I blame growing up as an evangelical Christian for my having only recently begun coming up with interesting questions. Until my senior year of college, I never had an original thought in my life, or at least never an honestly curious one. In hindsight I was never truly curious until I lost religion for two reasons: I already knew the real answer to every unanswerable question (that God knows the answer even if I don't) and the importance of this life paled in comparison to the one I anticipated after death. It was always a wonder to me that the best students in my philosophy classes were usually the ones who didn't really believe in God, but I couldn't even ask the obvious question about that: Why?
There is absolutely no way to honestly evaluate the ideas of philosophers or the world around us if we wholeheartedly embrace a belief system like Christianity. Such beliefs leave no room for weighty questions; not only are these questions discouraged, but most believers lose the desire even to ask them, having replaced a thirst for knowledge with the peace that passes understanding.
As I prepare to go to grad school, I continually worry that I won't have anything to write. How do people come up with ideas for papers? After reading something, how do you know what questions to ask? And I do still often read without having any ideas about what I'm reading, which I realize probably isn't the best way to go about things. If anyone has any suggestions about how to become a better critical reader, I'd appreciate them.
3 comments:
Okay, obviously I have to say something about this post, being that I am a Christian and a PhD student with many original thoughts. However, I think your reasons are EXTREMELY thought-provoking and valid and I *completely* agree with you. It took me a long time to have any interesting or original thoughts, but I blame that partly on my second-rate undergraduate education that didn't teach me to question or be curious and also on the fact that I was an Evangelical until 2005 -- not on being a Christian. My husband is an extremely inquisitive person, with many original thoughts just pouring out of him, and he is also a very diehard Christian (a not-quite Evangelical; he has some liberal social and fiscal politics and views on theology), but he attended a Jesuit university that was more liberal than mine or yours. I would argue that Tim is probably one of the best philosophy students I know, and he does believe in God quite strongly. I know that this doesn't mean all Christians are good philosophers, but Tim is an example that Christians can question and be good philosophers. I know you don't agree with Kierkegaard's philosophies, but I would hardly say that he is an awful philosopher. He might not be an evangelical Christian, but it seems to me that he was able to live out his theistic existentialism in a way that melded with his faith in God and his philosophizing. I also know that you don't proscribe to postmodern theories of truth or knowledge, but realizing the difference between truth and validity helped me to question things more. There can be many converging and diverging viewpoints in the world, all co-existing, and al of these Weltanschauung can be valid and useful for questioning and revealing knowledge. There are many expressions of Christianity; I think we'd both agree that the Evangelical brand is Not Good (or 'Not God', as I almost typed) -- perhaps this Weltanschauung is limiting in the philosophy arena, but what about other expressions? What about other philosophers throughout the ages who claimed Christianity as their Weltanschauung? William of Ockem? George Berkeley? Kierkegaard? *cringe* Augustine? Anyway, you are going to be FINE in graduate school. You have plenty of interesting questions to ask!! You're super intelligent. :)
I do agree that Evangelical is a key word in a lot of cases, but I do think that there is no way to fully embrace a belief system and at the same time be open to new ideas. For as long as I believed I had the answers to the questions "Where did we come from?" "Why are we here?" and "Where are we going?" I didn't seek answers to them. In fact, faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see; the exact opposite of rational inquiry.
As for great thinkers of Christianity, I can only echo the thought (quote below) I once read about Pascal, that it's one of the most tragic facts of philosophical history that he was irretrievably self-deceived on matters of great importance.
"The most pitiful example: the corruption of Pascal, who believed in the corruption of his reason through original sin when it had in fact been corrupted only by his Christianity." (Nietzsche)
Had he not closed his mind to other possibilities, only think of the great work he could have produced.
I do have to stand by the idea (again, from Sam Harris) that religious moderacy is nearly as dangerous as religious fundamentalism. "Religious moderates are, in a large part, responsible for the religious conflict in our world, because their beliefs provide the context in which scriptural literalism and religious violence can never be adequately opposed." While the debate here is not about the physical violence done in the name of religion, the argument applies equally well to matters of rational and scientific progress. Religion and Evangelical Christianity in particular encourage an unreflective posture in relation to the "big" questions, and action to the contrary (i.e. sincere questioning) comes despite religion, not because of it.
What I think is most intriguing about Harris' ideas is that he argues not only against religion (an argument a lot of moderate Christians use: "I'm not religious, just spiritual") but against the very idea of faith itself.
I wasn't necessarily void of original thought when I was a Christian, but there was definitely a little door in my mind that slammed shut every time an idea contradictory to my faith appeared. The little door protected my faith, which kept scary thoughts out. This faith of mine was a fantasy that kept me buoyed up for many years, and that fantasy was hard to let go.
Critical thinking is probably the most important skill that one can bring to the table in grad school, and anyone who refuses to blindly believe in something just because they want to has a leg up on anyone who allows any part of their thinking to be ruled by unreason.
Post a Comment