[asa] Truth & delusion (was Greetings...)

I agree that relationship & personal experience rank as evidence to us
in a way that outsiders don't have access to, but I still have trouble
with the conclusion that "if this is a delusion, then nothing is real
and true...". As a matter of principle, I don't think we can/should say
that. I'm not sure if I can defend this entirely, and our conversation
is helping me think this through. But it seems to me that this
statement puts God above truth. I know we aren't "removed" judges that
we could see God and truth as separate things to judge them with each
other, but we (before making the assent) are forced to play the part as
best we can. As a Christian, I have faith that the two are inseparably
the same, and one can't be "above" the other. When speaking with others
outside the faith, though, they do not hold God and truth to be
identical concepts. They may quite likely hold (or claim to hold) the
concept of truth in high esteem, but not God. Christian's interacting
with God and with each other can speak a language of trust where God is
our source of all truth (through all sorts of vehicles including
science), and our faith is or should be rightly placed in Him. But if
we are hoping to witness to and reach outsiders, then we enter into
their language and grasp handles they have. If we leave the impression
that we are going to believe in God or nothing at all (e.g. If I can't
have God then I refuse to believe anything), then we communicate to them
a disregard for the handle that they may still have: truth. Lewis (to
my thinking) acknowledges that we all started with those as separate
entities: truth, and God. And our evidence is open to scrutiny by
everyone on how well God matches truth. After the assent, we may
hopefully move into the realm of trust and relationship, but I it
dangerous to leave behind the language of truth ***in its own
reckoning.*** Because reflective people can't help but notice the
danger in that stance, and surely it depreciates credibility to
reflective outsiders. To attempt to remove God from this hostile
critique smacks of protecting something that is weak. Critique me on
this because I'm not entirely sure of myself and may be just trying to
justify an oft times faltering faith. In any case, Lewis' choice of
words are lightning-accurate to me: "... on what our assurance feeds,
and how it revives and is always rising from its ashes."

Thanks for reminding me of that bit of Lewis' work.

--Merv

David Opderbeck wrote:
> I don't think he's saying it would still be of value if it's all a
> delusion. I think he's saying that its surpassing value demonstrates
> to us that it ultimately is /not/ a delusion, even though there are
> times when it can seem delusional to outsiders. For those who know
> God, if /this/ is a delusion, then /nothing /is real and true at all,
> not even the reasons that supposedly make it seem "delusional." At
> the end of the day, those "reasons" pale against the reality of the
> relationship we've entered into -- even if the relationship is always
> in some ways a mystery. That's what I take from the essay anyway.
>
> On 4/14/07, *Merv* <mrb22667@kansas.net <mailto:mrb22667@kansas.net>>
> wrote:
>
> I love that essay (and the snippet you give -- the Spirit it is
> written
> in), but as big a Lewis fan as I am, I would dispute with one of the
> directions some people would take this (unintended by Lewis, I'm
> sure).
> I.e. that /even if/ it were a delusion, it would still be of
> surpassing
> value. This may be an affluent cultural deviation of a
> post-Constantinian Christianity gone comfortable and culturally
> dominant, but it doesn't square with the Christianity of
> persecution and
> enmity with the world. It doesn't square with the Apostle Paul's
> conclusion that we would be the "most pitiable" of men if Christ
> is not
> really risen. We/they would merely (tragically) found to be false
> witnesses. And Lewis would agree, I am sure. He has echoes of
> this in
> "The Silver Chair" when the witch is strumming her enchanting
> melodies
> and convincing her audience that the sun and world above do not really
> exist. Then Eustace (or was it Puddleglum?) finally blurts out that
> even if that world didn't exist but in their imagination, it still
> beats
> her version of reality. And of course, in the context of that story,
> the sun & world above really do exist, and so finally merit their
> belief. While I am sure that Lewis, if he were still around, would
> easily put me in my place, I will still have the cheek (in his
> absence)
> of disagreeing on that point, and insisting that if it were a
> delusion,
> it would not be of surpassing value, but just a delusion -- and in
> fact,
> much worse. But his differentiating between original assent and the
> later adherence of faith is right on.
>
> --Merv
>
> David Opderbeck wrote:
> > I just wanted to add one more very brief but lovely essay to this
> > list, which I just happened to read this evening: "On Obstinacy in
> > Belief" by C.S. Lewis (I found it in a collection of Lewis' essays
> > which includes "The World's Last Night." In about fifteen pages,
> > Lewis answers the same questions Dawkins keeps asking today about
> > Christian belief. What people like Dawkins miss is that faith is
> > relational, not merely rational. A snippet from the conclusion:
> >
> >
> > Our opponents, then, have a perfect right to dispute with us
> about
> > the grounds of our original assent [to the Christian
> faith]. But
> > they must not accuse us of sheer insanity if, after the
> assent has
> > been given, our adherence to it is no longer proportioned to
> every
> > fluctuation of the apparent evidence. They cannot of course be
> > expected to know on what our assurance feeds, and how it
> revives
> > and is always rising from its ashes. They cannot be expected to
> > see how the /quality/ of the object which we think we are
> > beginning to know by acquaintance drives us to the view that if
> > this were a delusion then we should have to say that the
> universe
> > had produced no real thing of comparable value and that all
> > explanations of the delusion seemed somehow less important than
> > the thing explained. That is knowledge we cannot
> comunicate. But
> > they can see how the assent, of necessity, moves us from the
> logic
> > of speculative thought into what might perhaps be called the
> logic
> > of personal relations. What would, up till then, have been
> > variations simple of opinion become variations of conduct by a
> > person to a Person. Credere Deum esse turns into Credre in
> Deum.
> > And Deum here is this God, the increasingly knowable Lord.
> >
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Apr 14 12:29:32 2007