thinking with annie dillard

in her book
for the time being
which i read some 8 years ago
and again in the past month
annie dillard makes some judgements
which are in line with her method of inquiry
and i think worthy of some response

this is not to say that the two "sentences"
which i will entertain here
are the essence of her book
it is more in keeping with the notion
that these are two ideas that struck me
and somehow i feel compelled to speak
as if to read the book is in fact a sort of discussion
which it is
any book which stimulates thought
can be understood as conversation
between one mind and another
one having been set into a form and printed
the other more free
or perhaps the book is but a part of the
mind of the writer
and the one reading converses with
the focus of the mind that wrote

dillard makes an assessment of
a 20th century school of what might be called
spiritual philosophy "the whitehead school"
i suspect she is alluding to the principle
of "process" as a system of on going analysis
applicable to any discipline

while never actually becoming a catholic
alfred lord whitehead's theological interest leaned in that direction
perhaps if he had taken aristotle more seriously
that he did plato
his mind could have more easily grasped
the reasonable philosophy upon which
catholic thinking is based

at any rate ms dillard
makes the statement after
critically assessing some of the theological
thinking which arose in the wake of whiteheads' work
she states:
...subjecting our partial knowledge of god
to the rigors of philosophical inquiry is, i think,
an absurd, if well-meaning exercise. (p.167 Vintage edition 1999)

in the context of her critique of the whitehead school
where process of "becoming" as an idea for cognitive practice
determines and compromises everything except what
any one person may or may not be discovering
i can see her point

but to make a blatant statement which implicates
all of metaphysics stemming from thomas aquinas
is a serious proposal
i am inclined to think that she proabably did not
extend this sort of critique to the work of
Gregory of Nyssa or Basil the Great
or Irenaeus of Lyon
or Augustine of Hippo
or certainly not Thomas Aquinas - the angelic doctor
all of whom utilized philosphical categories
in arriving at their statements about faith

one of the insidious misapprehensions of our day
is the ignorant use of the concept metaphysics
to mean anything pertaining to spiritual inquiry
be it buddhist meditation yoga
primitive natural religions or para-normal experience

the truth is there are means
and very rational means
by which the mind can articulate the experience
of thinking about god
logic and rational inquiry
can assist the mind in coming to a clearer
awareness of the ONE we seek

it merely takes the notion that
human intelligence is the principle
by which we are most likened to
the DIVINE INTELLIGENCE
and therefor

to think philosophically
is to be entertaining freedom
in a manner consistent with what we can know
about the freedom of god

we owe it to ourselves and to others
to be clear minded and reasonable
about faith
skepticism is a highly rational logical
well argued position
the rhetoric of faith needs to be moreso
and i believe when one appreciates
all the thinking and writing that has gone into
the "apologetics" of christianity
that which has endured through the centuries
we cannot easily dismiss
the mind's journey to god

the other statement in question
i respond to with more interest

on page 169
dillard begins a chapter which can be taken
as a summary of her thinking up to that point
she is finding a bit of humor in the term
"spiritual path"
and her assessment here is her astonishment
that there are people who forsake everything
to "seek god"
but she is hard pressed to understand this as a path
in any way but a humorous sense
and i think here she is using irony to its most poignant effect
in a world filled with people who either are defined by the
need to survive on a daily and drudgerous basis
or seek to make of life an experiential carnival
there are these other souls who are motivated by a
seeking after something they can hardly explain
even the word god seems but a stopgap measure
in the rhetoric of faith for the bewildered pilgrim
these are the ones she says:
....they have left behind the early doubt
that this feckless prospecting in the dark for the unseen
is a reasonable way to pass one's life.

here she touches on a question that has arisen
in theological circles for centuries
and has been the issue of either clear acceptance
or at least partial skepticism

is man possessed naturally of the desire to know god?
henri de lubac in his seminal work
the problem of the supernatural
falls clearly in the affirmative camp

if we regard god as the creator of man
and the "instigator" of human intelligence
then it follows quite naturally that the object
par excellence of that very intelligence
is the source of it's creation

the remaining question then becomes
why some are given over so readily
to the determinations of faith
and others live life as if they can't be bothered?

skepticism is a via negativa