Belief and Unbelief; A Philosophy of Self-Knowledge

by Michael Novak

A book dealing with the topics of belief and doubt, especially as it relates to the Christian faith.

Genres: Philosophy, Theology, Religion

189 pages, Mass Market Paperback

First published October 1, 1965

About the author

Michael Novak is an American Catholic philosopher, journalist, novelist, and diplomat. He is George Frederick Jewett Scholar in Religion, Philosophy, and Public Policy at the American Enterprise Institute

Novak served as United States Ambassador to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 1981 and 1982 and led the U.S. delegation to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe in 1986.

In 1993 Novak was honored with an honorary doctorate degree at Universidad Francisco Marroquín] due to his commitment to the idea of liberty. In 1994 he was awarded the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion.

Reviews

[Tom]

Usually when I read philosophy it's a tried and true tome that I know will reward the reading. This was not that.

I picked it off a shelf at a used bookstore and gave it a go. Once I was halfway through I decided to see it through to the end.

Its argument is unconvincing, its perspective confusing. It is I suppose about how an individual relates to their own conception of whatever created everything. It takes as its settings 60's and 70's era atheistic American academia, where Novak's thought was formed. Necessarily, it leaves a lot uninvestigated, and prefers broad strokes to anything incisive or revealing.

There is a muddy argument for why the existence of "intelligence subjectivity," which is what allows humans to think about things, implies the existence of something outside the material world, but I didn't super-duper follow all of it. It kind of ends with a gentle reassurance to keep searching, whether you believe as Novak does, or don't. The book doesn't seem to care either way, nor to have much convincing to say in either direction.

[Kenneth · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an early work by Michael Novak and is heavy into the philosophy of religion and the reasons for belief or unbelief. It will not necessarily change anyone's mind, but it does lay out the issues involved. Novak himself (he just died last year, 2017) was a Roman Catholic and a sometime seminarian (who dropped out) and he published this book in 1965, which reflects his thinking in the context of the turmoil the Church was going through at the time of the Second Vatican Council.

[Gene · Rating 2 out of 5]

Belief and Unbelief is not the book that I expected it to be. I was expecting Michael Novak, the somewhat famous Catholic philosopher, to be providing an apologetic for Christian belief. Rather than this, he examines the concepts of understanding and beliefs themselves and tries to analyze what could make two honest seekers of the Truth to come to two different conclusions about the existence of a personal god: belief and unbelief.

My background in engineering wasn't a good foundation for comprehending a book with so much philosophy and psychology in it. That is perhaps one of the reasons it only merits two stars from me. There were parts in the book that to me seriously almost parodied how an intellectual can say a great deal without really saying anything. But after slogging through all the terminology that was foreign to me, I believe I came away understanding what he is basically trying to say.

His theme is that to find God, one must look into oneself and try to seriously ask those big philosophical questions, especially, "Who am I?" Honest pursuit of these answers, he feels, brings one as close to belief as one can be without making the decision between belief and unbelief. For him, the honest Christian intellectual and the honest atheist are much closer to each other in truth than the Christian intellectual and the average church-goer who leaves the big questions unanalyzed and just assumes his faith to be correct. He nearly goes so far as to say salvation is nearer that atheist than the unreflective man or woman in the pew. To me, this is going much too far.

His analysis is helpful in commiserating with the atheist and also recognizing the emptiness sometimes experienced by the honest Christian in view of what seems to be a universe in which God is silent and existence could as easily be interpreted to be absurd as to be the design of God.

I have some big misgivings about some of his conclusions and methods. First, I should note that he comes across as overly ecumenical. As long as we are all honestly seeking the answers to the big questions and looking at ourselves without bias, it doesn't matter what we conclude because it will be pointing at God. Well... maybe not. That's putting an awful lot of faith in a fallen human nature to come up with the right answers.

Also, Jesus Christ hardly gets a mention, and neither does Scripture. It is as if God is hidden and He never revealed Himself to us by the prophets in diverse manners and in the latest times through His Son Jesus Christ. How can a search for Truth and the answers to the big questions treat this revelation as not relevant? I'm baffled by this concession to the skeptics.

Also, he seems so condescending to the average believer in the Church. Sure, we common believers are all very flawed and sometimes are the worst possible advertisement for the existence of God that the Devil could have ever designed. And yet there is something in old time religion that some intellectuals and philosophers don't belittle like Novak does. Fr. Benedict Groeschel, for instance, is a well known psychologist, priest, and author, and he finds the simple faith he sees amongst the elderly women of the African American churches to be something quite praiseworthy. I don't think Novak would see it that way. As a matter of fact, Novak seems to describe a way to discover God that is particularly suited to HIS OWN talents and interests: philosophy and intellectual pursuit. It would be just like a Christian social activist saying that God is found in Christian action. It's pretty convenient if God is found by doing what you already do and do well.

But again, if you are an honest intellectual of agnostic, atheistic, or even Christian persuasion, you might find the book helpful and enlightening. For simple-minded me, I'll stick to the old-time religion, but look to gain some perspective and insights from Michael Novak's teachings in this book.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

ONE OF NOVAK'S FIRST BOOKS, WITH A "PHILOSOPHICAL" ORIENTATION

Michael Novak (born 1933) is an American Catholic philosopher, journalist, novelist, and diplomat. Initially a seminarian, he eventually became a reporter who attended the Second Vatican Council, married, and had children. He has written many other books, and also authored the famous 1983 essay, 'Moral Clarity in the Nuclear Age,' which was his response to the National Conference of Catholic Bishops' pastoral letter, 'The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our Response.'

He begins this 1965 book, "This book is an attempt to work out some of the problems of self-identity, and some of the problems of belief and unbelief. The roots of the two sets of problems are entangled. For in deciding who one is, one relates oneself to others, to the world, and to God." (Pg. 15) He adds that he hopes this book will have "begun the hard work of elucidating those experiences of human intellectual life in which belief in God is rooted; that is, the experience of 'intelligent subjectivity'... (a phrase which) represents the central point of this book." (Pg. 16)

He argues that God is "the objective not of our concepts and our syllogisms but of our intentionality, and thus is not enclosed in our formal systems." (Pg. 28) The question is "whether there is a way to the living God through the use of human intelligence, through reflection upon one's own experience and identity." (Pg. 40) The primary task of philosophy is "to lead its students to knowledge of themselves as subjects." (Pg. 66)

In his interpretation, "spirit is inquiry, and its first manifestation is the question... God (is) the source of both the unrest and the rest of my spirit; the prompter of the drive to understand, and its fulfillment..." (Pg. 93) The conviction that God is "both the source of the intelligible and the source of our intelligent subjectivity, lead us to SUPPOSE that that idea of God is true... (and) his existence and power explain why the real is intelligible, and why our drive to understand is as it is." (Pg. 125-126) Concerning the problem of evil, he says, "We are not trying to justify God. We are trying to understand more clearly... what he must be like in order still to be called good. We are seeking a more profound understanding of who God is." (Pg. 141)

This early book is an interesting change from Novak's more consciously "political" later writings, and is well worth reading.

[Erik Graff · Rating 2 out of 5]

My two best friends throughout high school were Rich Hyde and Hank Kupjack. Although some others older than me had more intellectual influence, Hank and Richard were peers and consistent from Sophomore through Junior years.

Richard and I went to high school, college and seminary together and throughout those periods he was very important to me. Hank stayed in Chicago, going to the University of Illinois to study.

One of the best things Richard and I did was towards the end of high school. He suggested we read several of the same books for later discussion. One was Ananda Coomaraswamy's book on Buddhism. Another was Novak's Belief and Unbelief. There was at least one other, but the name of it escapes me presently.

Richard, though of a mixed marriage, was raised Catholic. Novak is a Catholic intellectual. His selection of the text made sense. He identified me as an atheist and wanted a dialog. Unfortunately, the book made little sense to me at the time.

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

I like how the book brought out unbelievers and believers as two sides of the same coins facing the same doubts and giving a biast look on belief in general.. :)