Skepticism And Strong Faith
A strong faith. I cannot think of a definition, and for the life of me cannot come up with anyone who serves as an example. The occasion for my puzzle was a snippet of television where Robin Roberts announced her intention to visit Lakewood Church in Houston, Texas to interview Joel Osteen this weekend. I have never met Osteen, my only exposure being the 
“reality show” of his morning sermons on TV. Not that I begrudge him his role. Does not each of us have a role, multiple roles to play in life? I am a retiring executive, a father, a grandfather, a husband and a friend to some. All of these roles require learning the lines, and delivering to the best of one’s ability a performance that complements others. When the curtain falls do we not all want to celebrate the performance, that no one upstaged anyone else, and everything was delivered in exquisite fashion? I think so. And I am reminded that every performance ends in a death. The curtain falls.
Back to the Osteen interview. Of course Roberts is likely to patronize the man who has celebrity status, a purveyor of happiness-Christianity-cum-capitalist-success gospel. The interview dance will serve the networks interest to keep advertisers satisfied, their revenue dollars flowing. Its all a fabulous dream from which none of us wants to awaken.
Are we not all living in the little town of Bethlehem?
O little town of Bethlehem, how still we see thee lie! Above thy deep and dreamless sleep…. the silent stars go by.
Now this word from Nietzsche:
The craving for a strong faith
is no proof of a strong faith,
but quite the contrary.
If one has it,
then one can afford
the beautiful luxury of skepticism:
one is sure enough,
firm enough,
has ties enough for that.
— excerpt, Twilight of the Idols by Friedrich Nietzsche
6 thoughts on “Skepticism And Strong Faith”
Is there a difference between Joel Osteen and Donald Trump? If there is, I can hardly see it. Both are Snake Oil salesmen who know their constituents and give them exactly what they want. Does Osteen believe in a God (other than the omnipotent $ sign)? My sense is it could go either way, for if he is not the embodiment of Elmer Gantry, I don’t know who he might be. Trump also pretends at religion since the religious character he plays fits with his core followers, the true believers who exalt him as they would any profit from on high. Yet for both Trump and Osteen, there is clearly no greater presence on earth than what they see when they look in a mirror.
The real question we must ask is: If the people are receiving what they want, who are we to say this is wrong? The sheep led by both Trump and Osteen know that their respective leaders are showmen who accumulate massive wealth with the full knowledge of their flocks. The people we tend to look down upon, who would offer up their lives for their idols, are giving their lives, their money, and their allegiance willingly with an understanding that these demagogues have placed themselves far, far above the flock and have no interest in the individuals who have succumb to their rhetoric of the absurd.
In the end, we as a race of critters, are receiving exactly what we ordered. For the most part, those of us who do not ascribe to the machinations of some god-like entity, in human form or not, are only able to do so much to raise the red flag of warning since the true believers will drink whatever is handed to them and there is no convincing them otherwise. In other words, the line I have crossed is from “skepticism” to “cynicism” since it is evident that we cannot communicate with those who bought their tickets and are already on the boat to paradise. Or at least that’s where they think they’re going.
Tobin, your question, “who are we to say this is wrong?” begs for a final, absolute answer. As far as I can tell there is none. The truth depends on what a person desires to be or become. I think that you alluded to that in your meditation on the scenario of masses of people giving their lives and their money to a parade of charlatans. Yet, I think that it is possible to communicate with “ticket-holders” as we have opportunity. I’ve found that it is never productive to attack something that someone else perceives as foundational to their sense of self. I think that we can only be an example of an alternative point of view and way of life. There is only one question that matters: Who are you? I think that we ought never to stop asking, and encourage others to persevere to keep asking.
As an aside I believe that Osteen and Trump have appeared together in the past.
Dear Mr. Administrator,
As much as I would really, really like to believe that we can communicate with the loyalists of an Osteen or Trump, I no longer think it possible. You suggest that we have an opportunity to communicate with those who have purchased the ticket. My sense is that at one time in the not too distant past, this was indeed a good scenario for compromise and moving forward with a legislative agenda. No longer. The polarization we face in our culture at this moment in time is tantamount to America in the 1860s. The only difference is that in 2019 people have become too lazy and too comfortable to risk their lives for the defense of the Constitution and would rather watch our democracy die a slow and very painful death than get up of off their armchairs and do whatever is necessary to save our nation. I have lived 68+ good years and if I could trade what’s left of my life for the sake of my country and for the sake of the world in exchange for a Trumpless future, I would step forward in a heartbeat.
I do not mean to say that it is possible to reach a compromise on matters of legislation, measures that structure society. I see what you see, a genuine contradiction between the world which the neo fascist inhabits and wishes to impose and the world as a humane place where reason is universally recognized and used. These two worlds necessarily collide. Force, the violence of the unrestrained id is what we are dealing with. Yet, to the extent possible, painful as it will be, we must not descend into a environment of verbal violence, slander, lies and name calling as a defensive strategy against this evil. The madness and methods of the right are forms of violence. To my mind this began with the gerrymandering which never should have been permitted under law. Gerrymandering was and is nothing but a disenfranchisement of voters.
My plea is that we not lose our humanity in these sad, dangerous circumstances. There are common areas of humanity, ie good food, music, other aspects of culture that can be discussed with our political opponents, all the more so, since there is no possibility of a reasoned political conversation. All of this is likely to descend into violence, war, as did the political conflict in the 1850s. War is murder, the ultimate evil. Or perhaps a generations long, grinding servitude-hunger-poverty for the majority, think the Mad Max-Thunderdome film, which we’ve never before seen in this country? I am advocating that we indirectly advocate compromise with our opponents by working to maintain a human relationship by whatever civil means we can find. The alternative is the unimaginable outcome of war.
We must persist in asking ourselves and our opponents: Who are you? and Is this what you really want?
I hope that was somewhat cogent.
Makes perfect sense. The channels of communication must always remain open, even when those with an opposing perspective have severed the phone lines in a hope that by cutting the connection they can pretend we are not who we have become.
But if we focus on the positive, i.e. good food, culture, arts, music and general merriment, are we not also turning a blind eye to the pending disasters facing humanity? Are we not throwing in the towel and saying to darker side of human nature, “I can’t make a difference, so I give up, and let’s just party ’til the sun goes down”? Perhaps that is the best way to approach our current situation – enjoy what time we have left and revel in the best that our species had to offer while we still can. There are many things to celebrate about the achievements made by the human animal, many great discoveries and advances in our understanding of nature and of ourselves. For me, it is difficult to separate the sadness of throwing this all away for the sake of blind narcissism and short-sighted greed juxtaposed against the greatness of our curiosity and brilliance. The Greeks wrote plays about the tragedy of the human experience, though I doubt if they could have foreseen this current outcome. Yet they had a handle on our self-destructive tendencies, so it’s possible I’m not giving them enough credit and perhaps the Oracle of Delphi may indeed have seen the juggernaut of self-mutilating extinction coming at some future point.
Our focus ought to change according to immediate circumstances. We will always make a difference. Just that, it is hard to see what that difference will be or if it will be what we had in mind, we desired. Seems to me that by a particular form-of-life we are showing that we are not willing to throw away all that has been accomplished. Narcissism and greed are slow motion forms of suicide.
In my opinion, the Greeks had it right.