Your new post displays an interesting viewpoint - one I havn't really contemplated before. As a person with more skeptical inclinations, I've always viewed my skepticism as the safty valve that kept my idealism and tendency to hyperfocus balanced with reality - or at least reality as it looks to me. So it (skepticism) has been as much of a change agent as has the "muse" which pulls me forward.
Perhaps I'm responding too viscerally to the term "believer", as I've been an on-and-off member/observer of the evangelical subculture. That subculture tends to use the term in order to identify folks who are in or out - so it is a divisive term rather than an enabling one.
Indeed thought provoking - I'll chew on this some more. Thanks for sharing. I also related to your previous post on meeting up with folks from your "past" life as a missionary. Been there a few time.
Chuck, I so hear you! Believer-ism is rampant in causes. You can spot the "believers" a mile away. What I am hoping to do is flip that concept on its head and show that a lot of times, those belivers are actually converted to skeptics instead.
Critical inquiry is a part of believing (as I am defining it). It's the ability to expand one's understanding, to be led to new conclusions, to be open to another way of seeing. Being open to criticism of one's dearly held beliefs, imho, is the heart of being a "true believer."
A defensive skeptical view of all new information that contradicts a sacred (as in, not to be contradicted) belief is not "believing" (the posture of openness) but rather apologetics (where the outcome is determined before we begin).
To me, that is not the posture of believing but defending and it is that posture that I called skeptical.
Believers admit limits to their own abilities to know whereas skeptics often put themselves in the position of knowing more than. That might be another way to frame it.
I don't mean to smack down a critical thinker or make this overly simplistic of dichotomistic (I could easily write an entire chapter in a book on this topic). In this little piece, I hoped to stimulat some re-thinking of out attitudes toward joiners, toward the risk of taking someone else's viewpoint as "true" - as repressenting their view of reality from an honest place, before jumping on it to pass judgment.
Julie, lots to think about here! For as long as I've known you, your have been a "believer". :-) This statement encourages me a lot, as I continue on my "question":
" A true believer, however, faced with a problem, starts looking for answers, wherever they may be found. The quest is not an act of disloyalty. It's an act of faith."
This column opens up a lot of potential points of discussion. One that occurs to me now is the possible confusion that could come up with terms like "believer" and "skeptic." I get the logic of where you are going with this, and I like the unconventional take you have on how those words are used. But it just might take that "chapter in a book" for you to sufficiently explain the different applications of such familiar language that you're intending here. For most readers, "believer," or especially "true believer," is going to signify something along the lines of an ideologue - someone who is resolutely convinced that his/her beliefs are the closest correspondence of true reality that a person could have. A believer in this sense could be a new convert or a lifelong adherent. "Skeptic" is reserved for those people who are not so persuaded, who are likely to point out the problems, exceptions and unjustified leaps of faith that are required before "belief" can happen. I'm not arguing against your creative twist on this, just laying out my case a bit more extensively than is probably necessary. :o) I know you know all this.
I think you do us a service to draw the distinctions elsewhere. There is a significant difference between a zealous new convert and a long-time practicioner of a given religion. A lot of Christians have never themselves had a deep conversion experience, where conversion means actively changing from a given set of assumptions about reality to something dramatically and radically new. Many testimonies are more about an increasing depth of commitment, or a returning to something that had been lost or neglected for a period one's life. I think what you are talking about has more to do with a dropping of something old in favor of something new (and perhaps previously abhorred or forbidden.) Paul's switch from being a zealous persecutor to a zealous proponent of Christian faith is the benchmark, but of course, conversions happen *away* from Christianity as well, and they happen *within* Christianity, from one type of sectarian belief to another, or from a closed to an open (or vice versa) stance on any number of theological particulars.
What you're writing about here seems to be about what I've referred to as "temperaments" of faith and spirituality in the past. Some people draw a lot of strength from stability, others thrive on periodic change, even to the extent of dramatic upheavals of all that has gone before. I think you and I are of this second type, and our experience of life up until this point causes us to be a little reluctant to say that we've converted/joined/believed anew for the last time!
I'm impressed with how these columns are unfolding on a nice, steady, weekly basis. You are on to something here!
Dave I don't mind at all that you lay out the differences and ambiguities. I've chosen to go for provocative rather than a nuanced and well-articulated argument in this short little column each week. You've recognized that much and I hope that through discussion here or just in my own little head, that I wil be able to flesh out the nuances so that when I do write that book, I will be able to invest these words with revised, expanded or nuanced meanings.
You are quite correct when you talk about the act of converting as opposed to a slow growth in the direction of deeper and deeper commitment, as regards religious faith. One thing I hoped to do in those 700 words, though, was to call to mind the temptation of many in our culture to dismiss the "naive joiner" as being easily misled by the crowd or culture, as being shallow or lacking in critical thinking skills.
Enthusiasts are easy to pick on. Critics are less often the target of cultural condescension... so that was part of my aim - to look at the nature of being an enthusiast in a skeptical culture.
Temperaments of faith is a great way to look at it too.
Thanks for the engagement with these topics. Love it!
I know what you mean, Tia, about balance. I find that though balance is a buzz word these days and many people advocate for it, I tend to see balance on a bigger scale. I don't know how successful many of us can be at being balanced in ourselves, but I do think that we can create a collective balance as a community. To me, that is the benefit of knowing thyself.
Also, I find that sometimes balance is a code word for shutting down enthusiasm...
Still, I'm with you on the right and left brain research. I find that whole field of study truly fascinating. I got my best education from Betty Edwards and her drawing books. Very helpful to this right brained writer. :)
8 comments:
Hi Julie,
Your new post displays an interesting viewpoint - one I havn't really contemplated before. As a person with more skeptical inclinations, I've always viewed my skepticism as the safty valve that kept my idealism and tendency to hyperfocus balanced with reality - or at least reality as it looks to me. So it (skepticism) has been as much of a change agent as has the "muse" which pulls me forward.
Perhaps I'm responding too viscerally to the term "believer", as I've been an on-and-off member/observer of the evangelical subculture. That subculture tends to use the term in order to identify folks who are in or out - so it is a divisive term rather than an enabling one.
Indeed thought provoking - I'll chew on this some more. Thanks for sharing. I also related to your previous post on meeting up with folks from your "past" life as a missionary. Been there a few time.
The thoughtfulness and effort of writing that column is evident, and appreciated.
"A true believer, however, faced with a problem, starts looking for answers, wherever they may be found."
That is the heart of it! The believer isn't content merely to read the reviews, he has to taste and see for himself.
Chuck, I so hear you! Believer-ism is rampant in causes. You can spot the "believers" a mile away. What I am hoping to do is flip that concept on its head and show that a lot of times, those belivers are actually converted to skeptics instead.
Critical inquiry is a part of believing (as I am defining it). It's the ability to expand one's understanding, to be led to new conclusions, to be open to another way of seeing. Being open to criticism of one's dearly held beliefs, imho, is the heart of being a "true believer."
A defensive skeptical view of all new information that contradicts a sacred (as in, not to be contradicted) belief is not "believing" (the posture of openness) but rather apologetics (where the outcome is determined before we begin).
To me, that is not the posture of believing but defending and it is that posture that I called skeptical.
Believers admit limits to their own abilities to know whereas skeptics often put themselves in the position of knowing more than. That might be another way to frame it.
I don't mean to smack down a critical thinker or make this overly simplistic of dichotomistic (I could easily write an entire chapter in a book on this topic). In this little piece, I hoped to stimulat some re-thinking of out attitudes toward joiners, toward the risk of taking someone else's viewpoint as "true" - as repressenting their view of reality from an honest place, before jumping on it to pass judgment.
Julie, lots to think about here! For as long as I've known you, your have been a "believer". :-) This statement encourages me a lot, as I continue on my "question":
" A true believer, however, faced with a problem, starts looking for answers, wherever they may be found. The quest is not an act of disloyalty. It's an act of faith."
Susan :-)
That should be "quest" not "question"....though I do have quite a few questions right now. ;-)
Susan
Hi Julie,
This column opens up a lot of potential points of discussion. One that occurs to me now is the possible confusion that could come up with terms like "believer" and
"skeptic." I get the logic of where you are going with this, and I like the unconventional take you have on how those words are used. But it just might take that "chapter in a book" for you to sufficiently explain the different applications of such familiar language that you're intending here. For most readers, "believer," or especially "true believer," is going to signify something along the lines of an ideologue - someone who is resolutely convinced that his/her beliefs are the closest correspondence of true reality that a person could have. A believer in this sense could be a new convert or a lifelong adherent. "Skeptic" is reserved for those people who are not so persuaded, who are likely to point out the problems, exceptions and unjustified leaps of faith that are required before "belief" can happen. I'm not arguing against your creative twist on this, just laying out my case a bit more extensively than is probably necessary. :o) I know you know all this.
I think you do us a service to draw the distinctions elsewhere. There is a significant difference between a zealous new convert and a long-time practicioner of a given religion. A lot of Christians have never themselves had a deep conversion experience, where conversion means actively changing from a given set of assumptions about reality to something dramatically and radically new. Many testimonies are more about an increasing depth of commitment, or a returning to something that had been lost or neglected for a period one's life. I think what you are talking about has more to do with a dropping of something old in favor of something new (and perhaps previously abhorred or forbidden.) Paul's switch from being a zealous persecutor to a zealous proponent of Christian faith is the benchmark, but of course, conversions happen *away* from Christianity as well, and they happen *within* Christianity, from one type of sectarian belief to another, or from a closed to an open (or vice versa) stance on any number of theological particulars.
What you're writing about here seems to be about what I've referred to as "temperaments" of faith and spirituality in the past. Some people draw a lot of strength from stability, others thrive on periodic change, even to the extent of dramatic upheavals of all that has gone before. I think you and I are of this second type, and our experience of life up until this point causes us to be a little reluctant to say that we've converted/joined/believed anew for the last time!
I'm impressed with how these columns are unfolding on a nice, steady, weekly basis. You are on to something here!
Dave I don't mind at all that you lay out the differences and ambiguities. I've chosen to go for provocative rather than a nuanced and well-articulated argument in this short little column each week. You've recognized that much and I hope that through discussion here or just in my own little head, that I wil be able to flesh out the nuances so that when I do write that book, I will be able to invest these words with revised, expanded or nuanced meanings.
You are quite correct when you talk about the act of converting as opposed to a slow growth in the direction of deeper and deeper commitment, as regards religious faith. One thing I hoped to do in those 700 words, though, was to call to mind the temptation of many in our culture to dismiss the "naive joiner" as being easily misled by the crowd or culture, as being shallow or lacking in critical thinking skills.
Enthusiasts are easy to pick on. Critics are less often the target of cultural condescension... so that was part of my aim - to look at the nature of being an enthusiast in a skeptical culture.
Temperaments of faith is a great way to look at it too.
Thanks for the engagement with these topics. Love it!
Julie
I know what you mean, Tia, about balance. I find that though balance is a buzz word these days and many people advocate for it, I tend to see balance on a bigger scale. I don't know how successful many of us can be at being balanced in ourselves, but I do think that we can create a collective balance as a community. To me, that is the benefit of knowing thyself.
Also, I find that sometimes balance is a code word for shutting down enthusiasm...
Still, I'm with you on the right and left brain research. I find that whole field of study truly fascinating. I got my best education from Betty Edwards and her drawing books. Very helpful to this right brained writer. :)
Good to see you here.
Post a Comment