Last week in my philosophy of religion class, I had my undergrads read and discuss Richard Dawkins' article "Is Science A Religion" in Pojman and Rea's Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology. In that text Dawkins says:
"Science is based upon verifiable evidence. Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops. Why else would Christians wax critical of doubting Thomas? The other apostles are held up to us as exemplars of virtue because faith was enough for them. Doubting Thomas, on the other hand, required evidence. Perhaps he should be the patron saint of scientists."
Dawkins' fideistic reading of this episode intrigued me. So, I looked up the relevant passage (John 20: 24-29 NIV) to see whether it did indeed demand a fideistic reading and found the following:
24. Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came.25. So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
26. A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!"
27. Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
28. Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
29. Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
It seemed to me at first glance that Christ was, in this instance, endorsing fideism. Which left me somewhat disheartened since I certainly don't think that this is right account of religious belief. But then while thinking about it aloud during my class a few thoughts came to mind. First, Note that Christ does not say in verse 29:
(1') "Blessed are those who have no evidence whatsoever and yet have believed."
Nor does he say,
(1'') Blessed are those who will not have evidence in the future and who yet will believe."
That Christ did not say the latter is important because I think there is a tendency, when interpreting scripture, to make hasty generalizations. In this case, doubtlessly, Dawkins is generalizing from Christ's response to Thomas on this occasion to all believers down through history to the present, and I think that this is surely mistaken. That what Christ says in verse 29 is meant just for Thomas and the Apostles is made clear by the tense of the utterance "blessed are they who have not seen and yet have believed". This is in the past tense, it has already happened. It need not apply to all believers through all of time.
That Christ did not say the former is important because, as I read the passage, Thomas did have evidence of the Resurrection in the form of the testimony of his companions. They told him that they had seen the risen Lord. But Thomas refused to believe them.
The upshot here is that, as far I can tell, Christ's dictum in verse 29 is simply saying that those who believed on the basis of the Apostles testimony, because they loved and trusted in the other Apostles, were blessed (or more blessed on some translations). The other Apostles in turn were given evidence, they saw the risen Lord before them. Thomas's sin is not that he demands evidence, but that he will not accept the evidence he is given, namely the evidence of the eyewitness testimony of his brothers and sisters. This is a sin against charity and Christian unity. Thomas would have been more blessed than the other Apostles if he could have believed on the basis of his love for them and trust in their testimony, but instead he was made to see for himself.
At any rate it seems Dawkins is clearly wrong to assert: "The other apostles are held up to us as exemplars of virtue because faith was enough for them". As far as I can tell they believed not on blind faith, but rather on the basis of having seen for themselves, or on the basis of knowing others who had seen for themselves, that Christ was risen. Either way, they had some evidence.
I am curious to hear, however, what my fellow Prosbloggers think of the matter.
Thank you for putting this one up. I have found it discouraging from many Evangelical Christians I have known who have put forward this similar thought that Dawkins attacks.
This is perhaps one of those many cases where the Christian is wrong but is not an expression about Christian belief in general. I find your interpretation agreeable and it has made me rethink about a 'dogmatist' Christian attitude. The Thomas analogy always had been ofefensive to my more sceptical leanings.
What does this new account of Thomas mean for us? Is it that we are to sufficiently find reasons for the existence of God and Jesus; and it is up to us to accept them?
We unlike Thomas, do not have the literal or metaphorical presence of the resurrected physical Jesus before us. Perhaps we may find it in the historicity of the biblical accounts (of which one may for the purposes of this post remain moot); or the metaphysical arguments such as cosmology or the appeal to necessary existence.
I agree with you. The only sensible take on Thomas' crime is that it was the sin of flying in the face of evidence that would have been sufficient to convince any rational person.
To suggest otherwise would also be inconsistent with some of Jesus' other statements which are suggestive of evidentialism, like John 14:11 "Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves."
I agree. The issue is that faith involves a trust in testimony. There is a special kind of virtue involved in trusting testimony--in not being a suspicious sort of person, but being a two-way participant in one's relevant epistemic communities. There is something contrary to the Golden Rule about expecting others to trust one (and if we don't do that, why would we bother to speak?) but not trusting others.
The theme of testimony is central to the Fourth Gospel (I didn't bother to check the Greek, but in the RSV, "testimony" occurs three times in Mt, four in Mk, three in Lk, and 15 times in Jn).
In the Christian context, faith involves a trust specifically in God's testimony--in Christ's testimony. This is probably an important aspect of the text. It's not just the testimony of the fellow apostles that Thomas has trouble believing. He has trouble believing the testimony of Christ, who had told them that he would die and rise--of course, the other apostles had the exact same problem, but in this teachable moment Thomas is singled out. However, to balance the apparent unfairness of his being singled out, he is enabled to make the most explicit profession of faith in Christ's divinity that we find in Scripture: "My Lord and my God".
There is something contrary to the Golden Rule about expecting others to trust one (and if we don't do that, why would we bother to speak?) but not trusting others.
I wouldn't expect you to take my word for it if I told you I was just recently resurrected. Even if it were true. It seems more like your being called to trust rather than expected to trust. But maybe being called to trust doesn't make clear sense.
Hi A.P.,
I have a different take on this passage than you and others. I think there is a tendency to read "more blessed" where we should read "(also) blessed." (Check out the Book of Mormon--it's chock-full of "more blessed are Fs"). I think the beatitudes is a perfect example. It's not that those who mourn are more blessed than those who don't, but surprisingly they're blessed too.
I think the same may be true of the Thomas story. Thomas is obviously blessed--he gets to touch Jesus in removing his doubt. But (surprisingly) those who haven't seen or touched Jesus are blessed too; sight or no sight, those who believe are blessed. So, all that to say, I don't see fideism either.
Mike:
Deeper kinds of trust (including trust in miraculous claims) are likely to presuppos more interaction with the trusted party than just over the Internet and at conferences (delightful as that is; by the way, Todd should send you our paper finally today or tomorrow).
I think there is a handful of people whom I ought to believe if they told me they were recently resurrected--at least if they included some detail, if there was no significant change of their character from the character they had when the trust developed, etc.
These are people who combine moral uprightness with a no-nonsense, sensible, straightforward approach to religious matters. For instance, there was that no-nonsense nun who was preparing my wife for entry into the Catholic Church. Definitely a person of the right sort in respect of miracle reports. At one point she mentioned how she had once known someone who would levitate while praying, and saw an episode of this. Moreover, she didn't sentimentalize her observation report. Instead, she talked of how the levitation was an embarrassment to the person. Given the character of the reporter, my considered best judgment is that the report is true. To fail to believe would be contrary to both charity and evidence. (At the same time, my sceptical tendencies lead to doxastic akrasia in regard to this--I still find it "hard to believe", despite my considered best judgment.)
The other Apostles themselves had seen Jesus resurrected (verse 20) and hence there is no distinction in respect of seeing Christ between Thomas and them. Clearly, the text's distinction is between Thomas (and the rest of the Eleven with him) and Christians like us who haven't seen Christ resurrected. This doesn't affect Dawkins' bigger point, but it is embarrassing--one wonders if he actually read John 20 before writing.
A charitable explanation is that Dawkins isn't reacting to the scriptural text, but to the popular use of the phrase "doubting Thomas" which appears to contrast Thomas with the other Apostles. But to take a popular phrase as serious theology is also embarrassing. Serious theologians like Augustine actually emphasize that Thomas exhibited faith in the unseen: he saw Christ's visible hands and side, and believed in the invisible divinity of Christ.
There is a lesson in this that I think one needs to take to heart. If we write philosophically on ideas we have no respect for, we are apt to do poor work. (Richard Gale once told me that one simply shouldn't work on thinkers one doesn't respect. I think that's going too far. Sometimes one may need to. But one needs to be extra careful in those cases.)
Indeed. To say that religion celebrates its alleged "independence from evidence" is bizarrely wrong. At least, Judeo-Christian religion could be called a "religion of evidence", full as it is of revelations and prophets, manifestations and miracles. (You may or may not find the evidence weighty enough to be convincing, but you can hardly deny it's an integral part of Western theism.) The puzzling thing is that so many religious people themselves seem to think that faith means believing without reasons!
Thomas did have reasons to believe — his friends were unlikely to be so earnest about it if they weren't absolutely certain (—well, maybe if it had just been Peter, but not all the others too!) Nor were they likely to be pulling a practical joke about something like that. But I think it's important to note that nowhere in the passage is Thomas's behaviour called a crime or a sin. I also was not aware that Christians "wax critical" of Thomas. Some do, no doubt; but in my experience the prevailing attitude is one of slight amusement (and perhaps an element of chagrin because we know that all of us would probably have reacted in exactly the same way!)
DL (and A.P.),
That's part what I was getting at above. In this discussion I think it's being assumed that Thomas was doing something wrong in doubting. A.P. says Thomas sinned. I'm not so sure. I don't think the text forces that reading. Is believing on testimony better than believing because one sees? I don't the text is pushing us that way. I think it may be following the "blessed (also)are" pattern that I think we find in Jesus' teaching, but not "more blessed are", or "blessed instead are".
And if that's right--that believing on testimony in Thomas' case is no better than believing on the basis of seeing--then it doesn't obviously follow that the doubting or wanting more evidence is sinful--at least in Thomas' case, although perhaps sometimes it is.
I have been saying for a long time that there is nothing fideistic about the discussion of Thomas and his doubt. Whether he should have believed on such evidence as the testimony of his fellow disciples provided is an interesting question, but neither answer to that question suggests that fideism is being enjoined.
Speaking of Doubting Thomas, there is a beautiful quotation from Andrew P. Peabody, Christianity and Science (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1874), pp. 250-51:
There are two kinds of scepticism,—that of the heart and that of the intellect. The former is adapted to make unbelievers; the latter, to make Christians. The fomer will not look at the hands and the side, because it is determined not to be moved morally and spiritually as they would move the honest soul; the latter insists on seeing the wound-marks, because it wants to know the precise truth, and therefore avails itself of whatever evidence God has given. The scepticism of the heart hates the light, and will not come to the light, lest its deeds be reproved. The scepticism of the mind is that which cannot believe without sufficient evidence. It proves all things, and holds fast that which will stand the test. It examines both sides of a question, and adheres to that which imposes the least strain on its belief. Such a mind needs only to have the evidences of Christianity fairly presented, to yield to it entire and cordial faith. Many of the firmest believers, many of the ablest defenders of the truth as it is in Jesus, belong to this class of minds. In this sense, Lardner, Paley, and Butler, whose contributions to the Christian evidences are invaluable, and will be so for generations to come, were pre-eminently sceptics. They would not believe, without examining the hands and the side, trying all the witnesses, testing the objections against Christianity with the opposing arguments, weighing coolly and impartially the evidence, real or pretended, on either side; and the result was a faith in Christ, which sight could hardly have rendered clearer or stronger.
God has made many such minds, and they are among the noblest and best of his creation.
Alex...
I had not thought of Thomas as denying the pre-resurrection testimony of Christ in John 20 before. This is an excellent point that I had completely overlooked, thanks for bringing it up.
DL and Tully
I was not using "sin" in any weighty, theological, way, I am not sure Thomas "sinned" in that sense. I simply meant that, if Thomas were guilty of anything, it would have to be that he violated Christian Unity and charity insofar as he chose to disbelieve the sincere testimony of his fellow Apostles. Why is that a transgression? Well, look at Christ's prayer from unity in the Garden.
One wants to say that Dawkins can claim that Christianity makes a virtue out of belief in the absence of evidence only because he hasn't actually read the Gospels, the Gospel of John in particular. One wants to say this, but unfortunately it would constitute an indictment on many Christians as well. There are a couple of features of this incident to note:
First, as rightly highlighted in this post, Thomas had the unanimous and unequivocal testimony of the other disciples, people with whom he had lived for three years. Should this have been enough?
Second, Jesus suddenly appears in their midst (as he had a week earlier). That's miracle #1.
Third, Jesus reported what Thomas had said earlier in his absence. This is plausibly read as miracle #2 -- assuming the others hadn't independently reported this challenge to Jesus. (Would Peter have tattled on Thomas?)
Fourth, while inviting him to touch, Jesus presumably showed Thomas the holes in his hands and side. That's pretty strong evidence that he was who he claimed to be.
But here's the kicker to the whole episode. Jesus did not reject or even belittle Thomas's request. "Stop doubting" sounds like a rebuke, but need not be read in that tone. Note what Jesus did: he in fact invited Thomas to put his hands in his side, as if to say that if you need more evidence than what you already have in hand, then I am willing to accommodate your hard headed, perfectly natural, intellectual intransigence (read: scientism) if that is what it takes for you to "stop doubting and believe."
Jesus calls Thomas's bluff. When it came right down to it, Thomas didn't need this additional evidential support; seeing the gaping wound was apparently enough, in spite of his earlier bluster about the need for evidence. Again, the suggestion says something like the following: if it is really a matter of evidence, I'm willing to meet even this high standard of proof. Of course, if it's a matter of skepticism of the heart, I know that even placing your hands in my side would not convince you.
Thomas's response was one of a heart's submission: "My Lord and my God." Dawkins's Thomas should have said: "It now appears to me that there is some not insignificant evidence for God hypothesis which may or may not override such alternative explanations as...."
Jesus's teaching: you are blessed because you could have had more evidence but didn't require it -- you saw and you believed because your heart was ready and your intellectual skepticism was honest (Peabody). That really is a good thing. Others have believed (their hearts were ready) without even that much evidence. Great. Whatever it takes to move a willing heart, I'm willing to provide for you.
There is probably a lot to dispute in this reading, but the point of absolute clarity is the lack of rebuke for the request for more evidence. Dawkins's Jesus should have said, "Cursed are you for not believing in the absence of evidence." John's Jesus says, "Blessed are you for believing upon seeing, even though there was even more evidence (touch) that I was ready to make available to you."
There is a lesson in this that I think one needs to take to heart. If we write philosophically on ideas we have no respect for, we are apt to do poor work.
So what's the pedagogical takeaway, A.P.? I think there has to be hermeneutical charity for authors we teach in class, in the same way as there is for authors we study and write about, and according to the arguments presented here, Dawkins doesn't help himself much with the "doubting Thomas" analogy. So what's the advantage, now that you've thought about his use of this passage, in reading it with students? I'd be inclined to think that it's just a throwaway line and best to pass over in silence when teaching the Dawkins paper. Or is there something useful for students to learn here about Dawkins views?
Carl...
Your question is a good one, and here is how I would respond:
(1) I completely agree with the point about hermeneutical charity in the classroom, and I do not believe that I was beling uncharitable to Dawkins.
(2) It is always instructive, especially for undergrads, to see where a thinker goes off the rails. My contention is that Dawkins is, somewhat, straw-manning religion by insisting on an unambiguously fideistic picture of religous belief, which most religious people would not accept.
(3) Lest I give a false impression, as discussion of this point was not terribly long.
Carl:
Sometimes one needs to polemically engage a thinker that one doesn't respect, out of charity for others who might be confused by that thinker, out of curricular requirements, because the thinker is discussed by many others, or for some other such extrinsic reason.