McDonald quoting Augustine perhaps? Compliments of ChatGPT:
This quote is from the philosopher and theologian Augustine of Hippo, also known as Saint Augustine. The full quote is “You do not believe because you do not understand, and you cannot understand because you are deaf to the voice of God. You refuse to listen to the Word of God, and so no one can understand you. You doubt, because you love truth. But love alone is not enough; you must also have knowledge.” This quote is from one of Augustine’s works, “Expositions of the Psalms”.
Well, I found it among an online list, but I don’t recall having actually read it in one of his works. I am really interested in the Augustine account, @Dale–it’s hard to believe what the chat can do. I would not be at all surprised if he quoted Augustine.
I’m not inclined to read it, actually. Certainty is not an idol when you know who your father is, and your Father. Why should I be encouraged to doubt? It is nonsensical to me. It would be like encouraging a biological child to doubt who their real parents were, having grown up in a loving family for a decade and a half.
Certainly there may be a ‘dark night of the soul’ which may evoke questions such as “Where are you, Lord?”, and I may yet have such, not that I haven’t already to one degree or another, but when his presence has been so objectively revealed is his providential dealings with me in my septuagenarian life, “Is God real?”, “Do you exist?” and “Is Jesus who he says he is?” are not among them.
People who have not had a real encounter with the risen Lord would do well to pursue their doubts1 until they have one though (if they even want one). That is major understatement though, since it should be an imperative! The timing and placing of which is not something over which we any control, however… but we should still be seeking, even desperately (as was Maggie).
The account of Tim Keller’s parishioner that I so frequently cite is again relevant:
In God’s grace, some who don’t necessarily want one and who are not seeking (and who are maybe even fleeing The Hound of Heaven) may be given one unrequested. Phil Yancey’s conversion experience again comes to mind, and Augustine’s ←(a five minute podcast with transcript). It is interesting that co-instances are so frequently integral to Christians’ first experiences, right, Mi? :
Now, if you can give me compelling reasons why I should and also how to incite doubt…
1 From the blurb at Amazon, it looks like I might agree with Boyd on that.
Oh, I’m sorry–I don’t think that he would encourage doubt. I think he’s trying to reassure people that God isn’t afraid of good questions.
If you aren’t interested in that, that’s fine. However, you do have a good mind, and you have had your own doubts–making the leap from OEC to EC at one point. I think that’s really parallel with what he’s done, though he started from an atheist standpoint, and went to Pentecostal; then struggled mightily. He attended Princeton under Metzger and even was with there with Ehrman (and has written rebuttals to Ehrman).
I think you might enjoy him, given your deep thinking. It’s ok to go on to something else, though.
Thanks.
Randy
That is not comparable to doubting God’s existence or his goodness to his children though. But for a committed and thoroughly indoctrinated (and idolotrous) YEC, it very likely could be (remembering the doctrine is a good and necessary thing… if it is true ).
We do come from different points of view, don’t we? In a way, every time I sin, I deny God’s existence.
In this man’s case,he came from a lot more difficult situation than I did. His own respected dad was a skeptic/atheist–and constantly gave him pressure to join him when he went to church. Eventually, his dad joined him in believing (Letters to a Skeptic are part of his interaction with his dad).
And his dad had a different background and reason. Sometimes, it’s an act of righteousness to deny an evil God that doesn’t exist, I think. I never know what people go through.
Based on the blurbs on the book cover and from some of the reviews, it appears he talks quite a bit about commitment in the midst of doubt?
Again, the analogue of the mid-teen doubting the veracity of his parents and family history would again fit. Sure, commitment is nice, should there be such a one in a loving family given no real reason to doubt, but that’s a hypothetical and not true belief and knowledge. Those who do really doubt should be encouraged rather to seek and find experience of God that is undeniable and ‘to die for’, and not in the idolatrous sense of commitment and confidence an Islamic fundamentalist martyr would have.
I would say that every time I sin, I deny his lordship, not his existence. A slight alteration I make to the to the beginning “Be Thou My Vision” is “Be thou my vision” not “O”, but “and Lord of my heart”, a petition, not a statement.
It was really a rhetorical question remarking about co-instances and God’s getting your attention in what probably you would characterize as your conversion experience.
“Yet the idea sown by this one small voice would eventually spread throughout the Roman Empire, even outlasting it, so that Christ’s ideas remain central to our entire western culture and spiritual outlook, whether one believes in his god or not. It was the idea that survived, as ineradicable as the genes of the Phoenicians.”
Paul Strathern, Ten Cities that Led the World
As the book closed, and the final remark was made about that city, “the unknown unknown” to lead the world and “determine the future of the human or partly artificial race,” there was an unmistakable allusion to a New Jerusalem and yet there was also an ironically mixed metaphor.
I was just quoting as much as I could recall of the poem “If,” by Rudyard Kipling, with my boys.
I would like to hear some others’ thoughts on this.
Thanks.
If
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!
I don’t know about any “thoughts” I can share about that, Randy. Indeed, any such thing I could share would probably just be a desecration of it. All I can say is that the above poem is a balm to my beleagured soul just right at this time. For me, a word straight from God. Thank you.
-Merv
Kipling’s sexism aside (honestly, Rudyard, don’t you see women of character in the world as well?!), most if this is what we view maturity and character to be.
I think losing all for a selfish gamble (and he talks about it as a gamble on a game, rather than a gamble on something really valuable that would help people) might just shame one into keeping one’s mouth closed. However, taking a huge gamble on something you believe could really benefit people (maybe a school, or service) and seeing it fail, now never breathing a word about that loss could really take some character.
The rest is all good stuff, and would be good for anyone to strive for. But it’s incomplete. This is the person of character, but he is insular, an island to himself as well. The person here is not described as loving or as having any deep relationship with other people. He is a Rock, and Island, who has trained himself to feel no pain.
He lacks tenderness (emotional intelligence), and the ability to survive in spite of being crushed by life’s circumstances that affect not only him but people he loves. Those who love him can rely on him, but cannot really know him. We’re not sure if he really even knows himself.
Finally, he is entirely self-reliant, sufficient in himself. He feels need for no one, nothing. What could Jesus offer this man?
I was just filtering his “You’ll be a Man” through my King James filter of “they always spoke that way then” - though we can easily (granted - men have it made even more easy for them) see how this should apply to all of us. But yeah - he is a bit more deliberate addressing it to his son. Your point is well taken.
And as much as I like it, your final points are really good too! I know nothing of Kipling’s known [alleged] spiritual states, and have little interest in looking them up. But I like how you can take his high exhortation in this poem and recognize how it could be aimed infinitely higher yet! Thanks for that.
I just finished listening to the second installment, and this part really struck me as well. There is an interplay between analytical and creative thinking that is essential for the synthesis of ideas and new information. Without creative thinking it’s harder (maybe not possible at all?), to look for what might be possible based on the workaday study and analysis that one has put in so far.
I would like it if IM emphasized the idea of interplay more. Sometimes, and probably with good reason, it seems like he is arguing one over the other. I suspect that is because there is often a tendency for those folks who more highly value the rational (and our Western cultural tendency) to feel like the creative side isn’t really doing anything of analytic value, and IM has to make his case. But they aren’t operating separately. They are both subtly talking back and forth.
Those of us without a poetic or artistic bone in their bodies are taught culturally that they then lack creativity and imagination. But creative thinking takes many forms that have nothing to do with art or philosophy or poetry, at least in the formal ways we often imagine they do.
We don’t, for example, value highly abstract thinking as creative or imaginative, probably largely because most people aren’t able to engage in it much less understand it. And highly abstract thinkers probably are enculturated to see what they’re doing as purely analytical. But you don’t move from the known (whatever it is to you) to the “what could be” without creative thought. Even when no one else understands it.
You’re right and he does come back to the need for both many times. But the heavier lift is to convince many that intuition and imagination have any value at all. In the books as a whole he does go a long way toward making the case you desire. He desires it too but recognizes that you can’t fully justify them on rational grounds. Rationality only involves coherence within the map. A good map will track with reality, but whenever we start to think we’ve taken the measure of reality with our maps we’re sure to hit a bump. Global conclusions about what more is ruled out based on what we think we currently know need to be identified as the speculation they are.
The research based difference between the hemispheres is that one is always open and broadly attentive to whatever the world presents while the other categorizes and systematizes what we’ve already experienced for known purposes. Consciously we would be better off to make use of both perspectives, but it is only our maps which allow us to pin things down and that is useful. But to be in touch with reality we’re better off to leave space for what intuition and imagination offer as well. Over emphasizing the maps of the left hemisphere leads to over confidence of the sort we find in scientism while reflection can restore humility. But there is no reason to choose. Both are needed and a deficit on either side is pathological. His larger point is that as a culture we’ve become unbalanced, over valuing expedience and utility.
: