Faith is described by Kierkegaard (under the pseudonym Johannes de Silentio)
as “a later immediacy” or a kind of spontaneity “after” rational deliberation. **He **
**> also calls faith “the new immediacy” that cannot be canceled out by reason without ** > thereby destroying one’s self. His point is that my beliefs lose their psychological di-
rectness when I rationally reflect on their contents—in a move that may be described as canceling out their primitive immediacy, That is, rational reflection interferes with
my ability to hold a belief directly. Initially, reason appears juxtaposed with my be-
liefs as that which constantly threatens to cancel them out by examining them to see
if they are false. I can then only have beliefs by succumbing to reason and letting
it first determine for me what to believe. But in faith, reason is recontextualized or
suspended so that belief becomes immediately (or directly) available once again to
the believer. The “suspension” of reason by faith, however, does not straightforwardly
mean that reason is surpassed by faith as much as it is suspended or continually de-
layed—that is, it is always “over” and not simply occurring at the end of a cognitive
process.
The part I bolded gets at something I started to get into in chapter one but postponed until we got to this chapter. I think I agree with McGilchrist when he distinguishes the push of rationality from the pull of longing for authenticity which represents a kind of transcendence. Rationally we accept a number of premises about a wide variety of things but the beliefs we form regarding who we are and want to be exert a pull which rightfully should make us hesitate from being pushed into conclusions by the mere force of logic regarding matters that are less essential to us by far. This is the distinction between rationality and reason I was getting at earlier. Rationality leads in many directions but not all of those directions are of equal importance. As our vision of who we authentically are and want to be comes into focus it gives us a reason to exert ourselves to value those beliefs more highly and gives us reason to resist the push of rational arguments which would undermine our resolve. So as I use the word “reason” represents the conscious weighing of not only the force of logic behind an argument but also the direction its conclusion would lead you and whether the you that would arrive there is one you feel is still authentically you. This undercuts the value of neutrality for people being thoughtful about their priorities. Not every factual truth is a desirable living truth.
I took a stab at understanding what you mean, and am not confident that I have understood. But in the off-chance that I have understood, I am, indeed directing you to others.
If coequal status is relevant to the book discussion, please, explain more! That would be far more fruitful than me countering based on a faulty understanding of what is important to you.
I appreciated how Penner draws our attention to the necessary “ratification” that genius receives from the surrounding culture. It’s a two-way street, since the label requires not just the subject who ostensibly provides the genius insight, but a public to at least eventually recognize and codify it as such. Without the public, the genius is still a nobody.
So on that score, even our geniuses are highly selected for by us. We admire, choose, and venerate what impresses us and appeals to us as fruitful insight, and we ignore that which (while it might have required considerable intelligence) fails to impress us as any good thing. So genius is not at all even remotely some sort of objective intelligence from a vacuum. It is highly contextualized and enculturated - even determined by a culture of non-geniuses who nonetheless control, either by purse strings or bestowed media attention or both.
I think it will be relevant as it is a child-like or non-genius response to Hegel’s metaphysics. I want to finish the chapter, which so far I find myself in the most agreement with.
Please direct me to this other view as well. I would like to be aware of it before responding.
Does Penner ever allow for the fact that good apologetic arguments are encouraging and useful for strengthening believers’ faith and understanding, or is that completely off his radar?
That’s a good one. Half way into chapter 2 and the testimony of Spirit is there in the background for me.
“What happens when no one in the epistemic community is able to articulate this epistemological thesis and make it intelligible?”
I don’t know how to answer the question, or what it is that is being asked.
However, I think something Kruger wrote in his introduction to Canon Revisited is relevant:
“Such knowledge can be legitimately acquired in a number of ways—even through something as simple as the testimony of another Christian—and an individual may not even be consciously aware of the process that led to such a belief.”
Mike, it’s hard to know where to start, and I no longer have my syllabi or books as guides. Critical theory that questions the universality of nearly all assumptions is not “a view” but universes of views. I hope the rest of this post is useful to you, or anyone else interested in a background in critical theory.
This is what is reflected in my part of this exchange we had a while back.:
If I remember right, too, I think you were running across critical theory in the OUP Very Short Introduction to Contemporary Art. It’s all over that book.
Here are a few places to start exploring just for the most basic overview. I tried to find sites that would give you insight into the kinds of questions questions that are being explored. This is in no way exhaustive, and in spite of all the reading I did, I didn’t come close to scratching the surface of any particular area and didn’t read in every area here. I don’t expect you to embrace any of this, at least at first. Even if you’re never convinced, it’s essential to a serious thinker to understand that the world is far wider than any of us can imagine, until we hear what’s going on in someone else’s head.
Critical theory and philosophy work from or regarding non-dominant social groups.
Mike, I believe I do understand this one, not being an apologist and clearly being part of the average Christian crowd.
on 48 penner describes the situation this way:
As the challenge is for Christians to articulate the epistemological warrant or justification for their beliefs in terms that are objective, universal, and neutral, the average Christian in the pew may not possess the intellectual qualifications or have the requisite training to defend the faith. It is difficult, often, to even understand the objections to faith, let alone know how to respond to them.
What Penner is asking in your quote is whether faith is even possible any more, if one is not able to articulate it as the expert/genius apologists do. Not being able to do so myself, have I negated my own faith (assuming that it was based on such propositions in the first place)? If I live in a community that cannot do so, have we no faith left?
This is a provocative question that leads me, maybe us, to wonder, on what basis is our faith grounded? Is it possible that it is actually grounded on something different from the propositions that only experts/geniuses are skilled enough to articulate?
And what happens if it is (grounded in those propositions), but the counter-arguments are simply stronger? If the propositional nature of our faith is so easily dismantled, is there any faith at all?
It’s highly contextual. From Penner’s discussion with Craig, it was easy to see Craig saying apologetics has been helpful for people struggling with doubt, and Penner without getting into specifics, said that he has seen it as unhelpful (even tragic, if I recall correctly).
There is a time when apologetic arguments like that found in the Case for Christ are helpful, and they can be unhelpful if the arguments are overplayed.
At best, historical arguments are like believing another person’s eyewitness testimony, and this is why I love how the NT describes the self-evident work of the Spirit, which is available for a person and their need to know. It is this work of the Spirit that I see Jesus making reference to in the blessing of believing without having seen.
It’s a good question, Dale, but it’s not part of what Penner is looking at. I agree that within the community of faith, we can point to a great many encouraging things and we need them. However, the situation looks entirely different from outside of the faith.
Penner is concerned with a presentation of the faith that speaks to those outside in a way that is both consistent with the faith and does not alter the basis of the faith.
At this point in the book, he is still examining and dismantling what he finds objectionable. I do hope (I haven’t had time to finish the book yet) that he is able to construct a workable apologetic by the end.
Even if he doesn’t, I believe his criticism of modern apologetics is incredibly valuable.
Exactly.
I believe that is very much what I said in different words.
“a person may be well within epistemic rights to believe in God even in the absence of any evidence or arguments to support it”
Just as many of us are or have been. I didn’t come to belief in my Savior because of savvy arguments or apologetic evidence. I was a little kid who learned about the great love that Jesus and the Father have for me and that I needed a Savior. That is, by modern apologetic standards, no apologetic. Likewise, it’s the way that Craig and many, many (maybe most) Christians have come to faith. C.S. Lewis described his experience in “Surprised by Joy” as something like, when he started walking to class he was an atheist, and by the time he got there, he was surprised to have faith. I give credit the the Holy Spirit. Others will see and explain the process differently. Richard Dawkins would just laugh.
As a member of Kierkegaard’s crowd I have no brilliant arguments to offer. By modern standards I am unable to provide evidence or arguments to support my faith. So to return to Penner’s questions:
What happens when Kendel is unable to artiulate this epistemological thesis and make it intelligible? What is the status of Kendel’s belief in God in these circumstances? And how is the apologetics agenda affected by this?
Well it depends. There is no challenge for the person who is convinced by the Spirit.
Or if the challenge is for articulating that belief to someone else who doesn’t believe, then this is a different kind of question, even if it ironically might be asked using the same words.
You understood both sides of what I had in mind. Your ironic reading is one half of what I was getting at.
Are words, propositions and arguments particularly, the only, or even a sufficient, means of communicating why we believe? (Penner is inviting readers to consider the possibility they are not, using his questions about an inarticulate epistemic community.)
Certainly, there are many propositions that comprise the content of our beliefs, but those are not a defense or explanation for our belief in their content.
For someone who is not articulate in arguments (or capable of engaging in such arguments), or who is in a context where such arguments are easily discarded or dismantled (I’ve been there and sometimes still am.), is there no other form of communicating at least the value of the faith one holds?
I am not a “genius” or “expert”. There is ALWAYS someone around who is smarter, cleverer, better read, more articulate, more experienced than I am. I WILL NOT put on gloves and attempt to spar. I know the outcome, and I know the result is not only my own shame but bringing Jesus into disrepute.
I have no investment in the “apologetics industry” as I know it. It is for someone else. Penner (and now I) are looking for some other way to “defend our faith.”
Yes and I presume Francis would agree if words are necessary, then they could be few or many, reasonable or ironic, but not foolish or ill formed. And yet wisdom can often be foolish.
Penner’s distinction between genius and apostle overlooks another type of witness. One that is well trained. Keener came to mind with his monumental scholarship. Surely this is a biblical model of witness. A couple of verses come to mind. Particularly the one where Jesus talks about scribes in the kingdom who bring out of their treasure what is new and old.
I wondered when his name would be invoked. Is there nothing, I wonder, between t-shirt-quality slogan-theology and the well-trained-scholar, who is exactly the kind of person Penner is attaching the titles “expert” and “genius” to.
And, yes, I would say that there IS a place for such a person, but who are today’s scribes with whom the well-trained-scholar is best fit to engage? Is it the typical person, who has yet to hear or comprehend the Gospel?
My question is personal and practical. Recognizing that I, God’s own fool, will not be able to engage my monumental scholarship in witness to the superlative person of Jesus Christ, how do I do it? How does the crowd that has for centuries either plodded along in their simplicity and/or left the apologetics to the expert and genius actually provide a serious witness in the world to Jesus Christ?
I’m skipping to chapters I haven’t read yet, but those are the rock-bottom questions I bring to this book.