On faith, unbelief, and doubt

I bought this book (1955) at a Church and it’s been a truly magnificent and refreshing read. There seems to be an English translation, but I am not sure how well it’s translated.

First of all, I should make a note: I am not a religious fanatic, but I consider myself religious. Even if your religion is different (or you are not religious at all), I think this book has a lot to offer.

I am aware that discussions about politics and religion can be touchy. Thus, the point of this post is not to persuade you, merely to list the ideas I found interesting in the book.

The metropolitan starts by stating that there are “secrets” in the world – things that the human mind cannot reach. He references Kant’s argument that we can only have knowledge of things we can experience. But we can’t experience everything (these are the actual secrets). He then proceeds by saying that the “impossibility of knowledge does not entail nonexistence”, and that “philosophy only reveals how powerless the self is”.

For “secrets” specifically, he touches on limits of reasoning (think recursive why and bottom), similar to the U of MIU in GEB. This kind of stuff will probably make more sense if you are already familiar with mathematical logic since only then you will know its limitations and how the metropolitan relates his reasoning. A good pre-requisite is perhaps Part I of GEB. At one point he concludes with “Crux super rationem”. I will (again) cite a quote from GEB:

You can’t go on defending your patterns of reasoning forever, there comes a point where faith takes over.

Reading it you cannot not notice that the metropolitan has a “mathematical” mind – the book is full of (valid) mathematical arguments. For example, he always considers all cases – in one example he considers both cases: the world both being infinite and finite and discusses what happens in either case (there’s still a “secret”).

He also mentions that knowledge is not the problem, but pride, uncalmness, and arrogance are. In a way, he talks about ego and how we can/should use our mind to “remove” our mind. That is, knowledge brings us closer to religion, not farther. Additionally, religious truths are unattainable to the mind, but most religions use analogies to at least bring us a step closer to those truths. For example, how bread and wine turn to Christ’s flesh and blood $\equiv$ how every food turns to flesh and blood in humans.

Perhaps the best part (and the one I personally believe the most in) of the book is how the author talks about combining knowledge and faith, that is, knowledge is attained through revelation. He gives an interesting argument as to how knowledge is more than just the mind – e.g. a blind person has a mind but cannot be explained the color of the snow. Thus, knowledge is gained through experience or intuition. Another interesting example is that we can see leaves on the tree, but what does seeing them tell us about them? Merely their color. To truly “understand” the leaf is a revelation. From this, he notes, “philosophy only shows its powerlessness”.

He gives an argument showing that God is necessary but then shows that “God is necessary -> God exists” is a fallacy. We can’t use necessities to prove being, and we need to believe not because of necessity but because it truly is. Further, according to the metropolitan, it is better to simply say “I don’t know” rather than “I don’t believe” for saying the latter implies arrogance because it is really unprovable – one cannot be sure of it. Religion gives us calmness which in turn gives us freedom, and the proud is a slave of himself.

Blessings are what make Christianity stand out compared to other religions. Freedom of will – religion is our choice, not enforced, but our self-determination brings us closer to God and He then fortifies us with his blessings. He talks a little bit about intuitionism – the presence of objects. Gives a few examples of how mathematicians (Gauss, Fermat, Riemann, etc) had random thoughts (revelation) that led to solutions. He also talks about how mathematicians usually have an intuition of a true (but yet unproven) mathematical theorem. This is the supernatural world revealing itself to us through blessings.

Repentance with hope. I have hope for your infinite goodness and mercy.

My personal thoughts

I have definitely felt the calm of religion. Does it come from the religion itself, or from myself? I am not sure. But at the same time, in this world, I don’t think the point is for us to remain calm. We need to oscillate between “that” world and “this” world, so as to not lose touch with reality (“this” world) but also not forget about the supernatural (“that” world). That is, we need to oscillate between the “highs” (God) and the “lows” (“basic” everyday things like logic). I will use (again) my personal favorite quote from GEB: