Criticising Critical Thought
Is modern society guilty of over-analysis?
In issue 99, Lizzie Freear suggests that “unless you have considered the alternatives to what you believe, you can’t claim to hold that belief”. This is clearly an overstatement, though a nice use of rhetoric. If we took such an idea seriously, we would need to spend the rest of our lives examining alternatives to what we might wish to claim we believe, and we would die believing nothing (except cogito ergo sum [I think therefore I am]).
Lizzie asks the question “How can you believe that God is per- fectly good if you can’t explain the evil in the world?” I believe God is perfectly good. I can’t explain the evil in the world (and it would seem at this moment arrogant to me to try). I don’t think I’m alone.
A major problem with holding the view that “many things cannot be explained completely — they are matters of faith”, is that we make the a priori assumption that faith is allowed only where we cannot ‘explain’ things fully, presumably using some sort of ‘scientific method’. In other words we take as a presupposition that we can only attempt to explain things in one way, a way that will only allow for a God of the gaps. We elevate reason above faith and define faith using reason. This is clearly unacceptable.
Søren Kierkegaard comments in his Journals that if you were to depend on some sort of systematic reasoning for your faith, you would have to live constantly afraid that someone would come along and show that your reasoning was flawed and that you were mistaken at a certain point. This same line of attack could be applied to any belief supposedly strengthened by arguments.
Another major problem with critical thinking is that it quickly becomes an end in itself. I’ve often found it a lot easier to ‘rationally’ and carefully consider something rather than acting. Critical thinking tends to lead to uncertainty in action; ironic, considering its stated aim is usually certainty.
Contrary to the impression of these paragraphs I agree with much of what Lizzie wrote in Critical Thinking. What I would suggest is not that we need to reject Critical thought outright and return to some sort of pre-critical way of looking at things, but that we need to go beyond Critical thought; to find some sort of ‘post-critical’ way of thinking; one that recognises the multitude of flaws and weaknesses in a purely ‘critical’ approach.
Walter Brueggemann, in Spirituality of the Psalms, suggests that a postcritical approach should “take full account of critical gains […] without betraying any of the precritical passion, naïveté and insight of believing exposition”. Certainly a difficult task.
One problem when we try to talk about such ideas is the difficulty in defi ning what we mean. We cannot present a systemised definition of what it means to be postcritical, as we are trying to go ‘beyond’ such an approach. We can, however, give examples. This is where I too offer a reading suggestion, an example of contemporary post-critical Christian thought. I’d suggest Walter Brueggemann’s Spirituality of the Psalms. It’s cheap — less than £4 — relatively accessible and at only eighty or so small pages, quick to read. It is also extremely worthwhile in its own right.