Here I continue discussion of the book The Myth of Certainty by Daniel Tayler with Chapter 4: The Search for Truth and Certainty. If you have read the chapter, feel free to comment. If not, feel free to ask a question. In any case, be sure to follow the rules stated at the end of this blog post.
It is my considered opinion that Dan has hit the proverbial nail on the head in this chapter. What “nail?” The whole issue of the alleged conflict between faith and reason and the idea that they are NOT in conflict. Of course, he can’t say everything about the subject in one chapter, but when I read it I recognized immediately that Dan had absorbed much philosophy with wisdom and insight and laid out an excellent and even true path toward reconciling the two allegedly opposed paths to truth. He also rightly emphasizes the importance of truth for everyone, including secularists and Christians, the two subcultures he is addressing in this book.
Dan also addressed the common confusion of truth with certainty and certainty with truth. I know of these issues not only from studying them in books of philosophy but also from many of my students who suffer from them. Our modern/postmodern American culture together with conservative Christianity has instilled in them ideas that are simply wrong.
The “gist” of this chapter, and in some ways, the whole book is that truth cannot reasonably or rightly be sacrificed but that certainty is not necessary to truth itself. All of life is a search for truth during which absolute certainty may not appear. But truth itself can exist without certainty. Also, reason and faith are not opposed to each other unless they are misinterpreted which they often are. “Reason” is too often treated as requiring sacrifice of faith while “faith” is too often treated as requiring sacrifice of reason.
So, if I am so enamored with Dan’s basic ideas, is there anything I would say I disagree with? Yes, as almost always, even in the best of books, sermons, lectures, etc. I always find something with which to disagree! That has caused me a lot of difficulty in my life.
Toward the end of the chapter Dan goes after “absolutes” and absolutism. He accuses both secularism and conservative religion of making truth depend on absolutes. What he really means, I take it, is the elevation of human beliefs into absolutes, impervious to any evidence or critical thinking. Dan’s focus here is on conservative Christianity. But his stories reveal how he thinks that secularism suffers the same pathos—a false and misleading rage for certainty that too quickly embraces absolutes, even if they are often covered up and claimed to be non-absolute.
Absolutes of this kind, human ideas and beliefs raised to a level of absolute status such that they are not amenable to critical thinking, leads to a denial of finitude. Perspective always intrudes. We all ought to acknowledge that. And the reality of perspective in all “knowing” and in all truth claims, should, but often doesn’t, make us somewhat humble in our claims to knowing truth.
I think Dan is actually saying that absolutism is dangerous as are people who claim to know absolutes with certainty.
My only qualm is that I do think there are some absolutes, mainly moral ones. I have said that here several times before “It is always wrong and bad to torture children and there are no exceptions.” There’s my absolute claim about an absolute. I am not open-minded about claimed exceptions. I think anyone who claims there might be exceptions is simply wrong and perhaps dangerous.
So, I do believe not only in some ontological absolutes but also in some moral absolutes. I’m not sure what Dan would say.
But now I cannot help but apply my one stated absolute to contemporary politics. We recently saw and heard in American news that ICE agents detained a five year old boy and used him as bait to capture and detain his father. Could that be considered a kind of torture? Ask the child. Ask any of the children who are being “housed” in squalid detention centers in Texas (among other places), apart from their parents or even any caring adults. You ask me how I know this is happening? I can’t identify my source, but I will tell you that he calls these places “concentration camps.”
So what constitutes “torture?” We might debate that long and hard, but surely any reasonable person knows that a five year old child will feel kidnapped when police capture and detain him. And being kidnapped is psychological torture, especially for a child.
Admittedly there are situations in which children must be taken away from family members for their own safety. That was not the case in this case. What happened to the child was not necessary for his own well-being. In cases where it is necessary, a caring, nurturing adult is present to give comfort and assurance about the future.
Back to the chapter. I THINK Dan would agree with me that there are some moral absolutes that we cannot be “reflective” about. Genocide is always and absolutely wrong and evil. That’s an absolute. I am not reflective about that.
However, I know where Dan is coming from in this book; he’s reacting to fundamentalist Christianity that claims to own a kind of God’s-eye knowing of absolutes that are NOT absolute. I experience that, too. I was taught that speaking in tongues is necessary for being Spirit-filled. That was taught to me and other students as an absolute never to be questioned, at least among us (within our subculture). When I dared to question it, I was ostracized. There was no room for real dialogue about the issue. “If we didn’t believe it, we wouldn’t be Pentecostals, would we?” End of any possible discussion.
If you respond, be sure to say whether you have read this chapter or not.
*Note: If you choose to comment, make sure your comment is relatively brief (no more than 100 words), on topic, addressed to me, civil and respectful (not hostile or argumentative), and devoid of pictures or links.*
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In