A Question for Ricochet's Christians
Leaving aside the political questions, I'm curious about Ricochet's Christian members. Who among you arrived at your faith by a mystical route? Who arrived at it by a rational route? I'm using William James' distinction:
I spoke of the convincingness of these feelings of reality, and I must dwell a moment longer on that point. They are as convincing to those who have them as any direct sensible experiences can be, and they are, as a rule, much more convincing than results established by mere logic ever are. One may indeed be entirely without them; probably more than one of you here present is without them in any marked degree; but if you do have them, and have them at all strongly, the probability is that you cannot help regarding them as genuine perceptions of truth, as revelations of a kind of reality which no adverse argument, however unanswerable by you in words, can expel from your belief. The opinion opposed to mysticism in philosophy is sometimes spoken of as rationalism. Rationalism insists that all our beliefs ought ultimately to find for themselves articulate grounds. Such grounds, for rationalism, must consist of four things: (1) definitely statable abstract principles; (2) definite facts of sensation; (3) definite hypotheses based on such facts; and (4) definite inferences logically drawn. Vague impressions of something indefinable have no place in the rationalistic system, which on its positive side is surely a splendid intellectual tendency, for not only are all our philosophies fruits of it, but physical science (amongst other good things) is its result.
Actually, a political question occurs to me, too: What percentage of self-identified Christians vote Democrat? Does anyone have any reliable statistics on that?
- Comment (97)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (8)
Comments :
Dec '10
Re: A Question for Ricochet's Christians
Claire - my arrival as a Christian was logical. I was still a young, foolish man who clung to the usual litany of lefty/atheist arguments against Christianity, until someone challenged me to read Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. This small book systematically dismantled all of those arguments, leaving me with only one choice.
I will say, however, that I have had what you might call mystical experiences, times when I was absolutely certain of the presence of God. I refer to these as "mountaintop events". I've found that they are spiritually exhilarating, but I certainly can't make those the foundation of my faith.
I don't have any stats on voting patterns.
Oct '10
Re: A Question for Ricochet's Christians
Mystical vs. rational route?
Actually, I went roughly through three phases-First, by upbringing in a Catholic parochial school. Then, an experience of what seemed to be God's presence during a rough period of my life. Subsequently, I was exposed to the higher criticism and other arguments by writers like John Charlotte which undermined my faith. I found my way back through reason, ultimately. Bruce Vawter's book This Man Jesus was critical to reviving my faith. This book, while not a book of Christian apologetics, served that function for me as it took a very logical and investigative approach to the origins of Christianity.
As for voting patterns, since roughly 88% of Americans self-identify as Christian, I imagine their voting pattern would have to be only slightly less Democratic than the population as a whole. The trend in recent years would be for more to vote Republican due to issues like abortion.
Edited on Aug 17, 2011 at 2:30amRe: A Question for Ricochet's Christians
Why would they do that, given how disastrous the Obama Administration's policies have been for their fellow Christians in the Middle East?
(You can see that this is a tongue-in-cheek question, but I think, for those of you who have been asking why Jews vote Democrat, that the answer has similar outlines.)
Nov '10
Re: A Question for Ricochet's Christians
The two routes tend to go together. Most people, however they are raised, got through a period of questioning in adolescence, and any faith they have had to answer those questions. The experience of suffering, however, is less amenable to rational argument, and must be transcended by other kinds of experience.
The other day a Catholic Democrat asked me how one can be a Republican and a Catholic. Needing to be careful not to alienate anyone, I gave him a throwaway line, suggesting that partisanship per se is dangerous to the faith. But the Democrats I know who are Catholic still think in terms of the Party of their youth: they're still Clean for Gene (McCarthy). They don't have a clue who the Kos kids are or MoveOn.org. They've never looked into a combox and seen what lurks in the Democrat base: the kind of people who would put someone like me up against a wall if they could. That doesn't let Republicans off the hook, who can betray the faith with other priorities. At their worst, I call the Democrats and Republicans the party of apostates and the party of hypocrites, respectively.
Sep '10
Re: A Question for Ricochet's Christians
Claire Berlinski, Ed. Why would they do that, given how disastrous the Obama Administration's policies have been for their fellow Christians in the Middle East?
(You can see that this is a tongue-in-cheek question, but I think, for those of you who have been asking why Jews vote Democrat, that the answer has similar outlines.)
I suspect it's because a very, very large portion of people who "self-identify" as Christian in polls aren't actually practicing. In this, the American Jewish example is instructive - an extremely large portion (perhaps a majority) of American Jews choose to not partake in most of the religious portions of the Jewish experience.
WRT your question about how most of Ricochet's Christian members came to their faith, I'd be willing to place a very serious wager that upbringing has been the primary driver in over 90% of the cases (as opposed to reason or mysticism). This tends to be the single greatest determinant of religiosity among the general populace, and I doubt it's a weaker determinant here. Keep in mind, too, that upbringing had already paved the way in many cases of later-life, "reason-driven" confession.
Re: A Question for Ricochet's Christians
To those who have had what James would call mystical experiences: Do you feel self-conscious about describing them? If so, why? Or do you feel simply that they're not something that can be described?
Nov '10
Re: A Question for Ricochet's Christians
From a rational point of view, should mystical impressions carry any evidential force given that mystical impressions can conflict?
I'll see your mystical impression that the Blood of the Lamb will redeem the universe, and I'll raise you my mystical impression that life is an inscrutable enigma. Who wins? By what rules does one decide?
Surely only an inner conviction, and never a rational argument, can lead someone to believe that a man who died 2000 years ago in an obscure backwater is still alive, available for one-way conversations, and working behind the scenes to secure the triumph of virtue.
I am not saying that such beliefs are false. I am merely saying that dispassionate reason cannot be their origin. Considered coolly, the central tenets of Christianity are inherently arbitrary, plucked from an infinity of possible metaphysical scenarios. Neutral observers cannot but consider them far-fetched.
Swinburne, Plantinga, and other titans of theology defend Christian theism with flare. The vast intellectual cathedrals they construct are well worth visiting (despite the reservations of structural engineers).
But honestly, don't these thinkers start with their inner convictions and work from there? If so, is that an acceptable practice?
May '10
Re: A Question for Ricochet's Christians
This was roughly my path. Brought up in a barely religious Episcopalian family, always believed there was a God. Had to be, just go outside and look around. But really didn't think about it much. Had a mystical experience during a rough patch (people never have those when things are going swimmingly, it seems).
In accordance with long-standing policy (haven't read Burke to understand conservatism, and don't feel the need to), I've never read in-depth rational proofs to back it up. Christianity lends itself readily to such logical argument, however, even without that. The defining event is an historical event which nobody has satisfactorily explained away. Starting from that, any support Jesus lent to the Old Testament confirms its truth.
Never been a fan of Revelation, for that reason. Unsupported word of one guy, and occurred after Jesus could sanction it or not.
Sep '10
Re: A Question for Ricochet's Christians
Important to keep in mind that, while voting Democrat can absolutely put the faithful into direct conflict with the underpinnings of Christian faith, one does not have to be a Christian - or religious at all - to vote Republican without any such qualms. Non-believers who turn to liberty as the guiding principle by which vote-casting is determined may have moral positions that run directly counter to those of the religious, but are still left with but one choice party-wise (especially at the national level).
Nov '10
Re: A Question for Ricochet's Christians
If you have a mystical experience of God, how do you know what you are experiencing, or who you are experiencing, is identical with the eternal Spirit who knows everything, can do anything, is perfectly good, created and sustains the universe, is at once the father of Jesus and the same person as him, and reputedly disapproves of hanky-panky between people with matching genitalia?
Edited on Aug 17, 2011 at 3:36amRe: A Question for Ricochet's Christians
By definition they do not. However, our impressions--however much they can in principle conflict--surely shape our convictions. I don't need to be rationally persuaded that good and evil exist, I've had a direct personal experience of both. You could not persuade me, no matter what argument you offered, that they didn't exist, even though many would argue that "impressions conflict" over this.
Sep '10
Re: A Question for Ricochet's Christians
Beyond your proclaimed lack of inquiry into the matter, your statement is problematic on at least two levels. First, surely it must be the case that the burden of proof in all questions of the supernatural must lie with the party that claims to know the laws of nature were suspended on multiple occasions, and that he / she by-extension knows the mind of God (and, as is always the case, how everyone else must subsequently spend their time). Nothing that would pass beyond the level of hearsay in a court of law has ever been written about the "historical event" of which you speak. By this standard, the radical Islamist who believes Muhammad flew on a winged horse has every bit the right to claim divine writ as do you - surely you cannot believe that to be the case...
Sep '10
Re: A Question for Ricochet's Christians
In addition to Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman's reticence about discussing the circumstances of his conversion "its not something one does between the soup and salad course", I can only say that not all mystical experiences are pleasant ones.
Sep '10
Re: A Question for Ricochet's Christians
Second, it is stated quite plainly in the New Testament that Jesus rode into Jerusalem so that the ancient prophecy might be fulfilled - quite literally an admission (again, in one of a host of conflicting accounts that arrive before our eyes as nth-hand reports, at best) that if one wishes to be in the business of fulfilling ancient prophecies, one only a cursory understanding of what they call for and the requisite amount of moxy.
By attempting to link the Old Testament with the New in order to legitimate various claims about Jesus, you are opening the door to some of the most devastating lines of criticism against Christianity as a valid institution - about these, it would be well worth your time to read.
Sep '10
Re: A Question for Ricochet's Christians
Claire - these are extremely interesting questions. What are your feelings on these matters? (And I ask without any intent to critique or to criticize - merely with the intent to listen and learn.)
Nov '10
Re: A Question for Ricochet's Christians
Claire, would you say that your impression that good and evil exist is mystical? I agree with you that both objectively exist; but I wouldn't normally characterize my apprehension of this fact as mystical. Rather, I would characterize it as intuitive. I would also characterize it as earthly: I feel it in my bones.
That said, it is perhaps not a million miles away from being mystical. Kant marvelled in awe at both the starry heavens above and the moral law within.
Indeed, add me to your Jamesian curiosity cabinet: I think I am cognitively Kantian. Sometimes, listening to classical music, I have a strong apprehension of moral good--of aesthetics connoting ethics. Am I weird and unique in this respect?
Re: A Question for Ricochet's Christians
Forrest Cox
Claire - these are extremely interesting questions. What are your feelings on these matters? (And I ask without any intent to critique or to criticize - merely with the intent to listen and learn.) · Aug 17 at 4:12am
I asked, so I should answer. I've never had the kind of experience James describes, but feel convinced by the accounts of them. I wish I could. I don't feel that any of the language we ultimately use to describe religion makes any kind of sense at the rational level--for example, I've never been able to make sense of the doctrine of the Trinity. The problem of evil? Never been able to solve it in my mind. I can't conceive of meaningful immortality--what would it mean without worldly reference points? Rationally, having seen how inaccurate journalism from the Middle East is today, I'm skeptical of ancient accounts.
I don't think reason alone can get anyone to God. Nor can it get anyone away from God.
May '10
Re: A Question for Ricochet's Christians
Forrest Cox
Nothing that would pass beyond the level of hearsay in a court of law has ever been written about the "historical event" of which you speak. By this standard, the radical Islamist who believes Muhammad flew on a winged horse has every bit the right to claim divine writ as do you - surely you cannot believe that to be the case
While it is hearsay, the authorities (both Jewish and Roman) had every incentive to disprove it at the time. Those who witnessed the Resurrection and were tortured and killed for saying so had every incentive to unsay it. Would they all have claimed to have seen something and gone on to sticky deaths when they knew they hadn't seen it? They were killed separately, so couldn't reinforce each other via peer pressure.
So they all separately died horribly maintaining what they knew to be a lie. This is implausible. After all, there would be no salvation awaiting them. If even one had confessed, it would have been widely trumpeted. The Roman Empire was a very literate society, from which we have fulsome records.
The flying horse example is, um, weak. See my mistrust of Revelation.
Re: A Question for Ricochet's Christians
I ponder if James is conflating rationalism and empiricism.
Fascinating question Claire!
My faith: a hybrid of reason, tradition and mysticism in that order.
Like most Catholics I was baptised without choice. At 14 comes confirmation - I'm proud Catholics do it. You're given the opportunity to choose Catholicism or not; to "confirm" your faith or leave it. Granted, 14 is a little young to buck tradition.
That part of me is tradition.
As an adult I began studying cosmology, physics, quantum mechanics and evolution. Science cemented the existence of a supernatural creation.
That part of me is reason.
Mysticism, as James lets on, is harder to explain. Recall the movie Contact, when Jodi Foster is asking Matthew McConaughey to prove God. He asked her if she loved her father. She said of course. He asked her to prove it.
The point being that her lack of being able to hand him love in a bottle in no way disproves the existence of love.
200 words won't let me explain the rest the mysticism of me, but I hope you get the point.
I may ponder this all day. You ruined another work day for me Claire!
Edited on Aug 17, 2011 at 4:43amSep '10
Re: A Question for Ricochet's Christians
I don't think reason alone can get anyone to God. Nor can it get anyone away from God.
Edited on Aug 17, 2011 at 5:26am