← Page One Review - CSFF - The Shadow and Night

Writing about Faith, Aliens, and Winnie the Pooh →

Time Is Relative, So Why Shouldn’t Faith Be Relative?

February 22nd, 2008 | blogging, christianity, faith and work, interviews, podcast

I’ve been talking to Ken Mann a bit via email lately. He directed me to this video that wrestles with relativism and the human need for absolute truth–and a rowdy discussion of the video over at ThinkingChristian.

The video is not quite three minutes. (Click here if it won’t load.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNuSBGa1mLM

So here are my thoughts and questions for you.


First, that is one tough crowd over in the comment section of Thinking Christian. I do like what the camel-loving grad student said in his comment:

…[the chaplain] handed out patronizing pablum to a dying man…

Some of the other comments, though, feel just as patronizing. It’s a beef I have with fellow Christians. Too often, we attack people who are expressing honest doubts–without getting to the root of the doubt.

[Update: I owe Tom an apology on that statement. The angry, patronizing comments were actually written by someone who isn't a Christian. Last week, I spent quite a bit of time reading fundamentalist blogs and I guess I was feeling pretty jaded by the time I got to Tom. Sorry, man. The problem still remains that relativism isn't something we can just label and move on. It's more complicated than that.]

You may not think of relativism as a form of honest doubt, but I’ve been thinking. And listening to RadioLab like some kind of junkie. (Jad and Robert, sorry I haven’t made a donation to cover my bandwidth yet, guys.)Melting Clock

Here’s a big leap, for example. In their show Beyond Time, Brian Green summarizes the problem of time very well (around 30:00 minutes in). Quantum physics seems to be telling us there are fewer absolutes than we thought–time isn’t absolute, the universe could be splintered, etc. Whether I believe these theories (or even understand them!), I need to think carefully about how I engage people who express moral doubt and spiritual relativism as a result of the substantive, measurable science of relativity.

We can’t just dismiss people as naive because they are still working through the moral implications of relativity. They aren’t naive! They are troubled.

They are in a big mud pit wrestling with Einstein and Kierkegaard, and Brian Greene just jumped in with a metal chair about to go WWF on everyone.

All that to say… relativism isn’t just a cop-out. It stems from real doubts that have a substantive foundation in hard science, social science, and literary theory. To dismiss these doubts as simply naive and foolish is the weakest of strawman arguments. Moral relativism may be misinformed. It may be a false conclusion. But it is hardly a naive stance. It is hardly disconnected from reality. It is in fact, an honest attempt to understand the philosophical implications of what quantum physics is revealing about reality.

What do you think?

(Normally, I don’t have soapboxes around here, but after my interview with the head of the human genome project, I feel empowered to speak up for science.)


Viewing 18 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    I actually would see it the opposite way--quantum physics is a way of legitimizing philosophy. As C.S. Lewis says, there's enough science in the world to prove anything, and often, science follows philosophy. It did in the case of Darwin as well.
    This is not to say that either are not an honest attempt to wrestle through issues. The bottom fell out of all of our answers with wars, genocide, cancer, embezzlement. Progress? we asked. How are we any better? Maybe Hegel wasn't so right about it.
    This is a position Christianity has held--we can't make things better on our own. It requires God's redemption. But without an understanding of God's redemption, we're left with relativism when progress failed.
    And I'll say this, too--I don't think everything about relativism is wrong.
    • ^
    • v
    Heather,

    I agree with your last statement that relativism is not always wrong. Being associated with the Emergent Church undoubtedly gets you tangled up in the term relativism.

    I also agree that without God's redemption we are in a cosmic morass of everything goes and nothing answers the questions we have.

    Good Post Mark!
    • ^
    • v
    Seems to me that people on both sides of the God question often suffer from this kind of thing-- thinking that someone else is ridiculous for their honest struggles to come to real conclusions. It bothers me.
    • ^
    • v
    Heather, I'm still thinking about your statement that "quantum physics is a way of legitimizing philosophy." Do you mean the quantum understanding of time fully supports a view of an eternal and omniscient God or something like that? Or do you mean scientists pursued quantum theory as an unconscious way to support a philosophic stance?

    Carl, thanks for the kind words! I'm not sure if I count as emergent, but I'm definitely not a supporter of relativism.

    L.L., oh dear. Have I fallen into the trap of calling someone ridiculous? I hope I haven't, but I wrote this pretty quickly. I wouldn't consider a weak strawman argument to be ridiculous, just weak. Perhaps the wrestling metaphor was too strong? I couldn't resist.
    • ^
    • v
    Not at all. I felt you were decrying this kind of attitude regardless of which side it issues from.
    • ^
    • v
    As a person who spent 18 months as a chaplain in training and has wife with 20 years as a hospital chaplain, I'd like to make a couple of observations. I don't want to suggest that I have the answers, but there were things in this video that need addressing.

    1. Every serious chaplain knows how to handle patients like this. He is angry and out of control. A good chaplain would not sit there and feed anyone like this a set of answers or non-answers. He or she would take a lot of time to listen to what the person is saying. If the person was enraged by the chaplain's very presence, he or she would leave immediately.

    2. Most serious chaplains do have a strong Christian faith and stand ready to offer forgiveness by faith in Christ and pray with people who ask for it. Christian denominations share this truth. It's a question of whether or not they push it. That said, there are some pretty inept chaplains out there. I know, my wife has worked with them.

    Regarding relativism. Hmm, I guess I would say this is not an either or situation. You're either for relativism or not. Some things are relevant even for the staunchest fundamentalist. The way the Holy Spirit works with people for example, in ways relative to their personality.

    We all believe in some level of relativism. I guess the question is, what does it look like when you line up your absolutes? Can you write down our absolute truths and live with those that may have relative applications.

    If we admit that we all have both, then we are listening to each other and discussing things. Which is what would have been nice in this clip, though the man in bed wouldn't allow it.

    3. In an entire career, you might get someone like this a handful of times. On the other hand, thousands of times you'd be there at just the right time and able to offer a listening ear
    • ^
    • v
    I don't think relativism is necessarily naive.

    I think it's naive to offer relativism to anyone who's asking serious questions expecting meaningful answers.
    The human desire for something greater than ourselves seems unlikely to be satisfied by guiding someone to subjective answers. That should be obvious even to a relativist.
    • ^
    • v
    I'd be interested to learn more from you on this--specifically

    Some of the other comments, though, feel just as patronizing. It’s a beef I have with fellow Christians. Too often, we attack people who are expressing honest doubts–without getting to the root of the doubt.


    Would you mind emailing me to let me know more what you are thinking of on that? Thank you!
    • ^
    • v
    Sorry, when I say you I was speaking of me. Sorry. I was not thinking to straight. (the flu)

    I am engaged in the emergent church and that is what gets bantered around a lot.
    • ^
    • v
    The line I find most disturbing in the whole video is the man's line "I want a real chaplain who believes in a real God and in a real hell." It felt like sticking a knife into the Holy Spirit.

    I grew up in a fundamental church, in a community that was certain it knew God because they were on the right side of beliefs about Jesus -- and the motivation to love God was based on fear. If you are afraid enough of God and going to hell then somehow that will motivate you to live a holy life that is somehow pleasing to God. I remember being around five years old thinking, "this is insanity... fear is horrible motivator for both the receiving of love and the finding of acceptance.

    Exactly what did Jesus came to reveal to us about the heart of God? Ultimately what produces the kind of transformation in human hearts that all of us are so thirsty for? What was Jesus life and mission really about? And how does that matter for today, for now?

    These are just some questions I'm reflecting on.
    • ^
    • v
    Paul,

    I can certainly appreciate how the imbalance in your early church experience would lead you to recoil at mentions of hell. It should not be our main motivation for following God.

    For a dying man, though, hell is a real issue; if hell is real, that is, or even if he was worried about hell being real. Why would it be wrong for him to consider the very personal possibility that he might soon be entering eternal punishment? If fear is not the greatest motivator for a life of loving God, it can at least be something that drives us to ask questions. Which is exactly what he did.

    Exactly what did Jesus came to reveal to us about the heart of God? Ultimately what produces the kind of transformation in human hearts that all of us are so thirsty for? What was Jesus life and mission really about? And how does that matter for today, for now?

    I won't try to answer "exactly," and I know you didn't really intend someone to do that here. But it's quite clear that Jesus came to reveal the kingdom of God, granted on the basis of repentance and faith. It's God's Holy Spirit who produces transformation in our lives, but there are many doorways by which people walk toward God, one of them being fear of what happens otherwise.

    Jesus clearly believes in a real hell--which matters for yesterday, today, and all time. Most of the Bible's references to hell come straight from his mouth. He used it as warning, as a motivation to repent (see the examples at http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bib...).

    We dare not make Jesus into just a preacher of comfortable love. That's not who he was.
    • ^
    • v
    L.L., "decrying" is a good word.

    real live preacher, thanks for sharing your personal experience. It had not occurred to me that the character herself was the main plausibility issue. It is especially interesting to me that you blame the man in the bed for refusing discussion. In some ways, that makes me happy. I hate the idea that I have to be a raving jerk in order to support absolute truth.

    econ grad student, you're right of course. I was prodding you and Tom Gilson a bit. In hindsight, that wasn't very fair of me, since I don't know you well. But I meant it as a way to engage discussion not as an attack. I'm not sure we can truly satisfy the human desire for something greater than ourselves--at least not in this life. I believe in absolute truth and real answers, but any answers I present to others are going to be necessarily subjective--even if those answers are supported by history, scholarship, and 20 centuries of faith.

    Tom, I'll be sure to email you. I take the weekend off of blogging as much as I can. And I should have clarified that I have a tendency to be patronizing myself. It's a beef I have with the man in the mirror as much as fellow Christians.

    Carl, I understood what you mean. I have a lot of affinity with Emerging folks as well. As someone in an ecumenical organization, I have to be careful about full out endorsements of particular brands of Christianity.

    Paul, I grew up in similar churches. My wife remembers her baptism with extreme anger because of the ridiculous guilt and fear tactics (along with sleep deprivation) that drove her to finally walk down. Much more powerful was the worship drama experience when her faith became real. As for your question what was Jesus life and mission really about... that's worth taking to the community.

    Tom, thanks for reminding us of the context of this clip. The man was scared of hell specifically. While fear may drive people to ask questions, I don' t think we should use it to do drive people.

    On the other hand, I'm a big fan of the horror genre. I just like to be scared and creeped out. And I like to write scary stories--and many of them raise questions exactly in the way you are suggesting.
    • ^
    • v
    One final thought, Tom says "We dare not make Jesus into a preacher of comfortable love." That's true.

    Love isn't fuzzy bunnies and colorful butterflies and peppy Beatles tunes. (Though I like the Beatles.) In fact, the best picture of love that I've seen in awhile is Edward Bear.

    Of course, the love of Jesus was hardest for the religious establishment. That's us. God help us take down our money tables and put down our stones.
    • ^
    • v
    I mean that what we pursue often follows what we believe. (Although sometimes our beliefs are altered in the process.) So I mean that scientists pursued quantum physics in that way because of an underlying belief--perhaps subconsciously.
    I don't mean that insultingly to the physicists. We work first within our beliefs (not ever completely objectively), whether it's with art, science, etc. The fact that they pursued quantum physics and time relativity means something in their belief system said this might work.
    • ^
    • v
    Heather, thanks for clarifying. This is one of the inconsistencies in science (and media, actually). In science, we have to allow for the subjectivity of our hypothesis. In media, we must must must not pretend that we are somehow objective reporters of information presenting material without bias.

    Maybe to have bias is human.

    And if we ignore our bias, we err.
    • ^
    • v
    Oh, Marcus I didn't take any offense.

    I just wanted to clarify my point.

    I don't believe we can satisfy the human desire for something greater but I believe we can present someone greater.

    Absolute certainty of the type that satisfies doesn't come all at once. At least it didn't happen that way for me.
    • ^
    • v
    Marcus, I've been having a spirited blog discussion with Mike Leaptrott at his Progression of Faith blog along a similar vein. I'm wondering if you would have 2 cents to offer here or there: http://www.faithprogression.com/2008/02/evoluti...
    I don't see relativists as naive. They are thoughtful and have a distinctly different paradigm of Christianity, Scripture, God, history, myth, truth, orthodoxy and life in general than "traditional" Christianity. I'm thinking that the jury is still our on what is "emerging."
    • ^
    • v
    I'm rereading Surprised by Hope by N.T. Wright (excellent book by the way), and came across a quote you might find interesting. He's talking about the belief in progress. "Darwin was himself not so much the great new thinker, coming from nowhere to his radical new idea, but rather the exact product of his times" (p. 83). This corresponds with what I learned by reading C.S. Lewis' The Discarded Image (a must read, in my opinion--he talks about Renaissance and Medieval times, his specialty, but does so in a way that allows us to see their epistemology and how that affected everything, which opened up the door for me to look at my epistemology).

Trackbacks

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus