The preacher who thinks he has to make his listeners believe something that they cannot be made to believe is faced with a contradiction, yes. But to hold that all preachers think such a thing, and that the contradiction is intrinsic to preaching, is to have made a canard of preaching. Or so I think.

In general I think you need to provide argumentation for your claims, and that too much assertion is occurring. Most of your thesis is being asserted, not argued. For example, the idea that all preachers are trying to make their listeners believe mere ideas is an assertion and not a conclusion. The claim that the preacher is engaged in infecting rather than introducing is another example.

I encountered the preacher's paradox in my everyday life. It concerns my children. Should I tell them what I know about religion myself, take them to church, convince them, or leave it up to them, or perhaps avoid religious topics altogether? — Astorre

I would suggest giving more credence to the Biblical testimony and the testimony of your Church, and less credence to Kierkegaard's testimony. Faith is something that transcends us, not something we control. It is not something to be curated, either positively or negatively.

Part of the question here is, "Do you want your children to be religious?" Is it permissible to want such a thing?

In general I think you need to provide argumentation for your claims, and that too much assertion is occurring. Most of your thesis is being asserted, not argued. For example, the idea that all preachers are trying to make their listeners believe mere ideas is an assertion and not a conclusion. The claim that the preacher is engaged in infecting rather than introducing is another example. — Leontiskos

Well, since you haven't yet reached the point of presenting the truths (you're probably still warming up), it seems entirely reasonable to deepen your criticism.

So, by accusing my topic of unjustified assertions, you've forgotten the interrogative nature of this post. As with all my other posts, by the way. So here, too, I asked, "What do you think of this cut?"—as if scalping the object of study. On the other hand, by calling the sermon "infection," I used a very vivid metaphor that perfectly aligns with my convictions: faith develops within a person, but begins with a seed (which enters from outside). And I emphasize this once again—faith develops within the subject!

I'm passing on my other "unproven assertions" as a sharing of my experience, which I always include a footnote to.

I hope you've warmed up and are ready to continue the dialogue in a positive manner?

- I'm actually out for a few days. I just wanted to submit my responses. If your idea is as "interrogative" as you claim, you may want to ask yourself where all the defensiveness is coming from. It looks as though the idea is averse to interrogation.

Should I tell them what I know about religion myself, take them to church, convince them, or leave it up to them, or perhaps avoid religious topics altogether?

When it came to my own children I just told them about religion, what its teachings say and what atheists and agnostics say. But didn’t reveal my position on the issue, rather just said that it is for each person to arrive at their own position. This seemed sufficient and I didn’t talk about it much after we had discussed it enough to have covered what I’ve said.

I think cultural context is important here. Where I live, belief in God, or following a religion is very rarely talked about, or raised. There is a general sense of either a soft deism, or soft atheism. With most people never giving it any thought. My approach might have been different were we living in a more religious society.

I'm actually out for a few days. I just wanted to submit my responses. — Leontiskos

It's a shame, everything was going so well.

Actually, I want to thank you for your comments. I wanted to take a break to think things over before replying, but my urge to turn up the heat a little got the better of me…

This topic is very personal and important to me (as I’ve shown above), and I truly appreciate any point of view.

- Fair enough. I realize I may have been too curt, both in my haste and because I know I will not be able to respond for a few days. On the other hand—and this is what you apparently wish to deny—the OP is a pretty straightforward argument against preaching, complete with responses to objections. I have been trying to present reasons against the conclusion of the OP's argument. I don't deny that it could be interesting to leisurely explore the particular form of preaching in which the paradox resides.

I think cultural context is important here. Where I live, belief in God, or following a religion is very rarely talked about, or raised. There is a general sense of either a soft deism, or soft atheism. With most people never giving it any thought. My approach might have been different were we living in a more religious society. — Punshhh

My situation is a little different from yours. My city is at the intersection of cultures, paradigms, and ideas (Chinese approaches, Russian (Christian) narratives, Islamic beliefs, traditional values, blurred by Western individualism in a society where everyone both cares and doesn't care about each other). This explains the many questions I have.

I encountered the preacher's paradox in my everyday life. It concerns my children. Should I tell them what I know about religion myself, take them to church, convince them, or leave it up to them, or perhaps avoid religious topics altogether?

I don't know the right way. I don't know anyone who knows. I'm the father. I'm responsible for them (that's my conviction). — Astorre

I think it's irresponsible to bring children into this world without first being sure of metaphysical issues first. But what's done is done, so, moving on:

Based on my personal experience, I think it's best for a parent to consider the possible social and economical ramifications for not raising their children in a religious way. If you live in a country/culture where the majority is religious (and it's irrelevant if they are only Sunday saints) and send their children to church, then it's best to do so as well. It's not worth it to be a pioneer. If your particular decisions regarding religion could lead to your children being ostracized and stigmatized, then you need to make other decisions.

If because of this, the religiosity you teach your children seems shallow and worldly, so be it. They can improve on it later, if they have the time and energy and inclination. But right now, they need to train themselves to become socially and economically successful. Because without that, religosity is in vain.


And don't ask the local priest or other religious people where you live for advice. Don't let them know your deepest doubts, fears, concerns. Because this could backfire horribly, for you and for your children.

So long as the recipient understands that the conveyance of faith is only a shadow and a sign, there is no danger. — Leontiskos

They can only understand something is "only a shadow and a sign" (or the "finger pointing to the moon") if they also know what it is that casts that shadow and what the sign stands for.

No. I seem to be incapable of believing in any god variations. So 'right one' is not on my radar. It’s probably a matter of disposition. Are you a theist? — Tom Storm

No.

That we should push the religious/spiritual to sort things out amongst themselves, until only one religion/spirituality is left.
— baker
I’m not sure what this means. A fight to the death until only one theism is left standing?

Of course, this is a pipe dream, but yes.

And if one religion or spirituality remains, are you saying that this one represents the truth, or merely that it's the one that survived?

It would be a trial by combat:

Trial by combat (also wager of battle, trial by battle or judicial duel) was a method of Germanic law to settle accusations in the absence of witnesses or a confession in which two parties in dispute fought in single combat; the winner of the fight was proclaimed to be right. In essence, it was a judicially sanctioned duel. It remained in use throughout the European Middle Ages, gradually disappearing in the course of the 16th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_combat

The Thirty Years' War and the wars immediately connected to it were a form of large-scale trial by combat. The combatants, Catholics and Protestants, decided to force God to show his hand, with the agreement being that whoever won was right about God, had the right religion. Unfortunately, they ran out of soldiers, and the war was never properly finished to the point where there would be one clear winner.

And what if there are multiple paths and spiritual truths and the human urge for simplifications and reductions not applicable?

That's irrelevant. The option that needs to be ruled out is that only one religion is the right one, because this is the most immediately and long-term dangerous one. If only one religion is the right one, then failure to join it on time will have eternal irrepairable consequences. If more religions are right, then it doesn't really matter what we do, and we can just go about our lives as we see fit.

I'm inclined to think that the whole point of religion/spirituality is the pursuit of wealth, health, and power.

All spirituality? Including the aforementioned Meister Eckhart or Hildegard von Bingen?

I'm especially wary about people like Eckhart and Hildegard. My experience has consistently been that religious/spiritual people who through their public writings and talks seem especially sensitive, sensible, empathetic are nothing like that in how they actually interact with people. It's like dealing with two different persons.

Given what you say, where do you think you could find a source of benign, non-authoritarian people who meet your standards?
I'm not looking for "benign, non-authoritarian". If anything, I want people who are straightforward and can be relied on.
— baker
Do you mean that you prefer people who aren’t hypocrites and are predictable, so that if they’re bad, it’s all out in the open?

That can hardly be called a preference.

You didn't read the link, did you?
— baker
I read the I-message statement link. I also attended a seminar on this.

But it doesn't seem to resonate with you?

the other hand, by calling the sermon "infection," I used a very vivid metaphor that perfectly aligns with my convictions: faith develops within a person, but begins with a seed (which enters from outside). And I emphasize this once again—faith develops within the subject! — Astorre

As a counterpoint, a book I really love, Robert Wallace's Philosophical Mysticism in Plato, Hegel, and the Present argues, compellingly I think, that mysticism is a regular part of human experience, and that this is what the "Platonic tradition," rightly understood, is grounded in. Here, "faith" has more to do with loyalty to what is highest in us (including our experience of our own freedom), and trust in beauty, love, and truth that is directly and ubiquitously experienced. And so, part of the role preaching is to merely awaken people to this, and to motivate them to recognize it and live into it.

I just shared part of the introduction so I won't repost it here. I've shared some of the psychological and metaphysical grounding of this claim before.

So, against the "closed world system," where the claims of the "mystic" or preacher are "maximally distal" from what can be known with confidence, Wallace argues that the divine is not only what is more immediate, but also what is most fully real.

Now, with a "preacher" we are normally also talking about someone who is discussing, to at least some degree, revealed religion. Revealed religion is different, since it often involves historical claims and more distal metaphysical claims. But these are normally mixed with claims about this "generally accessible mysticism" and how to develop and live into it (although some religions lose track of this). I think the role of "knowing by becoming" (of which Boethius is such a great example) is an excellent example of how this works in practice. The relevant knowledge is in many cases a sort of self-knowledge.

And indeed, for a lot of theologians the role of revelation, particularly historical, public revelation (as opposed to private), is precisely to elucidate those things not easily accessible by this sort of experience. But faith (trust) in these revelations is supported by the former sort of faith (loyalty); hence "have faith that you might understand " (Isaiah, Augustine, Anselm).

I really love Wallace's book, but I think it also shows the limits of "natural theology." Aside from being unable to meditate disagreements, the larger issue is that, buffeted by skepticism and distraction, it only gets one so far. Particularly in our modern context, it seems like it could easily become a sort of sterile orientation towards the Good/Beautiful/True as mere "conceptual objects," the target of a "limitless desire for goodness" that is nonetheless unattainable, where union is always out of reach. I can think of no better image of this then Dante's Limbo, filled with the righteous Pagans who, though lovers of the Good in the abstract, are forever separated from the object of desire (and it is perhaps better here to take this as an image, and not as a theological statement about the fate of particular souls after death).

I'm inclined to think that the whole point of religion/spirituality is the pursuit of wealth, health, and power. — baker

And yet so many religious texts devalue these, and so many key figures eschewed them and gave them up in life.

Should I tell them what I know about religion myself, take them to church, convince them, or leave it up to them, or perhaps avoid religious topics altogether? — Astorre

First, anyone as interested in the truth as you are, and who obviously loves his children enough to consider such big questions, for their sakes, it seems to me you are doing fine by them. (I see God at work already.)

But that is all in the background, and avoids your question.

My experience is somewhat counter-intuitive. I think we risk robbing people of a choice about God and religion when we don’t teach them about these things when they are young. Religious faith is an adult decision, for sure, but someone just may never fully consider the option that is “God” if first seeking to familiarize yourself with God as an adult, and after living so long without God. I still believe God reaches all of us, but the innocence of youth makes a softer ground to first plant the notion of God than the repentance necessary in adulthood makes. Adult informed consent about God is just harder to inform when that adult did not already hear about God since the time he first learned about other important things, like truth and good and knowledge and life and death. It just gets harder to see God as we get older and become entangled with the immediate necessities of life.

———

I don’t think you would be considering these questions of how to present God and religion to your children, if you did not recognize potential good value and truth coming from religion. If you believed in your heart that religion was clearly a net bad, you couldn’t have this issue at all. Am I right about that?

You ask “Should I tell them what I know?” That may depend. What do you know about religion, and what will you tell them? I wouldn’t want to encourage you if your idea of religion was of a cult of mindless, loveless, insignificant, pawns in some other-worldly game - religion has to free one and save one from such predicaments, not create them.

And I would never advise teaching something you didn’t believe in or did not see any lasting good in. A notion like ‘God’ when insincere, has nothing to do with God. It’s like one’s dead great-great-grandfather. Either you believe he existed or you don’t, but if you possibly didn’t, you shouldn’t think you could do him justice teaching about him to your kids, if you believed there was no such person there to teach about.

——-

Regardless, religion is about mystery. Scientists seek into mystery as much as the one who seeks truth in God. Truth seekers all have similar hearts. God can represent truth and knowledge, the answer, the law, in the universe, in our science, in our lives and in our minds; and God’s relationship with us through the church and religion can ground ethics, and social bonds, and all that comes with people knowing people, (even politics), and all of the frictions we create for ourselves.

There is no harm exposing kids to good people of faith. It comes in many forms.

Religion rarefies, and absolutizes, and objectifies, while at the same time highlighting the subjective, particular, visceral life lived. It contains law and reason and logic, and analytics of language. Religion solves and presents solutions. It prompts questions, new ideas, emotions. It can soothe in death in suffering. It can turn the bad into good.

But it can cause harm too. No doubt your questions loom high and large. But so many otherwise good things can cause harm too, can they not? Even the seeming best things in life, like success, and power, can destroy us.

If you are deeply troubled by these questions, I suggest you ask a few different priests or just good people at some churches - and see if an answer presents itself right in the place you are inquiring about. I am sure, at the right church, there is a lot of good that religion can bring.

So, I took a short pause before giving a thoughtful response. I really enjoyed your post. As far as I understand, you're proposing a more integrated model of faith and knowledge, one where the paradox is resolved through a redefinition of concepts.

We all know that “certain” knowledge is aspirational. We all know that we know nothing certain. So, we should always qualify our “knowledge” claims with “at least that is what I believe to be the case.” All scientific knowledge is subject to future falsification. — Fire Ologist

Here I partially agree. Everything we call knowledge (including in the scientific sense) is ultimately based, to some extent, on belief. None of us possesses absolute knowledge in any field, science, or judgment. We possess knowledge that is sufficiently justified (for us). Knowledge that is sufficiently justified (for us) is everything that a person accepts as true and acts upon (including both rationality and belief). Sufficiently justified knowledge, however, includes both a rational (verifiable) component and an unverifiable component.

I agree with this statement.
Expressed mathematically, this formula would be roughly as follows:

[Sufficiently justified (for the subject) knowledge] minus [Rational knowledge] equals [Faith]

In Russian, there is a special word for "sufficiently justified (for the subject) knowledge" – "pravda." In everyday speech, we say, "This is my pravda"—that is, it is how I reasonably believe, based on rational and irrational judgments, and act in accordance with it. Example: someone who says, "My pravda is that the Egyptians built the pyramids" expresses their reasonably well-founded knowledge, based on archaeological evidence (the rational part) and the decision to stop doubting (faith). This is their "pravda," which motivates them to take action (for example, writing articles or teaching). In Russian, there's also the word "istina" (truth), which is equivalent to "truth" in English. But the concept of "pravda" (truth) is not the same as "truth" (truth), although translators will translate it that way. There are many other cultural features associated with Pravda that I thought you might find interesting, and that are relevant to our discussion.

However, I would like to clarify your answer in another part:

The difference between what religious faith is and what scientific knowledge is has to do with what justification is employed. It’s not a difference that creates this preacher’s paradox. The preacher has to remain logical and provide evidence and make knowledge claims, just like any other person who seeks to communicate with other people and persuade them.

So really, there is no difference in the mind between a religious belief and a scientific belief - these are objects someone knows. They are both knowledge. The difference has to do with what counts as evidence, and the timing of when one judges enough evidence and logic have been gathered and applied, and it is time to assert belief and to act. — Fire Ologist

In the previous text, I distinguished between the concepts of rational knowledge and faith. So, when it comes to religion, the part I called faith is dogmatized and not subject to criticism. When it comes to science, the part of our judgment that I call faith is presupposed, but can be refuted. This resonates with Popper's ideas.

That is, you and I, as educated people with a scientific bent, can debate this or any other topic, but our discussion has the potential to evolve: I can agree with you; you can agree with me; we can come to something new together. But this is completely impossible when it comes to intra-dogmatic discussion.

Returning to our paradox, which you've certainly mitigated with your judgment: the paradox still exists. If dogmas were subject to revision, that would be fine, I'd agree with you, but dogmas are not subject to revision (that's what religion is for). Therefore, I conclude that the paradox remains.

Don't take this as flattery, but reading your comments, as well as , gives me a special vibe. It's an almost mystical feeling of warmth and kindness.

I don’t think you would be considering these questions of how to present God and religion to your children, if you did not recognize potential good value and truth coming from religion. If you believed in your heart that religion was clearly a net bad, you couldn’t have this issue at all. Am I right about that? — Fire Ologist

Of course, you're right. Although I don't like to talk about it, I'm constantly on the razor's edge. I've seen examples of both deep religiosity and atheism within my own family. That's why I really liked Kierkegaard's ideas. I seem to be constantly seeking a balance between these two phenomena, naturally in my striving for God. Thanks to this philosopher, I can now call this feeling faith. Because, as he states, "...faith is not absolute certainty or knowledge..."

Regarding the religious upbringing of children, I tend to agree with you. After all, I'm an adult, and religion hasn't done anything bad to me. This may not be a particularly representative sample, but it's my "pravda."

My children are baptized, of course, but I don't insist on hammering ideas and postulates into their heads; when I bring them to church, I try to give them something to experience on their own.

Thus, I resolved the “preacher’s paradox” for myself – after all, I am inclined to believe that I share responsibility for the future of my children.

Inspired by Kierkegaard's ideas:

Faith is neither knowledge nor conviction. It is a leap into the void, without guarantees. Faith is risk, trepidation, and loneliness. Оtherwise there would be no sacramental act, but simply conviction. Faith is not knowledge, for if a person simply knows, they have no doubt. Faith is, on the one hand, imperfect certainty, on the other, intention, and, on the third, a constant feeling of uncertainty. Any attempt to convey the content of the concept of "Faith," in my opinion, seems speculative, because it is a feeling that becomes a judgment when expressed in words . — Astorre

You provide a very Kierkegaardian and therefore Christian view of faith. To the extent you're an adherent of that and want to make sense of that, I can understand your OP. My only thought is that what you say of faith is not universally accepted as true within the Abrahamic traditions. In particular, faith is not a lonely, individualistic venture necessarily, but Judaism sees it as communal. Celibacy, isolation, living as a monk are all very counter to that tradition. A Jew needs a minyan to pray.

The idea that you have to have doubt in order to have faith is also not universally accepted as true. Trust in God and belief in God are different things and both can be absolute without jeoparizing their legitimacy.

The preacher sacrifices himself for others: He risks being misunderstood, rejected, despised he sacrifices himself, like Abraham. But Abraham's sacrifice isn't public. Abraham doesn't prove, explain, or teach. He simply acts contrary. — Astorre

This is the most bizzare part of the Kierkegaardian analysis, where the suggestion is that Abraham sacrificed himself. He didn't sacrifice himself, he attempted to sacrifice Isaac, meaning Isaac was the intended and almost victim. Zero consideration is placed upon what happened happened to Isaac. Kierkegaard then describes how Abraham then accepted Isaac back in love, when the text describes Abraham leaving with his two servants without Isaac and never speaking with Isaac again. The act wasn't private, it was in the presence of the two servants. The only indication that he loved Isaac was in a strange passage from before the attempted sacrifice. Genesis 12:2 states:

"Then God said, 'Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.'”

It's strange because Isaac wasn't Abraham's only son. Ishmael was his other son. And the text indicates he cared for Ishmael as well (prior to casting him off), " The matter distressed Abraham greatly because it concerned his son [Ishmael]". Genesis 21:11. God told Abraham not be distressed because Ishmael would also be given a nation, which means that Abraham had to know that Isaac would not be killed because his anscestory was to be given a nation.

Thematic to the behavior of Abraham is his surrender of his children, first with Ishmael and second with Isaac who he attempts to sacrifice and then never communicates with again as far as the text suggests.

Thematic to the Hebrew bible generally is the covenental relationship between the Hebrews and God, where God promises them he will protect them and give them a nation great and strong if they adhere to his rules. When they do as he wishes, they get reward. When not, punishment. This is to say, "faith" in the context of the Hebrew bible is faith in the word of God, not in the existence of God. That is, when God says cross the Jordan and I will keep you safe, hesitation will be seen as distrust in the protection God says he will provide you, not in whether God actually exists. The complaints by the Hebrews in the desert were of the form "why did you free us from Egypt just to have us die of starvation?," not "I wonder if there really is a god." How could they have thought that? They saw the 10 plagues, the partiing of the sea, manna from heaven, water from rocks, etc. They didn't need faith. They had empirical evidence. As did Abraham. God told him that his 90 year old wife would give birth and that happened.

It's only through imposing an anachronistic definition of faith onto the biblical narrative that we can arrive at the absurdity of Abraham's actions.

I just don't see the binding of Isaac as saying what Kierkegaard needs it to say.

In Russian, there is a special word for "sufficiently justified (for the subject) knowledge" – "pravda." — Astorre

Speaking of words in different languages:

What is the Russian word for "faith"? And what does it mean etymologically?

It's only through imposing an anachronistic definition of faith onto the biblical narrative — Hanover

Indeed. So often, when the word in the translation is rendered as "faith", it should probably be "faithfulness" or "loyalty" instead. "Faith" is a word that currently typically denotes something like 'a state of cognitive uncertainty, but also hopefulness'.

Similarly, "to believe" etymologically means 'to hold dear'; historically, it doesn't have this exclusively cognitive meaning it tends to be ascribed today, especially in secular circles.

In the previous text, I distinguished between the concepts of rational knowledge and faith. — Astorre

This is a popular dichotomy, yes, but it's a false one nonetheless. It's a dichotomy that holds only when one attempts to justify religious faith to an atheist, on atheist terms.

Now why on earth should one do that??

The moment one starts to justify religious belief/faith/dogma is the moment one disbelieves it and demotes it.

Religious dogma is just that: dogma. There is no argument for it, no rationalization, no support. It just is. That's the whole point.

It's no wonder people are not convinced by all those "reasons for belief in the existence of God". Reasons actually detract from such belief. It's just bizarre that religious people are the ones offering them.

I like your approach: it reminds me of one of my academic advisors at university. It went like this: I would come to him with my essay, he would read it, scribble it down, and he wouldn't like everything: it wasn't expressed well enough, the evidence wasn't right, there was a retreat into unnecessary explanations. Ultimately, this encouraged me to return to the main concept of the work every time and analyze, recheck, and rewrite. Ultimately, he still didn't like what I brought back. I was at a loss until one day I realized that he liked my concept and my train of thought, he liked the main idea, it was just that my technique was really lacking at the time. Over time, I learned, and our work together was very fruitful. It's the same here. I see that you agree with the concept itself, but my technical execution is often lacking. I see that. Sometimes I generalize too much, sometimes I add more sensuality and emotion than necessary. But wait. I like it! I enjoy it, so why not continue? This isn't a place for defense, but for human dialogue. And your criticism is also appropriate and pleasant, but I couldn’t help but remember my story from the past.

Faith translates into Russian as "VERA."
And it's a very broad concept. It encompasses both a female name and the feeling and concept of a vast number of Russian philosophers and writers who have attempted to understand this word. There's no consensus on this. As a native speaker of Slavic languages, I think you're probably familiar with all of this.

I myself use this word to describe my sense of aspiration toward the transcendental, which is impossible to comprehend, know, or justify.

It's always like this: as soon as you believe in something, a philosopher appears and crumbles it all to dust.