Zach DiMiele Humility over Hubris: The Damaging Effect of Overconfidence in Interfaith Dialog and a Humble Alternative We live

in a world dominated by utility. Indeed, it has become nearly impossible to separate utility from value. Take, for instance, the iPhone. The Apple Corporation has created a product that can do almost anything, and the goal of the iPhone is simply to achieve the maximum utility possible. True to its purpose, the prolific phrase there's an app for that has become a maxim that the current society not only identifies with, but also fully endorses. It is in this world that Christians and atheists attempt to engage in dialog with one another. Unfortunately, this impersonal way of interacting with the world around us understands the value of interfaith dialog only as something that can be utilized for the furthering of ones own viewpoint. Regrettably, this form of interacting with the world is nothing new. In his book, I and Thou, Martin Buber observes that our society has developed the detrimental tendency to conceive of everything in terms of value as determined by utility rather than as subjects with inherent value. Buber provides a helpful framework here which not only allows us to explore the problem further, but to find a solution to the problem as it manifests itself in interfaith dialog. Interfaith dialog often begins as an idealistic method for discovering truth. Those who engage in it may begin by saying, let us discuss these most important matters of faith and of the natures of God and of the universe together, with open minds and without hostility. Unfortunately, such dialog quickly spirals downward as the parties involved reduce the dialog to vitriolic bickering between individuals or groups who no longer wish to yield their understanding of truth and instead seek to destroy the other's viewpoint. This phenomenon is quite prevalent within Christian-Atheist dialog in particular, and is the problem that this paper seeks to address. This paper does not seek to point out flaws in the assumptions behind the arguments of Christians or atheists, or to provide an argument for why one argument is correct while the other is incorrect. The purpose of this paper is to indicate the flaws in the methods of dialog in which both groups participate. I argue further that these flaws flow from an inappropriate view of the other. We use people as a foil in order to further our own beliefs, when we ought to encounter others as subjects, recognizing that each party has something to offer and are ends in themselves rather than means to an end.

Commonly, we do not consider an experience worthwhile unless we achieve some end and either one or all parties involved benefit. This common mindset of utility is one that Martin Buber seeks to de-emphasize. Buber writes, The world as experience belongs to the basic word I-It. The basic word I-You established the world of relation (Buber 56). Here he sets up a dichotomy between two ways of being in the world. The first the I-It seeks ends out of means; it is utility. The second the I-You seeks a relationship; an encounter rather than an experience. The I-It seeks to gain something while the I-You does not seek to gain anything. Buber expounds on this concept when he writes, Experience is remoteness from You while Relation is reciprocity (60, 67). Experience, we may therefore understand, implies the necessity of achieving some end or goal and is alienated from, or at least alienates, the other while relation intends a reciprocal, or mutual, giving of both parties without any expectation of return. Buber intends us to recognize acutely the disjuncture between the idealized I-You and the way we live our lives because, while we often make it our goal to give as little as possible in order to get as much as possible, the I-You encounter requires quite a lot of us. Our common mentality thus is obviously very different from the reciprocity Buber calls for, yet it is this mentality that has infected our dialog. Buber does not think, nor do I propose, that we can achieve the I-You relation by our own effort. However, while Buber leaves room for the seeking of a cessation of our conscious tendency towards utility, I will go so far as to claim that we can also make efforts to view the other as a You. I propose that a more intense awareness of the other is the remedy to our currently fractured method of dialog. We cannot force ourselves to suddenly perceive each other within the idealized I-You relation, but we can actively seek to cease using people as means to an end or, in the context of Christian-Atheist dialog, using people of differing opinions as a foil for the propagation of our own. I therefore seek to maintain Bubers dichotomy of ways to interact with the world while proposing also that a more active role than he presents is a possible avenue to bring us part of the way towards true reciprocity, and therefore, constructive dialog. This avenue lies primarily in the posturing of oneself humbly before one another without the assumption that what one believes or claims to know is what is actually true. In this manner, none will appear superior, nor will any be made to feel inferior. It is through this intentional action that we can first begin to recognize that we do not have all of the answers and can posture

ourselves in such a way as not to presume the correctness of our own ideas so that we may be open to the relation of the You rather than forcing an experience of the It. Scientists cannot claim to have some special knowledge of the universe based on their study of evolutionary biology or astrophysics because science is (ideally) a business of setting up an idea so that it might be taken to task. I make this point particularly about science because it appears to be a rallying point for many atheists, claiming that it has led them to what they may describe as sufficient knowledge to disbelieve in God. Of course, such a claim falls far outside the scope of scientific inquiry. The farthest science can get is to say there is no proof of God and, while most atheists will not go farther than this cognitively, in their undue mockery and derision of religion, many make it quite clear what they actually believe and close the door to civil discussion. Mockery, is of course, not limited to atheism; I only use this example to point out that dissonance between word and action is not isolated to Christians who, it may be argued, have literally written the book on it, and is quite detrimental to proper dialog. Furthermore, Christians (and all religious people) cannot substantiate their claims with the scientific method, which relies heavily on measurable, repeatable and verifiable events. We may validate our religious experiences in our own minds through religious conviction or our particular religious communities may support them as affirmations of the way they understand God to work. The problem, however, lies in our tendency to think that every truth is verifiable according to a specific set of standards that we define. We buy in to the myth that scientific verifiability is a rubric for weeding out the truth and then we busy ourselves trying to make our faith fit into that rubric without bothering to think that perhaps we are going about our faith the wrong way. Instead, we stumble headfirst into the wall of empiricism, thinking that we can justify our faith according to the standards set for discerning truth by the scientific community, but falling short. We claim to know things that we simply cannot by these empirical standards and, in this manner, make dialog with atheism nearly impossible. This is not a treatise on the necessary primacy of faith over and against reason, logic, proof, or knowledge, but an appeal to the humble side of all persons seeking truth. In order to seek truth, one must humble oneself to the task, submitting to whatever one encounters. It is otherwise clear that what one seeks is not truth, but the opportunity to further ones own opinion. Therefore, atheists and Christians alike can and

ought to approach dialog with one another humbly, and in submission to one another as they respect what each other has to say. First, of course, the atheist and the Christian must recognize that they each represent different paradigms of thought in which different vocabularies are employed, different interpretations of events are taught and even criteria for determining truth differ greatly between. Christians and atheists appeal to thoughtparadigms that differ so drastically that civil discussion becomes nearly impossible for all but the extraordinarily patient. We are rather like toddlers who know only a few words and fail so miserably in our attempt communicate to those around us what we actually mean that we become frustrated and angry. This is clearly illustrated by the Christian who, when presented with what an atheist believes to be a powerful argument against the existence of God, cannot offer a sufficient counter-argument but maintains her belief nevertheless. If the Christian does not concede the point, the atheist may then think her at best a very silly person and at worst a vilified and indoctrinated simpleton. Neither of these quite describes the truth. The Christian and the atheist are arguing from opposite sides of a massive ravine and, while the atheist is concerned with disproving God, the Christian who remains unconvinced of the arguments against the existence of God is instead seeking to understand the nature of God in light of the facts presented to her. A Christian may go beyond the mere entertaining of the thought, of course, and might become deeply troubled by a convincing argument. This doubting Christian, however, will often seek the guidance of other Christians in order to anchor her more securely in the faith, which seems like more brainwashing nonsense to the atheist, and further illustrates the chasm separating the Christian and the atheist from mutual understanding. To bridge this ravine, we must first take a step back and remember the reciprocity that true dialog demands: a giving of oneself to the other so that both may build only part of a bridge rather than going the whole way. That is to say, neither the Christian nor the atheist can fully articulate their opinion in a way that the other will comprehend fully unless the other does their share of the legwork when it comes to understanding the position. We need to shed the comfort of our assumptions and presuppositions so that we might meet in the middle. A necessary part of doing the legwork is recognizing that Christians and atheists lend more weight to certain criteria for truth more than others within their respective paradigms of thought. These criteria can be as varied and disparate as logical formulae and personal revelation, but vocabularies are most often the tools used

in discussion. In order to dialog responsibly, we must familiarize ourselves with the vocabulary of opposing paradigms in order that what we say is intelligible to the one with whom we enter into dialog. This also entails, however, that we do not throw around terms we are familiar with because of our entrenchment within our own paradigm because this can confuse someone who is unfamiliar with our own vocabulary. This is oftentimes more difficult than becoming familiar with a competing vocabulary because we revert to it by default, but it is not conducive to inter-faith dialog as it alienates the other from understanding. One must also recognize that the actual criteria for truth differ greatly between paradigms as well. For the Christian, it may be a communal response, what the Bible says or what an angel of the Lord has said. To atheists, however, these appear delusional criteria for truth because they cannot be verified as appropriate sources of truth in their minds. This presents another difficult barrier between atheists and Christians especially when the atheist asks, "Why are you a Christian?" The Christian can only respond in terms that make absolutely no sense to the atheist who therefore concludes that we must have been indoctrinated into it as impressionable children with no hope of rehabilitation, or are else in deep need of psychiatric care. Furthermore, when a Christian asks the same of an atheist, the atheist may respond in a way that the Christian feels is derisive to religion in general (or perhaps Christianity in particular), or in a way that presents the human mind as supremely capable of determining truth. Any bad blood resulting from these sorts of responses is a result of a failure on one or both parts to understand the many differences between two competing paradigms for truth and a failure to do a fair share of the legwork. If we are to encounter a competing paradigm, we cannot do so on our own terms. If we try to explain why a given paradigm is wrong based on our own terms, we will be ultimately unsuccessful in convincing all but those who were already convinced. If a Christian simply tries to convert a rational atheist with claims like "Jesus loves you and died for your sins," her pleas will fall on deaf ears - or perhaps angry ears. Similarly, an atheist should think twice before attempting convince a Christian that she is mistaken with appeals to scientific knowledge because that is a criterion for truth that does not hold as much weight in the Christian thoughtparadigm when it comes to the existence of God.

Martin Buber has brilliantly shown us that we cannot encounter another properly, as a You, unless we undergo a partial emptying of the self in order to shed our presumption of utility. This framework has allowed us to comprehend that all parties must be understood as having something to offer and that they are in fact, subjects to be taken seriously rather than objects to be used for our own purposes. We must therefore conclude that interfaith dialog must necessarily evoke a sense of humility within its participants. Anyone who enters into dialog with an attitude that does not yield to the potential of being incorrect has no place in civil discussion. Such thinking can very easily lead to the firm belief that those who disagree with you are ignorant, unintelligent, or purposefully deceptive when none of those explanations is necessarily the case when it comes to people of differing beliefs. The deeper problem however, as I have shown, is that this attitude is indicative of one who sees others as means to the end of propagating their beliefs. This mindset of utility, which lies at the root of the problem within Christian-Atheist dialog, is pervasive in our society, and we must rebut it with an overt sense of humility and recognition that we do not have all the answers, but maybe we can get closer to the truth with one another.