At the
beginning of C. S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters, the demon Screwtape castigates his nephew
Wormwood for trying to get his patient to read texts that argue against the
existence of God.
That might
have been so if he had lived a few centuries earlier. At that time the humans still
knew pretty well when a thing was proved and when it was not; and if it was
proved they really believed it. They still connected thinking with doing and
were prepared to alter their way of life as the result of a chain of reasoning.
but what with the weekly press and other such weapons we have largely altered
that. Your man has been accustomed, ever since he was a boy, to have a dozen
incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside his head. He doesn't
think of doctrines as primarily 'true' or 'false,' but as 'academic' or
'practical,' 'outworn' or 'contemporary,' 'conventional' or 'ruthless.'
...
By the very
act of arguing, you awake the patient's reason; and once it is awake, who can
foresee the result? Even if a particular train of thought can be twisted so as
to end in our favour, you will find that you have been strengthening in your
patient the fatal habit of attending to universal issues and withdrawing his
attention from the stream of immediate sense experiences. (Letter I)
From this perspective, modernity created a major shift in how people think. Beforehand,
it was assumed that there was an objective truth in which if something is true
and we find ourselves living lives that are not keeping with that truth, we
must accept that we are living the Wrong way and must change ourselves so that
we live according to the Truth. We moderns, though, have been trained to accept
things as true from a certain point of view. Something can be true for some
people and in some places and not in others.
The practical implication of this for anyone in Christian or any other kind of outreach is that you can have the best arguments in the world and it still will not help until you have forced the person to acknowledge that there really are objective truths that we must accept in ways that affect how we live. It is not even that people will disagree with you. Instead, as subjectivists, people will say that your beliefs are very nice for you and they are glad you find them meaningful but they are going to go live their lives as they wish to find their own meaning.
This is what lies behind Lewis' famous Trilemma. His
point was not that Jesus was God, which Lewis certainly believed, but that you
cannot think of him simply as a great moral teacher like Socrates to be admired
but not necessarily listened to on any particular issue. Either Jesus was someone much greater or much
less than Socrates. If he is worth paying attention to at all, he must become the
basis for your life.
Think of the theory that smoking causes lung cancer. It makes no sense to talk about
the elegance or the noble sentiments of the theory. Either the theory is true in
which case I had better quit smoking at the risk of my health or it is a wicked conspiracy to destroy innocent tobacco companies. In the same sense, we might say that either a
certain nice Jewish preacher arose from the dead in first-century CE Judea and
therefore, I need to radically change my life for the sake of my immortal soul or Christianity is one of the
greatest and most diabolical frauds in all of human history. Modern secularism
has gained its dominant position not because it was able to convince people
that Christianity was the latter but because it was able to convince
people that the question of Christian truth did not really matter, robbing
Christianity of its ability to have a meaningful say in how even nominal
Christians lived their lives.
The
advantage of this interpretation of modern secularism is that it calls
attention to the fact that what has happened has not been the masses of people
reading science books and becoming convinced atheists. The Enlightenment caused
very few people, outside of intellectual circles, to reject Christianity and that
nineteenth-century Europe was actually a more religious place than medieval
Europe. Atheism, outside of academic circles, remains rare even as
religious observance continues to plummet. Most people remain vaguely spiritual
even as they eschew the notion of belonging to a formal religion that can
demand specific behaviors.
My problem with Lewis' theory of secularism is that I am skeptical about the claim that pre-modernity was some kind of rationalist golden age in which it was possible to convince people to change their lives through argument because they believed that certain things were True. It was ancient and not modern rhetoric that invented the concept of pathos, that people should emotionally connect to your argument, and made it critical for ending speeches. The purpose of engaging people's pathos is precisely because, apparently even in the ancient world, you could have a logically unassailable argument and people would still say that this is all very nice but has nothing to do with them and go on their way.
The preaching orders of the Franciscans and Dominicans came into existence in the early thirteenth-century precisely because even in medieval Christendom there were plenty of Christians who needed to be "converted" to Christianity. While the Dominicans were formed to argue with actual heretics like the Albigensian Cathars, the Franciscans, when they were not seeking martyrdom in the Islamic world, must have been trying to reach nominal Christians content to live their lives untainted by Christian practice. Clearly, the need to bridge the divide between theoretical belief and actual practice is not a recent problem.
Furthermore, I fail to see certainty in belief as necessary for changing one's life or even for giving it up. Socrates, certainly not a modern, was a martyr to philosophy as a way of life. He did not die because he was absolutely convinced of any particular doctrine as to the nature of the soul or of justice. On the contrary, Socrates was a man of doubts, whose claim to knowledge was that he knew that he knew nothing. There is a critical tension at the heart of Socrates in that he was the ultimate non-dogmatist and yet he died for philosophy. The mystery at the heart of the Platonic dialogues is what is this philosophy that Socrates died for. Philosophy is this process of asking questions and to love the question more than any answer you might find. This can become a way of life to the extent that to be forced to live any other way would be death.
This balance between taking ideas seriously and claiming absolute objective knowledge applies to followers of monotheistic religions as well. An inescapable part of monotheism is that God is distinct from the world which makes him fundamentally unknowable. Yet we are commanded to know this God. If you are a Jew or a Muslim, you try to know God by studying his Law and following his commandments. If you are a Christian, you try to know God through the person of Jesus.
All three of these religions developed rationalist and mystical traditions in dialogue and confrontation with each other. Both religious rationalism and mysticism are premised on God's unknowability. Even as mysticism holds out the hope of achieving unity with God, its starting point is that the gap is unbridgeable. True unity with God requires God to cross the divide in ways that are impossible, at least from a human perspective. One thinks of Christian writers like the author of Cloud of Unknowing, Nicholas of Cusa, and St. John of the Cross. All of these were thinkers whose starting part for their theology was that God is someone fundamentally outside human understanding. As with Socrates' knowledge of his own ignorance, one comes to know God and develop a relationship with him, paradoxically, only by recognizing that one does not know him.
The fact that God is outside our understanding means that any attempt to talk about God is going to be imprecise. This means that any statement we make about God at best is going only to be true from a certain point of view. Certain ways of talking about God and relating to him are going to be appropriate for certain people and not for others. Even a seemingly innocuous statement like God commands is riddled with theological pitfalls.
Modernity did not create Averoeism with its doctrine that there can be multiple religious truths, one for the masses and another for philosophers. Similarly, it was Boccaccio from the Renaissance who gave us the legend of the three rings. The message being that Jews, Christians, and Muslims should concern themselves less with which religion is ultimately True and more with building the best version of their religion they can. The idea being to let divine providence reveal itself in its own time.
Long before the advent of modernity, if people were going to be religious there was always going to be something more at work than simply believing with absolute certainty that their religion was True and could be translated into clear do or don't actions. Living your life, religiously or otherwise, means having faith. At a certain point, you need to act in a way that implies certain knowledge even though that certainty does not exist.
