits its absurdity and acknowledges their own doubt as to its veracity.”
I think I would need to chew on that a bit longer, but I offer the following as thoughts which occur to me as I read it again: Tertullian’s articulation of belief and impossibility (not absurdity, as is often misquoted) raises for me the question of belief being “beyond rationality”, or at least a sense that the ‘Christian faith’ is about belief beyond rationality. The object of faith is not entirely graspable by reason, although it is “a reasonable faith”.
It is the second part of the statement which I need to examine more. I can admit the (scientific/empirical) “absurdity” of some kinds of belief which I hold. Now comes the question of doubt about veracity. Does the phrase mean precisely another form of the first part of the statement? That is, doubt the veracity in a scientific and empirical sense? In that case I don’t even need to doubt; I have already affirmed that such is the case by admitting the absurdity, or to borrow Tertullian’s words, the (empirical) impossibility. So on one level I don’t “doubt” at all – I reaffirm the absurdity. On another level, I re-affirm the veracity in a non-empirical way.
And now I’m going to have to think even more about this… Good thought-starters for me, Peter. Thanks.
April 13th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
This is very well said. It is as is written in Hebrews 11 and 1 Corinthians 1. We simply live in a culture that affirms reason and feels ill at ease with faith. God turns this upside down.
April 13th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
I think you’re conflating what we might call “demonstrable-ness” with “groundedness in the way things are” and conflating normative ethical claims (the way things *should* be) with descriptive claims (the way things are). These seem (to me) to be simple category errors.
I think it’s true that our belief in Christ’s divinity might not be based on reproducible or demonstrable grounds, they are not simply wishful thinking. We do not “believe so that one day it might be true”, we believe because we think it *is* true, and the reason we think it is true is grounded in experiences (personal and un-reproducible though they may be).
As far as “belief” in universal human rights, there are things we have to untangle. Believing that all humans *should* have universal human rights *is* in fact a belief about the way the world is, and yes, it is based on experiences and reasons. It is simply not the same as believing that those rights are in fact respected in all cases. So the normative ethical belief is not proven false by the fact that the norm is not actually followed. The norm is always supposed to come from some higher source than just the way things already are (otherwise what normative value could it have? You’d be stuck with the is/ought fallacy…)
So we have beliefs about the way things already are, and we have beliefs about the way things ought to be or will actually be. But all of those are based on experiences and reasons, (if they are more than just silly wishful thinking). But even the normative beliefs or beliefs about the future are still at bottom a belief about “the way things are”, just limited to particular slices of “the way things are.” There is no such thing as a belief that isn’t a factual claim on the world. If you say you believe something, but you don’t believe it’s actually a true description of the world, then you don’t really believe it by the definition of a belief.
April 14th, 2009 at 10:35 am
[...] I believe it now so one day it may be true – A thought provoking post about the nature of belief by Peter Rollins I want to show that it is important to distance the idea of belief from an affirmation concerning the world that can be defended empirically. Indeed it is the idea that belief can be defended empirically that I argue actually eclipses the nature of belief itself. Instead belief must be understood as an affirmation concerning the nature of things that interacts with, but is not restricted to, facts. In short, beliefs are not placed into danger by being exposed as counter-factual…. [...]
April 15th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
David says, “If you say you believe something, but you don’t believe it’s actually a true description of the world, then you don’t really believe it by the definition of a belief.”
There are at least two kinds of belief.
All scientific certainty is ultimately a theory – a belief whose veracity can be universally demonstrated as a “true description of the world.”
http://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/theory_vs__hypothesis_vs__law
Religious belief can be neither universally demonstrated or peer-reviewed, hence the notion of “religious truth” is a far less robust “description of the world” than scientific truth.
I think Peter is just being honest. If a dynamic, healthy doubt doesn’t accompany our religious beliefs, we are being dishonest with ourselves and (ultimately) our notions of God.
Perhaps it is in wrestling with this dynamic tension of faith and doubt where we are most transformed?
April 15th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
lyrics from refrain and first verse of Michael Franti’s “Sweet Little Lies” form the cd “Yell Fire”
“You tell me lies, lies, lies
Sweet little lies
When I cannot bear the truth
You tell me lies, lies, lies
Sweet little lies
Help me make them all come true
Tell me that the rain won’t fall today
Tell me that the tax man lost his way
TEll me that the hurtin aint gonna hurt no more
Tell me that somebody stopped the war (please tell me)”
April 15th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Hi John,
“Perhaps it is in wrestling with this dynamic tension of faith and doubt where we are most transformed?”
I wonder who the “we” are that you refer to? Can I assume you are using “transformed” in a positive sense? One that would be outworked in orthopraxy? If so, you may need to think your last question through as, if affirmed, it appears to imply that those who are not part of the educated doubting elite and who may not have entered into this dynamic tension to which you refer (and something I am personally familiar with) are less able to be transformed. This sounds similar to the conclusions that it is difficult not to draw from James Fowler’s stages of faith model. Fowler’s model stinks. I personally know many who have been transformed far more radically than I not because they wrestle with doubt (as I do) but because they seek to live in a loving way.
April 15th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
“I personally know many who have been transformed far more radically than I not because they wrestle with doubt (as I do) but because they seek to live in a loving way.”
Rob, it doesn’t take religion or religious belief to live in a loving way. I know plenty of agnostics who put most Western Christians to shame in this area.
The manner of “belief” I’m addressing is metaphysical. Examples would include walking thru walls and coming back to life after three days in the grave.
Perhaps most of this is just a chatty restatement of Mark 9:24.
April 16th, 2009 at 4:04 am
“Rob, it doesn’t take religion or religious belief to live in a loving way. I know plenty of agnostics who put most Western Christians to shame in this area.”
Agreed. I could add some atheists I know to that number. My point was that I think doubt is not a “necessary” agent in us being transformed (note: i do think it can be an agent e.g. we might question or give up beliefs that we allow to prevent us from living in a loving way) and wrestling with it should not be promoted as a universal virtue in that sense.
April 16th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
“Religious belief can be neither universally demonstrated or peer-reviewed, hence the notion of “religious truth” is a far less robust “description of the world” than scientific truth.”
You’re conflating truth and demonstrability with “belief.” I don’t see why switching the domain should switch what the word belief means.
Moreover, you don’t find a demonstration and THEN form a belief. You form beliefs, and then perhaps later try to explain and demonstrate to others verbally how you came to it and why you’re justified.
Given all of that, I think religious belief is, just as much as scientific belief, assent to a description about the way the world *is.* Doubt is fine and necessary equally in BOTH disciplines. Beliefs can be subject to revision, modification, correction, etc. based on new information. But to believe something is to believe it is true about the world. It makes no sense to say you believe something if you don’t believe it’s true.
April 17th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
It has been my experience that belief-faith and doubt are interrelated, maybe inextricable. I remember hearing, “Faith is as deep as doubt has dug it.” That makes sense to me. It is in those moments when I acknowledge my own doubt, that my hopes become clearer, though I have no hold on demonstrable truth.
I hold dear my beliefs, but admit that I could be entirely wrong.
Am I the only woman posting on this string? why is that?
April 18th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
(directed through Andrew Gray’s blog)
“In short, beliefs are not placed into danger by being exposed as counter-factual….”
Well, they should be. Let’s take an example: The resurrection of Jesus. If there are facts to the contrary, empirical proof that Jesus did not rise from the dead, then the Christian Faith is foolishness, and there is no hope in it. Paul was adamant about this, and in fact presented proof and witnesses to the resurrection, not viewing the event as a good idea to boost conversion or enhance “belief”, but as an event that happened in history and upon which the hope of a future resurrection for all believers was manifest. (1 Corinthians 15 ) Per verse 14: “And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty.”
Now, the idea of belief-in-spite-of-doubt-as-luminous is true, but I think that manifests itself in ways that are not counter-factual, but certainly counter-intuitive. Obeying God, giving to the poor, laying your life down for the gospel…these are counter-intuitive. The doubt can come from wondering if these things will have any real effect or value. The glory, the beauty in belief comes when God reveals Himself faithful to uphold the promises He made. Promises like sending the Christ, sacrificing His only begotten Son, and raising Him from the dead as the ancient scriptures said. If anything, the facts should be clung to and embraced, as we have a God who is alive and relevant and vital, not just a “good idea”.
I write as a man who wrestles with belief and doubt. Peace in Christ,
-Nas
April 21st, 2009 at 6:34 am
Those last two sentences of the post are SUPERB.
August 27th, 2010 at 11:52 am
[...] Rollins says it better than I ever could: Take the example of activists who protest against the building of a motorway [...]