On the Compatibility of Christian Faith and Theological Agnosticism

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a good piece of philosophical and theological analysis resorting to psychological and epistemological means to better address a thorny issue: to what extent agnosticism is compatible with Christian faith, or at least Christian life.

The positive answer to this conundrum is moderated by some nuance: indeed, even if this is possible, it is not the optimal state, or it can be understood as something provisional or in process, as a search or a wager.

In my opinion, the issue at stake needs more study and a more accurate analysis. At least some fields would assist in that task. The first is the growing field of 'belief studies', which counts with a growing literature, especially in the epistemological area (just as a collection showing how the field is developing: Hans-Ferdinand Angel, Ll. Oviedo, R.F. Paloutzian, A, Runehov, R.J. Seitz, Processes of Believing: The Acquisition, Maintenance, and Change in Creditions, Springer 2017; or take the recent discussion around Van Leeuwen approach to religious and factual beliefs, which could add some nuance to the present study).

Then, a second field where more attention would be required is the one devoted to the study of 'meaning in life', again a rich growing area (another example: Hicks, Joshua A. and Clay Routledge (Eds.). 2013. The Experience of Meaning in Life: Classical Perspectives, Emerging Themes, and Controversies. Springer 2015).

I am just suggesting more sources that could broaden and enrich the practised analysis, which provides very interesting insights and shows directions for further engagement.

I ask the authors to add to their balanced conclusion some more discussion advising about the need to go further and to integrate more dimensions or factors into this very complex issue, which - as the authors recognize - needs a multilevel analysis.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments and encouragements. We learned from your critique and have tried to assess your comments and suggestions when we found them relevant. We have listed our response to your review in the following. 

Best wishes

The Authors

 

1. We have added the suggested literature in the conclusion and pointed to questions that could broaden the discussion.

Reviewer 2 Report

The argument made by the author does simply not work.  The compatibility of Christian Faith and Theological Agnosticism is neither sufficiently argued nor is it sufficiently explored.  The argument relies on a five-factor model of Christian Faith that is dubious at best.  The explanations provided do not adequately explore the reality of faith from a theological perspective.  Instead, they provide a loose structure that is subsequently manipulated by the author towards the author's desired conclusion.  

For instance, the author does not attend to any meaningful definition of the faith.  Instead looks to use the term faith "as it is understood in parts of the protestant tradition."  Most protestants would argue that there is no "Protestant tradition" but instead there are "Protestant Traditions."  

The authors argument has a logical structure and merit, but needs significant support in terms of sources and clarity especially with regards to the reality of faith.  It is difficult to see how the author would be able to make central argument having done this.  

I would suggest the following.  The argument could work if the author draws upon a particular thinker's understanding of faith or a particular tradition's understanding of faith.  However, it is difficult if not impossible to make the argument for a universal claim that Christian faith and Theological Agnosticism are compatible.   

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your time and effort on reviewing our article. We have discussed your response carefully, and your general criticism is too imprecise to stimulate a revision of the article. We have followed some of your more concrete suggestions and we hope to have written a more satisfying article on that ground.

The response is listed below.

Best wishes,

The Authors.

1. “The argument could work if the author draws upon a particular thinker's understanding of faith or a particular tradition's understanding of faith.  However, it is difficult if not impossible to make the argument for a universal claim that Christian faith and Theological Agnosticism are compatible.”
   1. I our view we actually does what he wants us to do. We don’t claim that our definition of faith is universally shared by all Christians. We define a way of understanding the contours of faith and then we examine whether and in what way this concept is compatible with agnosticism.
   2. We have added a footnote to the conclusion to make this clearer.
2. “Most protestants would argue that there is no "Protestant tradition" but instead there are "Protestant Traditions."
   1. We agree. When we write “parts of the protestant tradition” we simply mean that we chose some protestant traditions in favor of others.
3. “the author does not attend to any meaningful definition of the faith.”
   1. We draw the contours of one way of understanding faith and that is sufficient for our argument.
4. “The argument made by the author does simply not work.  The compatibility of Christian Faith and Theological Agnosticism is neither sufficiently argued nor is it sufficiently explored.  The argument relies on a five-factor model of Christian Faith that is dubious at best.  The explanations provided do not adequately explore the reality of faith from a theological perspective.  Instead, they provide a loose structure that is subsequently manipulated by the author towards the author's desired conclusion.  
   1. Unfortunately, the reviewer does not state why the argument does not work. This makes it very difficult to improve the article on the basis of his/her review. Therefore, we haven’t changed anything on the basis of this criticism.
   2. The reviewer asks for more exploration, especially of the nature of faith. We agree that more exploration is needed and that this article does not give the final answer on this complex question. But the article is already long, so more exploration will have to come in another article or in another format like a book. Therefore, we haven’t added any further exploration.

Unfortunately, the reviewer does not state what he/she thinks is missing in our understanding of faith which makes the argument problematic or “dubious”. Therefore, we haven’t changed the section on faith. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear, Author

I´ve really enjoy reading this paper. Congrats. Your paper is an interesting contribution to epistemological discussion between believing and, in this case, agnosticism. 

I suggest the author a few of minor considerations based on sociological perspective:

1. It could be interesting to touch upon the sociological discussion between those authors who defend that in modern and secular societies believing is more important than belonging (Grace Davie, 1994) and other authors that  emphasize belonging over believing (Hervieu-Léger, 1996). More in a context in which the sacred can adopt several secular forms like the nation, the person, and so on.  
2. When author talks about 'social evidence' (408) it would be interesting to quote the work of the classical sociology William Isaac Thomas and their famous theorem: If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences (1923). This two first questions can be solve with footnotes.
3. Another minor question, I suggest the author changes the acronym ETA due to their overlap with the spanish-basque terrorist group (Euskadi ta Askatasuna, Euskadi and freedom). I suggest EPTA.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your time and effort in reviewing our article. We value the response and have made som concrete changes on the basis of it. We have listed them below.

Best wishes,

The Authors.

1. ETA changed to EVTA for clarity. We still want to use an acronym because we find it simplifies the sentences and make them more readable
2. On social evidence and Thomas quote
   1. What we have in mind by the term “social evidence” is something a bit different from but not unrelated to the quote. We think about social influence and how it forms our beliefs. or in quote-terms, the influence of the community influences men in what they perceive as real – that is, what they believe. That these beliefs have consequences for action is the basic theme and assumption for section 3C. So we are not sure the quote adds anything essential which is not already assumed. We have therefore chosen to omit it.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I have read through the comments that were attached to the review.  I suspect that the authors are more interested in making a sociological argument than a theological one.  If this is the case, I would suggest making this clear from the outset.  Theologically speaking, the argument simply does not work.

If this is meant to be a theological argument, then the following require attention.

1. particular understandings of faith are not universal and should not be used as though they are.  
2. if the authors are choosing to use protestant then the title should be changed to reflect that.
3. the authors should adequately define and explain faith in a protestant context and acknowledge the subsequent discussion does not include Catholic, Pentecostal, Anglican, Orthodox, etc. 
4. The explanation that the authors are using "contours" of faith is not adequate and makes me question whether or not this is really a theological argument.  Any understanding of faith is dependent on the particular understanding of a community.  If the authors want to make sociological claims, then they need to stay away from making theological arguments.
5. I cannot give specific changes to the section on faith, because in my estimation it needs to be completely reworked or the scope of the paper must be adapted by narrowing it.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thanks once again for your comments and criticisms. We find it more clear what you are targeting this time and we have revised our article from your criticism.

We do make a theological argument and we state that from the beginning of the article. We have made it more clear that we mean by faith and agnosticism and how they are related in our particular understanding.

We have noticed your five points and have revised the article in accordance with them.

• particular understandings of faith are not universal and should not be used as though they are.  
  • We agree and have made that clear.
• if the authors are choosing to use protestant then the title should be changed to reflect that.
  • We decided not to.
• the authors should adequately define and explain faith in a protestant context and acknowledge the subsequent discussion does not include Catholic, Pentecostal, Anglican, Orthodox, etc. 
  • We decided instead to make clear that we use a particular five-factor model and emphasize that the argument works in connection to this particular definition and say that other notions of faith may say something different.
• The explanation that the authors are using "contours" of faith is not adequate and makes me question whether or not this is really a theological argument.  Any understanding of faith is dependent on the particular understanding of a community.  If the authors want to make sociological claims, then they need to stay away from making theological arguments.
  • We want to make a theological argument with insights from philosophy and this should be clear now.
• I cannot give specific changes to the section on faith, because in my estimation it needs to be completely reworked or the scope of the paper must be adapted by narrowing it
  • We have clarified our notion of faith and think it works better and more transparingly now.