Mother Theresa's Struggle with Faith

Post by **axordil** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 7:06 pm

The can't be proved part is what makes it not factually true, yes. But what I'm trying to pin down is the other part: several people have mentioned some variation about things being emotionally true. What does the emotional response that they equate with something being emotionally true actually feel like? If it's joy I can understand it. If it's fear or pain, on the other hand, it seems to me that the feeling of emotional truth had better amount to "this is The Truth, and if you don't believe it you're screwed." Otherwise we have people feeling something is true that makes them feel WORSE without any discernible reason.

It comes back to this: people do (and to a great extent think) things either because it makes them feel good or they think they have to. If something fits neither category--it's neither required nor desirable--why do it?

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 8:34 pm

Or, they think them because they just plain believe they're true. If pleasure or coercion were the only motivators, no one would sacrifice for something they believe in (and I am not just talking about religious martyrs, but anyone who does something difficult for a "higher" reason—soldiers in war, for example).

Post by **Cerin** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 8:52 pm

Axordil wrote:If it's fear or pain, on the other hand, it seems to me that the feeling of emotional truth had better amount to "this is The Truth, and if you don't believe it you're screwed." Otherwise we have people feeling something is true that makes them feel WORSE without any discernible reason.

Maybe what I'm not grasping is the concept of believing something without holding it to be The Truth. Could you think of some hypothetical examples of this?

Post by **axordil** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 8:54 pm

Or, they think them because they just plain believe they're true.

And if that's not factual truth, but emotional truth, what is it? What does it feel like? Why do people interpret whatever that feeling is as "truth" as opposed to something else?

Post by **axordil** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 9:17 pm

Cerin--

If one has a religious belief, for example, that one is happy with, but which one does not believe to be exclusively true at the expense of other incompatible beliefs, I would consider that an example of believing in something without it being the Capital T Truth. Sorry if I wasn't clear earlier about that.

Prim--

Thinking about it: most soldiers in modern wars are willing to sacrifice themselves primarily due to conditioning by their armed forces to view their comrades-in-arms as family, or closer. Defenses of home turf may be exceptions.

Post by **Cerin** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 3:40 am

Axordil wrote:If one has a religious belief, for example, that one is happy with, but which one does not believe to be exclusively true at the expense of other incompatible beliefs, I would consider that an example of believing in something without it being the Capital T Truth.

I think I understand the idea you're proposing here, but I wonder if it ever really happens?

That is, I know some people seem to have spiritual beliefs or ideas that are less defined than others; in these cases, though, it seems that they view the particular belief or idea, whatever it might be, as one of many manifestations of The Truth. In other words, they are flexible or vague with respect to particulars, but would those ideas (say, the feelings about love and the infinite that Voronwë expressed) have any appeal if they weren't perceived to be in some way connected to The Truth?

So I wonder if this construct is a real one; that is, are there really people believing in something they don't think represents The Truth in some way?

Post by **axordil** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 3:53 am

I would turn it around: would people who are flexible with respect to particulars like to believe in something that they felt was true in a general sense if it didn't give them some joy to do so? My experience with believers is that those who are less precise tend to lean much more towards the joy end (the carrot if you will) and less (as they see it) to the truth end (the stick), even going so far as denying the existence of the stick. But it's not a cut and dried thing: there are people who undeniably get joy from the idea that they're simply right, and others who are OK with just the being right part.

But all of this circles around the real question I still have, which is what the nature of faith FEELS like such that it FEELS true. Or to put it another way: what does truth feel like? And don't say true.

Post by **Cerin** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:07 pm

Axordil wrote:I would turn it around: would people who are flexible with respect to particulars like to believe in something that they felt was true in a general sense if it didn't give them some joy to do so?

I'd guess no one, including the flexible people, would like to believe in something that didn't give them some joy; but would they believe it? I suspect they would be unlikely to associate such an idea with The Truth.

My experience with believers is that those who are less precise tend to lean much more towards the joy end (the carrot if you will) and less (as they see it) to the truth end (the stick), even going so far as denying the existence of the stick.

I'd go along with that.

But it's not a cut and dried thing: there are people who undeniably get joy from the idea that they're simply right, and others who are OK with just the being right part.

Here's a point I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean, there are people who get joy simply from the conviction that what they've believed is The Truth (rather than from the substantive aspects/character of that Truth)? I'm not sure about that, nor would I phrase it as those people thinking of themselves as 'being right'. They've perceived that there is something that is right, but it isn't themselves. They do believe they are right in believing The Truth is The Truth, but I don't think that 'being right' is a source of joy. I think the thing perceived as The Truth is the source of the joy.

It might help to think of this joy as zeal. I think people could feel a zeal for The Truth almost regardless of its substance, but just because of it's being (their perception of) The Truth. But I'm not sure.

But all of this circles around the real question I still have, which is what the nature of faith FEELS like such that it FEELS true. Or to put it another way: what does truth feel like? And don't say true.

It feels right?

It feels highly significant?

It gives peace or purpose?

It makes sense itself, and makes sense of everything else?

It affirms a person's already developed perceptions of the world?

I think there can be all sorts of unrecognized or subconscious factors throughout the course of people's lives that make them inclined to accept something as the truth or to reject that possibility, i.e., depending on these things some truth will be appealing or not, will find fertile ground to root in or not, etc.

Post by **axordil** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:41 pm

It feels highly significant?

It gives peace or purpose?

It makes sense itself, and makes sense of everything else?

It affirms a person's already developed perceptions of the world?

All four are no doubt part of it. But I am especially conscious of what follows:

I think there can be all sorts of unrecognized or subconscious factors throughout the course of people's lives that make them inclined to accept something as the truth or to reject that possibility, i.e., depending on these things some truth will be appealing or not, will find fertile ground to root in or not, etc.

I think what we think of as the feeling of truth grows in us from early childhood on, and the precise form it takes is a product of both environment and temperament. Everyone, I think, feels something from that initial list at one time or another in their lives. But not everyone responds, or is capable of responding, in the same way. That capability seems capricious (and if you knew my family, you would know just how capricious. Apples may not fall far from their trees, but some roll down hills and into streams, from which they eventually float into the ocean and are washed up on black sandy beaches on the other side of the planet.)

Perhaps I should go reread James.

Post by **Cerin** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:02 pm

Axordil wrote:I think what we think of as the feeling of truth grows in us from early childhood on, and the precise form it takes is a product of both environment and temperament.

Yes.

Everyone, I think, feels something from that initial list at one time or another in their lives. But not everyone responds, or is capable of responding, in the same way. That capability seems capricious <snip>

It does.

(and if you knew my family, you would know just how capricious. Apples may not fall far from their trees, but some roll down hills and into streams, from which they eventually float into the ocean and are washed up on black sandy beaches on the other side of the planet.)

Perhaps I should go reread James.

Do you mean, Bible James? Why James in particular?

Yes, by all means, reread James. It can't hurt.

Post by **axordil** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:23 pm

I was actually thinking William. Or perhaps Henry.

The Book of James causes more problems than it's worth--all that good works vs grace stuff.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:34 pm

<Lutheran>

James who?

</Lutheran>

Post by **axordil** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:39 pm

See? It's one of those trouble-makin' books. Like Job. Or Philemon. I never did trust Philemon.

Post by **Cerin** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 6:10 pm

Oh, darn.

Well, I'm sure it won't hurt to read those other Jameses either.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 6:38 pm

Ax, you just made me go read the introduction to Philemon in my New Oxford Annotated Bible. It's about four times as long as the book.

They accuse Paul of engaging in "arm-twisting."

Post by **axordil** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 6:43 pm

The unexpurgated version also accuses him of atomic wedgie-pulling.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 6:45 pm

Shoot—clearly I didn't use the right code-word at the Christian bookstore.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 2:58 am

So I'm reading the lessons in church this Sunday, and today I get the text in the mail (so I can practice, always a good idea when reading Paul aloud at room-filling volume; otherwise one is in danger of expiring of anoxia during a long subordinate clause).

And the New Testament lesson is . . . Philemon 1–21.

I'm going to leave out the part about the atomic wedgie.

Post by **WampusCat** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 3:12 am

I doubt that I can convey what faith feels like, but I'll try.

When I read or hear or experience certain things, something deep inside me says YES. It is an inner conviction. No, a recognition, as if unexpectedly seeing a beloved face in a crowd far from home.

I trust that inner leaping far more than I trust my own analytical understanding.

I suspect that Mother Teresa lost that inner sense of rightness but refused to turn away from the work it had led her to do. That shows a radical trust and strength. It reminds me, in fact, of the courage-without-hope that is being discussed in the Shibboleth thread.

Post by **MithLuin** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 3:12 am

Primula Baggins wrote:I have met people who have proved the existence of God through logic to their own satisfaction, and of course having arrived at their conclusion through what seems to them irrefutable logic, there's no longer any room for doubt in their minds.

My dad could be described in this way, but I doubt he's the type of person you're referring to, either. As he puts it, he's an engineer, so if things are going to make sense to him, there has to be some proof. He's a Christian, but as an adult, he started (fairly seriously) asking questions like 'so, how do we know Jesus lived at all?' and 'how do we know that what's reported in the Bible is true?' This is certainly an 'intellectual' approach to faith...as if he was going to find the answers by learning some history and archeology. He didn't

(though he tried for years). All he found out was that it was certainly quite likely a guy named Jesus did live 2000 years ago...and that the Christian religion sprung up shortly thereafter. A dead end, from his perspective.

But he did find his 'proofs,' in places he didn't expect them. He realized that 10 of the 12 apostles became martyrs for their insistence that Jesus had risen from the dead. At that point, he had trouble believing they would have died for a hoax or a trick. He would not be the first person to be impressed by the blood of the martyrs, but for him it was 'evidence' that their testimony was true, not just of their zeal for the cause. His second piece of evidence was the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima. It was a miracle that happened 'on schedule' (something had been predicted in advance, at that time and place), and it had many witnesses, both Christians and non-Christians. If that miracle could be true (with sufficient 'proofs' to convince him), then it was not impossible to believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

Surely many other things happened to him along the way. He realized that his relationship with his wife was one of the most important things to him, and that wasn't something that fit into his world of logical proofs very well. So in the end, maybe his faith didn't have to either....

These sorts of proofs would not convince anyone who was not walking the same path as he was, of course, but they were important to him at the time. I am not going to suggest that he is 'beyond doubts', but I would suggest that he treats the matter as cleared up

. And he is happy to explain these proofs to others, if they bring it up.

Mother Teresa's doubts, as Faramond pointed out, were not of this sort. They were more of the 'we had an amazing relationship and now you don't talk to me any more,' variety.

axordil wrote:What does the emotional response that they equate with something being emotionally true actually feel like? If it's joy I can understand it. If it's fear or pain, on the other hand, it seems to me that the feeling of emotional truth had better amount to "this is The Truth, and if you don't believe it you're screwed." Otherwise we have people feeling something is true that makes them feel WORSE without any discernible reason.

Hmmm.... let me see if I can try to get at that.... oh man, this is going to be so hard! <deep breath>

So, have you ever been listening to someone and something they say just resonates in your heart, and you are like, "yes!! it's exactly like that!"? That, to me, is emotional truth. LotR is chock full of it, but most wise people can say things that do that to me. But that doesn't jump the gap off into the boundary of "religious experience" or "spiritual truth" or "awakening" or "my eyes were opened." [Rereading that, my metaphor is so screwy - ugh! - it's late, I'm tired, I'll hope you know what I mean...I should have said 'cross over' I suppose.] Something like that is a lot different. It seizes your whole being and you know your life will never be the same. A lot more than just an oh! moment. Not that you're possessed or any of it happens against your will. It's more...ugh. Why do I have no words for this? It's like you aren't just acknowledging that something is true, but it turns a huge spotlight on you and you see yourself (and your life) clearly for the first time. It is a truth that, well...matters. It's very exciting, I suppose...and you can respond by bursting into tears or shouting for joy. It's not necessarily happy. There can be a huge element of 'I so screwed up here' - conviction. But at the same time, there is hugely more hope of where your life is headed than when you were pretending that all that stuff wasn't so bad, really. And sometimes this whole thing isn't emotional at all, it's just a re-direction of thoughts and actions...

And even I don't know what I mean by that... <throws hands up in the air> What can I say?