Suppose we have a religion whose central tenets are paradoxical, verging on the contradictory. What would we expect? We might predict that the religion would be unsuccessful. But that would be too quick. The religion could be successful by adopting strategies like the following:
- Hiding the central tenets from the bulk of the members.
- Obscuring the paradoxical nature of the central tenets from the bulk of the members.
- Downplaying the central tenets as unimportant.
- Appealing almost only to the uneducated and ignorant.
- Denigrating reason, and thus appealing to anti-intellectual impulses among uneducated and anti-rational impulses among the educated.
But now consider Christianity. It has central paradoxical doctrines, including Trinity, Incarnation and Real Presence. It does not hide them from the members. Nor is there any attempt to hide the paradoxical nature of these doctrines: that paradoxicality is plain to see, and if anything it is gloried in. Through much of the history of Christianity, the central tenets have been insisted on very publicly and are central to the liturgy. While Christianity has always had a special love for the downtrodden, its appeal has always also included many men and women of very high intellectual stature. Finally, while there are occasional instances of Christians denigrating reasons in history, the main thread of Christianity has been a defender of the importance of reason, even to the point of a significant part of the tradition embracing the Greek idea of humans as distinctively rational animals. How did it do it? Well, in addition to the five strategies above (and perhaps some others) there is also a sixth possibility:
- Having true central tenets and having God work in the hearts and minds of members and nonmembers.
16 comments:
Why nonmembers?
So that they might become members.
In any case, it is really tough to be follower of religion "whose central tenets are paradoxical, verging on the contradictory", if one - as me - really do not like paradoxical thinking and paradoxes at all ...
Alex, I worry that both churches and philosophers pursue something like 2.
Non-liturgical churches don't emphasize paradox in the liturgy, and it's easy for people to participate in a liturgy without noticing or understanding its paradoxical parts.
Philosophers who offer arguments for the existence of God do not necessarily obscure the paradoxical nature of Christian doctrine. But these arguments don't tend to emphasize its paradoxical nature.
In short, I think you're right that 6 is a possibility, but worry that the other strategies you describe are more often adopted, perhaps unintentionally.
Karl:
A good point. This is why I wrote "Through much of the history". I think what I said applies to the Catholic, Orthodox and Reformed traditions.
I suppose the pietism in some Protestant traditions have had this unfortunate result. It's unfortunate not just from the purely intellectual point of view. The Trinity is reflected in creation, and the paradox there is no doubt also reflected in the human being, that most puzzling of animals. The doctrines are paradoxical and eminently practical at the same time, and not coincidentally.
Jakub:
But there really are paradoxes all over the place in reality. Zeno, Parmenides, Liar, Learner, Banach-Tarski, Twin, etc. We cannot avoid them.
When I say "paradox", I don't mean a contradiction. And when I say "verging on the contradictory", I also don't mean a contradiction.
Think about Banach-Tarski. In some intuitive sense, it's super-close to a contradiction. But because of the very, very careful way that the terms are defined, in the end there is (as far as we know at present) no contradiction there.
If we don't like this, then we don't like an utterly unavoidable aspect of reality. But there is good pragmatic reason to get to like the utterly unavoidable. :-)
But there is good pragmatic reason to get to like the utterly unavoidable.
And that reason is ... ?
Addendum: concerning mathematical and the like solely intelectually puzzling paradoxes like Banach-Tarski don´t bother me much. But if the paradox somehow deals or (directly or indirectly) touches the final destination of my life (i.e. salvation or damnation in case of christianity), such as the problem of free will and predestination, these paradoxes bother me really a lot.
It does make sense to be more concerned with paradoxes that are practically important.
My reason for getting to like the unavoidable is just the shallow one: If it's unavoidable, one won't get rid of it, and one will be happier if one gets to like it. :-) Of course, that wouldn't apply to something that it would be immoral to like.
I think that one can like something which is good, or as far as (s)he sees it as good. What kind of goodness can be seen in paradoxical nature of particular realities concerning their paradoxity?
Back to the paradox vs. contradiction topic for a moment. I like the philosophical saying that there are things which can be said but cannot be though (as round square). But I think this is the case of real presence. It can be said (there is a sentence "the presence is real"), but I do not see the way it can be thought.
And to boost the debate: I like following quotation from one atheist blog:
"While pretending that their worldview is wholly consistent and free of any contradiction whatsoever, Christianity’s apologists roam about like lions seeking whom they may devour on the charge of contradiction and fallacy."
This argument seems related to Steve Evans' development of the Kierkegaardian idea that the "paradoxicality" of Scripture is an indication that it is in fact true revelation from God.
The thought being perhaps that a true religion that would benefit a being as paradoxical as us is likely to be paradoxical? We find stuff rather like that in CS Lewis and GK Chesterton, too.
I recently explained to my son the leading interpretations of QM. The first one was weird to him (consciousness causes collapse) and I think he thought the others were even weirder. And he's right! But that weirdness seems to be there in the world.
The thought being perhaps that a true religion that would benefit a being as paradoxical as us is likely to be paradoxical? We find stuff rather like that in CS Lewis and GK Chesterton, too.
I recently explained to my son the leading interpretations of QM. The first one was weird to him (consciousness causes collapse) and I think he thought the others were even weirder. And he's right! But that weirdness seems to be there in the world.
Dan:
Here's a worry. Suppose Christianity was simple and elegant, with no paradoxes, and still (per impossibile?) had the existential benefits it does. Wouldn't we take this as evidence for its truth, too?
This suggests that maybe the paradox washes out?
Or... one could just deny the paradoxes you mentioned! LOL. I mean, I am a devoted Christian, but none of the three seem to me to be Biblical. We discussed the Trinity before, so I won't re-hash. Without the Trinity, God was never Incarnate (Jesus was, but that's not difficult or paradoxical). And, as far as "Real Presence" goes... I don't see how anything in Scripture requires this. Jesus was sitting there himself with them, body and blood still intact, when he offered the bread and wine. The Greek "this is" can also be translated "this means", as it is in several places in the Bible.
In any case, let me address the idea of appealing to the uneducated and ignorant. There is definitely a big deal made about this in Scripture. My favorite example is when Jesus publicly praises his Father for having "hidden these things from the wise and understanding, and revealed them to babes" (Luke 10:21, RSVCE). The footnote in that edition says this was "well pleasing before [God]". So, it pleases God to hide truths from those who are wise and intellectual, and reveal them to humble and ignorant people (recall that Jesus' original followers were considered "uneducated, common men" (Acts 4:13, ibid)).
The apostle Paul says similar things at 1 Corinthians 1:26-29 (really, he starts at verse 19 to make this point).
To me, this is very significant, especially in a world where the Holy Spirit is not the only supernatural influence we have to take into account (notice 2 Corinthians 4:3, 4 and Revelation 12:9, for example). And it gives an interesting perspective from which to look at Gregory of Nyssa's words, back in the 4th century: Clothes dealers, money changers, and grocers are all theologians. If you inquire about the value of your money, some philosopher explains wherein the Son differs from the Father. If you ask the price of bread, your answer is the Father is greater than the Son. If you should want to know whether the bath is ready, you get the pronouncement that the Son was created out of nothing.
What about: 7. Appealing to mystery and thus trying to say that reason can't really be applied to them
I think this happens to the Trinity and partially to other doctrines. Whenever someone asks about the Trinity an analogy may be given and then just say we really can't understand It.
The Real Presence and doctrines of Christ (two natures and two wills) I think don't fall to 7. as much. The explanation of accidents and substance may be given with the former and the early ecumenical councils discussed these doctrines (of Christ) with the latter.
Post a Comment