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 
This also shows that you as a human are able to offer this compassion. And there are people in every religion and non-religion throughout time who have been able to demonstrate the same thing. We don’t need a god or religion for this — we simply need to recognize our shared humanity.
LikeLike
“It also frees me to love others without condition.” – josh
if your wife and children love you, would you kill them or torture them?
the love you speak about seems higher to me than the love god is said to give his creations, according to the bible.
his love is full of conditions.
John 14:15, John 15:14 “if you love me, you’ll everything i ask.”
LikeLike
BAH! “if your wife and children DIDN’T…”
LikeLike
well, nate, i dont know that god is disgusted, but he will punish you for being imperfect unless you believe in his bible and his son, that we only know about through other imperfect people. Even then, it’s also more than simply believing (James), one must also try a certain amount or know certain amount, all of which is debatable and not specified.
LikeLike
William – that’s a big reason why Martin Luther and others have wanted the book of James out of the bible.
LikeLike
And Josh, I don’t want to seem overly argumentative or anything. I wish more people of all beliefs were like you — someone who’s willing to use the phrase “I don’t know” and who has empathy for others and their views. I simply ask a lot of these questions because this is a subject that interests us both. I’m not necessarily doing it to coerce you into changing your mind or anything.
It may not be necessary to say any of that, but I wanted to be sure. I think highly of you. You’re a good guy, despite what your religion tells you 😉
LikeLike
Nate-
Along with Michael Spencer and Robert Farrar Capon, I can only say that I understand my understanding of scripture is “unique”, and that I am likely both a hypocrite and speaking out of both sides of my mouth. It’s hard, in talking about a concept that I believe is, by default, beyond our ability to comprehend, to speak of such things in a way that makes all the pieces fit together for everyone. I’ll bet that confuses the issue even more!
LikeLike
Hmm… So let me ask you something a little more foundational: how do you know anything about God? Scripture, direct revelation, something else?
LikeLike
UnkleE,
you said,
“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.” – unkleE
how did you determine that the bible was more accurate than other religious texts, or are you saying that only the NT is more historically verifiable than other religious texts? and if the latter, how did you determine that?
and since the NT references the OT, why shouldn’t we include it along with the NT?
as to the parts of the NT that are verifiable, what they essentially verify is that a man named jesus, who was believed by some to be a miracle worker or prophet of some type, lived in Israel during 1 to 33 AD.
as you said, the parts that would actually verify his deity do not exist. His death is not even verifiable. only that a man names jesus lived during that time. It’s quite a lot to accept all that is said about him, by witness we dont even really know (or who may have not even been witnesses) claim about him.
why is this different than the iliad, where we have real nations and a real city – should we accept that the gods interfered as well because it got some historic info correct? or could we only did that if it had more right than the NT?
LikeLike
and josh, to learn anything else in your life, or to validate any other claim regarding any other religion, dont you ask questions and dont you research to find answers?
in that search and by asking those questions, say you had answers that didnt seem to add up or didnt make sense or if they appeared to be contradictions, would you just believe in those religions anyways, or would you discard them as nonsense?
LikeLike
Actually, it’s hard to say for sure that Jesus ever even lived. The mythicist position has some compelling points, though it’s by no means iron-clad. It just calls a whole lot into question.
LikeLike
right, i guess i was just giving that one benefit – plus I don’t doubt there was an actual guy, I just highly suspect that he wasn’t near what they make out or had even close to the amount of followers during his life.
I have read that the romans typical custom was to leave bodies on the cross and let the rot and be bird picked and fly infested. jesus’ death on the cross isnt even certain and even if he was crucified, he most likely would have been left there – which would also explain why there may be no tomb of christ.
LikeLike
Josh, I’ve been reading all the comments and just wanted to quickly add something. Nate wrote: You’re a good guy, despite what your religion tells you. To me, therein lies the problem. You have allowed your religion (Christianity?) to judge you. And this is part of the reason that Christianity is harmful for many. They feel they must “live up to” certain standards and if they don’t, they are looked down upon or even condemned outright.
You are correct — Jesus did paint a very welcoming picture. And if this is what speaks to you, then accept what he says and let the rest of it slide.
Just my two cents. 😉
LikeLike
I wouldn’t say I know anything about God. My understanding of what he “is” or “is like” is constantly evolving. There seems to be a consistent theme throughout scripture that God is gracious. Numerous texts in the Hebrew Bible appear to aim to correct apparent misunderstandings: God promises to save all people through Abraham’s line, before anyone does anything or any Law is given. God doesn’t actually require sacrifices. God shows mercy even to those the Israelites see as completely unworthy (Ninevah). David is a man after God’s heart despite being an awful person. God set all of our iniquities on him. God will not crush the bruised reed. The thread of grace and correction of the understanding of God’s character shows up everywhere. There are examples everywhere that seem to go against the grain that God is this monster described in other parts of scripture. So, I ask myself: does it make more sense that God is petty and jealous and self-serving, just like me? Or, is God actually ridiculously gracious, unlike me or any other person I know? Honestly, I sure hope it’s the latter. Jesus seems to demonstrate in his actions and parables that it’s the latter as well. We seem to be, and, honestly, so do a lot of religious scripture, including the Hebrew Bible, bent on making God out to be just as reactive as people, but with more power. Jesus offers something different. Jesus seems to be fairly well regarded by many other religions, as well. Maybe he does have some answers after all?
Add all of that nonsense to my reading of carefully thought out responses to questions, like those unkleE often gives, and that’s how I get where I am. A lot of the rest is based on knowing myself and those around me. What accounts for all this crap? Is there any hope? If so, it seems Jesus is a reasonable representative of that hope. Again, I wouldn’t say I know any of that in the sense that I could prove it to anyone else. Or, even that I know it in the sense that I’m certain it won’t continue evolving.. Like SPG mentioned, it largely rests on faith after that.
LikeLike
Nan-
Rhetorical question for you to consider, Josh – Mak, on his site Random Thoughts came up with this, not I, but it’s a point I hadn’t previously considered. In the NT, the anonymous authors who wrote of Jesus, quote him as saying that if one offends you, you should forgive him 70 times 7 – am I right?
Why wasn’t the Bible’s god himself capable of applying that noble principle in the Garden of Eden? Instead, think of all of the revenge he took for a single disobedience. That is, of course, if you believe Genesis, which I don’t, but if you’re trying to sell the world a religion, you need to be consistent when inventing the stories.
LikeLike
Arch-
I will consider that rhetorical question.
And, thanks for the teddy bear comment 🙂
LikeLike
“thanks for the teddy bear comment” – Well, just look at you Man, you’re an unshaven Pillsbury doughboy! Not all Christians are vicious.
LikeLike
“Paul made the comment, “you gotta have faith.” I wasn’t sure if he meant to or not, but I took it as a George Michael reference. My comment wasn’t a criticism of faith, but just a song reference to either George Michael or Limp Bizkit – whomever you prefer.”
Hi William, I have to admit with shame that I know absolutely nothing about George Michael and his music, and little more about Limp Bizkit, so the reference went right over my head. I realised you were referencing a previous comment, but I knew you and didn’t know him, so I used your comment as a jumping off point. I’m sorry if I wrongly accused you.
“how did you determine that the bible was more accurate than other religious texts, or are you saying that only the NT is more historically verifiable than other religious texts? and if the latter, how did you determine that?”
Religions like Buddhism and Baha’i are pretty much all about teachings, and it doesn’t really matter if the Buddha or Baha’u’llah lived or not, whereas in christianity Jesus is the message and it really matters whether he lived and died (and rose again). So christianity depends on historical facts which can be in principle verified (plus of course teachings that cannot be verified historically), whereas the core of Buddhism and Baha’i are teachings which cannot be verified. So the core of christianity is in a different situation. I personally have no problems accepting the historicial truth of the lives of Mohammed, Baha’u’llah or the Buddha (if historians verify that) but it makes little difference to whether it is true. But the historicity of jesus is critical to the truth of christianity, which I suspect is why Jesus mythicism is on the rise, contrary to the evidence.
“and since the NT references the OT, why shouldn’t we include it along with the NT?”
The NT references other writings too, such as Greek philosophers and non-Biblical Jewish legends. Their truth or otherwise has no bearing on the historical truth of the NT.
“as to the parts of the NT that are verifiable, what they essentially verify is that a man named jesus, who was believed by some to be a miracle worker or prophet of some type, lived in Israel during 1 to 33 AD.”
The scholars would disagree with you – they say more than that can be verified. Check out EP Sanders’ list of 11 facts about Jesus that “are almost beyond dispute; and they belong to the framework of his life, and especially of his public career. (A list of everything that we know about Jesus would be appreciably longer.)” And he is slightly on the sceptical side of scholarship!
“as you said, the parts that would actually verify his deity do not exist. His death is not even verifiable. only that a man names jesus lived during that time. It’s quite a lot to accept all that is said about him, by witness we dont even really know (or who may have not even been witnesses) claim about him.”
Yep. It is a matter of individual judgment. I think the facts we know justify the conclusions I draw. Like I said, I think the argument is so strong that Jesus mythicism is attractive to allow people to avoid the conclusions.
“why is this different than the iliad, where we have real nations and a real city – should we accept that the gods interfered as well because it got some historic info correct? or could we only did that if it had more right than the NT?”
Do you really think we can compare the NT with The Iliad? Really?
I have given brief answers to avoid going on too long, but I don’t want to appear to not have treated your questions seriously. Please ask me to enlarge on any answers. Thanks.
LikeLike
Nate, just wanted to ask – do you think the world would be a better place if people didn’t have a faith? Would you rather be in a world where there was no faiths?
LikeLike
A faith that involves supernatural forces? No.
I prefer to see a faith in Humankind, a faith that without religion to divide us, will work to bring us closer together to work on the problems besetting the earth before we and the greed of a few of us, push it to a point beyond which it can never return.
LikeLike
I identify with Arch’s statement. Yes, I do think the world would be better off without religion.
People are fully capable of doing crappy things without religion. But when you attach religion to it, you now have justification for crappy behavior.
For instance, virtually everyone knows that it’s wrong to take someone’s land. But call it “manifest destiny” and its suddenly justified. If the harvest is bad, things can be tough. But throw in religion, and we suddenly have cause to use human sacrifices.
I can’t think of a single decision someone would make that wouldn’t be a better decision if religion were taken out of the equation. So yes, I think a world without religion would likely be an improvement.
LikeLike
Religion divides the world into “them” and “us.”
LikeLike
Nate, I hope you don’t mind, but I’m going to take issue with two of your statements. You often point out where christians ignore evidence, yet that is what I believe you have done.
“Actually, it’s hard to say for sure that Jesus ever even lived. The mythicist position has some compelling points, though it’s by no means iron-clad.”
I have read somewhere that there are about 10,000 academics in the field of ancient Middle eastern history and Biblical studies. Of these, about 5 hold a mythicist position. Bart Ehrman, close to an atheist, says that it is as certain as history can be that Jesus lived and we know significant detail about his life, and that holding to mythicism destroys atheists’ credibility.
If you value evidence, how can you hold the view you do?
“I can’t think of a single decision someone would make that wouldn’t be a better decision if religion were taken out of the equation. So yes, I think a world without religion would likely be an improvement.”
CS Lewis said: “If the Divine call does not make us better, it will make us very much worse.” It is true that you can give many examples of poor behaviour by christian and so-called christian governments (just as I could do the same for non-religious governments). But that is only one side of the story. Study after study (I can quote the references if you want) show that religious people have on average better mental and physical health, they volunteer more community time and give more money to others (not just to the church but to other people in need), they are less likely to commit crime and indulge in self destructive or anti-social behaviour. Some types of religious people are more likely to be intolerant of strangers (as Arch says) but another type of religious person is less likely than average to do that.
I think CS Lewis’ statement was more accurate to the evidence than yours. I think it is easy to say what you would like to think is true, but not so easy to back it up with scientific evidence.
LikeLike
“…it is as certain as history can be that Jesus lived and we know significant detail about his life
E, I realize that you are quoting Bart Ehrman here, but I must also assume you agree with his statement, or you wouldn’t have used it to attempt to establish your point. I’m not asking you to take your time to write a dissertation, but could you briefly tell me just what it is we know about “his life,” that comes from identifiable sources that ever actually met him? We know the Gospel writers were not among those, and I don’t believe anyone can consider Paul’s “flash of light” to have been a close encounter of any kind.
LikeLike