The other day I started thinking about what would have happened if I had stopped looking critically at Christianity after reading those articles that first made me question the Bible’s legitimacy. What if I had turned from them and decided to never look at anything else that might cause me to doubt my faith? If I had, I’m sure I’d still be a Christian today.
But would that really be good enough? Obviously, the things my faith were built upon weren’t solid enough to withstand scrutiny. So if I had maintained faith only by refusing to investigate my reasons, would that kind of faith be pleasing to God? I think that’s a question believers should consider. If that level of faith is good enough, we’re essentially saying, “oh, if only you hadn’t taken your faith so seriously!” But that seems crazy.
The alternative is that my faith might have been good enough until the day I ran across things that made me doubt. At that point, the only way to remain pleasing to God would be to investigate the claims and come out the other side with a stronger faith. Of course, that’s not how it worked out for me. If God’s real and Christianity’s true, then I think this view makes the most sense. However, it causes problems for those Christians who have refused to look at any evidence that might call their beliefs into question. I’ve had several tell me that they won’t read anything an atheist has written, or don’t want me to point out the passages that I found problematic because they don’t want to lose their faith. How does that make sense? If their faith is worth keeping — if it’s true — then further investigation should only support their beliefs, not call them into question.
I’m not trying to pick on Christians here, we can all be guilty of this from time to time. It’s essentially an extreme case of confirmation bias — one in which we realize we’re being biased and we even think of it as a good thing. In fact, it’s extremely dangerous, and if we feel ourselves thinking along those lines, it should be a red flag. What’s wrong with our current position if we have to hide from information in order to keep it?
And in the end, I’m glad I didn’t stop looking. The journey out wasn’t easy, but I feel like things make so much more sense with my current worldview. Even if I’m still wrong, I’m closer to the truth than I was before, because I’ve learned new information and corrected some past misunderstandings. That can only be a good thing.
Finding Truth 
Hey Nan-
If one part of a news report, or a story your friend tells you, is false, or incorrect, how likely is the rest to be?
LikeLike
and I think my plausible counter story makes much more sense than the implausible biblical story.
jesus was a real guy who lived in a superstitious time, where many people were under-educated and oppressed. I have no doubt that he was charismatic and had some followers. I have no doubt that they thought he was the messiah.
They were shocked when he died. hints of this are found the gospels. they tried to make sense of it. how could he die? they were so sure that he was the messiah, much like those goofs who keep predicting the end of the world – when that date passes, the believers dont abandon their prophet, they make up reasons why he was wrong or why they misunderstood and they set a new date.
They starting thinking and praying and reading their OT and somebody said, “oh of course, jesus had to die, as we needed a perfect sacrifice. Enough time had passed and no one knew where his body was as most of the disciples fled his crucifixion and as the romans custom was to leave the bodies in place. the body rotted like all those around it.
no tomb, then he arose and ent back to heaven… of course, it all makes sense now. all that stuff that he once soad that didnt make sense… now it makes sense if we look at it just right.
like Robert Paulson in fight club – “in death, a member of project mayhem has a name…”
people were superstitious. they were oppressed and now they had their promise of riches after they died. of vengeance if they just believed in the god-man that loved them enough to die for them.
“oh yeah, i heard about that guy!” “oh yeah, i saw him once.” “i touched his cloak and my cold went away!” “well i seen a guy that was healed of the squirts!” “that’s nuthin’, i seen a cripple that was made to walk again!” “oh yeah. I saw a dead boy raised from the grave!”
the more they discussed it, the more stories came up, the more they squinted their eyes and saw OT fulfillment in it. look at matthew… most of his fulfilled prophecies of christ werent even prophecies…
Constantine is the one who really sealed the deal. He won his war and made the religion THE RELIGION. Picked and chose what books and letters to put in their master copy and which to toss out.
That’s just a brief start.
And dont say anything about Christianities longevity or that it would be impossible for it to have survived unless it was real, as there are plenty of other religions with those same qualities.
LikeLike
“If one part of a news report, or a story your friend tells you, is false, or incorrect, how likely is the rest to be?” – josh
right. so if the news reported a story with some parts right, but then also contained errors in it, how much would you trust that news agency? probably take most things with a grain of salt.
If they then claimed something way over the top? are you going to accept that as likely true, because some of hwt athey say is true?
of course not! you’d right that crap off as ridiculous!
so when Fox News says that Obama eats puppies and has sex with muslim men, you can be assured it’s false. If they said that bigfoot flew over the white house with a canadian flag?
…well of course that happened. And if not, what’s your plausible counter story?
LikeLike
“I didn’t say that. I acknowledged, in my previous response, that there are also subjective factors that go into each person’s consideration.” – josh
what about the objective factors?
LikeLike
Yeah, let’s remember what’s at stake here. Whether you believe in a literal hell or not, the New Testament is pretty clear that there’s a big difference between believers and non-believers. It’s saying, “believe our story, OR ELSE” — and the “or else” is pretty substantial.
But the story they give you is implausible to begin with. On top of that, it’s peppered with several things that are verifiably not true, and many others that are simply unfalsifiable.
Would a reasonable person make such a case? Would they present such shoddy and incomplete evidence when the story they want you to believe is already over the top?
That’s my problem with all this. Remember, no one’s saying that Jesus wasn’t actually a real guy. But we are saying that the amount of information we can call “fact” in regards to him may not be as long as some people would like for it to be. We don’t know who wrote the accounts of his life, but we do know they were written at least 30 years after his death, and some of the accounts copied one another. It just doesn’t seem to pass the smell test.
LikeLike
Not sure why you’re asking me, Josh. Your question seems more relevant to Arch’s comment. Nevertheless … if I heard or read something that seemed “questionable” related to its accuracy, I would probably do some research to confirm my suspicions. I rarely take anything at face value — especially if it doesn’t ring true to my own perspective.
In response to some of the other comments, I simply cannot believe in the things you mentioned (that Jesus was buried in a tomb that was later found empty, had followers who said they saw him after his death and believed he was resurrected). Nor can I accept the fact that he floated up into heaven and is “sitting at the right hand of God.” On that last part … if “God” does exist, do you really think he’s sitting on a throne somewhere “up there”?
LikeLike
nan,
I guess it all could be true, despite the way it looks. and then parts may be figurative, like god sitting on his throne, and what have you.
it could be that there is enough at stake that it’s too scary to look behind the curtain. maybe there’s too much at risk or perceived danger to call a spade a spade… i mean, what if it aint a spade, despite the way it looks?
I’m not trying to dog josh, i’m just trying to understand. It seems like he’s on the threshold, but just doesnt want to look through the door.
I mean, being sinful doesnt prove god. so if you feel like you have sin in your life, okay; why does that mean god or jesus?
there’s stuff in the world and something surely created it all. why not? but how does that point to the bible?
the bible is just a collection of letters and books that were written by men, that claims its authors spoke for god. the same collection that cant agree on who was at jesus tomb when they saw the angles or on where the angels were encountered. it cant agree on the day jesus died. It cant agree on where jesus wanted his disciple to go (galilee or jerusalem). and on and on. it takes strong faith in deed to believe those men – to believe in the god they say that they wrote for.
LikeLike
Nate, Nan, William, et al-
Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, each of you was convinced of Jesus’ divinity based on your assessment of the available evidence. Let’s also say, in this hypothetical situation where you were convinced based on your assessment of the evidence, that you found a few other people who looked at all the same evidence as you and came to a different conclusion. Would you, simply because someone else was not convinced, reject your belief?
I ask this because you all, Nate in particular, seem to suggest in your comments that if God actually exists he would have provided enough indisputable evidence so that everyone who ever lived would acknowledge his existence. If that is in fact what you are suggesting, on what are you basing the idea that God would have provided such exhaustive evidence? I just don’t see that premise. I don’t think scripture agrees with it, either. How do you get there?
LikeLike
“…suggest in your comments that if God actually exists he would have provided enough indisputable evidence so that everyone who ever lived would acknowledge his existence. If that is in fact what you are suggesting, on what are you basing the idea that God would have provided such exhaustive evidence?” – josh
I think it’s like nate pointed out, the bible claims that god wants all men to be saved. that god loved all men so much that he gave himself/son to die a gruesome death on a cross as an atonement – but that in order to receive that blessing, you must believe (at least as a starting point).
how does that mesh?
not only must one believe in order to be saved, but one must also believe in order to avoid condemnation. there’s so much wrong this… but focusing merely on why we’d think god would want to make it obvious to everyone that he’s real? because he supposedly loves them and doesnt want any to perish, yet will condemn forever if they dont believe in him, as he hides from them, only leaving the hearsay or claims of men long dead and gone as evidence.
it’s pretty straight forward.
do you not think that your own belief has anything to do with how you were raised and what you were taught when you were young and impressionable?
LikeLike
Yes, william, and as you’ve said in previous comments, gremins, big foot, fairies, unicorns, the easter bunny … could all exist. But do they? And if they do, who says so? Is there documentation that verifies their existence?
The bible has been accepted for hundreds of years as being the “true” word of God. It’s highly doubtful the millions of people who believe this are ever going to change their thinking, no matter how many discrepancies are pointed out. Of course, the primary reason behind this is that most of these people never read the bible. They just accept what comes from church leaders. And the church leaders are merely parroting things that have been taught to them by other church leaders and so on and so on.
If things hadn’t been different in my own life, I doubt very much I would be commenting on Nate’s blog. I would most likely be active on some Christian blog and virtually nodding my head as they quoted “God’s Word.” Perhaps it’s a good sign that Josh is visiting here and asking questions.
LikeLike
Hey Josh, I think that’s a great question and I think Nate (and William a while back) answered it. If the stakes are so incredibly high (eternity) and this God desires relationships with all it’s creation it seems unreasonable to make the evidence shoddy. The better guess would be that the story is created by humans. It isn’t just non-exhaustive it raises skeptical issues.
That’s the answer to your last question, but your first one I’d say no , I wouldn’t reject my belief if I was convinced based on evidence and reason and I wouldn’t expect you to. I hope I’ve never asked that of you. I always say we each have to come to our own conclusions about this stuff.
LikeLike
Apologies, Guys. Let me slightly rephrase my last statement and question.
You all seem to suggest that God, if he exists, should have given everyone everything they need to acknowledge his existence. If that’s the case, on what do you base that conclusion?
LikeLike
I’m confused Josh. The answer is that you are telling us that an eternity rests on us acknowledging his existence and the bible also says that he wants all to acknowledge him. He wants all that but also withhold information to help people realize he exists?
LikeLike
Why not, Josh? Since this “God” has placed so many restrictions on what it takes to gain “his” favor, why shouldn’t we have verifiable and conclusive evidence of “his” existence? Otherwise, what’s the point?
LikeLike
“You all seem to suggest that God, if he exists, should have given everyone everything they need to acknowledge his existence.” – Why wouldn’t he, Josh? If you loved someone as much as the NT says your god does, would you run around dodging and hiding from them? Does that even sound like sane behavior to you?
LikeLike
Good questions, Josh. To answer your first question, that’s exactly what I did. Not just because someone disagreed with me, but because their questions struck me as something I should be able to answer. I came out the other side realizing their position fit the evidence better than mine did.
To answer your second question, I assume God isn’t a bastard. According to the gospels, Jesus said those who accepted him would have eternal life, and those who didn’t would be placed in a spot where there’s weeping and gnashing of teeth. Do you believe in a God who’s okay with people going to this place just because the evidence wasn’t good enough?
LikeLike
Josh, if you are a universalist (you should consider it – it’s a very tolerant, peaceful and loving belief which would go along with your beliefs about god being loving) then the issue becomes less troubling, although the other reasons for doubting still remain.
LikeLike
Could the French government come to the US and prosecute us for violating French law? What standing would they have unless they first demonstrated that they had authority over us? It’s the same thing with God. If he doesn’t make himself known to us, how can we be held accountable to him?
LikeLike
Howie-
I am dangerously close to a universalist, as you probably could have guessed by reading the book I recommended by Robert Capon. I just really enjoy these discussions, and find myself asking the questions I’m so very used to asking from a Christian perspective 🙂
LikeLike
Howie-
I agree my questions were not worded the way I wanted. I’m still having trouble formulating them, so I think I’m just going to drop what I was trying to ask there. Maybe E will read that whenever Australia wakes up and be able to spot out my words for me 🙂
LikeLike
Josh, you’ve gotten a handful of answers that all carried some similar themes. Did they not touch on your deeper question enough? I’m curious to hear what you think about our responses.
LikeLike
Nate-
I’m still thinking about the deeper issue I was getting at. I’ll try again. Howie, at least, seemed to acknowledge he could, if convinced by evidence, accept that others may not be convinced by it. I don’t know if that carries over to others here. But, if it does, then it seems to throw a wrench into the premise that God has to make sure that everyone believes. If you are able to accept, under even hypothetical circumstances, that some people may not be convinced even if it is true, then that premise seems to fall away. Does that make sense?
LikeLike
Hey Josh, I think you’re making things a bit confusing here. If convinced by evidence and reason of course I would accept it, but the problem is that reason and evidence are not there for me. So you’ve only created a paradoxical argument.
Given reason then the god as described looks contradictory if some have good reasons to doubt. You could argue that all our reasons for doubting are all lies, but you are always more gracious than that and even admit that there are times you doubt it yourself.
Also, the premise is not that God must make sure everyone believes otherwise he doesn’t exist. It’s not really a premise, here’s the reasoning again: the concept of god which seems to be supported by a lot of Christians is a god who wants all of us to love him and have a relationship with him, and if we don’t believe he exists then we’re in some way screwed for all eternity. If the stakes are eternity then it isn’t loving for him to withhold information that could lead people to believe in him. But you believe he is loving. It just doesn’t seem to add up.
LikeLike
I was a bit disappointed, Josh, that you didn’t respond to either of my comments to you – I had looked forward to your input.
LikeLike
“I’m pretty skeptical of that — do you have any references for it?”
Hi Nate, I didn’t just make that stuff up. Yes, there is good evidence for that.
Perhaps the most complete source of information on this is Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, with his conclusions based on the work of scholars in a range of fields including Middle Eastern Studies, the psychology of memory and the study of “orality” (oral cultures). He references work by Biblical scholar Birger Gerhardsson, New Testament scholar Kenneth Bailey, who lived and worked for decades among Middle Eastern oral cultures and a number of experts on memory (e.g. psychologists William Brewer and Alan Baddeley).
I obviously cannot summarise all these findings here, but here are a few brief points:
1. “The disciples of rabbis were expected to memorise their master’s teaching, and importance was attached to preserving the exact words. Mnemonic techniques and other controls were used to minimise deviation from the version learned.” (Bauckham referencing Gerhardsson.) The scholars say there are signs of patterned phrasing in Jesus’ teaching, indicating he may, and certainly could have, used similar methods.
2. Most scholars (following Bailey and others) don’t think Jesus and the early christian adopted quite as rigorous methods, but rather a mix of formal and informal controlled methods of transmission. Such methods are still used in oral cultures today – control is exercised by older people and the whole community, who expect the main parts of the story and teaching to be transmitted very accurately, virtually word for word, and will correct the story teller if he or she deviates. (Stories foundational to the community are repeated often.) It is possible, maybe likely, that the early christians used these methods too.
3. Of course some things were also written down early. Casey argues that a literate tax collector like Matthew, who he regards as quite likely the original author of the specific Matthew material, quite likely wrote sayings and events down that he was eye-witness to. Not all scholars agree with him, but most agree that some material was written down early.
4. Bauckham quotes memory experts on what memories are more likely to be transmitted accurately (unique or unusual events, events with consequences, an event where a person is emotionally involved, etc) and shows that the gospel events satisfy many of these requirements.
5. All this points to the ability to memorise accurately large amounts of important material, and a method of transmission and preservation which was often informal but well controlled, where the teachings and main events were preserved accurately but there are peripheral details which were not preserved well or were creatively re-told. This is exactly what we find in the gospels.
So there is good evidence for what you were sceptical of.
Nate, you know that I have deep respect and affection for you, and you have always been very welcoming of me here. So I am going to presume on that friendship a little and challenge you here. You admit you haven’t read much on these topics, yet your initial response to this matter was scepticism, and your view of Jesus mythicism is to have some sympathy towards it. You are strong on criticising christians for holding onto beliefs that don’t (you think) have sufficient evidence, yet here you are holding the possibility of mythicism when almost every scholar says otherwise, and holding a sceptical view before you even looked at the evidence. I really can’t understand it.
Surely your view should have been to withhold judgement on oral transmission until you had evidence? Surely, just as you expect christians to accept evolution because the vast majority of scientists tell us it is true, you should accept that mythicism is not true because the even vaster majority of ancient historians reject it? I really can’t see consistency there.
End of rant. Regardless of your response, I will continue to admire and expect you. But I hope for change! 🙂
Thanks.
LikeLike