Maverick Philosopher

Footnotes to Plato from the foothills of the Superstition Mountains

A Comparison of the Roles of Doubt in Philosophy and in Religion

Top o' the Stack.

This morning I preach on James 1:5-8. Of all the epistles, this, the most philosophical, is my favorite. There we read that he who is wanting in wisdom should ask it of God. But one must ask in faith without doubt or hesitation. "For he who hesitates/doubts is like a wave of the sea, driven and carried about by the wind."  While I do not deny that doubt  can close us off from the help we need, I wonder whether doubt has a positive role to play in religion.

Doubt is the engine of rational inquiry, and thus of philosophy and science, as I have said many times, but I think it also plays a salutary role in religion.  Here are six reasons why.

Posted

in

, , ,

by

Bill Vallicella

Tags:

Comments

3 responses to “A Comparison of the Roles of Doubt in Philosophy and in Religion”

  1. Trudy VanderMolen Avatar
    Trudy VanderMolen

    Interesting use of the word “doubt.” You wrote “The religious doubt the world and its values.” I would change the word to “critique,” “judge,” or perhaps “weigh” it against the standard of God’s word (and find it wanting).
    And I don’t think “he doubts his own goodness”; he knows he is fallen and sinful.
    Also, I think your quote from James 1 regarding doubt is taken out of context. In verses 5-8 James is continuing his advice to believers regarding the trials, hardships and persecutions they are enduring that he describes in verses 1-4. He’s telling them to ask for wisdom of a certain kind — to illuminate God’s word by his Spirit so they will understand God’s good purposes for them in their trials and not doubt what God has promised, namely that everything they endure will ultimately be for their good.
    Calvin has a beneficial explanation. I wish I could highlight certain points, but it can be skimmed and the gist understood.
    https://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/james/1.htm
    Reason and faith in fruitful tension is an interesting idea. I think faith is imminently reasonable based on the way things actually are and the historical data. It’s the light by which we see everything truly. But strangely, even though It’s not irrational, it’s non-rational. God uses a different means to convince. Hard to explain.
    Interesting essay!

    Reply
  2. BV Avatar
    BV

    Trudy,
    1. If you find secular values wanting when measured against God’s word, then you doubt them. Your point is that ‘doubt’ does not go far enough. You think this because you think you have the truth, and that it is Calvinism.
    2. Ditto on para 2. You think you know that you are fallen and sinful. I say you don’t know that; you believe it. I don’t say it is false; I say you don’t know it. You believe it for various reasons, some of which are plausible, but none of which are coercive. I too believe that we are fallen beings. But that is not knowledge but reasoned faith.
    3. >>I think faith is imminently [eminently] reasonable based on the way things actually are and the historical data. It’s the light by which we see everything truly. But strangely, even though It’s not irrational, it’s non-rational.<< I suggest 'supra-rational.' Yours is a dogmatic statement of a personal conviction. You are subjectively certain that it is true, but how do you know that it is objectively certain and thus objectively true? You don't know that; you believe it. One problem with dogmatism is that those who are dogmatic, when they get political power, will use or be strongly tempted to use their power to force others to accept their dogma 'or else' and often with the pseudo-justification 'for their own good.' There are examples aplenty from history. Is there an historian in the house? Consider our political enemies steeped in 'woke' dogma. Believing as they do that Trump is an evil dictator out to destroy 'democracy,' they feel justified in using any and all means to destroy him including not just lawfare, but assasination. Well, why not? If he really is Hitler, would not assassination be justified? Radical Islam is another example of a dangerous dogmatism. Not that I fear Militant Calvinists forcing people to accept the dogma of predestination at the point of a sword. 4. One of my concerns is how we can live together in peace without tearing each other's lungs out, literally or figuratively. And so I champion religious liberty -- within limits of course. Toleration has limits, e.g. Sharia-supporting Muslims must not be allowed to immigrate into the USA. 5. Thanks for your comments.

    Reply
  3. Trudy VanderMolen Avatar
    Trudy VanderMolen

    I should have stuck to your main point instead of quibbling about definitions and words.
    You started your essay quoting James 1:5-8 which, standing alone, seems to imply that religious doubt is bad. And you wanted to think about whether doubt could have a positive role in religion.
    Since the previous verses talked about trials, in context, James was encouraging believers to not doubt God’s good intentions for them in those trials. This was my issue with your opening statement.
    For I’m sure James would have agreed with all the things you mention that believers should doubt.
    (You’re forcing me to sharpen my thinking to the point, so thanks!)

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *