The Predicament of Belief: Science, Philosophy, and Faith

by Philip Clayton, Steven Knapp

Does it make sense - can it make sense - for someone who appreciates the explanatory power of modern science to continue believing in a traditional religious account of the ultimate nature and purpose of our universe? This book is intended for those who care about that question and are dissatisfied with the rigid dichotomies that dominate the contemporary debate. The extremists won't be interested - those who assume that science answers all the questions that matter, and those so certain of their religious faith that dialogue with science, philosophy, or other faith traditions seems unnecessary. But far more people today recognize that matters of faith are complex, that doubt is endemic to belief, and that dialogue is indispensable in our day.
In eight probing chapters, the authors of The Predicament of Belief consider the most urgent reasons for doubting that religious claims - in particular, those embedded in the Christian tradition - are likely to be true. They develop a version of Christian faith that preserves the tradition's core insights but also gauges the varying degrees of certainty with which those insights can still be affirmed. Along the way, they address such questions as the ultimate origin of the universe, the existence of innocent suffering, the challenge of religious plurality, and how to understand the extraordinary claim that an ancient teacher rose from the dead. They end with a discussion of what their conclusions imply about the present state and future structure of churches and other communities in which Christian affirmations are made.

Genres: Theology, Philosophy

196 pages, Paperback

First published October 27, 2011

About the author

Philip Clayton is the Dean of Claremont School of Theology and Provost of Claremont Lincoln University.

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.

Reviews

[Paul Bryant · Rating 2 out of 5]

I learned two things.

1. For the first time, I think I finally understood the implications of one of the standard arguments about the problem of evil. This problem is succinctly summarized – there is so much evil and suffering in the world that either God refuses to help, which makes God himself evil, or he cannot help, which makes him weak or irrelevant. Believers have to get God out of this jam. Believers respond with the free will argument – if God did intervene, we would become his puppets. Atheists then split the world’s evil into two types :

a) Human evil

b) Natural disasters, which insurance companies always call “acts of God”, which always struck me as their attempt to show insurance companies can have a sense of humour

Atheists can see that God has chosen to give humans free will but complain that humans seem perpetually addicted to SO MUCH evil, and in such dizzying varieties, that it seems there is a massive design flaw in them somewhere, and couldn’t God have arranged things so that there wasn’t quite such a bottomless chasm of violence and hatred in (particularly) male humans. Would that have been so much to ask for? The free will argument doesn’t work for natural disasters, and that’s where believers tend to shuffle and mumble quite a bit. They have no answer for the earthquakes and tsunamis and plagues – why did God allow the planet to be designed so it was prone to these horrors? God knows. It almost looks as if the whole thing came together by chance, or, you might say, evolved, without God being responsible for it at all. Believing scientists, of whom there are a few, tend to say that this planet is just obeying the natural laws of the universe but when atheists say “well, God shoulda made up better natural laws, hadn’t he ever heard of health and safety regulations?” they seem to indicate that these natural laws are the only ones that could possibly exist. Now, I’ve read some science fiction, and I think they’re wrong. There’s lots of safer planets than Earth out there. Our tough luck is this planet is the one we got lumbered with, and it’s dangerous.

ADDITIONAL NOTE :

Reading Christianity for Dummies subsequently, I came across the obscure original explanation for natural disasters, which is that they all stem from the Original Sin of Adam and Eve. The plucking of the fruit of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (are you still with me?) rendered this whole world CORRUPTED. Before the plucking, no earthquakes or typhoons. After, plenty.

Adam and Eve - what silly pluckers.

And now, back to the original review.

*****



However, Mr Clayton and Mr Knapp did explain to me exactly how God is unable to intervene to prevent human evil. While they were arguing, I was thinking of Ariel Castro. He was the guy in Cleveland Ohio who abducted a 14 year old girl, a 16 year old girl and a 21 year old woman and kept them for 11 years. I read an interview with one of them, Gina DeJesus. She endured a decade of beatings and rapes and forced abortions. She knew her family wouldn’t bother looking for her, so she prayed to God, every day. He didn’t do much. But here’s why.

There would be no cut off point for God. The implication is profound. Suppose he reached out and gave Gina the opportunity to escape after, say, six months. Would that have been an answered prayer? Well, yes, but then suppose he fixed the brain of Ariel Castro at birth, so he never came up with the idea of kidnapping and keeping sex slaves. Okay, he could do that, but he’d have to do that for all humans, to be consistent. If he isn’t consistent, it’s not fair. Unless you’re arguing that he should only help people who pray real good. No, you wouldn’t argue that. So he has to be equal. That means he has to eradicate all human evil. But suffering can make people do crazy things, some of which can be pretty evil, so he might probably have to take the step of eradicating all forms of human suffering, such as disease. Pretty soon, you have a human being that can’t die. Pretty soon, you get a world which is nothing at all like this one. Not a single molecule would be free. You wouldn't even get demonstrations by radical molecules holding up signs saying "FREEDOM FOR MOLECULES".

Personally, I say sure, let’s ditch this one, it’s just not working very well. I mean, if you got this world for Christmas, you'd be checking the manufacturer's warranty immediately. Your dad would be saying "It's okay, the shops are open again tomorrow, we can get it exchanged."

So let’s move to the next phase of no suffering and immortality and try that for a bit.

I mean to say, isn't 30,000 years of human suffering enough to prove to God that this version of humanity is never going to get any better? How much more suffering does God really need? Why is he so in love with this miserable version of human life? Come on, God, let's move on!

But actually, you have to take a step back from the whole argument and say well, ahem, God did, in fact, intervene very directly in many ways, if you accept the Bible and/or the Koran. What’s Jesus but an intervention, in the modern sense. So in spite of these intricate arguments, and this book is STUFFED FULL of intricate arguments, it don't make a heap of sense.


2. The other thing I learned is that theology books should have a rating on the back, A to E, for levels of difficulty. This was a B (difficulty = strong) and I’m a C (= moderate strength) reader. In this book you have to be okay with many sentences like the following :

Theism in general only makes sense, however, if we can admit the possibility of a not-less-than-personal being whose self-sustaining infinitude by definition does not require the finite boundaries of embodied existence.

What a crazy world – some people get to be Miley Cyrus and Katy Perry and some people get to write sentences like that.

[Isaac Jones · Rating 3 out of 5]

There were times I wanted to give this 4 stars, and times I wanted to give it 2. Epistemologically, this book was excellent and really dug into how to examine one's own belief structures and presuppositions about religion. This wasn't in a naive, self help, "how to not lose my faith," sort of way, rather in the context of whether spiritual faith is even valid, and if so, to what extent; their conclusions are humble and refreshingly generous to a globalized, pluralistic culture.

That said, I did get frustrated with some of the assumptive leaps that were happening at times, but since it was mostly around supporting points, I'll let it slide haha

Favorite quote, and one that I think sums up the book well: "Above all, the church should never fear truth, because its very existence only matters if the truth is what it teaches."

[E. · Rating 1 out of 5]

I was sent it to read ahead of the conference I am currently attending. In the book Clayton and Knapp attempt to give a rational basis for their religious belief, a rational basis that can communicate with skeptics and nonbelievers.

Many of the issues they discuss and the options they give demonstrate a very careful, well-thought rational presentation of religious and Christian thought. And they are to be commended for attempting a form of realism about resurrection, Trinity, etc., rather than retreating into traditional progressive and liberal notions of metaphors, symbols, and mysteries.

However, I kept thinking, "I do not feel compelled to give rational justifications for my beliefs in the existence of God, the resurrection, etc. Why should I?" When I asked that question directly to Clayton tonight, I did not feel he gave a satisfactory answer. He treated it as if only a dumb, non-thoughtful person who didn't want to engage in dialogue with people who think and live differently would not want to give rational justifications. Hmm. Kierkegaard was not interested in rational justification, and he was definitely no dummy.

[Donald Brooks · Rating 5 out of 5]

While this is one of the more controversial books that I have read in a while, and while I may not subscribe to a lot of the philosophical and theological methodologies used to get to its conclusions, it has put a lot of what I have dealt with over the past 8 years into concrete and more definitive terms. It's great to see Christians honestly and radically engaging academic studies as well as church life and not just copping out with easy synthesis or faith-submitting mystery claims. It's strong stuff to drink, and really does provide a framework for understanding oneself and one's beliefs even if one does not want to settle with the book's more "heretical" conclusions. Philip Clayton (and the other guy) have done a fine job!

[Ryan Bell · Rating 3 out of 5]

Clayton & Knapp make a valiant effort to neither neglect skeptical arguments against faith nor give away all the content of their Christian faith. However, in my view, they ultimately fail in this effort.

I found the first half of the book refreshingly honest but the transition to the second half was like grinding gears. I couldn't follow them the rest of the way.

Panentheism may save God from traditional critiques of traditional Christianity but in the end, their God is too hidden, inert and ineffectual to matter. As an academic exercise it may be interesting to ponder whether God fills and saturates all reality but what does this actually mean?

[dp · Rating 4 out of 5]

DNF at 55%.

Even though I didn't finish it, The Predicament of Belief is a great book. Clayton and Knapp are articulate and passionate, without veering into a pretentious absolutism, which makes for an engaging read. It's not dense at all, but it's definitely a bit heady if you're not philosophically inclined.

I stopped reading precisely because of their generous clarity - based on the foundation laid in the first half of the book, I knew exactly what their position was and where they were taking the latter half. I didn't feel the need to continue. Even if one disagrees with the position the authors take, this is a wonderful text that honestly weighs some of the biggest scientific and philosophical reasons for doubting traditional conceptions of God. The authors are Christian, but they take nothing in the faith for granted, which is rare and admirable.

I kind of view the book as something like a 21st century version of C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity, but one that's a little more philosophical and delves deeper into the objections. For Christians, The Predicament of Belief should be a great resource for deepening ones knowledge of these issues, so that a clearer understanding of the skeptic/atheist/agnostic position can be gained, and a more reasonable and charitable faith can be adopted as a result. For non-believers, the book demonstrates a pretty ecumenical version of theism and Christianity in particular that is not irrational or superstitious, though it still undeniably requires a decision of faith in the unseen.

[Andrew · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fascinating read.
My favorite part was the way it broke down belief into a continuum and highlighted 6 key points along that continuum. This concept seems generally useful even outside discussions of Christian faith.

My favorite quotes:

"But given the inherently complex and controversial nature of any speculation on the nature of the ultimate reality, and especially speculation that must link history, textual study, and metaphysical reflection, it makes more sense to speak of reasons that make belief permissible than of proofs that compel assent."

"What the Spirit conveys is not just the mindset or attitude of Jesus, taken as an ethical or philosophical principle, but the definitive reality and authority of Jesus’ self-surrendering obedience to the ultimate reality he knew as “abba,”“father,” an obedience that is at the same time his self-surrendering openness to the needs of other persons."

"Above all, the church should never fear the truth, because its very existence only matters if the truth is what it teaches."

[Otto Hahaa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mitä mieltä voi ajatteleva ihminen olla näinä päivinä uskonnollista (etupäässä kristillisistä) väitteistä, kun monesta meistä tuntuu, että niiden parasta ennen -päiväys meni jo? Tässäpä yksi vastaus, joka ei yritä mennä siitä missä aita on matalin. Monessa kohdassa sanotaan ääneen, että joku muu voi tulla toiseen johtopäätökseen. / As apologetics go, this is quite nice and up-to-date. Very honest in saying aloud that someone else might reach other conclusions.