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 
Yeah, I’m glad you’re finding some stuff of value here, Matt. And I’m also glad you took Arch’s suggestion to check out the Jericho Brisance blog. It’s got a lot of great content.
LikeLike
UnkleE, thanks for offering your perspective on the silence issue. I’m glad you’re here to help give Matt a different take on it.
To your 3rd point, I would argue that we can make some assumptions about what Good would likely do under certain circumstances.
For instance, if we say that God created everything and considers humans the pinnacle of that creation, then we can assume he’s interested in our well-being. If we also take to heart the claim that he wants a relationship with mankind, then I think it’s reasonable to think that he would each out to us in some way, probably the most direct at his disposal.
There are other points as well, but those are some of the main ones that make his hiddenness a problem for me. Though I know you feel differently about the conclusion, do you think it’s possible and reasonable to make any inferences about what God would or wouldn’t do, or do you think we’re pretty much unable to do that kind of conjecture at all?
Thanks!
LikeLike
How do/did you guys deal with burn out/ info overload. Right now the wife and I are reading so much, challenging so much it can be a bit overwhelming.
LikeLike
Sometimes you just have to walk away for a little bit and process everything. You’re probably getting more overload than most of us did. For instance, it took me longer too find comprehensive sources when I was going through it. I hadn’t found some of these blogs and other sites that do such a nice job of compiling information. So it took me a little longer too find everything.
You guys may want to call it a night and just start talking through everything. You’re always welcome to give me a call too, if you ever want to talk through it with someone who’s come out the other side of it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Nate, thanks for your continuing welcome to my “alternate” opinion – I do appreciate it.
“I would argue that we can make some assumptions about what God would likely do under certain circumstances”
I would say we can make certain interesting speculations that we may be able to make the basis of an argument, but we need to do the work and make the argument, not just mention the speculation and think that is compelling.
“If we also take to heart the claim that he wants a relationship with mankind, then I think it’s reasonable to think that he would each out to us in some way, probably the most direct at his disposal.”
If we knew what his criteria are for acceptance, then we could reasonably expect a just God to give us all a reasonable opportunity to meet those criteria. That’s why I disagree with the more rabid exclusivist evangelical christians (don’t you just love the jargon!!??) But since I believe what he requires is to respond to the light we are given, then I don’t see that your point is at all strong – it’s not dependent on knowledge but on “heart” response.
“do you think it’s possible and reasonable to make any inferences about what God would or wouldn’t do, or do you think we’re pretty much unable to do that kind of conjecture at all?”
I think this is a very interesting and worthwhile question. Obviously we will make inferences about God, so the question is how much weight should we put on them? I think clear contradictions or clear causation are quite strong inferences, whereas knowing God’s supposed motivations are very poor ones unless we have some revelation from him.
In the first category I would put the problem of evil (there is lots of crap in the world, and while we cannot claim to be able to fully show that God hasn’t got a reason for it, we can say it hurts us and makes us doubt God) and the origin of the universe (while we can’t say that science will never explain it, there are good scientific and logical reasons why it probably can’t). So I think those arguments for and against God are strong.
But God is by definition totally beyond us in power and knowledge, so basing an argument on our vague idea of what we think God “should” do is like an anaerobic bacterium theorising about relativity. Such speculations are fun but hardly powerful.
Thanks for the question. What would be your answer to the same question?
LikeLike
I found this interesting 🙂
Dr. Wayne Dyer –
In a mother’s womb were two babies.One asked the other: “Do you believe in life after delivery?”The other replied, “Why, of course. There has to be something after delivery. Maybe we are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later.”
“Nonsense” said the first. “There is no life after delivery. What kind of life would that be?”
The second said, “I don’t know, but there will be more light than here. Maybe we will walk with our legs and eat from our mouths. Maybe we will have other senses that we can’t understand now.”
The first replied, “That is absurd. Walking is impossible. And eating with our mouths? Ridiculous! The umbilical cord supplies nutrition and everything we need. But the umbilical cord is so short. Life after delivery is to be logically excluded.”
The second insisted, “Well I think there is something and maybe it’s different than it is here. Maybe we won’t need this physical cord anymore.”
The first replied, “Nonsense. And moreover if there is life, then why has no one has ever come back from there? Delivery is the end of life, and in the after-delivery there is nothing but darkness and silence and oblivion. It takes us nowhere.”
“Well, I don’t know,” said the second, “but certainly we will meet Mother and she will take care of us.”
The first replied “Mother? You actually believe in Mother? That’s laughable. If Mother exists then where is She now?”
The second said, “She is all around us. We are surrounded by her. We are of Her. It is in Her that we live. Without Her this world would not and could not exist.”
Said the first: “Well I don’t see Her, so it is only logical that She doesn’t exist.”
To which the second replied, “Sometimes, when you’re in silence and you focus and you really listen, you can perceive Her presence, and you can hear Her loving voice, calling down from above.”
LikeLike
I saw this twins story on facebook, I’m not sure who actually wrote it though, I’m thinking there were different variations of the same parable. I think Wayne Dyer just adopted it.
LikeLike
That parable is cool newport. And as Wayne Dyer and perhaps you would agree, it would seem a bit absurd to think of any mother punishing her child for doubting there was life after the womb. If there is a Divine Mother awaiting on the other side of death it would end up being a pleasant surprise. Just like babies are actually incapable of really knowing what comes after the womb so too there may be something beyond which we currently are capable of understanding. While we can say we know better because we as adults can reason, we’ll never know if there’s a realm above that reason. To me though that’s just “beyond us” and I think a proper epistemology puts that in the realm of the unknown. We’ve got a life to live here and many practical things to carry on with, so I focus on that.
LikeLike
haven’t got to all the comments yet, but I am interested in both, however just asking in the etymology of the word.
I had read in a few places that Pharisee was aramaic for Persian, which would make sense considering the similarities, but now as i look more closely, it seems that this is probably not the case.
Although the word being Greek for Separated also does not seem definite.
Hope that clarifies my question.
LikeLike
and as for the parable, many will use such to argue for god and then LEAP to their god, as if there are only two possible scenarios: their god or no god, their religion or no religion.
This of course is false.
Maybe there is a god. maybe it’s a logical conclusion. But how many, what are they or it like? Do they/it want anything of us?
and why would we have to rely on the tales of men to gain knowledge of this creator from all, while rejecting all the other tales from all the other men who claim to speak for a different god?
In truth, the possibilities are endless. It could be no god, or your god, or his god or her god or their gods and they could be all powerful or some powerful, perfect or imperfect and everything in between.
LikeLike
Here are some other problems with the illustration:
While the baby who thinks there’s life after delivery is right, it’s only by sheer luck. If there had been a 3rd child in the womb with them, her idea of what might happen after delivery could have been very different. With their limited knowledge, there’s no way to determine which of the 3 is right. It’s only by coming through the other side that you can find out. And Howie’s right — would any parent punish the babies that didn’t believe?
Another problem has to do with the parents. While a child is still in utero, the parents aren’t deciding to remain hidden from the child — there’s just no physical way they can avoid it. And even then, most parents-to-be will still speak to their child during the pregnancy, etc. So while their interaction is limited, they still do what they can. Contrast that with the Christian god — a being who has supposedly spoken directly to people in the past (and maybe even today). There’s no reason for this god to remain silent, but he does. No human parent would do that.
LikeLike
I was thinking about this “Pandora’s Box”… So many are afraid to look, scared of challenging their beliefs. To the point that when you are studying and searching they are afraid to study along or give a serious look to the objections you have. It’s sad really, a life of fear is no life at all.
LikeLike
So true, Nate. Well, honestly, I’m not sure if there actually is “no reason” for Him to remain silent. But, he certainly seems to do so. I was watching a seminar with Robert Farrar Capon recently, and someone asked “Why did God have to die on the cross?” Capon’s answer was simple, “Why does God have to do anything? The answer is he doesn’t have to do anything.” His point was that God, if He does exist, is likely “required” to do nothing. He simply does them because he wants, for His own reasons, in His own “time”. One of the reasons I love Capon, and the late Internet Monk, Michael Spencer, is for his hones assessment that we simply don’t, and will never, have that answers to a lot of these questions about “Why does God…?” I have, in my time, spent many an hour trying to convince myself and others that I had the answers to some of those questions. I don’t. Plain and simple. I also don’t necessarily know why I continue to believe in the face of some monumental doubt and anger I have toward God sometimes. The truth is, though, my faith remains. A lot of it is simply because The Good News is really, to me, Good News. There’s no other teaching that brings everyone into the fold the way Jesus did. All others, including much of the history of Christians, teach that we need to make ourselves better in order to receive rewards or accolades. What about the people that never do? What about the people that have no chance? What about the people, like me, who feel they have every opportunity in the world to make themselves better, yet the actual “get better” piece continues to elude despite decades of trying so hard? Jesus meets us where we are, and announces His kingdom is for ALL, especially those who have tried and know, for whatever reason, they can’t change themselves or the world around them the way they would like. For all of these reasons, this is Good News that continues to give me hope in the face of a world that, in no other worldview, offers any hope for many people who simply don’t get the bounce that others do.
LikeLike
Hey Josh!
It’s always great to hear from you. 🙂
It’s true that God doesn’t “have” to do anything. But when we ask those kinds of questions, we’re not really implying that God is required to do anything — it’s really just shorthand for asking how rational these claims are. It’s claimed that God is good, God is love, and God wants a relationship with all of us. Okay — that’s the claim. Now we compare it to our available evidence, and we see that God does not do the things one would do when in a relationship. I mean, how can you be in a relationship with someone you’ve never communicated with?
I think it’s important to remember that Christianity is not the default position. It makes specific claims, and those claims should be backed by good evidence before anyone’s expected to accept them. That’s why these questions about why God is hidden if he wants a relationship are meaningful — they directly call into question the legitimacy of Christianity’s claims. Sure, God could simultaneously want a relationship and still remain hidden, but that’s contradictory behavior, and it’s grounds for disbelief. It would be immoral to “punish” someone who didn’t believe because of it.
Can you illustrate where Jesus teaches this? Obviously, many denominations would disagree with your take on the gospel. There are a number of passages where Jesus lists those who will be damned.
And honestly, I think humanism does a better job of this than any religion I know of. Humanism just puts a focus on people’s lives — we’re all equal just by being human. There are no stipulations on nationality, creed, or class. You are welcome and accepted just by being human, and the humanist community is there to help you in whatever way they can. There are some churches who do great benevolent work, but our secular government does as well. It tries to help those who are most in need, take care of those who can’t take care of themselves, and provide opportunities in work and education for those who could use a leg up.
LikeLike
Nate-
You ask a lot of great questions. I agree that Scripture, and Jesus representation in the NT, contradict and “speak out of both sides of it’s mouth”. As I mentioned above, my faith remaining with me is not necessarily a matter of me looking at all the evidence and coming to the conclusion that Christianity is true. You have looked at the evidence, and come to a different conclusion. You are coming at this from the perspective that God will place people in “Hell” based on not having some information. I tend to lean more toward what unkleE ascribes to, though I won’t claim to represent what he thinks. I imagine we differ on a great many things. You are certainly correct, from my perspective, that, if God exists, He doesn’t provide the same “information” to everyone, nor does He seem to provide the same “relationship” to everyone. I’m not attempting to answer those questions. They are there. I’m not necessarily going to debate the teaching of Scripture, just offer what is one perspective on how to read it. Is mine the “right” way? I don’t know. Maybe other Christians are “right”? I could offer texts in support of my view. You and others could offer texts in support of an opposing view. Agreeing on everything is something that’s not going to happen. I think a lot of us seem to be okay with that. Just trying to offer another perspective than the one that I think is typically trotted out 🙂
LikeLike
sounds jus tike the same perspective typically trotted out to me. ya gotta have faith!
LikeLike
the biggest questions to me are,
– is god?
– why god and gods or something else?
– why should we believe the men who wrote the bible and reject the men who wrote every other religious book?
I guess we could also ask,
– are stories of vampires manipulated by real vampires, only to make us think they’re only stories, when they’re actually real?
– if vampires were real, why would they manipulate stories and stay hidden? but i guess then, why would vampires do anything?
it seems that some questions seek answers and other questions seek to hide answers.
LikeLike
… you gotta have faith, eh faith, eh faith!
LikeLike
You don’t gotta have faith, or gotta do anything, SPG. God either is or isn’t. He’s either reconciled humanity, or he hasn’t. I don’t accept Nate’s view of the world and truth because it leaves me with no hope. You don’t have to accept anything I or anyone else has said. I may be right. I may not be right. I’m not sure that “truth” depends on me being able to convince anyone of anything. We all seem to be searching, so I’m offering a perspective. If it sounds like everything that’s been trotted out before, then I retract that statement and acknowledge my lack of originality.
LikeLike
Hi William,
You and I have discussed enough for me to know we aren’t going to agree on the big questions, but I thought I’d comment on a couple of things you said.
“… you gotta have faith, eh faith, eh faith!”
I find it interesting how often this stereotype is repeated. It is true that many christians say this, but:
1. Many do not. Many argue on the basis of evidence. You may not agree with the conclusions we draw from that evidence, but that doesn’t mean we think groundless faith is any use to anyone.
2. If you investigate (i.e. ask the right questions) the beliefs of even fideist christians, you’ll find they do indeed believe in evidence. If you ask a fundamentalist christian if they believe there is good evidence for christianity, most will say there is. e.g. Luke’s and John’s gospels claim to present hard historical evidence and christians typically claim that historical evidence is reliable.
So I think it is an unfair characterisation. I’m aware christians do the same to unbelievers, but I don’t think that is fair either. It seems to be a common human trait to bolster one’s own views by denigrating those of one’s opponents, and demonising them by mocking the poor forms of belief rather than addressing the better forms of that belief. But I don’t think it helps anyone.
“why should we believe the men who wrote the bible and reject the men who wrote every other religious book?”
On a more positive note, I enjoyed your questions, and I think there is a good answer to this one.
We shouldn’t.
If we are approaching belief from the outside, we should treat all books and claims the same – find the best evidence and the best conclusions of the best experts, and then draw a conclusion. In the case of assessing holy books, the New Testament offers more verifiable historical evidence than most religions – christianity is a religion of historical actions (which can be verified or falsified) as well as ideas (which are not easily verified or falsified) and has been subjected to an immense amount of scrutiny.
The conclusions of secular scholars are that the significant details of Jesus’ life and teachings can be verified as well as history allows, large sections (mostly the miracles and many smaller details) can neither be verified nor falsified by historical assessment, and not very much that is crucial can be shown to be historically very doubtful (though some minor details can be). You wouldn’t always think that from the statements of sceptics, but if you examine the writings of experts, that is more or less what scholars conclude.
On that basis, which is the same way I would assess any other holy book, I am willing to conclude that the New Testament is basically truthful (not necessarily 100% so) and the other holy books I have read (Koran, Book of Mormon and the writings of Bahá’u’lláh) do not contain as much truth (though I do think they contain some truth).
I accept that you don’t come to the same conclusion, but I thought it worth sharing that there is a reasonable answer to your question.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Nate-
I honestly think our differing perspectives often boils down to whether or not we think we even need a savior. The older I get (granted, I’m not that old), the more I see my need for redemption, reconciliation. I know you and others have suggested maybe I’m being too harsh on myself and the world. I am, quite honestly, a mess. I think I have a pretty good idea what it is to be a decent person. And, I can fake it quite well. The problem is, I have to fight to pretend that I am that person that other people think I am. I have thoughts, desires and urges that I would never tell nearly anyone I know. Funny thing is, the closer I get to the few people who really know me, the more I find out they are not the person they pretend to be, either. I find that we are both very close, give it one traumatic push or another, to being the people we so often abhor. Now, that may not be you. If that’s the case, I relish that I could be the same. I wish I had that integrity inside and out. To quote a corny line from Superman to Lois Lane, I think our perspectives can be summed up mostly as: “You wrote that the world doesn’t need a savior. But, every day I hear people crying for one,” and, mostly, that’s me crying for one 🙂 It’s the hope. I’m lost without it.
LikeLike
And, aside from all the nasty crap I think about doing, there’s also all the hateful, manipulative, hypocritical, self-serving shit I do on a daily, almost hourly, basis 🙂
LikeLike
Sorry – *crap*
LikeLike
Hey Josh,
I agree with you about our differing perspectives. I don’t see the need for any kind of savior.
Look, no one’s perfect. Everyone has base motivations and desires from time to time. That’s part of being human. Call it innate depravity or our “lizard brain,” it’s all the same thing. It’s our emotional, instinctive response to certain things. Thankfully, we also have a rational side that tempers those instincts, and between the two, we can typically work out a balance that fits each situation we find ourselves in. Sometimes, we choose poorly and do something that hurts ourselves or someone else. But in most of those situations, the damage isn’t so severe that we can’t make amends and resolve to do better. This is just the human condition, and there’s no way to be saved from it. Even Jesus didn’t offer a cure. Does becoming a Christian make one perfect? Not at all! The solution supposedly comes after death. Well, how convenient!
Sometimes we all make mistakes. I’m not trying to excuse that. But the dilemma you’re describing, Josh, is just the nature of being human. That’s nothing we should have to apologize for, and I resent the religions that say we should. Far from inspiring hope, I find Christianity to be a source of confusion and despair.
You’re simply not as bad as you think you are.
LikeLike
Hi unkleE,
William probably won’t answer till tomorrow morning, so I wanted to jump in and say that I think his “faith, faith, faith” comment was just a quote from the old George Michael song.
Also, the denomination he came from is very similar to the one I left, so I think he would agree with you that many Christians value and think they have evidence. However, the evidence in question is rarely as good as most of these Christians think. You’ve done the research and know about the problems, but a number of Christians haven’t and don’t. Even the historical accuracy of the gospels is far from certain, and some things are simply false.
Long story short, while Christians like you and guys like me and William have done the hard work of coming to terms with the facts about Christianity, a great many professing Christians haven’t. And for those people, I think Williams comment is applicable.
Anyway, that’s what I took from it. 🙂
LikeLike