The Value of the Question

Is the question of God’s existence more important than the answers given?

In his recent article “God Is a Question, Not an Answer” (found here), William Irwin holds the position that, “What is important is the common ground of the question, not an answer.” Irwin is specifically concerned with those who fall into two categories: theist and atheist. Notice that those two categories cover a lot of ground. This is especially the case in that Irwin understands these categories as extremes points of a continuum, a continuum that includes anyone who asks the question.

But, why is the question (of God) more important than the answer? For Irwin, the question is universal; whereas, the answers are particular (i.e. not-universal). And why is that important? A common ground for dialogue can be found in the universality of the question, and it is that potential dialogue that opens the way for peace and unity between those who disagree. As Irwin puts it, “Surely, we can respect anyone who approaches the question honestly and with an open mind. Ecumenical and interfaith religious dialogue has increased substantially in our age. We can and should expand that dialogue to include atheists and agnostics, to recognize our common humanity and to stop seeing one another as enemy combatants in a spiritual or intellectual war.”

So we have both the main claim being made, and the cash value of making such a claim. The claim being made is that the question of God is more important than any given answer to that question. The cash value is the dialogue that opens the way for peace and unity. What remains to be considered is the argument.

The main premise of Irwin’s argument is that a certain and durable answer to the question of God is not obtainable. If we were honest with ourselves (and more importantly-with one another), we would have to admit that we all have doubts. The atheist knows he doubts his atheism and the theist knows she doubts her theism. We cannot know if God does or does not exist for certain; therefore, we need humility. We need to recognizing that we have a question we cannot answer. As he puts it, “The question is permanent; answers are temporary. I live in the question.” In sum: 1) The question is more important than any answer due to the fact that we can’t know the answer, 2) we can and should recognize that fact, and 3) in recognizing that fact we can and should get along.

There’s a lot in this article that I find interesting. It would be worth our time to consider his claim (not yet mentioned) that an all-loving God would not require belief without doubt. That is an important assertion, but it is only part of his larger claim that the question of God is more important than any given answer. With that larger claim, I disagree. I do agree with his assertion that we cannot know for certain that God exists (or does not exist-for that matter). At least, I agree for all practical purposes. Maybe there have been some folks who have obtained a certain and durable answer to the question of God, but it seems that for the mass of folks who ask the question there is always the potential for doubt. I would argue that if an answer for the existence of God were certain, then obviously there wouldn’t be such widespread disagreement.

So to the point, why do I think Irwin is mistaken in claiming that the question is more important than the answer? Let me begin by saying that this claim is not new. At least, I have seen a number of previous incarnations. I have notice a tendency among theists to promote this theme that questions are of more value than answers. And I think part of their attraction to this claim is its ecumenical potential. That is, there is a recognition among theists that there are common questions and yet different answers. And so this theme is used, in part, to secure common ground for dialogue in hopes it will bring about peaceful co-existence among differing theistic outlooks. It looks very much like Irwin is borrowing this theme for the same basic purposes.

Here is what initially brings me to question that surpassing value of questions: we don’t doubt questions. What we doubt are the answers. Yes, when it comes to theism (or atheism for that matter) the answers we have within our grasp are short on certainty. Doubt is always lingering in the background, if we are honest. So what’s my point? In the unlikely situation where we only asked questions but never sought answers, doubts would never arise. Doubts are a signal that answers are just as important, if not more important, as the questions we ask. Of course, Irwin is not arguing that we should only ask questions. My point is that the impossible situation of only asking questions highlights the extreme importance of answers regardless of how tentative they may be. What’s the point of asking questions if we don’t have hope for answers? But, there is something else lurking in the background. 

Part of the problem is our modern obsession with certainty. We might trace this obsession back to Descartes, but it is enough to see that the expectation of certainty is misplaced when it comes to questions concerning God. Again, if certainty were available we would have put the discussion to rest a long time ago. So our starting point should be one of acceptance. We cannot come to a place of certainty, so accept it. If doubts are uncomfortable, then don’t ask questions. Of course, that’s the problem isn’t it? The questions don’t really care if we want to ask them, they just happen. So what are we to do?

I think the common ground is not to be found in placing the priority on questions. In some sense we are not responsible for the questions, they just happen. I think the common ground is to be found in accepting our common lack of certainty. Questions are important, but they are vacuous without answers. This is true whether those answers are certain or not. I agree with Irwin in that whatever answers we accept we are responsible for them and for how we live in light of them. But the value of all of our questions concerning God is found not in asking the questions, but in how we live in light of the answers we accept. This is true for the theist and atheist alike.

I agree with Irwin that humility is the key. I have been concerned with this for some time now (see here, here, here, here, and here). However, I find the tendency to place primary emphasis on the question simply another attempt at an answer! Even more interesting is that this answer is assumed to be certain!! Consider again Irwin’s claim that “the question is permanent.” The permanency of the question secures its certainty. Having arrived at a place of certainty, Irwin wants to stop as if the question can satisfy the very need that the question creates.

The question of God (or any question, really) creates a tension that is not resolved until an answer is given. This is true even if the answer is, “I don’t have an answer.” As long as that answer satisfies the question, then one can go forward in light of that answer. This is one of the functions of answers: they give us meaning, purpose, reasons to live in some way. This function of answers holds whether one is an atheist, agnostic, or theist. And, if that answer (whatever it is) no longer satisfies (i.e. no longer allows one to go forward) then the question once again creates a tension that demands resolution.

Somehow Irwin seems to assume that the question (of God) doesn’t work like this. He seems to assume that one can be satisfied with just the question. I have a sneaking suspicion that Irwin is satisfied with the question simply because it satisfies his need for certainty. Of course, I must allow for the fact that placing priority on the question also satisfies his desire for some peace and unity. As long as that works for Irwin, so much the better. But I have another sneaking suspicion that the mass of humanity that asks the question would rather have some answer, even if ever so tentative. If this were not the case the question wouldn’t even matter.

My suggestion is that we treat all answers with dignity and humility. I agree with Irwin that we need to nurture intellectual humility. How do we do this? Instead of devaluing the answers, let us work together towards recognizing our limitations when it comes to the God question. If those who recognize this limitation will treat with extraordinary respect and dignity those who disagree with them, then we will be headed in the right direction. Maybe others will notice this seemingly odd phenomenon of mutual respect and inquire as to how they might do the same. Most likely if those who have a voice in the public forum will begin to do this, others will follow suit.

What is important here, for the sake of answers, is that we don't need to consider every other answer or even treat our own as if it is “just another answer.” All we need to do is recognize we are limited and that we have accepted our answers in faith. And, since we recognize that we can never be so certain of our answers that we will not need this faith, we can make the step towards recognizing others are in the same situation as we are. The problem is not answers that lack certainty, but a desire for certainty that can never be satisfied. The key (again) is not to devalue answers, but to treat everyone who has a different answer with unsurpassed respect and honor for living with the answer they have found.