And Elijah came near to all people and said, “How long will you go limping between two opinions?”…
1 Kings 18:21
In the criticisms that surfaced after the recent death of a prominent figure, one recurring theme was the confidence with which he held his views. Many felt that his confidence was excessive, as he spoke with a degree of certainty that left little room for opposing perspectives – even on matters still open to debate. To his critics, this manner suggested a lack of intellectual humility, and at times his rhetoric was perceived as bordering on arrogance.
This all came about at a time when I was trying, over the course of the past few months, to decide what I believed about one particular issue. Two positions presented themselves and, regardless of efforts I made to read extensively about the topic, I found myself unable to settle on either. Both positions were backed by good and reasonable arguments and the different voices I trust regarding the matter landed on opposing sides. I resolved that, since I couldn’t pick a side, I should then find a way to live in the middle. That seemed to me to be the path of humility and the way to be honest about my limits. And since I’m no expert on the matter, I didn’t want to come across as arrogant as the aforementioned fellow over issues about which I cannot be totally certain. I preferred nuance, and rejected what seemed to me an overly simplistic and unsophisticated stance.
Does this imply that I believe truth to be a kind of spectrum? Do I then think that true virtue is displayed in being “balanced” in what one believes (as opposed to going to extremes while being critical of others)? Am I suggesting a complete rejection of a “black-and-white” view of the world in favor of learning to live comfortably among its many “shades of gray”? There are many ways to challenge this line of thinking, but before doing so, I would like first to revisit one of my earlier reflections 1.
Certainty & Action#
There were probably many war generals those days, and I’d imagine that many tacticians and strategists with more experience stood up to challenge these two young men; mere spies sent to survey a land that was soon to be invaded. Caleb and Moses’ young protégé Joshua; only two individuals, stood “contra mundum” 2, in front of an entire nation, with much courage, and contrary to popular opinion, to say without any hint of doubt that the many giants spotted in the land of Canaan would certainly be defeated, and that, should the people proceed with the invasion, these giants will be “as bread” for them (Numbers 14:9).
Of all the lessons you can pull out of this story, rejecting postures of certainty cannot be one of them. The entire assembly was ready to stone the two men for trying to incite their nation into a war they could not win. Even though Caleb and Joshua couldn’t account with 100% certainty how they would win, they nevertheless stood unflinchingly in front of an angry mob with unshakable resolve. Were they showcasing war strategy expertise or was it a classic case of the Dunning-Kruger effect ? Was it bravery on their part or was it recklessness? Were they being arrogant? Were they in over their heads and sufferings from delusions of grandeur?
No one is able to know a single thing absolutely ; leave alone most things. Does that imply that we can never be certain about anything? Should we then give up on certainty since we cannot possibly know anything exhaustively? Not quite.
Douglas Wilson makes a sharp observation in his book Proof as Moral Obligation when he writes that for us, limited as we are in our knowledge and capacity, “Action (not theory) is the measurement of certainty”. In other words, be conflicted and uncertain and undecided all you want; at the end of the day, if action is required, one can only commit to one and only one course. Suppose we’re asking ourselves whether or not God exists; your verbal response may sound intelligent, balanced, informed and very nuanced – and there’s nothing wrong with that – but it is by evaluating your actions that we’re going to truly measure your certainty. Your rhetoric might avoid impressions of certainty, but life, lived through actions, won’t give you that choice.
If you leave the realm of theory and come to action, you’ll find that things get drastically simpler; you have to do this thing or this other thing and one must choose which. If God is God, then He demands your worship. You may feel you need more time, you may doubt his existence, or you may simply deem the question irrelevant – but even then, you still face the fact that there are only two ways to live.
“…choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord”
Joshua 24:15
This isn’t to say that theories are useless. Far from that. Obviously, time and study should be dedicated to refine our worldviews and we must continually examine our beliefs to ensure that they’re in accord with the truth. There’s no question about that. Unfortunately, and this is the point I’m trying to get across, life won’t always give you the time to sort out your beliefs. You might be conflicted about something and life won’t wait until you earn a PhD on the subject or else wait until you feel ready to choose a way forward. As said previously 1, life demands a foundation because we just cannot remain suspended mid-air, forever crippled by our limited capacity to know anything exhaustively. We must build our lives somehow and somewhere, and that sometimes cannot wait. The choice is not whether we will stand on a conviction, but which conviction we will choose to stand on. Whether that foundation is “solid rock” or “shifting sand,” one thing is certain: nobody lives without a floor (Matthew 7:21).
Stated differently, regardless of one’s private feelings and convictions (or lack thereof), nothing will ever excuse or exempt anyone from action. Even our Lord, as Paul writes elsewhere, will “render to each one according to his works” (Romans 2:6), showing how stated beliefs and words, important though they are, cannot reveal the ground upon which a life is built as actions do.
Excuses, Confidence, Faith#
“How then should we live?”, you’d ask. It does not seem fair that we’re forced to choose a course of action when we’re not always fully satisfied and fully convinced with the available evidence. To make matters worse, for any given topic, you’ll find a gazillion interpretations – many of which are at odds. Some even say that truth is “relative”; meaning that anyone can just “live their truth” – or worse, make up their own truth. What does one do amidst all this confusion?
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them… So they are without excuse.
Romans 1:19-20
This is the Apostle Paul’s way of telling us that we’re not left alone to grope in the dark; left only with guesses and estimates and hunches about the truth. Being our creator, He’s not surprised that we have cognitive limits, but instead He has taken it all into account and made provisions for what our small minds will ‘require’ to know about Him and His world and how we’re to live in it.
Whether well meaning or not, people sometimes twist the truth and, as a result, create paralyzing confusions – especially, as Wilson intimates, through the logic games played by philosophers. However, what Paul is saying here is of massive importance: our omniscient creator’s voice will also make itself heard and it shall bring light – and darkness cannot overcome it (John 1:5).
He has foreknown that we’ll eventually become aware of our limitations and so He’s made it such that we can put whatever little trust we can muster upon Him who knows everything absolutely. His desire for us is to be confident; only in Him. He assures us that if we ground our entire lives on Him and in His words, that we’ll not be shaken and that we’ll never see it all come crashing down like a house of cards. In other words: “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame” (Romans 10:11). As previously stated, He’s gone to great lengths to assure us that heaven and earth will have to first pass away before “the smallest letter, or one stroke of a letter” of His words becomes unreliable (Matthew 5:18). And how wonderful is that?Conclusion#
It should be evident that I’m not suggesting that we should close our ears to anything that fails to align with our beliefs. On the contrary, if we have confidence in the stability of the ground upon which we have built our lives, we need not fear allowing opposing views try to shake it. A secure foundation is not threatened by scrutiny.
In this sense, confident belief is not like fragile glassware but more like a caged lion released in the wild: no one worries whether it will survive the exposure. Therefore, let’s evaluate and scrutinize the reliability of views advanced, rather than begrudging the (sometimes cheerful) confidence of those who may, in fact, have good reasons to place their trust so fully in them.
It’s true that some may be under the illusion that their views have the strength of a lion when in reality theirs is as weak as a house cat. Even so, what ought to be challenged is the view itself rather than the confidence with which it is held. In such cases, confidence is indeed misplaced – but confidence is not the problem; the problem lies on the ground upon which it rests. Put differently, let’s not be allergic to the idea of having clear, firm and even fierce convictions, as the Lord himself commends such resolve, as seen in Caleb and Joshua.
“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen”
Hebrews 11:1
