Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex

It is indeed interesting how Satan works at corrupting human beings. His primary attack seems aimed at the human appetites that support the aspect of our nature that we share with the animals. To support this attack, he also undermines that which makes us unique from the animals–our reason. The more that we learn the less we appear to be able to effectively use our faculty of reason. I know that there is a certain laziness here because thinking takes work. But there is also a certain hubris that allows one to think that his knowledge suffices for thought.

This hubris flows over into popular “thought” which confuses terms such as tolerance and humility with a rejection of certitude when it comes to faith. In fact, uncertainty seems to be considered by some as the ultimate virtue. One such example can be found in an article by professor David S. Seeley, writing for an on-line journal that aims at influencing “thought” with what can be called vague thinking. In an article entitled “Certainty Vs. Humility About God,” Seeley argues that religious certainty is the source of endless religious wars and conflicts and:

Even where religious certainty doesn’t lead to outright warfare, many feel it undermines the kind of respect and trust among diverse people and groups that is urgently needed to deal with today’s pressing challenges such as poverty, moral decay, terrorism, nuclear weapons, epidemics, global warming, clear air and water, hunger, etc.

The solution for Seeley is humility. He finds:

In addition to pragmatic concerns about these dangers of position (A) [absolute certainty about God's revelation to man], many people have philosophical and religious objections to such claims of certainty. Philosophically, claiming absolute certainty in any field is seen as unwise—an epistemological mistake that closes off thought and dialogue, and precludes further search for better answers. Religiously, for the limited mind of man to claim certain knowledge of God can seem presumptuous hubris and an insult to the mystery and majesty of the Creator of the Universe—a form of idolatry and blasphemy—whereas, a degree of humility leads to a deeper and more powerful religious faith, in which one prays to learn God’s Will, but can’t claim certainty in knowing it.

This same view is promoted by many Catholics. This is no surprise considering that even at the Catholic University of America this view is held by those who teach undergrads. While not Catholic, Cynthia Crysdale, the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Studies, is one such teacher and in fact, mentor of Catholic undergraduates. She writes:

The true enemy. . . [of authentic religious faith] is, in fact, ‘certitude.’ A personal faith or tradition that seeks to cling with certainty to its ideas about God, risks idolatry of the worst sort. Idolatry is, at root, not worship of images, but taking what is tangible and finite and giving it ultimacy and transcendence (Cynthia Crysdale, Embracing Travail: Retrieving the Cross Today [New York: Continuum, 1999], 121).

It is not surprising then that the average Catholic going to a Catholic university such as CUA would come away from their “Catholic” intellectual formation with this idea that certainty is a moral evil as well . . . and consider it “certain.” And this is just the point. The denial of the possibility of certainty is relativism and so in itself, it is self-contradictory. One pleads humility to support his denial of certainty but he must at the same time, then assume the “arrogant” position of claiming certainty for his truth claim–i.e. the denial of the possibility of certainty.

It makes no sense to plead humility as justification for religious uncertainty. For the former is a subjective attitude and the latter an objective truth claim. In order for this to come close to making sense, one must first be a rationalist. By this I mean, one must deny the possibility of God’s revealing the truth of Himself to humanity and he must reduce all religious truth claims solely the fruit of human operation. But even in this, one must claim certainty in being able to know that divinely inspired, inerrant revelation is not possible. Rationalism is anything but humble.

Furthermore, faith itself has to be reduced to a rationalist apprehension of some truth claims in which each individual is left to himself to ascertain their truth or falsity using his reason alone. Here more “arrogant” certainty is needed. One must also know with certainty that God cannot divinize man in such a way as to share His uncreated nature with him and thereby give man a gift of faith by which he has certainty that transcends reason but does not contradict it.

As far as contradicting reason goes, this is exactly the result of such relativism. Seeley concludes his article:

Is it not time, therefore, for the human race (supposedly “homo sapiens”) to confront the issue of religious certainty, and discuss openly the relative merits of positions (A) and (B) [the denial of the possibility of religious certainty]? This may seem to violate the tradition of not questioning people’s religious beliefs, but what is being questioned is not the content of people’s religious beliefs—on the contrary—it is a step that seems necessary in order to guarantee people’s right to their own religious beliefs. It is a questioning of the wisdom and merits of insisting that one’s religious beliefs are the only possible and legitimate religious truth.

Even with such discussion, many people may still feel that they need the assurance of religious certainty, especially in the face of today’s fears and dangers. But one hopes that a larger number would, on reflection, see that this position is not only dangerous to the future of mankind, but also contrary to the deepest values of religious truth.

Seeley seems to consider that religious certainty is the source of most of the world’s ills. He dismisses outright, the possibility that certainty could legitimately be considered part of the content of one’s faith. In the end, he begins with unsupported presuppositions and ends with the non sequitur that religious uncertainty brings about his view of toleration and peace. He doesn’t explain his tortuous logic that leads him to conclude that uncertainty corresponds with “the deepest values of religious truth.” He certainly is not employing reason very well in supporting his claims of truth.

Nevertheless, he does seem to be certain about his position. I just wonder if his is a religious certainty?