News Intelligence Analysis
Certainty vs. Humility about God
The Tao that can be named is not true Tao
By David
Stevens Seeley
There is a crucial issue facing the human race that is not being sufficiently discussed—between (A) those who believe they have certain knowledge of the nature of God and His Will, and (B) those who believe that it is best for people to have a degree of humility about their religious beliefs—to accept the fact that, however much beliefs may command our faith and loyalty, there is no way to be “certain” of their “truth,” and that it is therefore unwise and perhaps even blasphemous to disrespect or be alienated from those with different faiths.
It is easy to see why down through the ages many people have adopted position (A): Many religious leaders have taught that absolute, certain belief in their church's scripture, doctrine, and authority is required for religious faith. Furthermore, religious certainty has given many people great psychological security and courage, and helped societies to develop the unity and strength to create powerful civilizations.
Many people, however, including many with deep religious faith and commitment, have come to see this kind of certainty in religion as the source of endless religious war and irreconcilable conflict—threats that have become increasingly dangerous now that fanatics have access to worldwide communications and weapons of devastating and potentially mass destruction. If one is certain that his belief is the Absolute Word of God, it is easy to conclude that those who have other beliefs must be defying the Word of God, and that they are therefore the agents of Satan who must be opposed and destroyed.
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.
In addition to pragmatic concerns about these dangers of position (A), 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.
Some people go further and reject religion altogether, as primitive superstition that should be shed by modern man as more dangerous than helpful, however useful it may have been in the past. But those who see religion as a necessary part of human life must find another answer to the dangers and flaws of religious zealotry, and they are more likely to hold to something like position (B).
Of course, most people probably don’t consciously hold either position (A) or (B), not having given the issue much thought. And therein lies a hopeful possibility. Despite the widespread discussion in recent years of religion-related issues such as abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, school prayer, evolution, end of life, peace, war, etc., and of the related issues about the proper role of religion in politics, there has been little public discussion about the wisdom of religious certainty, and since it is certainty that has made so many of the other issues irreconcilable, such discussion might help to create a better climate for resolving some of the other conflicts.
The tradition of modern liberal democracies has been that people are “entitled to their own beliefs,” and are free to form institutions to support and advocate their beliefs. The United States Constitution specifically protects the “free exercise” of religion, and, while in past years there has been considerable public dispute about the merits of various religions, by the mid-20th century most Americans had come to accept religious diversity and refrain from challenging each other’s religious beliefs.
Furthermore, the Founding Fathers, conscious of the religious conflicts of the past, wisely set up government independent from religious institutions and provided in the Constitution that the government cannot “establish” a religion or require a “religious Test” for public office, thus creating a strong tradition of separation of church and state that has allowed a religiously diverse population to live in relative peace, and with remarkably flourishing religions, for many years.
This “détente”
over religion, however, is now unraveling in the United States,
with many people feeling that the certainty of their religious
beliefs justifies undermining the traditions of toleration and
church-state separation as unwarranted obstacles to implementing
God’s Will, and some even resorting to killings, bombings,
and organizing armed militias—but with many others seeing
these attitudes as dangerous threats to the Constitution and traditional
American freedom. Meanwhile, across the world, religious zealotry
continues to fuel conflict and violence in the
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)? 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.
David S. Seeley Biographical information:
Education: B.A.(Yale, 1953), J.D.(Yale, 1956), Ed.D. (Harvard, 1970)
David Seeley
is an attorney/educator who has worked since 1956 on school reform
issues: in the federal government (as an attorney, 1956-59; as
Special Assistant to the U.S. Commisioner of Education, 63-64;
and as Assistant U.S. Commissioner of Education, 1965-7); and
in New York City (as Director of Mayor Lindsay's Office of Education
Liaison, 1967-68; as Senior Research Associate at the Metropolitan
Applied Research Center, 1968-69; as Executive Director of the
Public Education Association , 1969-80; a professor of education
at the College of Staten Island/CUNY, 1980-present). He has also
been appointed (1997) a member of the faculty of the
His main interests are: Systematic restructuring of public education, equal educational opportunity, preparation of leaders for school reform. (Leadership theory, organizational theory and change theory.) His main thesis, explained most fully in his book, Education Through Partnership (Ballinger, 1981), is that the present policy paradigm underlying public education cannot produce the levels of education needed for America’s future, and that an alternative policy paradigm, based on the partnership, and the voice, choice, loyalty, of all participants is more likely to produce the desired results.
Contact him at: seeley@mail.csi.cuny.edu
David
Seeley c,
Send a letter to the editor about this article Related Articles Bush and Easy Certainty by Ron Suskind George W. Bush, clearly, is one of history's great confidence men. That is not meant in the huckster's sense, though many critics claim that on the war in Iraq, the economy and a few other matters he has engaged in some manner of bait- and-switch...he clearly feels that unflinching confidence has an almost mystical power. It can all but create reality. A Compendium of all the Articles Written on The 2005 New York City CUNY/Open Center Conference on the Religious Right Agenda
Back to The Yurica Report Home Page