I value open-mindedness over most other things. When I was going through my deconversion and having frequent religious discussions with my family, I often felt that they weren’t being open-minded. I know that it’s hard (perhaps impossible) to judge how open-minded someone else is being, so I hesitate to even pass that kind of judgment. At the same time, it’s not like they were answering the problems I brought up with actual solutions — it mostly centered on how arrogant I was to question “God’s word.” On top of that, they never read any of the books or articles that I asked them to — I don’t think they even read all of the stuff I personally wrote to them.
It was the seeming lack of open-mindedness that shocked me most, in many ways. During my time as a Christian, I tried to be as open-minded as possible. I was part of a strict denomination that thought most other Christians were wrong, so I often had discussions with my Christian friends to try to help them see “the truth.” In those discussions, I often admitted that I could be wrong:
Either I’m wrong, or you’re wrong, or we’re both wrong. We can’t both be right…
I firmly believed (based on Matthew 7) that as long as I was searching for the truth, I would find it. Also, if what I believed about Christianity was true, then more study would only bear that out. In other words, I had nothing to fear by discussing and examining Christianity with those who disagreed with me. If they could show me where I was wrong, then that was good! It would mean that I had believed the wrong thing, but learning that would give me the opportunity to correct it and be more pleasing to God.
Now that I have come out of Christianity, I still feel just as strongly about the merits of open-mindedness. Recently, someone suggested that I read In His Image, by William Jennings Bryan (which I’m now doing), but when he gave me the suggestion, he then backpedaled and said I might not like the book because it supports Christianity. I was disappointed by that statement. I told him that I don’t read things based on whether or not I will agree with them — I take religion very seriously, because all religion is an effort to explain reality. If this book by WJB can provide some arguments I haven’t considered before, or answer some of my questions about Christianity, then I want to know that!
But now for the admission. Now for the part that I haven’t been able to say to my family yet: I don’t see any way that I’ll ever believe Christianity again. On the surface, that may seem like it runs counter toward my goal of being open-minded, but it really doesn’t. The fact is, I’ve just seen too much. “I once was blind, but now I see.” The fact is, the Bible can’t fix its problems because it’s a closed document. No more material is going in or out of it. Nor is God going to speak to me directly or perform some miracle to overcome my skepticism. We’re stuck with what we’ve got.
We’re left with a god that’s supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, and loves us all, yet we still have evil in the world. He remains hidden from us, but supposedly wants a relationship with us. He supposedly left us a message, but no one can agree on what it says, and its books look pretty much like all the other things that were being written at the time. As this post said:
Let’s face it – I may still be open to the idea of being convinced on the matter, but this is a genie that’s not going to go back into the bottle easily. I can’t unlearn what I’ve found; I can’t simply deny the truth that I’ve been able to discover without the fear of uprooting my faith. To ask me to believe again would be to take on the herculean task of not only providing sufficient evidence but also dealing with all of the logical and evidential problems or to ask me to knowingly deceive myself – and I’m not sure I’m willing to do that for anyone.
I am still an open-minded person. But I also know enough about Christianity now to know what it is and what it isn’t. I didn’t lose my faith by forgetting things, but by learning things. And if I had known years ago what I know now, I never would have been a Christian in the first place.
Finding Truth 
Josh, i don’t follow your description of freewill or how if god stopping harm to another would be taking freewill away…
It may take away some of the consequences to freewill, but not hinder freewill. If that father stopped his children from hurting each other, has he just abolished their freewill? No, he stepped in when their freewill was hurting someone else. they still freely willed to do so, but were literally stopped from carrying out their will.
And to say that “there could be an explanation that we don’t understand, so therefore we should just accept it” isnt an answer. it’s a dodge and an excuse. Sure, there could be. there could be invisible horseman riding around stealing socks out of dryers. there could be ghosts who invade peoples bodies and make them do crazy things or make them rob banks… We could play this game all day and a different version for every scenario to excuse or to “prove” anything.
How about this, let’s imagine a policeman came upon a man beating an elderly woman, but did nothing and simply watched what was happening. The woman was killed and her purse stolen. The burglar got off with $6 for his reward. Most of us would be pretty angry with the policeman. Why didnt he step in and help? why didnt he prevent this from happening?
no one. No one would say, “well, there may have been a good reason that none of us know about and that none of us understand, so the policeman probably did the right thing even though it’s beyond our comprehension. It was good luck that he was there.”
nor would anyone say that the policeman had negated the assailant’s freewill by stopping him. Even if thwarted, the bad guy retains his freewill.
LikeLike
Nate-
Oh yeah, I’m definitely bothered by it. Absolutely. I’m just offering some of my thoughts on it. I go back and forth a lot on how I think about it, and there are no real satisfactory answers.
I see what you’re saying regarding explaining evil being easy from the perspective where God does not exist. The crux comes in when you ask “How do you explain evil in a world where God exists?” We are no longer within the realm of explaining things without Him – that’s precluded by the question itself. So, if we are operating within the framework that God exists, and there is evil in the world, it is completely possible that He has reasons about which we do not know. We can come up with examples of our own, which is enough evidence to allow for the possibility. I think it is a real argument. It may be “easier” to come up with explanations from a world without a god, but that doesn’t mean it’s the right answer. It also doesn’t mean it’s the only reasonable answer, I think. Because, even when we’re talking about the problem of evil, we’re not JUST talking about that, we’re talking about it within the context of everything else that informs our understanding of the world.
Anyway, I see what you’re saying. I see it differently, that’s all. Not eye to eye yet, my friend.
LikeLike
“If that father stopped his children from hurting each other, has he just abolished their freewill?”
If a child wants to eat chocolate ice cream, and the father stops the child from eating chocolate ice cream, has the father hindered free will?
LikeLike
“And to say that “there could be an explanation that we don’t understand, so therefore we should just accept it” isnt an answer.”
Agreed. I’m not suggesting it is THE answer. I’m suggesting it is a possibility. I am fully aware that many people on this site are not happy with the idea that we may not be able to understand God’s working or reasoning. However, if we are starting for a position where we allow, for the sake of discussion, that a deity exists and how could something like this possibly happen? I don’t see how anyone could claim that we can or should understand the workings of the deity completely. I know that’s contrary to opinion here, but it just makes absolutely no sense to me. There you have it.
LikeLike
One more thing. There are, at times, some questions from folks trying to clarify “which God are we talking about?” With that in mind, if we are bent on discussing a god that we can comprehend and explain the workings of, then we are not talking about the Christian God. That should be clear from scripture.
LikeLike
nah, whether they eat the ice cream or not has no bearing on what they want to do or try to do.
maybe it’s like jesus’ sermon on the mount. you know? the part where he says, it’s not just murder that’s wrong, but hate. or not just adultery, but lust…
If just making something impossible to carryout completely or at all, means no freewill, then we we don’t have that sort of freewill anyway.
LikeLike
Great post, I’m sure it resonates with most deconvertees. There’s nothing about any organised religion that seems even vaguely plausible – but it’s impossible to see how absurd it all is when you’re inside.
LikeLike
@Silence – RE: “Atheists always, and I mean ALWAYS, blame God for the evil that men do. And because the atheist has blamed God for the evil that men do and declared Him guilty, God must therefore not exist.”
I’d have to take exception with that – we atheists don’t declare that your god doesn’t exist because he’s guilty of anything – a non-existent entity cannot be guilty of anything – we maintain he/she/it doesn’t exist because there is no evidence that he/she/it does.
As astrophysicist, Neill Degrasse Tyson once put it, “God is an ever-receding pocket of ignorance, that grows smaller and smaller as time goes by.”
As for blaming your god for the evil in the world, I’m surprised that you don’t believe your own god, when he says, “I form the light and create darkness: I make peace and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.” (Isaiah, 45:7). You can’t cherry-pick, you have to believe it all.
LikeLike
William-
Agreed – what kind of freedom we have is a whole other discussion. Regardless, I think the problem really starts at “If God exists, can we presume we comprehend and can explain His actions?” I think the answer to that is very obviously no. Does that make explaining some things very difficult? Of course it does. I just don’t see how, if we’re hypothetically discussing a world in which God exists, we could presume to be able to answer all of these questions definitively. You all definitely have a point that the problems and holes are there, but asserting that we can and should know why and how God operates is not solid ground on which to begin the hypothetical discussion.
LikeLike
I always feel so outnumbered here. I like reading this blog and talking to you guys, but I’m thinking I should learn to shut my big mouth (or, keyboard, as it were).
LikeLike
“If God exists, can we presume we comprehend and can explain His actions?”
I don’t think it’s a presumption. I think it’s taking what the bible says about god and weighing and measuring it. the bible presents god as “x.” let’s see if that fits.
LikeLike
But Josh, just because we might not be able to understand everything about God doesn’t mean the logically impossible suddenly becomes possible.
This is the main point I’m (and I think others are) trying to make: God can not simultaneously be all powerful, all knowing, and love everyone if evil exists in the world. Saying that those things fit together is like trying to describe a square triangle — it’s a logical impossibility.
If God can stop all suffering and evil and chooses not to, then his level of compassion for us does not reach what’s described in the Bible. If he really cares that deeply, but can’t stop suffering and evil, then he’s not all-powerful. And if he wants to stop it, has the power to stop it, but is unaware of when and where it will happen, then he’s not all-knowing. But something’s got to give. He can’t have all 3 characteristics in the world we see around us.
LikeLike
Haha! I know what you mean. It’s not easy being the lone voice of dissent in a place like this. But you handle it well. 🙂 I’m glad you stick around.
LikeLike
Josh – I’ve been following your comments, and for a theist, you seem very level-headed, and I don’t mean that to sound patronizing, I mean you’re no radical, Westboro Baptist Church type.
I bought a WeedEater the other day. It came with an Operator’s Manual. The one thing I noticed, as I read it, was that there were no parables, no analogies, and no metaphors. The WeedEater people really wanted me to understand how to operate their equipment, and so they were extremely clear in their instructions and thorough in their effort to communicate with me. When I finished reading and started my new purchase, I knew exactly what to do – there was never any reason to shake my head and say, “WeedEater works in mysterious ways –”
archaeopteryx
LikeLike
“God can not simultaneously be all powerful, all knowing, and love everyone if evil exists in the world. ”
I don’t buy that as true. Can you think of no POSSIBLE reason that an all-powerful, all-knowing, and loving God could allow us to live in and through a world in which evil exists? I know your answer is ‘No’, Nate. However, my answer is different. There are many stories from which we can glean that suffering leads to character, knowledge, better understanding of life, etc. There are many, many good things that can come out of evil and suffering. Do I want people to have to suffer to learn those things? No. But, they do happen. In fact, there are a lot of people who come out of terrible times of tragedy and suffering with stronger faith in God. Sure, the opposite happens as well. But, the statement I quoted is not something I can simply accept as true. I don’t believe it, no matter how many ways it is spun. There are conceivable ways those things could all be true.
LikeLike
Actually, Nate, you’ve paraphrased Epicurus almost perfectly:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?”
— Epicurus —
LikeLike
if my kids were killed, I’d suffer, but it’s possible that I’d gain some new life understanding or appreciation – even if i cant imagine anything good coming from it, I can imagine that it’s possible.
But even so, what good would that do my kids?
If a person suffers Alzheimer’s and looses their mind, what possible good does it do them or their loved ones?
Some suffering, sure. Builds character. But not all suffering. A lot of it is just tragic and horrific – no more. What possible goodness came to those killed in Sandyhook or to their families?
What possible goodness could there be to the children killed in Oklahoma’s tornado or to their loved ones?
LikeLike
archaeopteryx1-
Thanks for the compliment!
I like the story, too, but I don’t think it quite does the job you’re hoping. If we’re talking about a being who created us, and everything else in the universe, it would take a lot to convince me that the sum total of his operations would fit into a manual that I could both read (in my lifetime) and understand. And, if that did exist, and I could then operate god, he would not be god. He would be mine to control…
LikeLike
Since your “style” or actions are a valid issue for an ethical debate, it can be content for the purposes of Biblical ethics.
You have committed yourself to a Bible-based ethics since you describe it as follows:
Yet you have failed to respond to my question, reproduced below in boldface:
Finally, as an immediate follow-up, do you consider 1 Peter 3: 8-17 a relevant portion within “the greatest compendium of ethics”?
LikeLike
William-
Those are good questions, and I’m trying to admit that I don’t have the answers. What I’m trying to do is allow for the possibility that God and evil can both exist. I cannot answer every scenario for you. I just don’t know. Sorry!
LikeLike
no, it’s alright.
deep stuff.
I guess if god is all-everything, and if nothing is impossible for god, even the absurd and impossible, then anything could be used to describe and justify god – even the absurd and impossible…
That’s a perfect and imperfect scenario at the same time. Nothing can be disproven even though can be proven.
I guess with rationale like that, we could make my favorite argument: “All religions are true and are from the same god. Even though we may not understand how this can be exactly, god, in his wisdom, created many paths to the top of the mountain. A version of choice for all people. God is good and mysterious. Who can know his ways?”
Can you deny the possibility?
LikeLike
I wasn’t referring to a manual for operating “god,” I was referring to a manual, from “god” (and I suspect you know that), as to how to live the kind of life he/she/it expects of us. So which is it, are we to follow the Ten Commandments warning, “Thou Shalt Not Kill, or should we take out kids out and stone them to death if they disrespect us, as we’re instructed in Leviticus to do? As “Vinnie Barbarino” used to say in “Welcome Back Kotter,” “I’m SO confused!” – should I kill my kids, or not?
LikeLike
I liked the weedeater analogy. If a weedeater manual, written by men without divine inspiration, can be so clearly understood, when something with such gravity from such a perfect creator cannot convey his plan clearly or concisely – as evidenced by the wide ranging varieties of christians.
no one argues over how to operate a weedeater.
LikeLike
I was thinking about adding some points to this discussion that I thought might help, but after this I’m gonna hold back. Josh, I think it’s really good that you’re hanging in discussing this with us. I’ve said this before – I don’t think this blog would be as useful as it currently is if it turns into an echo chamber (although it would still have some use of course). I really think you’ve got some points here that are worth thinking about, and I also am not being patronizing when I say that.
LikeLike