Nelson’s “don’t rehearse with other unbelievers” talk

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Physics Guy
God
Posts: 1557
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:40 am
Location: on the battlefield of life

Re: Nelson’s “don’t rehearse with other unbelievers” talk

Post by Physics Guy »

I know a lot of Lutherans these days, for whom faith and works are opposed alternatives. The notion that faith itself might be a work would appal them, I think. It's true in a sense but I still find it tricky.

From a Christian theological perspective there is this notion that faith is valuable, and one expects to have to work for a valuable thing. In the gospels Jesus complains when people lack faith or marvels approvingly when they show it. So faith is worth something. The idea that its value might in fact be a value of the same kind as the value of works seems to come from Paul, who famously declared that Abraham's faith counted as righteousness. If faith can thus be offered as a valid replacement for good works, that implies a kind of direct equivalence between faith and works, as between dollars and euros. That in turn suggests that one might expect to receive faith as a payment for work, as one can buy euros with dollars.

It can make sense to work at building up faith in contexts far from religious. Anyone can read a popular science book and believe what it says because it was written by a professor from a famous university, but that's actually a pretty unscientific approach to science. To acquire a scientifically sound faith in science takes a lot more work than that, first of all in studying to learn what exactly the scientific data and theories even mean, then in checking out all the logical and empirical reasons for trusting them, and ultimately in learning to apply the scientific concepts and tools for oneself, doing original calculations or experiments, or building gadgets that work. Someone who has been through all that will—and should—have a stronger belief in the science they have mastered than someone who has just read a book.

One can also work to develop faith in a person. Lots of people have to decide whether to believe you and trust you, or not: potential employers, social workers, medical professionals, police officers, potential friends or lovers, voters, investors. Those people who are judging your reliability can make their decisions quickly and easily, using superficial criteria like whether you are middle-aged white guy or not, or they can work hard to get to know you, find out what your experience is actually worth, invest in you, trust you in smaller things and see how you do over time. People who trust you after a lot of investigation like that will and should trust you more than someone who just likes your face.

So okay, it's not crazy to expect faith to grow through investment of work. Life is too short to invest whole-hog in every science or every person but we are right to uphold that ideal. It's not good to dismiss people based on first impressions or prejudice, or to brush off expertise just because it sounds complicated.

The problem is that conspiracy theories and abusive relationships can demand just as much investment as real science or love. The time and effort invested in crackpot nonsense or an abusive relationship can be nothing but a chain keeping you bound to something you should simply leave. In the religious context idols and false gods can be as jealous and demanding as any real God could be, and they never hear any prayers.

So the principle that you have to work for faith can't be the only principle. There has to be a counterbalancing principle that can sometimes tell you that enough is enough; you've worked too hard for what you've gotten so far; it's time to cut your losses, get out, and go and try something else.

That's the second side of the story that Nelson seems to ignore.
I was a teenager before it was cool.
Post Reply