The Preacher's Paradox

Astorre

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 .

Preaching is persuasion. It is a public word addressed to others, with the goal of evoking faith in them, that is, persuading them to accept something illogical, unprovable, and inexpressible.

Hence the paradox: if a preacher truly believes , then he finds himself in a realm of paradox and doubt—and therefore cannot confidently call others. After all, it's unethical to call for something you're not sure of yourself; otherwise, you're simply avoiding any responsibility and calling for something you yourself can't confirm. If a preacher is convinced, certain of the truth of what he says, he no longer believes, but knows—and loses the right to speak of faith, becoming a hypocrite.

Preaching faith means either not having it or betraying it.

I'd like to address possible objections.

The preacher supposedly doesn't teach, but testifies. He doesn't impose; he simply shares his experience. This is personal testimony, not preaching in the traditional sense.
But then: The testimony itself is already public and therefore becomes an example, an instruction, a guide. As soon as you open your mouth and say, "I believe, and here's why," you're already suggesting, shaping, and externalizing something internal. This means you're either talking about something that can't be communicated, and therefore distorting it (a lie), or you're convinced it can be communicated and therefore no longer believe (knowledge, not faith).

The preacher supposedly invites you to share a risk, not offers knowledge. He doesn't say, "I know," he says, "I believe and invite you to take a risk too." But then: to invite risk, you need to define what it is and what's at stake. If you don't know what you're offering, you're irresponsible (you're not risking—you're just enticing). If you know, you've once again moved from faith to knowledge and lost the right to call it faith.

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. The preacher, on the other hand, is on stage, in a position of authority, explaining the "meaning" of sacrifice, although true sacrifice is something else entirely, isn't it? After all, salvation is individual. The preacher cannot take on someone else's faith, someone else's guilt, someone else's risk, or someone else's responsibility. Therefore, the preacher sacrifices nothing but his own comfort or status.

And here's another thing. The preacher simply loves. He asserts: I want others to be saved, too. After all, is it wrong to wish for others to be saved? Doesn't love justify preaching? But love doesn't guarantee the right to interfere in someone else's destiny. Salvation, after all, cannot be recommended; it cannot be imposed. Otherwise, we fall into the same trap: the preacher "knows" that salvation is good and that this is the path to it. That is, he no longer believes, but asserts.

If the preacher is simply trying to score missionary points with the Almighty , then things are even worse.

Hence, I conclude that talking about faith means abandoning it. As soon as you try to convey faith, you rationalize it, and therefore betray its nature. According to Kierkegaard, the only true preacher is the one who lives faith in silence.

T Clark

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

I’ve been thinking about faith recently. It certainly isn’t something that gets a lot of respect here on the forum. The forum is full of people who consider themselves rational and that consideration leads them to atheism. They tend to be condescending and contemptuous of people who profess faith. As I’ve come to see it, this represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what “faith” means.

Those who have read my posts here on the forum know I have a strong interest in Taoism. I think faith is similar to what Taoists call “Te,” which is sometimes translated as “intrinsic virtuosity” and which I sometimes think of as our true natures, our hearts. This is a quote from Ziporyn’s translation of the Chuang Tzu (Zhuangzi). I’ve used it many times here on the forum.

What I call good is not humankindness and responsible conduct, but just being good at what is done by your own intrinsic virtuosities. Goodness, as I understand it, certainly does not mean humankindness and responsible conduct! It is just fully allowing the uncontrived condition of the inborn nature and allotment of life to play itself out. What I call sharp hearing is not hearkening to others, but rather hearkening to oneself, nothing more.

The preacher supposedly doesn't teach, but testifies. He doesn't impose; he simply shares his experience. This is personal testimony, not preaching in the traditional sense.

But then: The testimony itself is already public and therefore becomes an example, an instruction, a guide. — Astorre

I don’t know much about preaching or how preachers see their vocation, but this description doesn’t seem right to me. I don’t think saying “Here’s what I’ve experienced. You can pay attention and see what you find, experience, inside yourself” is necessarily an instruction. Someone may show you a path, but you have to walk it yourself.

Astorre

I don’t know much about preaching or how preachers see their vocation, but this description doesn’t seem right to me. I don’t think saying “Here’s what I’ve experienced. You can pay attention and see what you find, experience, inside yourself” is necessarily an instruction. Someone may show you a path, but you have to walk it yourself. — T Clark

Thank you for your comment. Indeed, after the first reading, that's how it seems, so I'd like to clarify my idea.

When someone sends us a directive, an imperative, or a command to act, it's not limited to a simple act of coercion—within any command lies a context: I'm telling you what to do and accepting responsibility for it. For example: a mother tells her child to wipe his nose (the mother is willing to accept the consequences of the wrong decision to wipe his nose), or a manager tells a subordinate exactly how to sell (the manager accepts the risk that if their subordinate follows their instructions and it doesn't work), or a state proclaiming an ideology (the sovereign is responsible and accepts the consequences of the ideology's failure). Any act of affirmation carries responsibility. When you say, "You must do X," if you're not willing to share the consequences of doing X with those you're addressing, you're simply a windbag or a demagogue. But if you say, "Guys, do A, because if it doesn't work, I'll compensate you for all the losses you incur (and that's how it will be)"—that's a whole other level of responsibility.

I was drawn to this topic by conversations with so-called preachers (not necessarily Christian ones, but any kind). They say, "You must do this, because I'm a wise man and have learned the truth." When you ask, "What if I do this and it doesn't work?" Silence ensues, or something like, "That means you didn't do what I told you to do/you didn't believe/you weren't chosen."

Of course, the topic seems somewhat provocative, but it's certainly no less interesting to think about than the Sleeping Beauty problem or the problem of blue-eyed people on an island. I think the topic is at least thought-provoking.

Tom Storm

↪Astorre

I suspect there are as many types of preachers as there are faiths so I don't think we can readily say " the preacher is x". I’ve known my share of priests, rabbis, elders, reverends, preachers, and cult leaders. I wouldn’t say they have much in common, apart from a desire to reach others. But some want to do it through dogma or authority, while others aim to promote individualised faith or pluralism through empathy and contemplation. Religious faith plays no role in my life, but for those it does, it’s personal, intimate, and often ineffable. The connection between personal faith and preaching is often more tenuous than you’d think. I once spoke with an Anglican minister who had delivered an extremely definitive sermon, and afterward, when I asked him about his apparent certainty, he admitted he was riddled by doubt and felt he’d made mistakes in both tone and content. Preaching is performance while faith is introspection.

He asserts: I want others to be saved, too. After all, is it wrong to wish for others to be saved? — Astorre

The “salvation cult” sounds more evangelical than Christianity per se. Liberal churches that do not follow Fundamentalist dogama generally do not emphasize this. I got through ten years of Baptist Christianity with almost no mention of any need to be saved.

Episcopal (Anglican) Bishop John Shelby Spong puts it like this:

True religion is not about possessing the truth. No religion does that. It is rather an invitation into a journey that leads one toward the mystery of God. Idolatry is religion pretending that it has all the answers.

Astorre

↪Tom Storm

Please share: do you see the "preacher's paradox" or do you think it doesn't exist?

Perhaps I'm proposing too rigid a dichotomy?

Tom Storm

Please share: do you see the "preacher's paradox" or do you think it doesn't exist? — Astorre

No, I don't think it matters.

Astorre

But some want to do it through dogma or authority, . — Tom Storm

I never liked this and I felt it was wrong, which I now expressed with the help of arguments in this post.

while others aim to promote individualised faith or pluralism through empathy and contemplation — Tom Storm

This approach seems clearly preferable to me, as I wrote above:

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

I truly believe that each person's personal faith is not a place for debate or philosophical argument. But please consider what I've written as a discussion of the structure built upon faith. That is, the object of study is not faith, but preaching.

Tom Storm

↪Astorre

Faith and preaching are distinct acts; I don’t see how expressing the latter necessarily betrays the former.

Astorre

↪Tom Storm

Here is a more detailed explanation if I understood your question correctly

When someone sends us a directive, an imperative, or a command to act, it's not limited to a simple act of coercion—within any command lies a context: I'm telling you what to do and accepting responsibility for it. For example: a mother tells her child to wipe his nose (the mother is willing to accept the consequences of the wrong decision to wipe his nose), or a manager tells a subordinate exactly how to sell (the manager accepts the risk that if their subordinate follows their instructions and it doesn't work), or a state proclaiming an ideology (the sovereign is responsible and accepts the consequences of the ideology's failure). Any act of affirmation carries responsibility. When you say, "You must do X," if you're not willing to share the consequences of doing X with those you're addressing, you're simply a windbag or a demagogue. But if you say, "Guys, do A, because if it doesn't work, I'll compensate you for all the losses you incur (and that's how it will be)"—that's a whole other level of responsibility.

I was drawn to this topic by conversations with so-called preachers (not necessarily Christian ones, but any kind). They say, "You must do this, because I'm a wise man and have learned the truth." When you ask, "What if I do this and it doesn't work?" Silence ensues, or something like, "That means you didn't do what I told you to do/you didn't believe/you weren't chosen." — Astorre

Tom Storm

↪Astorre

But as I said, there are myriad types of preaching. Isn’t it simply meant to awaken others? It’s not necessarily prescriptive or certain.

I’ve never encountered preachers who say, ‘You must do X.’ I would imagine those are fairly simple types. You may be referring to the Fundamentalist Preacher’s Dilemma. I don’t take fundamentalism seriously as a form of credible spirituality. And I say this as a nihilist... :wink:

Astorre

↪Tom Storm

I anticipated this objection:

he says, "I believe and invite you to take a risk too." But then: to invite risk, you need to define what it is and what's at stake. If you don't know what you're offering, you're irresponsible (you're not risking—you're just enticing). If you know, you've once again moved from faith to knowledge and lost the right to call it faith. — Astorre

Tom Storm

↪Astorre

Sorry, the idea doesn't resonate with me. The better preachers I’ve seen make no demands and simply promote contemplative living, in harmony with others, often using scripture as allegorical stories. It’s about generating a conversation about value and eschewing dogma.

But I concede it isn't hard to find monstrous literalists - they are out there too.

baker

I was drawn to this topic by conversations with so-called preachers (not necessarily Christian ones, but any kind). They say, "You must do this, because I'm a wise man and have learned the truth." When you ask, "What if I do this and it doesn't work?" Silence ensues, or something like, "That means you didn't do what I told you to do/you didn't believe/you weren't chosen." — Astorre

Of course this is how it works. Preaching, teaching, mentoring, advising -- these all make for one-way relationships where the whole and sole responsibility is on the student/underling.

There are self-help books that state in a disclaimer right at the beginning of the book that the author and the publisher are not in any way responsible for what happens to the person if the person should choose to follow the advice given in the book.

baker

Please share: do you see the "preacher's paradox" or do you think it doesn't exist?

Perhaps I'm proposing too rigid a dichotomy? — Astorre

I think it's a naive and idealistic to pose such a dichotomy.

Most people, and especially religious/spiritual types, hold a stance like this: "If you don't see things the way I do, you're blind/stupid/evil (and deserve to be destroyed)". And that's it, end of story.

baker

Sorry, the idea doesn't resonate with me. The best preachers I’ve seen make no demands and simply promote contemplative living, in harmony with others, often using scripture as allegorical stories. It’s about generating a conversation about value and eschewing dogma. — Tom Storm

Oh? Or maybe you fail to notice their authoritarianism?

Tom Storm

Oh? Or maybe you fail to notice their authoritarianism? — baker

Oh? Or maybe you see authoritarianism everywhere?

Astorre

↪baker

↪Tom Storm

Oh, here's where I'm ready to intervene and responsibly state: authoritarianism, unlike liberalism, dictates how to act and what to do, but it also doesn't shirk responsibility (for example, a mother to her son or a teacher to a student). In this case, the preacher is considered a pure liberal by me. He says, "I'm affirming this, and you have the right to follow through or not, but the responsibility is yours." So, authoritarianism in its pure form doesn't deserve to be labeled as all the "bad things" it can do.

baker

Or maybe you see authoritarianism everywhere? — Tom Storm

Then I wouldn't see it at all, as there'd be nothing to contrast it against. If everything is orange, you can't tell it's orange.

baker

Oh, here's where I'm ready to intervene and responsibly state: authoritarianism, unlike liberalism, dictates how to act and what to do, but it also doesn't shirk responsibility. — Astorre

What exactly does that look like when authoritarianism takes responsibility? In that it punishes, ostracizes, imprisons, or kills those who fail to live up to the set standards?

Here, I view the preacher as a pure liberal: "I'm saying this, and you have the right to follow through or not, but the responsibility is yours."

In other words, a one-way relationship, a one-way responsibility.

baker

Preaching is persuasion. It is a public word addressed to others, with the goal of evoking faith in them, that is, persuading them to accept something illogical, unprovable, and inexpressible. — Astorre

This doesn't sound right, not at all.

Note how preaching to outsiders is not common to all religions; only the expansive religions (such as Christianity and Islam) preach to outsiders. Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism, for example, do normally not preach to outsiders.

And when it comes to a religous teacher speaking to his ingroup, to the members of his religion, this is actually just a repetition of already learned material (or material that was supposed to be learned already). Such sermons, and insofar there is any conversation with the members of the congregation, such conversations, follow the Socratic method: the conclusion is known and accepted by all participants at the onset, only the steps to that conclusion are rehearsed. The ingroup doesn't need to yet be persuaded; it goes without saying that they have already accepted the religious tenets, or else they wouldn't be there in the pew at all.

As for preaching to outsiders: I never got the impression that the preacher is trying to "evoke faith" in me, much less trying to convince me to "accept something illogical, unprovable, and inexpressible". Not even remotely. In the best case scenario, I think they were "just doing their job of preaching" and I was entirely irrelevant to it. Iinstead of me, a carboard box might be there, and it would make no difference to them. In the more frequent scenario the preacher expressed his gloating over my eternal demise.

Astorre

↪baker

What exactly does that look like when authoritarianism takes responsibility? In that it punishes, ostracizes, imprisons, or kills those who fail to live up to the set standards? — baker

You're obviously confusing authoritarianism with totalitarianism. Authoritarianism is when your dad punches you in the face if you steal your neighbor's bike (even though no one saw you). Totalitarianism is when you're a masterless slave, toiling in a quarry for eating an apple that fell off a passing truck. Kind of like a child taken into foster care by someone else for welfare.

When your dad punches you in the face, he's your opinion leader and your teacher, enforcing good manners and holding you accountable for your obligations. In the second case (totalitarianism), you're not even a slave, just expendable material.

I understand the audience I'm discussing with, so I'm explaining the ideas step by step.

So, that preacher who, smiling sweetly, sells you something he "knows" or doesn't believe is a liberal (in the classic sense, he does this to earn missionary points or just money without any responsibility). He's not the father who will pay your bills.

Astorre

Note how preaching to outsiders is not common to all religions; only the expansive religions (such as Christianity and Islam) preach to outsiders. Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism, for example, do normally not preach to outsiders. — baker

This resonates perfectly with Kierkegaard: Faith is a personal act. Faith is silent.

You subtly distinguish expansive preaching from intra-denominational preaching, and that's a great addition. The idea of the post is to identify the preacher's paradox in an expansive religion/belief. I think this is an excellent clarification. But I'd like to identify the paradox without reference to labels, but to the preaching of faith as such (no matter what it is, even belief in aliens).

Paine

↪Astorre

A lot of Kierkegaard's testimony takes the form of an intervention. Philosophical Fragments counterposes the Socratic view of 'recollection' that says we have the grounds for knowing truth within us to the Christian view that the condition for knowing truth must be given to us. That follows Pascal who said that Christianity is a scandal for reason but closer to the truth of the human condition than what reason provides.

The Concept of Anxiety lays out how that difference relates to a person's experience through a contrast between original sin and the emergence of an individual through their sins. By this means, he draws the limits of psychology and the beginning of the theological.

Works of Love is one very long sermon on the difference between Christian love and every other kind.

I don't know how that relates to your paradox, but Soren K definitely intended to turn over tables in the temple.

Tom Storm

Or maybe you see authoritarianism everywhere?
— Tom Storm

Then I wouldn't see it at all, as there'd be nothing to contrast it against. If everything is orange, you can't tell it's orange. — baker

Well, I’m not convinced that you don’t see orange everywhere. But let's not speak in code; my point is you tend to frame most ideas in a negative light, with a focus on what you see as abuses of power. And when others have a different perspective, you seem to need to paint them as wrong or deluded. An example is when you responded to my point with:

Oh? Or maybe you fail to notice their authoritarianism? — baker

You may not have been going for smug or patronising, but it could be read this way.

So given your response above about seeing "orange" I could use the same device. If I can identify authoritarianism, then presumably I can identify when it isn't there too.

But none of this really matters, right?

Do you think it is impossible for a Christian preacher to be non-authoritarian in their approach?

Authoritarianism is when your dad punches you in the face if you steal your neighbor's bike (even though no one saw you). Totalitarianism is when you're a masterless slave, toiling in a quarry for eating an apple that fell off a passing truc — Astorre

What? Are you going for hyperbole and farce here? I don’t know about your dad, but it’s perfectly possible to be an authoritarian parent without violence. And this definition of totalitarianism seems way off the mark. Why did you choose these examples?

A totalitarian parent or government would be one that seeks control over every aspect of a child’s/person's life; use of time, interests, friends, and who uses guilt and emotional manipulation to gain total submission.

An authoritarian parent represents a somewhat milder version of this, emphasizing discipline, order, and compliance. Authoritarian approaches exist on a continuum, and some may even involve the use of violence.

This resonates perfectly with Kierkegaard: Faith is a personal act. Faith is silent. — Astorre

Isn't Kierkegaard just another person with a view on faith? I'm interested in why this matters. This point, and the accompanying paradox, seem important to you, but it doesn't resonate with me. So I'm curious about the gap

Are you a Christian?

T Clark

I was drawn to this topic by conversations with so-called preachers (not necessarily Christian ones, but any kind). They say, "You must do this, because I'm a wise man and have learned the truth." When you ask, "What if I do this and it doesn't work?" Silence ensues, or something like, "That means you didn't do what I told you to do/you didn't believe/you weren't chosen." — Astorre

As I said, I am not familiar with preachers or preaching of any sort beyond what I’ve seen in church when I was a kid. I guess all I would say is that it doesn’t have to be the way you described, even if it often is. That’s certainly not the way Lao Tzu, purportedly one of the founders of Taoism, did it in the Tao Te Ching.

I think the topic is at least thought-provoking. — Astorre

I agree.

Astorre

↪Tom Storm

Of course, Tom, that's a gross exaggeration. I probably expressed myself in a way that was taken too literally. But here's the thing, and I've written about this before. Aggression is always a form of oppression. I'm not trying to justify it. The idea was that the parent's aggression stems from their responsibility for the child's fate, not from coercion for their own benefit. That was a significant emotional exaggeration. We discussed this at length in another thread, but honestly, I don't want to return to it here.

I hope you understood me correctly.

My personal beliefs, with your permission, I prefer to leave in silence.

We've previously discussed the ethical aspects of guiding directives (you might remember in the context of rescuing a suicide), and I generally understand your position.

In this thread, the question seems to be: is it ethical to propagate something you don't fully understand or something you believe in without foundation (for example, if you've simply been brainwashed). A "preacher" in this context isn't necessarily an imaginary priest of some church, but anyone who advocates something.

ProtagoranSocratist

i personally have never understood "faith". I guess it's the same as confidence, that you can trust in the future, and as OP explains, something you "just know", something you cannot doubt because you're absolutely in touch with the thing you have faith in. However, in the religious sense it's basically nonsense. How exactly can you have a relationship with a non-thing? If you have to think about it, then you don't have faith, which I guess is what Astorre is getting at.

Tom Storm

That was a significant emotional exaggeration. — Astorre

I can accept that you were using hyperbole; it just seemed out of context.

In this thread, the question seems to be: is it ethical to propagate something you don't fully understand or something you believe in without foundation (for example, if you've simply been brainwashed). A "preacher" in this context isn't necessarily an imaginary priest of some church, but anyone who advocates something. — Astorre

So you're saying that this thread is about whether it’s morally acceptable to promote or advocate for ideas that you don’t really understand or can’t justify rationally?

That’s certainly not what I thought the paradox was about. Yes, I think it’s acceptable to promote or advocate ideas you don’t fully understand or can’t justify rationally. Most people do so regularly, whether it’s their advocacy of climate change action, democracy, religion, or world peace. :wink: I don't think it's primarily a moral question, it's more a question of insight and wisdom. In life I don't take it for granted that anyone knows what they are talking about... me included.

Astorre

That’s certainly not what I thought the paradox was about. Yes, I think it’s acceptable to promote or advocate ideas you don’t fully understand or can’t justify rationally. Most people do so regularly, whether it’s their advocacy of climate change action, democracy, religion, or world peace. :wink: I don't think it's primarily a moral question, it's more a question of insight and wisdom. — Tom Storm

Excellent. Now add a layer of responsibility: promoting something you're unsure of, you don't know the consequences, and you shift all the responsibility for following you onto the follower.

Astorre

↪ProtagoranSocratist

I'll try to explain what "faith" is in Kierkegaard's understanding, as best I can.

So, let's say there is "knowledge"—that which is confirmed by experience or logic and meets the criterion of "sufficient reason." Doubt is eliminated by logic, experience, fact, and rational certainty. For example, "The sun is shining."

Belief is something that is at least somewhat confirmed by experience and logic and provides grounds for asserting that something will happen as you believe: for example, "The sun will rise tomorrow."

Faith is absurd, a belief contrary to reason. That which cannot be proven and even contradicts reason. Doubt is not eliminated, but accepted. Because the transcendent is something completely different, inaccessible to human reason.
If the existence of the Transcendent could be proven, faith would be meaningless.

For example, "If God stood before me as an object of knowledge, I would not believe, but simply know." But precisely because He cannot be proven, faith is possible."

That is, faith is not "weak knowledge," but the highest form of existence,
in which a person enters into a direct relationship with the Transcendent, without intermediaries—neither logic nor morality.

Tom Storm

Excellent. Now add a layer of responsibility: promoting something you're unsure of, you don't know the consequences, and you shift all the responsibility for following you onto the follower. — Astorre

I’m not convinced that’s how it works. You’re not including the ineffable (the sense of the numinous), the importance of which can only be conveyed without any inherent expertise. I think it’s perfectly acceptable for a believer in God to say that the truth ultimately lies not with him but with God, and through following a path and that all he (the preacher) can do is point in the right direction. To have a strong intuition and vocation, not to mention faith that this is the right way, is enough. And as we’ve already discussed, there are many types of preachers, and not all of them claim to represent divine authority or have definitive answers.

Now bear in mind I am an atheist and have no special fondness for religion or faith.

The Preacher's Paradox

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions