Skip to main content

Intellectual Growth As A Function Of Friendship

It's hard to see your biases; it's hard also to take criticism, sometimes. Still, I think the hardest thing in the entire world is to watch a friend get criticized by people who are not his friends. Even if they are right.
Friendship helps you to feel safe to explore new ideas, even if the risk is there that you'll get locked in old ones. Part of friendship is trust; if you trust someone, you have less fear that his questions and insights will lead you where you can't go. Isn't that interesting? If some crypto-Marxist says, "We are the servants of our military-industrial complex" I roll my eyes, and move on. If my friend Jacob says the same thing, I don't roll my eyes. Ideally, we'd like to be the sort of people not committing informal ad hominems all over the place like this, but I suppose that is the point: the idea under discussion has not changed; its merit or demerit hasn't changed either. But I am now more open to considering the question, because my reason for rejecting the idea out of hand has been rendered inert by my friendship. I think that's exciting.
One of those people for me is Christopher Hitchens. Somehow, he became an intellectual friend for me, of sorts. It's probably true that he was dogmatic in the wrong sorts of ways, and that his flaws, intellectual and otherwise, ought to have been aired some way. But when you appreciate someone in some way (even if they despise you) you are that much richer for what he or she has given. Just think: if you make enough "friends" who help you to find truth, you'll be very wise. The only risk is that love, such as it is, may cloud your vision of the truth. But I'd say that's a good problem to have.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un