Faith and Questions

Here's an enlightening post from Mahablog on the role of faith in politics, digging a little deeper than most commentators who address the issue. (And frankly, most of them don't really "address" it -- they sort of nod at it and pick out the obvious tactical elements.) It fits right in with one thing I've noticed about the difference between science and religion: religion provides answers; science asks questions.

And what, you may ask, has this to do with politics? Well, first read the post. The idea that certainty, or the quest for it, plays a major role in people's lives is not a new one, or even very remarkable. I suspect the number of people who can live with constant uncertainty is small indeed: it's wearing, emotionally and physically, never to know exactly what's coming down. At the very least, people need stable patterns in order to live their lives.

Most basically, the thrust to make religion dominate the political life of the country comes, I think, from those who rely on authority to shape their lives. (Not something that appeals to me. "Mother, please! I'd rather do it myself.") So, as O'Brien points out, politicians offer to do that.

Unfortunately, democracy, at least our particular brand of it, is not founded on certainty. It's founded on inquiry, the necessity to question our leaders, question our institutions, and never be satisfied with easy answers handed down from on high. This is what's behind the assertion I've made that Christianity, and the Abrahamic faiths in general, since they rely on unimpeachable authority, are essentially anti-democratic. Probably the most extreme example of this is the Pope, who has held, among other things, that separation of church and state is a "myth," that gay marriage is a threat to world peace, and similarly cogent and well-reasoned pronouncements. (I suppose I should be grateful that there is a living and highly public example of the old dictum that the difference between idiocy and genius is that genius knows limits.)

However, I wander. The point is, although I defy you to find a candidate for public office who will actually say so, there is no certainty. Not in objective reality, at any rate. And so the task becomes to give faith its due place, but that place is not as the determining factor in public discourse or American politics. I seem to be led back again to the conclusion that the role of faith is a private one, to provide for each of us a grounding that enables us to participate in the world from a secure foundation, but not one that dictates how that participation, being as it is a joint effort by people of many beliefs, is to be conducted -- your faith can determine no one's behavior but your own. I think what I'm trying to say here is that your faith can form your life and your behavior, but that our public life is based on rational discourse for a reason: in the polyglot mess that is America, reason is the only basis we have for a workable dialogue, because faith cannot be challenged or questioned, and we don't all believe the same. And, after all, if we are to have dialogue, we must allow questions.