Remember graduating from High School? And everyone asking the proverbial question—“So what are you going to do?” Most of us didn’t have a clue; we would make up some acceptable answer, “Be a Doctor,” “Go into business,” and receive the requisite nod of acknowledgment that the reply was satisfactory.
Not me. I knew what I was going to do—be a computer programmer. My father and brothers were. My uncles and cousins were either actively involved in computers or hobbyist programmers. My younger cousins were going to be in computer information fields. (My family at Thanksgiving sounds like a nerd convention.)
When filling out forms for colleges, with all the possible occupations one could be interested in, and I was to check a little box (“Please check only three (3)”); I went right past “Animal Husbandry” and checked “Computer Information Systems.” One box. Every time.
In the summer between my first and second year of college, my family was actively engaged in some debate around the dinner table, and I was making my point as vociferously as possible. My father said, “You should be a lawyer!” I thought for half a second, and concluded being an attorney sounded quite fine. I changed from checking the computer box to the one marked “Pre-Law.”
After law school, we wander off into our various careers. Some become transactional lawyers. (Prepare legal documents. Never see the inside of the courtroom.) Some tax lawyers, immigration lawyers, family law lawyers, drunk driving lawyers, criminal lawyers, prosecutors, estate lawyers, and so on.
I have landed on a broad field of civil litigation (with an extensive past in criminal law) resulting in trials as well as quite a bit of general practice work. Simply put, what this means is on Monday I may be retained by a female in a custody dispute, in which she is attempting to retain physical custody of her children. On Tuesday I may be retained by a male, attempting to obtain more parenting time with his children. On Wednesday, I could be retained by a builder, attempting to collect a fee from a homeowner. On Thursday, I could be hired by a homeowner attempting to recoup a fee paid to a builder.
Eventually, it seems, we represent about every possible party in every possible dispute in every possible situation. (This is not true, of course. Human ingenuity being what it is, coupled with variety presents new twists on about everything.) I have represented Fathers, Mothers, Grandparents and Relatives in child disputes. I have represented contractors, sub-contractors, homeowners, building inspectors, landlords, tenants, purchasers, and sellers in real estate transactions.
When you come into my office, as I get the information from you, I am already thinking what the other side will argue. Because I have probably already represented another client in a similar position as the person I am about to oppose. I cannot be an effective counselor, if I am biased for your story, simply because you are paying me. In order to do my job, I need to point out the problems, the possible solutions, and the resolutions, as well as the likely outcome, based not only on what you say, but on what the opposing party will claim. I know it will judged by a person who is neutral, and uninvolved. Not someone prone to either believe or dis-believe you.
After doing this for a bit, we lose much of our biases towards particular types of clients. I am not more inclined to represent a Mother or a Father in a custody battle. I have represented both. Won and lost on both. I will represent someone suing for money, or being sued for money with equal vigor. Again, won and lost on both. As time progresses in a file, being human we naturally start to favor our own client; but always with the premise in mind we will be opposed by someone who opposes our client’s position, and we will receive a ruling from someone who is not prejudiced for or against either our client or the opposing party.
In a nutshell, we learn what arguments will work (whether they favor our clients or not) and which ones are not persuasive. We have to, in order to effectively advise people who retain us.
But in order to know all the arguments, we need to know the facts underlying the case. Receiving the facts from just our own client is too one-sided; we need to know what facts the other side will be relying upon. We need to do some research. That is why we have “Discovery.”
Discovery is precisely what it sounds like—we “discover” things about the other side while they “discover” things about us; usually in the form of document requests, depositions, and lists of questions. With a few exceptions, if the other side does not ask for it—you do not have to voluntarily provide it. For this reason, we spend much of our time within litigation trying to find out what the other side has, as the basis for their claim, while attempting to NOT provide what we have.
See, every trial lawyer gets all tingly with the thought of having a bit of evidence that is so compelling, and so damning, we will completely lambaste the other side, and they will never know. To have the “secret witness” who testifies in our favor. Or a document completely contradicting the other person’s position. We even have a term for it: a “Smoking Gun.” (As in evidence that is so compelling and so immediate as to destroy any possibility of defending it. Like a defendant caught still holding a gun that is smoking from the spent bullets.)
Attorney: Is it true you threatened to kill my client?
Witness: I never said that!
Attorney: You left a voicemail message on October 3, 2007 at his place of employment, correct?
Witness: I…ah…don’t remember.
Attorney: Can you identify your voice? [hits “play” on laptop]…
I don’t even have to say what comes next—we all know what we are about to hear. E-mails and voicemail are prevalent in cases in which people claim one thing, but leave a totally different message. The voicemails and e-mails become the “Smoking Gun.”
This is why much of our time is spent learning facts about the case (both favorable and not so favorable) while assessing the plausibility of the arguments derived from those facts, in light of our opposition and a neutral trier-of-fact. It is important to understand this occupies the majority of my professional life each day to follow what happened next…
Life comes down to inches and seconds. We miss hitting a car and having a terrible accident by mere moments. Or falling off a roof by our foot being only inches on the correct side. Sometimes our life can take a drastic turn, that had we been a few minutes late, or a few feet in a different direction would never have happened. For all I know, I would still be a Conservative Christian, completely unfamiliar with even the term “deconvert” but for a posting on a thread in a forum. Something easily missed by inches or seconds.
I enjoy home theater. It is my primary hobby. I was the first of anyone I know who owned a DVD player. (I cringe at the thought of how much I paid!) I was the first who used more than just two speakers running through a stereo system. The first with High Definition Television. I have 1/2 meter interconnect wires that cost more than some of my wife’s jewelry. (And are twice as pretty, in my opinion.)
Since I enjoy this hobby, I regularly followed a home theater forum. Debating over TV brands, Speaker sizes and that sort of thing. As many forums do, this particular one had a sub-forum for a “catch-all” where people could discuss anything not related to home theater. Threads on “How to cook chicken,” or “Who will win the world series?” Someone started a thread on a topic (I don’t remember what) and another member said, “Hey, if you want to discuss creationism vs. evolution, go to iidb.org.” Because the forum wisely prohibits any postings whatsoever regarding religion or politics, the thread was either closed or quickly ignored, disappearing down the scroll as threads do.
In December of 2003 I happened to catch this particular thread, and out of half-boredom, half-interest in the topic, took 1 second to click on the link and was introduced to Internet Infidels Forums. My life came down to that inch and that second.
Here was a wonderful thing! It appeared to be a group of atheists, agnostics and non-believers, discussing a variety of topics, but most importantly, discussing theism. Primarily Christianity. I was captivated. In life, it is considered rude to inquire as to people’s beliefs. Certainly it is rude to argue with them over their beliefs. The only situations in which discussions were acceptable were with other Christians. Who believed just…like…me.
I had never debated with an atheist or agnostic before. To my knowledge, I had never met an atheist or agnostic (although obviously I must have.) And here was a whole forum, teaming with non-believers and a few believers—all discussing theism. Most discussing Christianity.
Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. We have a forum discussing Christianity (a topic I love), with an opposition (great—a challenge), in a medium I adore and cherish (free debate.) But it was even better—I could lurk and read all I wanted. I could follow their links and read their articles. I could research and review Christian articles countering their position. I was getting free and full discovery!
Barrel. Fish. Shooting.
I must confess to being naïve. 20-20 hindsight is not always kind. I had been informed all my life we held “Truth.” We were as close to correct regarding the reality of God that one could be this side of heaven. I had read and learned the arguments infidels used, and expected to see the same such arguments here. I knew (because God told me) most of these individuals actually believed in a God, deep, down in their heart (Rom. 1:20), and while a few were probably too hardened to turn, many would still be open to the concept of God.
I had Truth; they didn’t. I had God; they didn’t. I had background; they didn’t. I had faith; they didn’t. This, THIS is what I was designed for—debating theism with non-believers. (Being Calvinist, obviously I did not expect to be a great evangelistic tool—that was up to God. If he didn’t elect ‘em—no amount of arguing would make a difference.)
And with a mood of euphoric giddiness, I began to read. It was only a matter of time before I posted, of course, but first I needed to get my ducks in a row. I needed to learn. I needed their facts, their arguments, my entire discovery, before I came in with the “smoking gun.”
As I started to read, I became disconcerted. Here was an agnostic that read Greek and Hebrew. I can’t read Greek or Hebrew—how was I to argue with that? Sure, there are on-line tools available, but even I was not so naïve to understand this is nothing like actually studying the language. Or over there were people discussing the nuances of alternative solutions to the Synoptic Problem.
The Synoptic What? How can I discuss what the correct solutions were, if I didn’t even know what the problem was?
Further, they were quoting the Bible. Yes, some of it was out of context, or not well-researched, but the fact they knew it at all, and knew so much was a little surprising. I understood atheists to be people that hadn’t been informed; not people that already knew. Worse, they raised some of the troubling questions we Christians had discussed long ago and came up with answers only barely satisfactory to ourselves. How did they know those? Pretty easy to resolve a problem with another Christian by saying, “Some day we will know the full answer. When we get to heaven.” Not so easy with a person who doesn’t believe in heaven.
Textual Criticism? Weren’t those problems resolved? Aren’t we 99% accurate? Archeology—it always supports the Bible. Right? RIGHT? Who could question the inspiration of the Bible? How could a person not see the resolutions are sufficient to the claimed contradictions?
See, as a lawyer, we know not only our own arguments, but the other sides’ arguments as well. We know the case backwards and forwards; the pro’s and con’s of each position. We know our own strengths and weaknesses; we know our opponents’ too. We become so familiar with the other side we can anticipate what they will claim and what they will argue. Because if we were in their position (as we might very well be next time) it is what we would argue.
I realized I needed to know their arguments better than they did; not equally as well. I needed to know their strengths and weaknesses. So my focus changed. I put down my sword, and recognized numerous areas of study in which I was severely uninformed. This was going to take a little more time than originally anticipated. Time to start researching in earnest.
I was still not concerned. Christianity was true; that was a given. I had just learned there were more topics to digest, investigate, and come to the correct conclusion. The non-believers were still as wrong; there were just wrong in more areas than I originally anticipated!
In fact, this is quite common in court cases. What we originally anticipate will be the focus or arguments, later changes upon new developments. Further, as lawyers, we may start the litigation with very little knowledge in the field, but by the end could almost qualify as experts. We may know nothing about the sprinkler systems. Have a case regarding them, with experts testifying for all sides, and soon we know more than we ever dreamed about laying pipe, the size of pipe, configurations, sprinkler head types, etc. Because we have to know it as well as, or even better in order to explain it to the jury.
This was another one of those situations. Although I did not know Documentary Hypothesis going in, I would be sure to study it and come to a conclusion. Since Christianity was true and tested true, I had little doubt as to what that conclusion would be.
I became a regular visitor at sites familiar to many reading this. EarlyChristianWritings. Tektonics. AnswersInGenesis. TalkOrigins. I ordered Books with familiar names. Strobel. Zacharias. Metzger. Armstrong. And every thread on iidb within the Bible sub-forum, I followed post-by-post, linking where links were provided, googling when they were not, looking for other positions.
I started to have an unpleasant tingling feeling. The arguments presented by non-believers…well…I am used to arguments; I can see what sells and what does not. And these arguments were not half-bad. They were certainly not as bad as I was taught or thought they would be. In fact, some of these arguments were pretty good.
Having never studied Documentary Hypothesis (the concept the Torah was written by four distinct authors or groups, J, E, P, D), I had no pre-conceived idea as to its viability. I was always taught and knew that Moses wrote the Torah. After reading about the Hypothesis, especially in seeing the two (2) stories of Noah’s Flood intertwined, I could not help but read that story and SEE that it was two different tales smashed into one. It looked (dare I say?) obvious.
For the first time, I was forced to recognize my Christianity was not the only viable option. Other views could present alternative views which were not only possible, but more plausible than my own. It would be acceptable to modify my beliefs upon learning this new information, as long as it didn’t go too far. But how much was “too far”? It was time to test the waters and begin posting. How would it shape up in a real debate?
To be Continued…
Chapter 10
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
DagoodS, I thoroughly enjoyed reading that—the best in the series so far to me, by far. :)
ReplyDeleteProbably because up until now it's been background, but here you've led us right up to the actual point, I suspect, of your deconversion.
And now for a tangent. :)
Life comes down to inches and seconds. We miss hitting a car and having a terrible accident by mere moments. Or falling off a roof by our foot being only inches on the correct side. Sometimes our life can take a drastic turn, that had we been a few minutes late, or a few feet in a different direction would never have happened.
You've put this beautifully, and this is something I've been thinking of a lot lately; I believe that it is precisely these sorts of things that tend to strengthen theistic beliefs (coupled with our human lack of intuitive understanding of statistical probability).
For instance, my future wife called me, out of the blue after having met but not really kept in contact a couple years ago. At the time she called, the ringer to our phone was broken—I could not know that she was calling. Given that she was a very shy person and spent some effort in working up the nerve to call, she would not have tried calling again: this was the single attempt.
I was on my way out the door to a bible study group where I led the worship music, and picked up the phone to let the study's babysitter know I was on my way to pick her up. Only, when I picked up, it was Sara on the line. We made quick greetings, arranged to meet at a Starbucks, and then I went on to the bible study.
That meeting, of course, was the first step in a (fairly quick) path to our marriage—if I hadn't picked up the phone right at that instant, we wouldn't be married.
Naturally, as a Christian, I saw this as evidence of God's intervention. Many others would agree with that (I'm certain several readers here probably do). Never mind that we tend to arrange our love lives so that it would take a near-miracle for us to bump into "the right one". I was certainly avoiding aggressive pursuit of relationships in order to "let God provide", and so I was hardly disappointed.
A common mantra, and not just in theistic circles (but especially there), is that "there's no such thing as coincidence". That's a silly, silly lie.
Here is a couple strings of digits, one is completely random, while the other I made up:
7359763155768326886612035555837661021433
1047295834795283740192386627293845760283
Look at them carefully. Which one looks more random to you?
As it turns out, the first one is the one that is absolutely random
(generated using entropy my computer collected from random events; not a "pseudo random number"). However, most people would guess the second was the random string, as the first contains "improbable" strings such as four fives in a row ("5555"), and several other pairs (a miracle? :) ).
The human mind is intuitively incapable of accurately determining what is statistically likely, and incorrectly identifies the second string as "random", even though it contains a statistically unlikely low occurence of paired numbers.
**I needed their facts, their arguments, my entire discovery, before I came in with the “smoking gun.”**
ReplyDeleteIt's at this point where we all freeze in the middle of a popcorn bite, because of the suspense. :) It was a very nice build-up.
**After reading about the Hypothesis, especially in seeing the two (2) stories of Noah’s Flood intertwined, I could not help but read that story and SEE that it was two different tales smashed into one. It looked (dare I say?) obvious.**
It's fascinating, isn't it? I read a book called "Who Wrote the Bible?" By Richard Elliot Friedman, where he did just that -- he broke up the stories according to the DH authors ... and reading it that way made a lot more sense than everything lumped together in the Bible. You could almost see the seams that tried to make everything relate.
Having never studied Documentary Hypothesis (the concept the Torah was written by four distinct authors or groups, J, E, P, D), I had no pre-conceived idea as to its viability. I was always taught and knew that Moses wrote the Torah. After reading about the Hypothesis, especially in seeing the two (2) stories of Noah’s Flood intertwined, I could not help but read that story and SEE that it was two different tales smashed into one.
ReplyDeleteThe first time I heard of the Documentery Hypothesis was when I was about 20 (I think we are about the same age, DaGoodS. I am 43). I was in the public library looking over some old science fiction by Isaac Asimov when I stumbled into his 'Asimov's Guide to the Bible'. I opened it right to a discussion of J, E, P and D. I read it, and could not take my eyes off what I was reading. It was not in any way heretical to Christianity, it said nothing about Jesus - but I had never seen anything like it before? Moses? Where are you? Who is JEPD???
I shut the book and reshelved it. Dare I say, I was afraid.
Early in my de-conversion, I again confronted JEPD and read a short book on Old Testament textual criticism. It made the exact same claim about the Flood of Noah that you said, DaGoodS. The book told me the characteristics of the two intertwined stories, and once I knew what to look for, I decided to try and separate the two Flood stories myself.
It took all of 10 minutes. It was trivial. Without any advanced critical scholarship, I had come *very* close to what is generally agreed on in Scholarly circles. I was aghast. You are right - it seemed *obvious* by that point.
Amazing, isn't it? You stumbled onto your discussion group, and I stumbled onto an article by Dan Barker. I think the Internet and the free flow of information may just change this world after all.
Heater:
ReplyDeleteI read a book called "Who Wrote the Bible?" By Richard Elliot Friedman, where he did just that
I saw that one, but have not read it. I heard that the title is a little misleading as it is really just the Torah. Is the book worth the dinero?
micah cowan,
ReplyDeleteWe may agree on a few things after all. :^) Interestingly enough, the Bible (as opposed to Christianity in general) supports the idea of coincidence:
"If it goes up to its own territory, toward Beth Shemesh, then the Lord has brought this great disaster on us. But if it does not, then we will know that it was not his hand that struck us and that it happened to us by CHANCE." (I Samuel 6:9)
"I have seen something else under the sun: The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and CHANCE happen to them all." (Ecclesiastes 9:11)
And I hate to admit it, but I am sadly afraid that your assessment of the incidence of miracles is all too realistic. We do, alas, like to claim every happenstance a miracle. (Like the recent eggplant with the word, "God" spelled in the seeds. One commentator said, "I'm not sure which is more disturbing - that God could be trying to communicate through eggplants, or that his handwriting is so bad...") Yah, we are pathetic. Can't argue there.
***I had never seen anything like it before? Moses? Where are you? Who is JEPD??? (HeIsSailing)
My first year "History of Israel" course (my first "Bible" class) began with breakdowns like this.My profs, in spite of being definitely non-Christians, in most cases atheists, didn't seem overwhelmed by the evidence for ANY of the theories they taught. The attitude was more, "Well, this is what they assume for now. Wait around, there's likely to be more..." To you, it must have seemed like a huge cover-up. To this day, I am skeptical about how much MAY be known about ancient history, because everything was always presented to me as ideas that had been strung together into theories, all vigorously defended and disputed.
One thing that is becoming very clear here echoes a point that I have tried to make in the past: a lie, no matter how good a thing it attempts to defend, will destroy that very thing in the end. It appears that Christian culture is shooting itself in the foot by being deceptive in its presentation of the facts.
No matter how deeply I disagree with any of you and the conclusions you have drawn, I fully support your attempt to draw conclusions of your own. I can wholeheartedly join you in rejecting a system that tells people what to think.
The truth will set us all free.
Micah Cowan,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the number comparison. I liked it, and will unabashedly steal it for discussions in the future. If you are lucky, I may give you a footnote of credit. *wink*
Sometimes it is curious to think how many inches and seconds we missed. How many times did I google some topic, and happened to strike a hit at iidb, but since it was not what I was looking for, I passed over it? Did 20 other girls call you, and you missed it, but you happened to pick up Sara?
For us, it is easy to look back and think, “Wow, that was close.” How many times did we never know?
And yes, the background is done. Now time for the meat of the thing…
Heather,
This part of deconversion does not break out easily in blog entry lengths. Up ‘till now I could keep with a particular topic and put it (somewhat) within 4-5 pages. Now, I fear I would have a really, REALLY long blog, or I have to break it out.
I am enjoying discussing this piecemeal, frankly. Not so overwhelming.
HeIsSailing,
We are close to the same age. I am 41. I am curious—have you written out a deconversion story? We seem to have jogged some very similar ground, and I would be interested.
I, too, read Who wrote the Bible? It does only cover the Torah. If you are already familiar with Documentary Hypothesis, there is no new ground covered.
But speaking of books, have you (or heather or anyone else) read Bruce Malina’s “The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels”? It is recommended by both Richard Carrier and J.P. Holding (talk about opposites!) and with that type of spread, I could not possibly avoid it! Any info?
Heather: I read a book called "Who Wrote the Bible?" By Richard Elliot Friedman, where he did just that -- he broke up the stories according to the DH authors ... and reading it that way made a lot more sense than everything lumped together in the Bible.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the book reference, Heather. I looked it up at Amazon as soon as I saw it, and ordered it immediately (Yay Amazon Prime!)
I've heard of, but am honestly not too familiar with the Hypothesis: when I was told about it it was usually from Christians, and dismissed out-of-hand. Here's my chance to educate myself!
DagoodS: Thank you for the number comparison. I liked it, and will unabashedly steal it for discussions in the future. If you are lucky, I may give you a footnote of credit. *wink*
The numbers idea didn't really originate with me. I believe I read something like it in one of Dr. Donald E. Knuth (a lutheran)'s books on Computer Science, in a section on generating/evaluating random numbers, the point being that we're not very good at deciding what's random or not. The application to recognition of improbable events, coincidences, and miracles was my addition. So if you're going to bother with a credit line, you'll have to include him too. ;)
The example comes readily to my mind, though, because, once I'd accepted that the Bible was not wholly accurate, or even internally consistent, the main issue I struggled with was, But what about all the times God spoke to my heart, or intervened directly on my behalf? That is, AFAICT, the single strongest "evidence" for most people's faith in God.
Examples like these, and parallel discoveries about how the human operates (counting the hits, but not the misses, etc), allowed me to begin to realize that, no matter how strongly I felt that such things had been real, chances were pretty good that they weren't.
DaGoodS:
ReplyDeleteI am curious—have you written out a deconversion story?
No I have not. My story is not that unique except the fact I was raised in a Jesus Freak hippie commune. And yes, we really did have 'Love Feasts'.
I have written bits and pieces of what initially made me doubt, and skeptical. Nothing really beyond that. If I ever do though, you have given me an excellent model to work off of.
Recently, my wife agreed to write an article or two about my Christian de-conversion from her perspective. She is a devout Catholic believer, and I think the story may be better told from her perspective.
I, too, read Who wrote the Bible? It does only cover the Torah. If you are already familiar with Documentary Hypothesis, there is no new ground covered.
I kind of thought so, so I will save my money. A got a great little book at the used bookstore for $2.50 - "Literary Criticism of the Old Testament" by Norman Habel. It is from 1971, who knows if it is still in print. But it lays the whole thing out very well in under 80 pages.
have you (or heather or anyone else) read Bruce Malina’s “The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels”?
Yeah, Holding seems to have a strangely high regard for Bruce Malina. I figure if it is well regarded by polar extremes, there must be some accuracy to it. I have not read that book, but I have read about 1/3 of his "On the Message and Genre of Revelation". It is a fascinating premise of the book of Revelation being based entirey by astrological signs and symbols, but it could not hold my interest. I would really like to take that book to somebody who takes astrology seriously (I knew a few in college) and see what they think.
HIS,
ReplyDeleteI agree with DagoodS on the book. It's a great introductory piece on the DH, in terms of the Torah. When I got it, I basically knew that there was a DH and it consisted of four authors, and I want to say that each Genesis account was attributed to a different author. It gave me more background, as well as demonstrating how everything got squashed together.
Micah,
I think you'll enjoy it, based on what I've said above.
DagoodS,
I haven't read the book, but I'll add it to my amazon wishlist. It's already four pages long, so what's one more? It's also one more item demonstrating how much there is out there that I'll never know. What's the saying -- the more you learn, the more you realize how ignorant you are? Or is that even a saying?
Now I'm starting to freak out. Part of me, the doubting-Thomas part of me, the logical side, the science, math, and educated side, craves knowledge regardless of the outcome.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I'm not sure if I'm ready to let go of my spiritual beliefs, regardless of what proof I find. I can't even tell you how freaked out I was at an NPR story about a house being haunted...only to find out it was carbon monoxide poisoning. The disappointment it wasn't a real ghost was devistating...and I can't figure out why.
The truth (no longer just what's in the Bible) indeed will set me free.
Thank you for a wonderful story, eloquent and rhythmic writing, and a comfort in knowing that my doubts are indeed justified.
Here's the scariest thought to me...what if all the senior leadership at my church and churches around the country/world know it's all a sham but refuse to let thier clients (believers who tithe) know?
And what would really piss me off...if most know that being gay isn't a choice but keep feeding that lie to their clients anyhow. :(
Jim Harper,
ReplyDeleteI don’t think the leaders know it is a sham. They have been taught by people who believe a certain way, and teach a certain way. They only read books that say the same thing. They talk to people who re-affirm what the Pastor said was EXACTLY what they believe too. They go to conferences reiterating the same thing they believe. They listen to radio stations and watch TV programs saying the same as they believe.
If you hear it enough, it must be true.
What I saw with my friends was that if I wanted to debate how many angels dance on a pin, they were up for the challenge. ‘Cause we all believed in angles. But if I want to debate whether angels actually exist; they were too busy. They don’t want to read/hear/see something they don’t believe.
Sad, really.
dagoods,
ReplyDeleteThis post was very fascinating. I've struggled with doubt a lot in the past few years, especially since I'm in a secular college setting.
I think you hit the nail on the head about biased information. In the end though, belief in Christianity, if it is to be solid, does not rely on reasons or proofs but on a in knowing God through his self-revelation in Christ. Looking for reasons to justify belief just leads to the search for more reasons. When Jesus called his disciples he didn't give them a lot of evidences and logical proofs. He asked them to follow him.
To venture, to risk is an inextricable part of real faith. In America we sit comfortably debating these issues arguing as if we were gods and our personal decisions really changed or decided anything. Insofar as our decisions decide anything, it is for the self or for the eternal. Have you ever heard the phrase, "faith seeking understanding?" Christianity doesn't promise that you'll first understand and then believe but that you must belief and act, and then possibly you'll understand.
The New Testament presents a new way of life, not a new rational philosophy or religious system. Indeed, human philosophy was nailed to the cross and has been hanging there ever since. No, when the apostles talk about the obedience of faith, they don't mean that faith is tested by reasons but thaat faith is tested by one's life.
I admit to having an affinity for debates on forums and such. I like having a faith based on evidence and rationality. Ultimately such a wish is not reaching out with a child-like faith but is selfish vanity. Much intellectual understanding is like being in a city full of bright lights. You can see all around you but you can't see the stars. Out in the country you can see the stars but can't see around you very well. I think this is true of all the enlightenment we've gained in the last few centuries. The more we've illuminated the area around us, the more we've lost sight of the eternal.
Ron,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the comment. I did consider what you are saying as I was deconverting. My concern was twofold:
1) People learn differently. Some are visual, some are audio, some prefer words, some pictures. We all gain belief in a huge variety of ways. And some even must understand before they believe.
I figure if humans can figure out the various ways in which people come to belief, and modify their own methods based on those different beliefs—why couldn’t God. Isn’t God big enough to even convince those who need understanding before believing? Wasn’t God big enough to convince people whose mind worked as mine did? Every other aspect of my life I thought and rationalized a certain way before believing something—why must my mind work some other way when it comes to God?
Even then, I prayed that however my mind works, God would demonstrate to that mindset.
2) Ever religious claim has a base knowledge of “understanding.” Fact claims. Legitimate claims of a historical event. Look at your comment: you refer to God revealing himself through Christ. This is a claim that Christ actually appeared, and did actual things. A fact claim.
Or Jesus calling the Disciples and what he did. Again, a fact claim. It is not purely belief before understanding—there is some factual claim at the base. Paul recognizes this. Rom. 10: 14-15.
It is those facts that I wanted to look at. Those claims to see if they had a basis. They did not, in my opinion
> I have 1/2 meter interconnect wires that cost more than some of my wife’s jewelry.
ReplyDeleteI should hope you know about Monoprice by now? :) Completely *reasonable* prices on cables.
(I have no stake; I'm just a satisfied customer.)
Back on topic: Great post. Thanks for sharing.