Agnosticism, Atheism, Christianity, Faith, God, Religion, Truth

Pandora’s Box

Nate

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.

Unknown's avatar

Published by Nate

329 thoughts on “Pandora’s Box”

  2. you know, i’m looking it up again, and I guess the sources i read that from dont look as iron clad as perhaps they should. now i am also reading things that say pharisee means “separated,” or something similar.

    oh well, it’s like arguing over whether mothra looks more realistic or if godzilla looks more realistic.

    I’ll keep reading on it though.

    anyone else have any insight here?

    Like

  4. Yeah, I don’t know enough about it to say either way. It’s definitely interesting… And I think the influence of Zoroastrianism on Judaism is pretty undeniable (as far as I know).

    Like

  6. William, it was the Persians (Iranians) who freed the Jews captive in Babylon. They worship Ahura Mazda – Google him, and see how the precepts of that religion bled over into the Hebrew philosophy.

    Ahura Mazdā is identified with the beneficent spirit and directly opposed to the destructive one. He is all-wise, bounteous, undeceiving, and the creator of everything good. The beneficent and evil spirits are conceived as mutually limiting, co-eternal beings, the one above and the other beneath, with the world in between as their battleground. In late sources (3rd century BC and onward), Zurvān (“Time”) is made the father of the twins Ormazd and Ahriman (Angra Mainyu) who, in orthodox Mazdaism, reign alternately over the world until Ormazd’s ultimate victory.

    Something of this conception is reflected in Manichaeism, in which God is sometimes called Zurvān, while Ormazd is his first emanation, Primal Man (Adam?), who is vanquished by the destructive spirit of darkness (da debbil) but rescued by God’s second emanation, the Living Spirit (Jesus?).

    http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/10323/Ahura-Mazda

    Like

  7. William, thanks for your confidence in me. 😉

    I didn’t really study much on the Pharisees for my book. I do know they did not accept the notion of a great supernatural power hostile to God (i.e., Satan), but beyond that, I don’t have a lot of information.

    I do disagree with a statement on the forum (Nate’s 2nd link) that says the Pharisees were “Zoroastrianized” Jews because the Zoroastrians DID believe in a supernatural evil spirit (Agra Mainyu).

    However, as far as the etymology of the word, I’m ignorant.

    If you’re asking about Zoroastrianism in general, there is considerable information on the internet.

    Like

  10. William, are you interested in the etymology of the word pharisee or are you interested in the connection between Zoroastrianism and Judaism?

    Like

  11. Matt – if I may, I would like to respond to your query a little later this evening after the rest of my world goes away.

    Like

  15. Perhaps we are looking at this from different perspectives. I understood his original statement to be that “pharisee” was aramaic for “Persian.” Nate seemed to disagree and provided a couple of links related to the meaning and etymolgy of the word.

    Then you gave some history on Ahura Mazda and I thought perhaps I had missed something in the “translation.” 😉 So to clarify, I asked William if he was interested in the word or the history.

    I suppose, in a sense, they are related but I saw them as two different topics.

    Like

  16. “Why had God gone silent?”

    Hi Matt, I wanted to have a go at this question, and particularly the implication some people may infer that God isn’t there.

    1. First, has God gone silent? Many people say he’s just as vocal as ever. I don’t find it that way, and neither apparently do you, but if other people do, we have to be a little careful in drawing conclusions I think.

    2. It’s possible we overstate how much God spoke in OT times. (a) Perhaps people inferred thoughts they had were from God whereas you and I wouldn’t make that inference? (b) We know OT characters also felt God was silent or inactive – e.g. the Psalms are full of cries to God to hear and answer. (c) Many OT scholars think that some of the actions ascribed to God were not historical, or were exaggerated.

    3. But even if God is indeed more silent than he was in the past, how does that lead to an argument that he’s not there? Does God have to act exactly as I think he ought? I can’t see how there’s any reasonable argument there. For a reasonable argument, we’d have to be able to justify why we have that expectation of God, and I’ve never seen that done. There is an enormous difference between not understanding something or something not happening the way we expect, and an argument that that thing doesn’t exist.

    I wouldn’t say I’m committed to any of those explanation (except probably #3), but I think there are many ways to explain this dilemma that don’t have any detrimental effect on christian faith.

    Thanks.

    Like

  19. Finally got my avatar thing to work! I’ve been speaking with a friend that was a Christian and is going through the same things I am right now it is been uplifting to hear somebody else going through similar struggles. I also reached out to a Jewish friend to discuss their view of hell heaven and the afterlife what is surprised me the most is not the answers that I found but the realization that today’s Christian preachers and teachers are knowingly lying to their congregations. They twist and manipulate scriptures to present their own version of the Bible

    Like

  20. Matt, you should consider checking out some of the information on NeuroNotes blog, https://victorianeuronotes.wordpress.com/ – Victoria is about 10 years out of her departure from being DEEPLY embedded in Christianity, and has a lot of valuable information from which you might benefit. Preachers have learned to use vocal cadence and music tempo to generate suggestibility in their audience, and you’d be amazed at the flow of neurotransmitters that goes on inside the heads of the religious.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Also, you might a lot out of the blog of a good friend of ours and excellent writer, Matt Barsotti – Google “Jericho Brisance” – both his “Journey” and his five-post article on his youngest daughter’s birth issues, as found in “Paisley” are very highly-recommended reads.

    Like

  22. Thanks Archaeopteryx1,

    going to check those two out. Honestly there is so much to read here of Nate’s I’m pretty happy. Well as happy as you can be when challenging/shifting your entire worldview.

    Like

  23. Wow, I’ve spent the last hour over at Jericho Brisance reading his journey articles, i’m about 6 or 7 into the list. Thanks so much for that suggestion.

    Like

  25. Were something of a family here, we help each other – you haven’t met the weird uncle yet, but then you really never know when Ark will drop by.

    Like

Leave a comment