In Praise of Doubt: How to Have Convictions Without Becoming a Fanatic
By Peter Berger and Anton Zijderveld
3.5/5
()
Currently unavailable
Currently unavailable
About this ebook
“A book of great practical wisdom by authors who have profound insight into the intellectual dynamics governing contemporary life.”
—Dallas Willard, author of Knowing Christ Today
In In Praise of Doubt, two world-renowned social scientists, Peter L. Berger (The Homeless Mind, Questions of Faith) and Anton C. Zijderveld (The Abstract Society, On Clichés), map out how we can survive the political, moral, and religious challenges raised by the extreme poles of relativism and fundamentalism. A book that asks and answers Big Questions, In Praise of Doubt offers invaluable guidance on how to have convictions without becoming a fanatic.
Peter Berger
Peter L. Berger is an internationally renowned sociologist and faculty member at Boston University, where in 1985 he founded its Institute on Culture, Religion, and World Affairs. He is the author of The Social Construction of Reality, The Homeless Mind, and Questions of Faith.
Related to In Praise of Doubt
Related ebooks
Worldview: The History of a Concept Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Anthem Companion to Robert N. Bellah Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsPublic Religions in the Modern World Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Science Unlimited?: The Challenges of Scientism Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Disenchantment of the World: A Political History of Religion Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5In Good Company: The Church as Polis Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Praxis and Action: Contemporary Philosophies of Human Activity Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Allies and Rivals: German-American Exchange and the Rise of the Modern Research University Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsIn a Post-Hegelian Spirit: Philosophical Theology as Idealistic Discontent Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsLoving to Know: Covenant Epistemology Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsKarl Barth and Comparative Theology Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsSin Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsMalum: A Theological Hermeneutics of Evil Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsLaying Down Arms to Heal the Creation-Evolution Divide Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsEconomic Shalom: A Reformed Primer on Faith, Work, and Human Flourishing Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Democracy and Tradition Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Metamodernism: The Future of Theory Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The Character of Virtue: Letters to a Godson Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsSeven Types of Atheism Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Making Sense of Brief Lives Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratings10 Books that Screwed Up the World: And 5 Others That Didn't Help Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Modernity on Endless Trial Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Hope and the Future: An Introduction to the Concept of Cultural Maturity Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Anthem Companion to Philip Rieff Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsHabermas and Giddens on Praxis and Modernity: A Constructive Comparison Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5At the Limits of the Secular: Reflections on Faith and Public Life Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Economy of Desire (The Church and Postmodern Culture): Christianity and Capitalism in a Postmodern World Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Marxism and Christianity Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Kingdom of God is Within You, What is Art Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsCreatures of Cain: The Hunt for Human Nature in Cold War America Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratings
Christianity For You
The Purpose Driven Life: What on Earth Am I Here For? Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Book of Enoch Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Winning the War in Your Mind: Change Your Thinking, Change Your Life Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The 5 Love Languages: The Secret to Love that Lasts Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Mere Christianity Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Good Girl's Guide to Great Sex: Creating a Marriage That's Both Holy and Hot Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership: Follow Them and People Will Follow You Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Imagine Heaven: Near-Death Experiences, God's Promises, and the Exhilarating Future That Awaits You Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Screwtape Letters Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Four Loves Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5A Grief Observed Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Uninvited: Living Loved When You Feel Less Than, Left Out, and Lonely Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5NIV, Holy Bible Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Boundaries Workbook: When to Say Yes, How to Say No to Take Control of Your Life Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Present Over Perfect: Leaving Behind Frantic for a Simpler, More Soulful Way of Living Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Story: The Bible as One Continuing Story of God and His People Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Anxious for Nothing: Finding Calm in a Chaotic World Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Changes That Heal: Four Practical Steps to a Happier, Healthier You Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Wild at Heart Expanded Edition: Discovering the Secret of a Man's Soul Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Boundaries Updated and Expanded Edition: When to Say Yes, How to Say No To Take Control of Your Life Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Girl, Wash Your Face: Stop Believing the Lies About Who You Are so You Can Become Who You Were Meant to Be Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5The Pursuit of God with Study Guide: The Human Thirst for the Divine Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Decluttering at the Speed of Life: Winning Your Never-Ending Battle with Stuff Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth: Fourth Edition Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Less Fret, More Faith: An 11-Week Action Plan to Overcome Anxiety Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Law of Connection: Lesson 10 from The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5
Reviews for In Praise of Doubt
20 ratings5 reviews
- Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Nice little book urging doubt and moderation and condemning fanaticism and cynicism. Used a lot of examples from the history of religion which was a bit off-putting for me but it was ok.
- Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5An interesting perspective on the mechanisms people and society use to deal with the modern world. It was a bit pedantic at times, but the ideas and insights are both illuminating and pretty accurate, at least from my experience.
- Rating: 2 out of 5 stars2/5Mostly, I agree with the premise of this book, that is the desirability of moderate views in a liberal democracy, but I don't find it particularly well argued. I think that it is a little densely written for the general audience that it appears to be intended for. I also didn't find arguments that I wanted to remember to use with people who disagree with me, or what I thought were particularly incisive statements, or indeed much help in deciding where to compromise and where to stand firm.Since I have given it only two stars, the reader has no doubt guessed that there were a number of point that I took issue with. Let me preface two example with an explanation of their terminology: "The situation we have called "plurality" is more commonly called "pluralism." We eschew this term because the suffix "ism" suggests an ideology rather than (as we intend here) an empirically available social reality.""[T]his rationalist worldview, which he labeled 'positivism.' [...] It's still manifest in the natural sciences, albeit in the new cloak of geneticism. The 'god' of this rationalism nowadays is 'the selfish gene,' which is a late-modern specimen of predestination. Like its Calvinist predecessor, it destroys the idea of freedom of the will and morally good works." What on earth are they talking about? I have this horrible feeling that Berger and Zijderveld may have the mistaken idea that the 'selfish gene' is a gene that causes selfishness in its possessors -- a complete misunderstanding. I would agree that it was probably not the best metaphor that Dawkins could have used, but that's not at all what it means, as the authors should know if they are going to discuss it. It has been a number of years since I read Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, which built on George C. Williams' Adaptation and Natural Selection, so I don't remember every tangential remark that Dawkins may have made (as he has conceded), but the book primarily dealt with the issue of how natural selection works, and on what level. The book is not arguing that all behavior, particularly human behavior, is ruled by genes, and I don't believe it dealt with the issue of free will and moral conduct, except to argue for an explanation of the value of altruism in evolution. (See Wikipedia for more information.) Nature versus Nurture in culture-bearing species is still a heated question in scientific circles. Is the use of 'geneticism' suppose to indicate that the belief that living creatures (and viruses) have genes is a ideology?Then there is Berger's and Zijderveld's discussion of atheism. I myself am an atheist. "The agnostic isn't an atheist. The latter, very much of an adherent of an often fanatic '-ism,' is a self-defined unbeliever who sets out to fight and attack any kind of religious belief and institution. Ecrasez l'infâme! Politically, atheists defend a strict separation of church (mosque, temple, synagogue) and state, but many of them would prefer to eliminate by force all traces of personal institutional religion." My goodness, we seem to be classed with Nazis and Communists. And while all Communists may be atheists, all atheists are not communists. I find this rather unfair, for while some atheists may have done awful things, or be fanatical, the same may be said of many of the religious, but the authors don't seem inclined to tar all of them with the same brush. It also seems inappropriate in a book supposedly lauding moderation and tolerance. Many religious people also support separation of church and state, especially if they don't think that their religion would become the state religion if the two merged. I don't actually think that the authors know a great deal about atheists. If they did, they would know that many atheists resent being lumped together into an '-ism' (in the authors' sense) or any other group based on the single characteristic of not having any dealings with god(s). The term 'atheist' can be parsed more than one way. Many people, especially non-atheists, take it as 'athe + ist', that is, some one who does not believe in a god. Others parse it as 'a + theist,' that is, one who does not have a system of beliefs about god(s). It has been argued that agnostics, whom Berger and Zijdeveld find so virtuously full of doubt, would be atheists under this definition, since they do not have a system of beliefs, but I wouldn't use it that way since I believe it would upset agnostics who wish to make it perfectly clear that they have nothing to do with those nasty atheists. There are many nuances of atheity (?) to try and use the authors' terminology. There are even atheists who go to church. Strong atheism asserts that there are no gods, but there are atheists who simply don't want anything to do with "whatever gods may be." A friend of mine, a devoted churchman, believes in Paul Tillich's formulation that god is not a being, but Being itself. I will freely admit that I cannot prove that he's wrong, but I find the concept so uninteresting that I don't care whether or not there is such a deity (nor would I expect he/she/it/they to care about me.) I might therefore be classed as an agnostic atheist in that I do not believe in the existence of any deity, but do not claim to know for certain whether any deities exist or not.
- Rating: 2 out of 5 stars2/5Mostly, I agree with the premise of this book, that is the desirability of moderate views in a liberal democracy, but I don't find it particularly well argued. I think that it is a little densely written for the general audience that it appears to be intended for. I also didn't find arguments that I wanted to remember to use with people who disagree with me, or what I thought were particularly incisive statements, or indeed much help in deciding where to compromise and where to stand firm.Since I have given it only two stars, the reader has no doubt guessed that there were a number of point that I took issue with. Let me preface two example with an explanation of their terminology: "The situation we have called "plurality" is more commonly called "pluralism." We eschew this term because the suffix "ism" suggests an ideology rather than (as we intend here) an empirically available social reality.""[T]his rationalist worldview, which he labeled 'positivism.' [...] It's still manifest in the natural sciences, albeit in the new cloak of geneticism. The 'god' of this rationalism nowadays is 'the selfish gene,' which is a late-modern specimen of predestination. Like its Calvinist predecessor, it destroys the idea of freedom of the will and morally good works." What on earth are they talking about? I have this horrible feeling that Berger and Zijderveld may have the mistaken idea that the 'selfish gene' is a gene that causes selfishness in its possessors -- a complete misunderstanding. I would agree that it was probably not the best metaphor that Dawkins could have used, but that's not at all what it means, as the authors should know if they are going to discuss it. It has been a number of years since I read Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, which built on George C. Williams' Adaptation and Natural Selection, so I don't remember every tangential remark that Dawkins may have made (as he has conceded), but the book primarily dealt with the issue of how natural selection works, and on what level. The book is not arguing that all behavior, particularly human behavior, is ruled by genes, and I don't believe it dealt with the issue of free will and moral conduct, except to argue for an explanation of the value of altruism in evolution. (See Wikipedia for more information.) Nature versus Nurture in culture-bearing species is still a heated question in scientific circles. Is the use of 'geneticism' suppose to indicate that the belief that living creatures (and viruses) have genes is a ideology?Then there is Berger's and Zijderveld's discussion of atheism. I myself am an atheist. "The agnostic isn't an atheist. The latter, very much of an adherent of an often fanatic '-ism,' is a self-defined unbeliever who sets out to fight and attack any kind of religious belief and institution. Ecrasez l'infâme! Politically, atheists defend a strict separation of church (mosque, temple, synagogue) and state, but many of them would prefer to eliminate by force all traces of personal institutional religion." My goodness, we seem to be classed with Nazis and Communists. And while all Communists may be atheists, all atheists are not communists. I find this rather unfair, for while some atheists may have done awful things, or be fanatical, the same may be said of many of the religious, but the authors don't seem inclined to tar all of them with the same brush. It also seems inappropriate in a book supposedly lauding moderation and tolerance. Many religious people also support separation of church and state, especially if they don't think that their religion would become the state religion if the two merged. I don't actually think that the authors know a great deal about atheists. If they did, they would know that many atheists resent being lumped together into an '-ism' (in the authors' sense) or any other group based on the single characteristic of not having any dealings with god(s). The term 'atheist' can be parsed more than one way. Many people, especially non-atheists, take it as 'athe + ist', that is, some one who does not believe in a god. Others parse it as 'a + theist,' that is, one who does not have a system of beliefs about god(s). It has been argued that agnostics, whom Berger and Zijdeveld find so virtuously full of doubt, would be atheists under this definition, since they do not have a system of beliefs, but I wouldn't use it that way since I believe it would upset agnostics who wish to make it perfectly clear that they have nothing to do with those nasty atheists. There are many nuances of atheity (?) to try and use the authors' terminology. There are even atheists who go to church. Strong atheism asserts that there are no gods, but there are atheists who simply don't want anything to do with "whatever gods may be." A friend of mine, a devoted churchman, believes in Paul Tillich's formulation that god is not a being, but Being itself. I will freely admit that I cannot prove that he's wrong, but I find the concept so uninteresting that I don't care whether or not there is such a deity (nor would I expect he/she/it/they to care about me.) I might therefore be classed as an agnostic atheist in that I do not believe in the existence of any deity, but do not claim to know for certain whether any deities exist or not.
- Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5A sociological and philosophical analysis of doubt which, the authors argue, is necessary in the face of modern plurality. Doubt is necessary in order to avoid to other two reactions to plurality, relativism and fundamentalism.