One day I hope to believe in God…
Last night I got a chance to address ikon for the last time before my move to the States. Having said that, ikon remains my primary community, one I will visit regularly and hopefully return to in the not too distant future. But still, it was a deeply significant evening for me.
The night itself consisted of two parts, with a musical interlude from the singer Willow and the DJ Dubh. In the first section I gave a talk that attempted to get to the heart of why I started ikon and why I write what I do. In short, a talk that outlined what drives me. By doing this I wanted to impart something of the underlying values that might continue to inform ikon’s journey in my absence. The talk itself dealt with the idea of Conversion and a non-religious reading of Christ’s Death and Resurrection. The material that I shared last night will make up the main content of the Pub Tour in 2010.
The second half of the evening consisted of a conversation between myself and the BBC presenter William Crawley. This was perhaps the most interesting part of the night as William very quickly began to interrogate me on some of my beliefs.
The first question that William asked was, ‘do you believe in God’?
On the surface this seems like a rather straightforward question. But this seeming straightforwardness is a mere appearance. It can seem as if the question is unambiguous in its meaning and that there are a relatively limited set of responses (’Yes’, ‘No’, weak agnosticism, strong agnosticism, ignositicism).
The first thing to notice however is that the question itself rests on the idea that we all have a shared understanding of what belief is and what we mean by the word ‘God’. And, of course, in our cultural context most of us do have a shared understanding of these terms. If we use Saussure’s linguistic theory of the sign we can begin to isolate what that shared understanding is. For Saussure a linguistic sign is composed of a signifier (sound/word) and a signified (a concept that the word brings to mind). Using this idea the question basically can be broken down as such,
Do you believe in God (the chain of signifiers)
—————————————
Do you believe there is good enough empirical data to assent to the existence of an extra-linguistic Supreme being governing the universe (signified)
The problem here is that my claims about God are fundamentally theological rather than empirical. While I have an interest in the empirical question (as a philosopher) this is not relevant to my Christianity. If I was asked this question in the university I would be happy to discuss it, but being asked it in ikon is problematic as it might suggest to people that ones answer to this question is somehow important to the life of faith. To me it is as relevant in the setting of ikon as the question, ‘do you believe in string theory’. However it is more dangerous because its irrelevance is harder to sound out.
Before answering such a question I would need to spend considerable time showing how the chain of signifers above (’Do you believe in God’) should be heard differently in a Christian setting (i.e. they ought to signify something different to a mere empirical assent).
For example, when I argue that ‘on the Cross the God of religion dies’, I am not saying that some Supreme being literally ceased to exist 2000 years ago. Rather I am pointing out that the body of works known as the New Testament opens up a new and liberating way of understanding the signifier ‘God’ (in Christ a new signification is opened up). Here is one way of rendering it,
Do you believe in God (chain of signifiers)
————————————
Is your entire being caught up in a commitment to transforming the world in love (signified)
Here ‘belief’ takes on the idea of a wholehearted commitment and ‘God’ becomes connected with the idea of generosity, love and grace. The ideas that God should be described as love and that belief in God is intimately connected to how we treat our neighbor are, of course, deeply heretical and one must be wary of even suggesting them. They are incendiary ideas that are unlikely to find a home in any institution where Christian belief is disfigured into gnosticism (where belief is about accepting certain knowledge claims).
So the question remains… as a Christian, do I believe in God? Well, while I am drawn to the idea that there is a Supreme Being I must confess that I don’t believe in God, at least most of the time.
But if you ask me whether I aspire to believing in God then, with all of my being I say yes, yes and again yes…
October 5th, 2009 at 3:53 am
Slightly out of my depth – but I’ll hazard a question!
Leaving aside the problem that belief requires a shared understanding, is it more straightforward for you to answer the question “Is God real to you?” – or does reality bring the same linguistic baggage?
PS: the lighting was awful, and the lamp-stand behind William flared, so the video of last night is unusable. (Though the audio’s not so bad.)
October 5th, 2009 at 4:21 am
Pete,
I’d be interested to know how you’d answer the question, “Do you believe that you will continue to exist (in some conscious form) after you die?”. And would you also say that you hope it is the case?
October 5th, 2009 at 4:29 am
“The ideas that God should be described as love and that belief in God is intimately connected to how we treat our neighbor are, of course, deeply heretical and one must be wary of even suggesting them.”
_now_ i understand why i was evangelised last week when in response to a query i suggested to someone my tattoo meant, “an eternal question, which implies an eternally approaching/becoming answer to be discovered or found by, is: when i say/do God can i say/do love? and vice versa.”
that’s “deeply heretical”? i’ve been part of ikon all this time and you didn’t tell me that?!!
by the way, after a summer of ikon related conversation, my father said at dinner the other week that he had been wondering whether it was fair to say fundamentalist/evangelical (Christian) belief was in fact gnosticism.
what have we done? how do i exercise rebellion now?
sounds like last night went great. sorry i couldn’t be there.
love
c.
October 5th, 2009 at 5:02 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by dtrigueros and dbgooglereader. dbgooglereader said: One day I hope to believe in God…: Last night I got a chance to address ikon for the last time before my move t.. http://bit.ly/KLIKU [...]
October 5th, 2009 at 6:43 am
Interesting answer to an ever loaded question. How would you react to criticism that you are essentially ’softening the landing’ for those who have been brought up with a literalist reading of new testament (Jesus) historicy? I appreciate (and value) the Zizek esque re-imagining of the gospel but i wonder whether its more honest to break down and purge literal god/Jesus beliefs/delusions before moving on to the sorting of baby from bathwater.
October 5th, 2009 at 7:40 am
Good answer Pete! I would have answered with a question. Which God are you asking if I believe in?
October 5th, 2009 at 8:15 am
[...] miss this post by Pete entitled “One day I hope to believe in God.” Its good stuff coming off the back of his last night at Ikon (while living in Belfast). I’m [...]
October 5th, 2009 at 8:38 am
Great thoughts as usual! Im reading Zizek (Monstosity of christ) right now and the interpretation you give of the god of religion dying on the cross sounds very similar to what he describes. Although your I assume that your “aspiring to believe in God” is allot different from Zizek’s “atheism”. Am I correct in that assumption?
October 5th, 2009 at 8:39 am
In answering —
Do you believe in God?
“Before answering such a question I would need to spend considerable time showing how the chain of signifers above (’Do you believe in God’) should be heard differently in a Christian setting (i.e. they ought to signify something different to a mere empirical assent).”
That gets a ’speech-token’ mixed up with a ’speech type’. John Searle pointed this out to Derrida some time ago. Yep, different sentences can be heard differently in different contexts. They can be used differently by different speakers. I could put the same sentence in a satirical sketch, or a prayer, or whatever, and achieve different effects. You don’t need to invoke other cultures. That’s overkill, and it obscures the issue. Speakers *use* words. We can use extra-linguistic inferences and basic beliefs to discern how the words are being used.
So does it follow that **Will’s** speech act in **that** context didn’t make Will’s question clear? Not really. Do we know how Will was using the words? Pretty much.
How much of a description do we need to pick out a referent? I might refer to H2O, my daughter might talk about a clear, refreshing drink. We both refer to water. Our descriptions might even be slightly mistaken and revisable. I learn more and more about my wife, Nicola. But I don’t fall in love with a different human every morning. That would mean that I’m cheating on my wife with my wife. I just find more and more reasons to love the same person.
I don’t refer to a different referent (love a different person) than Nicola’s mother and father and friends. Her former teachers, the local grocer, our worship leader don’t know very much about her at all. They may even have deep misconceptions. But her family, her friends, and I can all refer to the same person.
At least, I haven’t seen any argument to believe otherwise, beyond the *possibility* that my beliefs about language may be wrong. And that argument cuts both ways. (And an argument’s an ARGUMENT, even if you dress it up in a parable.)
So a Muhammad, Ramanuja, Mudvah, Moses and Paul all referred to the one reality. (or they missed their mark entirely). They differed in many of their beliefs about that referent. But so what? They knew enough, held just enough in common, to hit the same ‘target’ with their beliefs.
Graham Veale
PS I remember Pete from Uni, and he’s one of the universes few remaining gentlemen. Nice to renew a bit of contact.
October 5th, 2009 at 8:40 am
[...] unfolding (apocalyptic) response to William’s question “Do you believe in [...]
October 5th, 2009 at 8:52 am
Hey Graham
Thanks for the comment, and for visiting the site.
I would however defend myself by saying that I am not arguing in any way that Williams question was unclear. I too believe that language works and was actually using Saussure’s exploration of the linguistic sign to help clarify that very fact. So, while I know the Searle/Derrida material you talk about, I was not really delving into those waters. Rather my point was that with the event of Christ the question that William asked (and that we all understood in the room) becomes less relevant (perhaps a controversial claim in itself that you may want to challenge – just keen we isolate the site where real difference might arise). I was attempting to argue, perhaps badly, that Christians ought to attach a new signified to that chain of signifiers). I very much believe language is effective – hence my writing.
October 5th, 2009 at 9:06 am
Hey QMonkey
Thanks for the thoughts. I am not adverse to what you are saying. Indeed many of my good friends would argue that very point. However, I remain to be convinced. I think Zizek is insightful in locating the critiques of literalism/religion etc. within the very heart of Christianity itself. I think Ernst Bloch was one of the 20th centuries great thinkers in this area. I just think this radical message has been lost somewhat in the actually existing church. Both Marx and Jesus have good reason to be embarrassed by some of the followers they picked up along the way!
Hey Daniel
My reading in this area has indeed been influenced by Zizek. In terms of my last comment about wanting to believe, that is an interesting thought. My immediate thoughts are that, while not something Zizek might say, I think that it doesn’t jar with his basic thoughts on belief. Perhaps in saying it I sound a little more like Richard Kearney
October 5th, 2009 at 9:33 am
“One day I hope to believe in Pete Rollins.”
October 5th, 2009 at 10:59 am
if theres fidelity in betrayal isnt there also belief in denial?
October 5th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Pete
Right, sorry about the misreading.
So we all know what the question means. Do Christians, Muslims, ‘Theistic’ Hindus all talk about the same referent when they use terms like God?
And why the attachment to Empirical evidence? Can’t I believe in God on other grounds?
Nice to renew contact, by the way.
GV
October 5th, 2009 at 11:17 am
And I don’t think you argued poorly, I just ‘read into’ your text. mea culpa.
GV
October 5th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Funnily, today I was asked almost the same question.
I was asked, “Do you believe in a God?” The problem I had there was the use of the word “a”, which implied that there was one thing called God, which could be named and objectified and therefore was unlikely to be God, and which everything else was separate from, which implied a hierarchical or exclusive structure which my belief would automatically deny.
I was then asked, “do you then believe in many Gods?” , which I felt to be an equally impossible concept…. the idea of God as anything other than unified, as something divisible, seemed wrong…. though then there is the whole notion of “God as community / love etc, which implies a multiplicity.
I was then asked, “do you believe in God?”, which at least presented me with a quyestion I could begin to answer, as at least it didnt begin to define what God I may or may not believe in.
Our conversation ended, therefore, by opening up the same questions… what is belief, and more importantly, what is God. However, the nature of my belief is utterly irrelevant to pretty much everything except my decision making processes.
So perhaps the question should have been…..
“God?”
The fact that I was asked this by someone who has been my partner for three years and who I have spent many hours discussing my beliefs perhaps hints at one of three things: a) my inability to express myself; b)the complexity of the question and behind that it’s utter, unfolding pertinence ; c)that we shgould switch off the television set and go out and do something less boring instead….
We agreed to have fun exploring the question together. Not a bad outcome, considering…..
October 6th, 2009 at 1:53 am
i don’t believe in god, but in giving up belief in god i’ve become more enamored with what christianity demands of me: that i live as though the impossible can happen – which means not just living so that all will be fed, but also living as though the unforgivable person might actually be forgivable, the irredeemable situation might be redeemed; as though everyone is more than the story the world knows of them.
October 6th, 2009 at 2:14 am
Hey Graham
I would agree with you about what you are saying regarding empirical evidence, like you I think there are other ways. Indeed I would say the empirical arguments are the wrong way to go for getting to the heart of faith. Great to reconnect!
October 6th, 2009 at 4:01 am
Peter – or is it admin?
Life can get a bit rough on Will’s blog, and it takes a while to acclimatise (have I spelt that correctly?) With one exception, none of them mean it. I think people go there to blow of steam sometimes. If you knew Peter Morrow, as regulars do, you’d know that his post wasn’t spiteful. After all, I could take offence at Dr IM Smug and Mr Smarm, but I know you of old, and I think I see where those characters come from. So I see the joke. Not knowing Peter M, you missed the jokes.
But this blog is a saner forum to express and discuss your views.
So I suppose the question would be, is there an extra-linguistic, non-empirical personal reality that we commonly refer to by the word ‘God’? Or is it all just words and human psychology?
GV
October 6th, 2009 at 4:02 am
I like the smiley!
October 6th, 2009 at 7:19 am
This isn’t meant as satire. I’m just trying to tease out what assumptions we share about language.
Let’s take the question -
“Do I know your son?”
I respond – no, he’s not MY son. I don’t own him.
“OK, do I know Benjamin Veale”
You don’t know any person. Every person has conscious events that are unobservable. They have unconscious thoughts they don’t understand themselves. How can I tell if you know him?
“Have I met him”
Again, explain who HE is? What do you mean by meet?
And so forth. But those were sensible questions, that deserved sensible answers. A few points follow – I think.
i)I do not need an exhaustive description to refer to a referent.
ii)Every person is a mystery in some sense. It doesn’t mean that they’re a mystery in every sense.
iii) I can know a truth about a person without knowing the every truth.
iv) We can always answer words with more words. That does not mean that we cannot escape words and talk about something else. But it does leave us in
a dangerous position. Instead of “switching off the television set to go out and do something less boring instead” we can just talk about talk. We may as well watch images about images (TV).
I’m *not* saying that’s what you’re doing on this blog. FAR, FAR from it. (For example, the post and discussion on Lars von Triers was insightful.) I’m pointing out what –on the face of it — seems to be a danger.
Hope that doesn’t come across as snide or demeaning.
G Veale
October 6th, 2009 at 9:52 am
Not at all… but my point remains… this is not what I am doing in the above post! My point has nothing to do with what you are speaking about. Honestly, nothing at all! I am arguing the point that the signification connected with the chain of signifiers mentioned in the post are different depending upon whether one is asking from a philosophical or faith positioning. Nothing about language as its relationship to meaning as such. Personally speaking I broadly agree with Habermas concerning language. I promise that as a trained philosopher I would not make the mistake you think I might have made…
Sadly I can’t continue the debate, I generally just write the pieces but thought I needed to clarify what exactly it was that I was doing!
October 6th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Pete
Hi.
I’m the PeterM, Peter Morrow, from Will and Testament, and while I’d hoped to email you I couldn’t find an address so I’ll have to run with this.
I appear to have created a bit of a kerfuffle with my comments on William’s blog, and I’ve even got some people being extremely nice and trying to explain my comments for me. First up though, if I caused you any offence, apologies, that really wasn’t my intention and I’d like to try and clarify, where I’m coming from.
A brief religious background.
Conservative Presbyterian, til my early 20’s.
Member of a CFC church plant, which blew up in our faces, we were all to blame I suppose.
Disconnected from church for 3-4 years.
Drifted round a few churches for a year or so, and influenced by a Mennonite based fellowship.
Attended a ’seeker friendly’ styled church for a while.
Read alot of Emergent stuff online.
Eventually went back to my roots.
Still have lots of questions.
The main question is the one I was trying too ask on Will and Testament, and to be honest I was a little taken aback that you thought it vitriolic. Honestly, it was an attempt to reflect back the language of the sub-culture, play with it, take it apart. That’s what I thought Ikon did. Heretical? No?
Here’s the thing which has really bothered me this last ten years. Sometime after the end of the church plant, a girl who was also part of it asked me, “Peter, what is left of Christianity when the trappings are removed?” It’s a good question, and it’s one I’ve been trying to answer ever since. She used the word ‘trappings’, I have come to us the word ’sub-culture’, and by it I mean all those things we do, organise, label, sell, promote, speak of and use to identify ourselves with, which seem superfluous to the life of Jesus.
I have tried, over and over, to engage, provoke, communicate my concerns, yet I find that the general response is that the sub-culture of evangelicalism carries on regardless, in fact, in many ways it finds questions, and I agree I can be pointed at times, threatening.
Yet what of my sub-culture, what of me, for I am only asking questions I have already asked myself? If I’m honest for most of my life I’ve been high on the sub-culture of church and low on substance. What is the measure of my Christianity when the trappings of church are removed? You see when I begin to think about loving enemies, or mercy, or patience, or kindness or incarnation or forgiving and forgiving and well, just forgiving, then I wonder what the point of organising the meeting or the event was. Sure I had a sub-culture that was safe and secure and comfortable and made me feel as if I belonged, but it was also good for hiding behind.
Peter, I understand your desire to deconstruct the theology of the evangelical world, I’ve done that too, but I am deeply suspicious of church meetings repackaged, and I’m sorry to have to say it but that’s what Emergent looks like. What am I to do? And think about this, if you find it bad enough living in Belfast, trying getting a discussion going in the countryside!
Peter, some of us don’t want any more meetings. Some of us just want the chance to drink a coffee, stumble along with other Christians (and hopefully non-Christians too) and find a little mercy together in the daily circumstances of life and run the risk of passing it on. If that’s not possible, I’m no longer sure what the point is.
For the benefit of others, I probably post this or a version of it, on William’s blog too.
All the best, and again, apologies
Peter
October 6th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Peter
I wasn’t actually aiming that last post at you — rather at the posters on the thread in general. Some of whom seem to take language about God differently. Quite interesting IMHO. So I was just throwing out some questions and not ‘debating’.
(However I know enough trained philosophers to know that even the very best make some absolute howlers. That’s why God invented peer review … and even then…well, you’ll remember Logical Positivism from your lectures and take the point.)
My question was about the referent and not signification. Faith and Philosophy can agree on the referent (like a chemist and my daughter talking about water. They take different attitudes, have different desires, use different words.) There’s no convincing reason to think that Will’s question demanded two different answers in two different contexts.
It’s a shame we can’t continue the chat (it really was just a chat!) but I get your point that there’s a limit on your time, and it would probably be an age before we got on the same wavelength. I’m also taking up too much space on your blog.
Maybe we can catch up f-2-f when you get back from the U, S of A!
GV
October 6th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Peter,
I recently finished reading The Fidelity of Betrayal and found great encouragement in it. In return, I put together a “Betrayal-inspired” parable to comment on this blog entry. Please forgive its imitative nature (it’s the sincerest form of flattery.)
Thanks again for your work and welcome to the States!
Larry
In a distant galaxy, a group of aliens had heard about humans and their special way of thinking that involved something called “Belief in God”. They had been told this knowledge was extremely powerful, and they wanted to find out more about it so they sent one of their own on a journey to investigate.
As luck would have it, the alien arrived on earth just in time to witness the events Jesus had described in the parable of the Good Samaritan. From his hovering spacecraft the alien observed the priest, the Levite and the Samaritan as they came across the unfortunate man who had been robbed on the highway. Afterward, the alien went to each man and asked his simple question, “Excuse me earthling, but do you have this knowledge called “Belief in God”?”
First he went to the priest, who answered, “Foolish alien, how can you ask me such a question? Everything about my role in life is predicated on a deep and abiding belief in God. Do you think I could be a priest and not be a believer? My belief in God ruptures the very fabric of what others conceive the world to be!” The alien went away impressed.
Next the alien put the question to the Levite who answered, “What a stupid question! God has entrusted my tribe with the care and oversight of his great Temple. Are you challenging my membership in this sacred tribe of Israel? My belief informs every fiber of my being.” The alien hastily retreated.
Finally he put the question to the Samaritan, who only shrugged his shoulders and said, “Do I? You know, it’s a question I’ve wrestled with often and have never answered to my own satisfaction. But I try not to let this uncertainty prevent me from doing what I feel in my heart God tells me is right.”
The alien returned to his planet and his fellow seekers bobbed around him anxiously. “Well” they asked, “what did you find out? What is this secret knowledge called “Belief in God?”
The alien quieted them down and told them his finding: “Unfortunately, I was unable to discover the exact nature of this knowledge, but it does, in fact, appear to be very powerful. Those who teach it are entitled to all sorts of special privileges and nothing is allowed to interfere with their mighty ceremonies. Apparently this secret knowledge guides them in all their doings and gives them wonderful insight into the meaning of life.”
Then one of the aliens asked, “But do all humans possess this knowledge?” The traveler shook his head, “Alas no, I met one earthling who knew all about the secret, but continued to struggle with its meaning, unable to understand it completely. And worst of all,” and here the alien became very grave indeed, “the poor man’s ignorance leaves him utterly defenseless to the point that he finds himself accountable to every miserable fellow being he meets along the road!”
October 6th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Thank you so much for this wonderful parable!
October 6th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Wow, what a cool parable! Thanks for sharing it. If you write 32 more of that quality then you’ll be on a par with Pete!
October 6th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Larry – that’s an awesome parable, I particularly liked the end as I thought the aliens were going to say something completely different!
Pete – obviously a lot of this philosophical musing on signifiers/signified goes over my head, but that was a beautiful response to the question. While I am almost certain of the existence of God myself, I too hope to one day believe in him.
October 7th, 2009 at 9:45 am
[...] Peter Rollins writes a brilliantly cryptic piece here on his belief in god, his disbelief in god, an…. Describing his recent interview with Rollins, renowned UK journalist William Crawley, perfectly describing why I love Rollins, writes : [...]
October 7th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Hey Pete, I’d love to get some support in my strugglings.
I’ve been following you for some time and most often I’m really fascinated by your teachings and sometimes, like this, I become terrified. This fear is not only of what you write but also of myself and my own doubts.
I hope to be able to adderss my question clear although english not is my native language. Here goes:
When you say that you don’t believe in God – where does the authority of your teachings then come from? Ok, you do want to believe in God but you do in fact believe in something. Thus somenting else. What is this else that is your source?
Much of what you teach is connected to the idea that God is always greater than our own minds – we can’t isolate God in a box and tell him what to think and how to act. And the same goes with our whole perspective of this world. Christians are atheists..
The only alternative source I can think of is some kind of humanism, common philosphy or in fact yourself. There is nothing I can think of that gives us an atheist-position as good as the actual belief in a Supreme Being. Everything else must come from our own limited minds.
My reason for this post is of course that I’m afraid of my own doubts. I’m afraid to be left only to my own screwed head. In many ways this of course is already true – I choose to listen to you more than to Benny Hinn or whomever calls himself christian and does not appeal to my own beliefs. But still I must hold the idea of the christian atheism (stated as example here) as some kind of supreme idea.
So. What do I do with you, who most often has wonderfully provocing and thoughtful teachings about God and the life with God and then in this post neglects God’s authority and claims something as heretical as your own authority (in my subjective reading)?
It is as though you force me to betray you. This is not a pleasant experience..
October 8th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Your answer to the question is equally frustrating to the fundamentalist believer and the New Atheist. But to those interested in mystery and quest, it is right on target.
I think one thing that will surprise you about the US is how thriving a secular culture exists here, despite the stereotype of us as religion crazy. It’s all part of the “Red/Blue State” thing.
October 9th, 2009 at 3:41 am
Ho Pete
J Caputo has published a review of the Monstrosity of Christ (mentioned on church and pomo site) . His take on both Zizek and Millbanks positions is ‘I am also overwhelmed by a compelling sense of how uncompelling is either view’…….it is good to see Caputo offer such a compelling critique of Zizeks theology
Rod
October 9th, 2009 at 9:56 am
That’s an interesting review, can’t wait to take a look, especially liked this bit so far: “Nowadays everyone wants to be a materialist, even the theologians, while the materialists want to look like they lead a spiritual life.”
October 12th, 2009 at 8:25 am
Maybe I’m crazy, but I think Pete’s post made sense to me (until I started reading all the other posts). Let me see if I got this right? The linguistic signifiers found in the sentence “Do you believe in God?” are heard in the context of empiricism. So, when we hear that question we think – is there enough evidence to prove God exists? I hear Pete suggesting – in a way that ruptures gnostic religious notions – that within the context of faith, the signifiers and the signified take on different meaning. What is that meaning? I think specifically about the New Testament work of James as to what belief really is? I think about Jesus, the parable of the sheep and goats, Jesus teaching that those who love him do specific things, the good samaritan (Larry, great parable by the way), etc., etc.. Belief, in Jesus teaching is always grounded in concrete, ethical behavior. Belief is never disconnected from how we respond to a hurt person on the side of the road. At the same time, if God is love, then “belief” in God must also be anchored in love. Jesus said it best with the great commandement: Love God with all we are and love our neighbor as ourselves So the question “Do you believe in God”, in the context of faith, has to do with how one acts relative to the demands of Love. Therefore, to say one believes in God would not be fully true, because there are times when we do not love God and love neighbor as we are called to. Far more honest to say, I aspire to believing in God. I want to live the kind of life where I am always acting to transform the world in love.
Within the Anabaptist faith community I am a part of, while Pete uses different language that most wouldn’t understand (and they would not get it if you said I aspire to believing in God) this is how we understand belief in God: We follow Jesus in a very earthy, dirt between our toes, sort of way (even if we don’t have fancy answers to unanswerable questions)
Pete, am I getting it?
October 16th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Hey, I’ve been bought up in the Charismatic tradition (quite conservative) and I’ve found it tough and now, pointless to try and defend my “faith”. I am intriqued by what Pete is saying, and I think it answers alot of questions I have. I get this fear where it feels like my whole world is falling apart and I want to cry when my “beliefs” or more accurately ideas become shattered. But equally in the place of “I just dont know anymore” there is a peace and hope. The one thing I find tough about all this is stuff like being One with God and really Jesus become little more then a madman or at least superstitious ethical teacher in which over half of what he supposedly said or done didn’t actually happen. How can one be filled with the Holy Spirit or live in community with God or Christ if waht Jesus said had as much to say to as as someone like Socrates? I dont get that!
Thanks though Pete, I appreciate alot of what you do
Sam
October 17th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Sam – deconstructing and deepening your faith doesn’t mean you have to believe that Jesus is just another great human teacher or that most of what he said isn’t true. If anything, many of Pete’s concepts increase my awareness of just how unique Christ really is!
October 18th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
When you say this: “The problem here is that my claims about God are fundamentally theological rather than empirical,” you are admitting that what you are doing is playing a game.
I like to play D&D. Sometimes my friends and I argue about how many spells a 5th level wizard can cast. If, during one of those games, someone came in and asked, “But do you believe Gandalf actually exists?” I would respond exactly as you did: “That question is irrelevant to the life of my wizard! In the context of our D&D game, it has no meaning.”
It is not my place to tell you how to play your games, however dreary they may seem to me. However, it would clear up a great deal of confusion if you would properly label your game. You are playing a game called “literary theory.” Other people, who are playing a game called “Christianity,” are playing a very different game. Please stop calling your game by their name.
October 18th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Hey Yahzi
Sometimes a grain of truth in a critique is a greater danger than one that widely misses the mark. My claim is not simply that Christianity is just another language game (nor that I am doing literary theory under the guise of Christianity). But rather that Christianity can be understood as that which lays bare the language game itself (and thus that there is no Big Other) and opens up a new way of being within language and a different way of connecting with the universal. Here I am close to Zizek and Badiou.
Michael – thanks for the commentary. I think it is very accurate
October 19th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
“But rather that Christianity can be understood as that which lays bare the language game itself (and thus that there is no Big Other) and opens up a new way of being within language and a different way of connecting with the universal.”
Wouldn’t it just be easier to say, “No?”
You do not believe in God. Not even close. There is no way to categorize your response as an affirmative. I realize I do not understand the rules of your language game, but to me, as an outsider, when someone asks you a simple question and you decline to give a simple answer, it looks a lot like dishonesty.
Interpreting the Christian narrative as a metaphor is certainly just as valid as interpreting the Odyssey as a metaphor for spiritual growth, enlightenment, and life. You’re perfectly entitled to that. The essence of my complaint is that, rather than leading to clarity, all of your language manipulations are leading to obscurity, as evidenced by your inability to answer a simple question without disingenuous evasion.
Perhaps the most interesting question here is “why?” Why do you feel it necessary to hedge the answer in the first place?
October 19th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
I am sorry Yahzi but I am unsure if I could be any more clear (I have already simplified to a worrying degree). The point I am making is that the supposed clarity you seem to assume is false. You seem to want me to say either that God does or does not exist as a supreme being. But that question is, I would argue problematic. As someone schooled in Hegel, Heidegger and Derrida I would, as you might guess, set myself against such simplistic notions as the ones you are trying to put me in. what you describe is of course the level of the pop debate found on any youtube search or bookself of Borders. But of course I find, like most philosophers, that debate to be smoke and lights. I am more interested in the debates taking place between Zizek and Milbank, of the work of Caputo, Agambin and Badiou. I think that you would find other peoples work more to your liking than mine.
You think that I am evading saying no when my whole point is showing that the answer ‘no’ is both absurd and uniformed.
October 20th, 2009 at 4:59 am
Pete
you would be better to pitch your thoughts in the academic arena of the church and pomo site where your ideas could be contested and debated by other philosphically trained people – your ‘I am a philospher’ discourse sounds somewhat snooty and superior when levelled against people not trained in philosphy as though you have access to a secret knowledge that makes your position correct and they are not privy to………
October 20th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
“…my whole point is showing that the answer ‘no’ is both absurd and uniformed.”
Pete – I could be wrong here (and many apologies if so), but did you not mean to write ‘uninformed’ in that sentence?
October 21st, 2009 at 2:09 am
Derrida has much to answer for. If there were a hell, I am sure there would be a special place set aside for him. Probably next to the string theorists, for much the same reasons.
I do want to beg to differ with the statement: “But of course I find, like most philosophers, that debate to be smoke and lights.” There are, in fact, quite a few philosophers who do not find the notion of truth to be overly simplistic. While I concede there is a entire discipline of philosophers who reject ordinary notions of truth and meaning, they are hardly the only legitimate philosophers (or even a majority of them).
I still find it fascinating that you are so strongly attached to the Christian narrative while rejecting everything the narrative was supposed to convey. Concepts like mercy and fairness (and the golden rule) predate Christianity, and are found in all cultures and religions. You don’t need Christianity to be a good or happy person. The unique feature of Christianity is the Christian view of Man’s relationship to God. By eliminating God as an actuality, you’ve eliminated that, and reduced Christianity to literary symbology.
In other words, what is the difference between you and an atheist with a socialist/martyr complex?
October 21st, 2009 at 2:15 am
Rodney – as any decent philosopher would tell you, if you can’t understand them, it’s their fault. The entire point of philosophy is explaining things.
If you don’t understand a term or a concept, you’re perfectly entitled to ask for clarity without feeling inadequate – certainly no working philosopher ever hesitates to ask! In fact, it tends to be most of what they do. Philosophers are always asking each other, “what do you mean by that?”
The specialized jargon is not necessary, just handy. If both parties agree on what it means, it can convey a lot of information quickly. But there’s never any harm in spelling it out in plain language.
Any philosopher who makes you feel stupid for asking questions is clearly doing it wrong.
October 21st, 2009 at 10:46 am
Yahzi. While I am sympathetic to your idea that philosophers explain things (though I would not include this in a formal definition), you seem to think that this means that their job is to explain things to the general public. This would write off most of the great philosophers (though many of them did also write some material for a general audience). According to your definition philosophers such as Hegel, Marx, Heidegger, Quine, Frege etc. etc. would not be philosophers at all, or would be very very bad ones.
There are however many writers and speakers whose job it is to try and make this philosophy understandable to intelligent people outside the academy. This is true of many disciplines. For instance I have little idea about complex modern physics but enjoy reading those writers who attempt to explain it to a lay person like myself.
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:30 am
[...] Incarnational Christianity if I am not able to practice what I preach. In his article One day I hope to believe in God Peter Rollins explains believing and living and how they are one [...]
January 25th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
Not to sacrifice accuracy for brevity, but- at least for me, it comes down to “Lord, I believe, HELP my unbelief”- which nails it – (couldn’t help the pun there)
shalom
cat
May 14th, 2010 at 10:59 pm
[...] of our faith by what we do. When I am judged by that standard, do I have any faith at all? As Peter Rollins answered when he was asked if he believes in God: Do I believe in God? Well, while I am drawn to the idea [...]