The nature of the quest

Last week I listened to an interesting exchange between a Humanist and a Christian on the UK radio show "Unbelievable".

I hastily transcribed part of the discussion (it's a little long, but at least worth a skim):

Alister McGrath (theologian and scientist):
...I've found an answer which I believe to be right just as I know you've found an answer which you believe to be right...

Caspar Melville (editor New Humanist magazine):
It seems to me, not to be rude, but actually I'm not like you in that, I don't think I've found an answer I deem to be right. To me, it's a perpetual quest... the quest is it, life is the quest. Life is looking at all the stories, trying to glean from stories some meaning, trying to be the best person you can be in the world.

I don't think I've found the truth and I really worry about people who claim that they have found the truth, because the next thing they want to do, is tell other people about that truth, and then the next thing they want to do, is they want to impose that version of reality on other people. That is the imperial element of religion which I find really difficult to deal with. So I choose doubt over certainly, fundamentally.

...I have to try and construct my own version of provisional truth all the time. That's why I still want to read books. To me, I don't have one good book that I live my life by, I have thousands of books and I'm still looking for new ones and I learn a new thing from a new book...

Justin Brierly (Premier Christian Radio host): Are you suggesting religion effectively ends the quest for openness?

Melville: Sometimes it does and I think that's self-evident because we know societies where people only read one book, they only have access to one book, there's one set of stories...

McGrath: Do you think you'll come to a point in your quest where you'll pause and say, 'Hey, I think this is right', or by definition are you going to keep questing?

...It seems to me that [for you,] thinking you've found the truth is a bad thing in itself.

Melville: I do, and I'm worried about people who stand up and say, 'I've found the truth'. If you're saying, 'It's my truth, this is what I believe', that's fine, but actually, scratching the surface a bit, you're not just going to say that, you're going to say, 'I've found the truth for me, for everyone else, and actually it's the truth of the world, it's the truth of human nature'.

Brierly: But isn't that what Richard Dawkins says?

Melville: No! All he says is, that argument is wrong; he doesn't say 'I know the truth of human nature', he implies that science may be able to find those answers and I disagree with him about that. I don't think something like the truth of human nature, the truth of why we are here, is amenable to one single answer. The point is to continue to ask the question and doubt.... [talks about finding meaning in fragments and experiences]

But none of it is capital "T" truth that I can conscript other people into believing. I accept their right to make their journey on that and actually, if I ever felt that I'd come to that moment where I've reached the final truth or revelation, that would really worry me. Because what keeps me going is intellectual curiosity and wanting to answer a question I'm not sure is possible to answer...

----ends-----

To me, it seems as if the statement, "I don't think I've found an answer I deem to be right", is refuted by Melville himself. The approach he deems to be right is to "quest", taking what you will from where you will along the way - provided you don't take any one truth too seriously.

But what is he questing for? Surely it can't be truth, because it would "worry" him if he found it, and he admits to thinking that finding the truth (or at least thinking you have) is a bad thing in itself.

Then again, he obviously thinks his approach is right (true?).

I'm also curious about Melville's attitude to truth when it's not in reference to spirituality. Presumably the assertion that he was a guest on this radio show would not be "worrying". Perhaps this would be acceptable because the claim is uncontentious and innocuous?

Melville agrees he is concerned that religion can end openness - but to what extent can a quest be open and genuine when you've already decided on its outcome?

He also seems to think that being intellectually and emotionally convinced by a capital "T" truth jeopardises a person's ability to keep asking important questions. But what if there is one true God, who has revealed himself in nature, in history, in humanity? What if there is a plausible and cohesive explanation of why we're here and what our purpose is? If that were the case, I think you could argue the opposite.

I'd love to hear your thoughts...

Being a kid is awesome

Being a kid is awesome. You're expected to come home with paint on your clothes, twigs in your hair, dirt in your nails and food just about anywhere.

You laugh when something's funny and cry when it's sad and say what you think without, well, thinking.

Tiny treats and lame excursions are unbearably exciting - you skip, dance and sing your way down supermarket aisles without even considering the possibility you look and sound anything less than exceptional.

And you never lose sleep over a member of the opposite sex.

But for how long? Especially if your parents buy into yuckky marketing that seeks to sexualise and/or turn you into a fashion accessory. And according to this article, consumer demand is growing.

A little girl dressed up as a Witchery mum

"Activism-lite"

In an article in last weekend's Australian (Twitter-led revolution reveals a character limit), Geoff Elliott uses the term "activism-lite" to describe the way social-media users rally in support of a cause.

I think it's a pretty apt description of the causes we "support" with no more than a mouse click.

The more groups we join on Facebook, the more implausible the notion that our support goes any further than a flippant click and a desire to further supplement our profile with an array of ideologies we're proud to call our own.

I'm not saying it's bad to voice support in this way (clicking "like" in response to a comment is easier than composing an intelligible response, and seems better than offering none), I'm just wondering whether the ease with which we can do so online means we "rally" more and, feeling as though we've done our bit, do less.