Agnosticism: agnosticism

Showing posts with label agnosticism. Show all posts

What Is an Atheist?

Every now and then it pays to review the basics. Rest assured that no principle of reasoning is so basic or so obvious, or repeated so often, as to prevent fundamentalist Christian apologists from violating it repeatedly. The more sophisticated apologists do so under the illusion that all the objections have been met. They just haven't looked deeply enough. The rest are blissfully ignorant of the entire landscape. Principles? What principles?

One of the most basic principles of reasoning is this: The burden of proof is on those who would add to our public knowledge. If I claim that six-foot, green spiders inhabit the hills around San Diego, and if I want this to become accepted public knowledge, then the burden of proof is entirely on my shoulders. You are under no obligation to go to San Diego and search those hills in order to prove me wrong. Indeed, if I were the least bit clever, you could never prove me wrong! Perhaps those green spiders are very rare and good at avoiding people. Maybe they even have supernatural properties that shield them from unwanted detection. No matter how hard you searched, I could always come up with some excuse for your failure to find those giant, green spiders.

If the burden of proof rightfully belonged on your shoulders, giant, green spiders would have quickly become part of our store of accepted public knowledge. We would have to take them seriously until proven otherwise. But who has the means to prove otherwise? Thus, the library of accepted public knowledge would soon be corrupted. Virtually every crackpot idea blowing in the wind would firmly lodge there.

If we wish to protect the integrity of our store of accepted public knowledge, the burden of proof MUST rest on those who would add to it. They must give us data and reasoning that establishes their claim beyond a reasonable doubt. That means all serious competition must also be ruled out beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Christian Research Institute Journal (Part One - Fall 1991)1 shows how easy it is for Christian philosophers to dispense with the above principle of reasoning. Let me paraphrase their argument:

When Christians and atheists debate the question “Does God exist?” atheists usually assert that the entire burden of proof rests on the Christian. This is not true. As Christian philosopher William Lane Craig has stated, when an interrogative (such as Does God exist?) is debated each side must shoulder the burden of proof. This is unlike debating a proposition such as “God does exist,” where the burden of proof rests entirely with the affirmative side. It follows then that when debating the question of God's existence, both the Christian and the atheist are obligated to provide support for their position. The Christian should insist that the atheist provide proof as to God's alleged nonexistence. That puts the atheist into a logical bind.

Craig may be technically correct, assuming that both sides agree upon the meaning of “God.” The atheist who denies this proposition is saying that a being with all the qualities that define God does not, in all probability, exist. That's a positive statement about the real world. Among other things, it implies that no matter where we look we will never find God. Evidence is needed. We might call this the “strong” or “assertive” position for atheism. The theist, of course, is saying that there is good evidence that such a being exists. Again, that's a positive statement requiring support. In Craig's example both sides have a burden of proof, though not necessarily equal.

For most of us, however, the real proposition being debated is this: Shall the theist's claim that God exists be admitted to the public store of accepted knowledge2? Those who say “No” don't have to make a positive case. The burden of proof, as shown earlier, rests entirely on those who say “Yes.” They must convince the gatekeepers of accepted knowledge that their claim has passed all the tests and earned its stripes. Otherwise, all chaos would break loose and our public library of accepted knowledge would become corrupted.

The atheist may simply show that the case for God has flunked the test for “factual” public knowledge. That is, the idea of God may be incoherent or, to the extent that it is intelligible, seriously lacking in evidence. On those grounds, the claim that God exists may be rejected as fit, public knowledge. In this case, the atheist acts as a concerned gatekeeper and does not actually add to the public store of accepted knowledge. He is not declaring that God does not exist. His view carries no burden of proof beyond documenting the inadequacy of the theist's proof. We might call this the “weak” or “minimal” atheist position.

Therefore, the debate as to whether God exists or not, understood as an attempt to determine whether the “God” concept should be added to (or removed from2) the public storehouse of accepted knowledge, places the full burden of proof on the theist. The theist must show that his idea is worthy of public trust, as having earned its stripes.

If the theist can make the atheist share the burden of proof, then his next point is that the atheist cannot logically prove God's nonexistence. However, even if we mistakenly grant the theist that much leeway, he is not home free. The atheist might still have the better argument by far and, yet, be unable to prove God's nonexistence. More to the point, the “strong” or “assertive” atheistic position can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt for some definitions of “God.”
If the definition of God has contradictory elements in it, then the atheist most certainly can prove that there is no such thing as “God”! If the existence of God is firmly attached to an absurd, testable deed, such as Noah's worldwide flood, then the atheist most certainly can prove that God's nonexistence beyond a reasonable doubt! If some necessary quality of God implies that the world would be greatly different than it is, then the atheist has a good case for God's nonexistence3. In the second example, the theist can redefine “God” by disassociating him from embarrassing events-usually with a minimum of theological damage. To be sure, God and his universe have been redefined continuously by theologians as knowledge has advanced.

In the real world of atoms and energy we deal with probabilities-not logical, airtight proofs. Certainty (to the extent that fallible humans can construct error-free proofs) belongs to mathematics and other logical systems, which are built up deductively from a set of accepted postulates. The game of chess is an example. We know with certainty that a king and a rook, given accurate play, can checkmate a lone king. Some of those logical systems, such as mathematics, may serve as ideal models for aspects of the real world, but their certainty cannot be carried over since that requires a further conclusion about the nature of the physical world. Inductive logic rules the physical realm and does not admit certainty. (Deductive reasoning can take us with 100% certainty from a set of selected postulates, which don't have to be proved inasmuch as they are assumed, to various conclusions; Inductive reasoning takes us from observed facts to probable causes.)

The “strong” or “assertive” atheist need only show that his case is superior to that of the theist. He doesn't have to logically prove God's nonexistence. The requirement for such absolute proof is absurd, as inductive reasoning does not admit certainty.

In order to get out from underneath the burden of proof, the Christian Research Institute attempts to corner the “correct” definition of “atheist.”

Atheists of this variety [minimal] have actually redefined atheism to mean “an absence of belief in God” rather than “a denial of God's existence.”
(Christian Research Institute Journal, Part One - Fall 1991)

…defensive [“minimal”] atheism is using a stipulative or nonstandard definition for the word atheism. Paul Edwards, a prominent atheist and editor of The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, defines an atheist as “a person who maintains that there is no God.” Atheism therefore implies a denial of God's existence, not just an absence of belief.
(Christian Research Institute Journal, Part One - Fall 1991)

The implication here is that the correct definition of “atheism” implies a denial of God's existence, not just an absence of belief. It would then follow that the atheist must shoulder part of the burden of proof. But, there is a fly in the ointment.

Another basic principle of good reasoning is: Definitions are neither “right” nor “wrong.” A definition simply tells us what a word means to a particular group of people. Definitions are not subject to proof or disproof in the way theorems are. You or I may reject a definition if it is misleading, self-contradictory, incoherent or useless, but we cannot lay claim to having the “correct” definition if several are in use. In defining our terms, our obligation is to avoid unnecessary confusion and maximize communication.

Many educated atheists understand “atheist” to mean “a”—“theist” or “non”—“theist.” If we wish to take out the infants and others, those who are simply unaware of theism, we could call them unaware non-theists. A complete discussion of atheism, then, necessarily entails “weak” or “minimal” atheism, call it whatever you want. The theist cannot simply define those atheists out of existence!

Those who view “God” as an incoherent or unintelligible concept could also be classified among the “weak” or “minimal” atheists. They are not much different than those who object to adding God to the public storehouse of accepted knowledge because they find the evidence to be totally unconvincing, people who also personally reject the claim that God exists. By contrast, the “assertive” or “strong” atheist flatly denies God's existence. He or she feels that the term “God” is coherent enough for such a positive statement.

In the case of a contradictory definition, such as a square-circle, it doesn't really make sense to ask whether the object exists or not. The name doesn't correspond to anything; we have no pattern to look for. For that reason, I hold that a contradictory or unintelligible definition for “God” is not equivalent to the claim that “God does not exist” - the latter being the claim of “strong” or “assertive” atheism. The theist is obliged to provide a meaningful definition of “God” before the question of God's existence can be meaningfully discussed. Thus, an incoherent definition of “God” has some similarities to a serious lack of evidence for God's existence. In both cases the atheist is saying to the theist, “You have more work to do before I can take your argument seriously.” For that reason, I place those atheists who reject “God” (because of an incoherent definition) among the “weak” or “minimal” atheists.

The main point is this: No argument based on another definition for “atheist” can place the burden of proof on the shoulders of a “minimal” atheist. If the theist wishes to address atheism competently, he must deal with both “assertive” and “minimal” atheism - their definitions. Calling “minimal” atheism by another name does not make it go away! The theist cannot declare that there is only one, correct definition for all atheists, no matter who he quotes.

Remember, it is only those atheists who advance the “strong” or “assertive” case for atheism who must share the burden of proof in this debate. The “minimal” atheist, in order to carry the day, need only show that the theist has not proven God's existence beyond a reasonable doubt. Pointing out a serious lack of evidence or faulty reasoning destroys the theist's case. The conclusion is not that God does not exist but, rather, that the concept of God has no serious credibility as established fact. On those grounds, the “minimal” atheist rejects (does not embrace) the idea of God, even as you or I would reject the Easter Bunny.

The Christian Research Institute also tries to undermine “minimal” atheism by confusing it with agnosticism:

It should also be stated that defensive atheism's absence of belief sounds very similar to agnosticism (which professes inability to determine whether God exists). The Christian should force the defensive [“minimal”] atheist to show just how his (or her) atheism differs from agnosticism. Does he know or not know that there is no God?
(Christian Research Institute Journal, Part One - Fall 1991)

Agnosticism has nothing to do with it. An agnostic, as I see it, understands what is meant by “God” but cannot find (or does not expect to find) enough evidence to personally decide the issue.

The agnostic says, “I don't know if God exists and I suspend judgment.” The “minimal” atheist says, “I personally reject the claim that God exists, because your case for God does not meet the minimum standards for being admitted to (or remaining in2) the public store of accepted knowledge. I find serious problems with this proof, that proof, and the other proofs you have for God. I find the whole matter unconvincing, even unintelligible.” The “assertive” atheist says, “I have a pretty good idea as to what you mean by “God,” and God clearly doesn't exist.” An atheist may take a “strong” or “assertive” position with respect to certain definitions for “God” and a “minimal” position with respect to theism in general.

To briefly sum up, one cannot rationally know that there is no God unless he or she has some idea as to what “God” means. The burden is on the theist to provide a sound definition and a compelling argument for God. However, if an atheist declares outright that God does not exist, then he or she also takes on the burden of proof. William Craig, in adopting a rather narrow formulation of this debate, has attempted to shift the burden of proof onto the shoulders of the “minimal” atheists as well. Yet, the “minimal” atheist is not claiming that “God does not exist.” He or she is simply not impressed with the case for theism anymore than you or I would be impressed with the case for six-foot, green spiders in the hills of San Diego. Having not exhaustively examined those hills, you or I cannot properly say that we “know” that there is no such thing. However, based on the observations of others and on certain theoretical considerations, you or I would conclude that the case for those spiders is extremely remote. We are justified in personally rejecting the whole idea as unworthy of further pursuit. By pointing out a serious lack of evidence or faulty reasoning on behalf of the theist, the “minimal” atheist has adequately defended his or her personal rejection of the God hypothesis.

Our attempt to safeguard the public store or library of accepted knowledge does not require that we gather evidence until we “know” that those green spiders don't exist-if, indeed, that could be done. It is enough for us to note that the case for six-foot, green spiders is not convincing.

1. Christian Research Institute
P.O. Box 7000
Rancho Santa Margarita
California 92688-7000
Web Site: http://www.equip.org

2. For those who might point out that god-belief is already widely accepted, the proposition could be this: Does the theist's claim that God exists really meet the standards for being in the public store of accepted knowledge? The burden of proof is still on those who say, “Yes.” Otherwise, there would be no means for eliminating erroneous or obsolete claims.

Dave E. Matson, editor
The Oak Hill Free Press
P.O. Box 61274
Pasadena, CA 91116

103514.3640@compuserve.com

June 5, 1999
(Revised: May 17, 2003)

Understanding Atheists

An atheist is kicked out of Boy Scouts for professing his beliefs. An Alabama Supreme Court justice erects a 5,200-pound granite shrine to the Ten Commandments in the state courthouse. Creationists contaminate the public schools of Ohio and parts of Georgia with their pseudoscientific scheme to undermine the scientific theory of evolution. The Bush administration, judging “ensoulment” has occurred by the life's blastocyst stage, restricts federally supported stem cell research. Americans are outraged when the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance are ruled unconstitutional.

This is a surprising level of hostility toward secularism, especially in a country whose constitution never mentions the word God, and prohibits the establishment of any religious doctrine - even that of monotheism.

I used to be a relatively content atheist; why care if the majority of people believe in one god or another?

After all, everyone rejects the existence of most gods; it's only a matter of degree. I'll bet most Christians don't believe in the existence of Zeus, Oden, Vishnu, Mithrus, Horus or the tree Druid spirits.

Count me in. I don't accept any of that primitive mythology either. I differ only by including the God of the Hebrew Scriptures to the long list of hypothetical beings that I see no compelling evidence for.
But after recent events, especially the creationists' war on science, and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, my apathy has eroded away. The assault on secular society is too frightening. Organized religion is the most dangerous problem in our world.

Although not all secularists are atheists, many people equate the two; and atheism, it is argued, unavoidably leads to immorality and bad behavior. The absurdity of that assumption is staggering.
Bad behavior? Compared to what? Where is the evidence that belief in a deity leads to good behavior? Our prisons are filled with theists. The child molesting Catholic priests are clearly religious, as are the bishops who protected and relocated them. And atheists were not responsible for the inconceivable cruelty and suffering of the Middle Ages, the Inquisition or the Crusades - nope, that was organized religion.

In contrast, Darrell Lambert, the atheist Boy Scout, had achieved Eagle Scout status and earned 39 merit badges - impressive accomplishments for an “amoral atheist.” Quite simply, morality as a product of religion is a myth.

During any discussion with theists, after they inevitably fail to prove God's existence, the assertion is made that atheists cannot disprove the existence of God. While this is quite correct, of course, it is also quite irrelevant. There are an infinite number of beings whose existence is impossible to disprove (Zeus, Oden, Vishnu, unicorns, etc.).

The inability to disprove something's existence is not a rational, or compelling reason for belief. The burden of proof lies with those who make a positive claim of existence.

Most accurately defined, atheism simply means “without belief in a deity.” But some atheists do argue that God does not exist. Usually this refers to a specific concept of God that is paradoxical and not logically coherent, such an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God.

One underappreciated problem with theism is that a belief in an afterlife has the unavoidable effect of making this life less unique and precious. Theism, therefore, inherently devalues human life. Unfortunately, as we have seen, this can have dangerous consequences.

The suicide bombers in Israel and the Sept. 11 hijacckers clearly believed in a heavenly afterlife. Good luck finding an atheist willing to strap a bomb to his or her back, or fly a plane into a building. Frighteningly, however, there seems to be no end to theists willing to perform such monstrous acts.
In the Middle East, Kashmir, Sri Lanka, Northern Ireland and elsewhere, the most intractable and dangerous of the world's problems are mired in religion. There can be no compromise when “absolute truths” are at issue.

With weapons of mass destruction potentially becoming more available, the consequences of continuing religious conflicts could be disastrous. Why are religious groups so self-destructively stubborn?

How can they be so absolutely certain in beliefs that contradict those of other religious groups? The answer is faith.

Because of the lack of positive evidence for the existence of a deity, all religions require some level of faith to foster belief. Faith is, by definition, the firm belief in something without proof.
Interesting questions arise. How does faith originate? How does an individual know which religion to blindly accept and obey? The answer is shockingly straightforward.

The vast majority of personal religious beliefs can be accurately predicted based solely on the beliefs of one's parents or the culture one is raised in. Odds are that an individual born in Saudi Arabia will be a Muslim; in Ireland, a Catholic; in India, a Hindu, and so on. In an effort to be intellectually honest, religionists should ask themselves, “Are my religious beliefs based on rationality and evidence or indoctrination?”

Many might find an honest answer to be simultaneously illuminating and disturbing. Ultimately, no religion can demonstrate its firmly held beliefs are factual. Logic and reason are not helpful when choosing the “truth” of one religion over another.

Faith is required, and the origin of an individual's faith toward any particular religion is overwhelmingly cultural indoctrination.

Religious surveys indicate the United States is a predominantly Christian nation; as such, the general public holds a variety of interesting supernatural beliefs: virgin birth, resurrection, the devil, God, heaven, hell, immortal souls, original sin, angels, demons, etc. Although I strongly support an individual's right to hold whatever beliefs he or she cares to, it's important for religionists to recognize their supernatural beliefs are anything but established facts.

Their beliefs are, instead, fundamentally based on faith. These supernatural opinions have no place in a secular government. Curtailing funding for stem cell research, a technology with enormous life-saving potential, based on the supposed existence of a soul is as absurd as basing foreign policy decisions on tarot card readings.

It is simply irrational for government policies to be prejudiced by unsupported supernatural beliefs and indoctrinations.

John Bice is an MSU staff member at Life Sciences Building. Reach him at bice/msu.edu.

Agnosticism: Reasons to Leave Christianity

“Dear Ed, sorry youʼve become an Agnostic”

[Featuring Edʼs Reply and Short List Of Questions He Would Like Answered, Before Relinquishing His Agnosticism]
by Edward T. Babinski

Professor Pattle Pak Toe Pun (Progressive Old-Earth Creationist, apologist, and professor at Wheaton College—the college from which Billy Graham graduated) wrote: Dear Ed, I am sorry that youʼve become an agnostic.

Ed: I thought it worth mentioning to you, since a book that you wrote provided a bit of assistance in my decision to leave young-earth creationism. About feeling “sorry” that I have become an agnostic, thatʼs a common reaction from Christians I have known. However, have you considered how you might feel if someone wrote you, “I am sorry you remained a Christian, is there anything I can do?” *smile*

I appreciate your work and what you have done, providing scientific and theological information that questions the young-earth interpretation of the Bible and science. I have contacted many old-earth Christians over the years such as Wonderly, Newman, Hayward, and rejoiced that they are not paranoid about geologists, cosmologists, and physicists round the world all being deluded or lying like the devil—as young-earth creationists assume.

Pat: Science is only giving us a vague picture of God. The bible ultimately is the only way claimed by Christians for knowing God. I became a Christians through existential encounter with God which was later verified in the Bible.

Ed: I had experiences too. But those experiences were questioned after I studied the Bible more deeply.

Pat: If there is anything I can do to make you consider God again, please let me know.

Ed: If you wish to do something, hereʼs the short list:

Show me that the Bible contains more “science” than “mythological notions” about the cosmos:
Show me how atonement works, i.e., scapegoats and scapebirds (the latter of which were believed to be able to remove or perhaps atone for mold, mildew and leprosy according to the Old Testament). I donʼt see a connection between a human or animal bleeding, and God forgetting about the sins of the people who bled the animal or brought it to the priests to be bled. Nor do I see why they believed that “the life was in the blood” rather than the brain. Nor why the scape goat wasnʼt bled at all, but was slapped on the its rump and driven into the desert, carrying the sins of the people into the wilderness. The scape bird also remained alive when it allegedly carried off mildew and leprosy. See: Biblical Superstition

It also strikes me as odd that Jesus died on Passover since the Passover lamb was not sacrificed for sin. This brings me to further “typological” questions…
Show me that various Old Testament prophecies cited by the Gospel authors were more than just “typologically” fulfilled.

When I first began recognizing that taking the “prophecies” literally wasnʼt working, I had to keep standing back and squinting my eyes more and more to “see” how “fulfilled” the prophecies were, “typologically” speaking, but by then I was standing outside the faith.
How can the imprecatory (or, curse my enemy) psalms be considered holy?
What about some of those bloody Old Testament penalties for breaking various questionable commandments? I find it difficult to believe that any “god” enjoyed hearing imprecatory psalms sung to him, or that any sane “god” would have commanded some of the things Yahweh allegedly commanded “his people” to do, along with the subsequent penalties described.
Prove to me that if “God” did every destructive thing that the Bible says “God” did or commanded, why such actions or commands wouldnʼt stain even a devilʼs character. Iʼm taking about drowning everything in which was the breath of life, destroying cities with everything in them that breathed, sending plagues and famines and armies to kill everything and everyone, including children and pregnant women, and finally “casting” people into a lake of fire whose smoke rises forever and ever. If a devil did all of those things imagine what weʼd think of that devil.
Why do highly intelligent scholars admit their uncertainties concerning whether certain letters labeled “Paul, Peter and Jude” are authentic; and uncertain about who wrote the Gospels, and how they are related (i.e., literary redaction hypotheses); and also uncertain about what the historical Jesus, said, did, or believed about himself and his mission? Even James D. G. Dunn and N. T. Wright admit various uncertainties. Yet so many Christians donʼt seem to have a clue what scholars are taking about and never seem half as uncertain about anything they believe.

Also, if the “Letter of Jude” was not written by Jude, but by an anonymous Christian in the name of Jude (as scholars suspect), and that letter cites a passage from the “Book of Enoch,” and even says that the passage was a “prophecy” by “Enoch, the seventh from Adam,” which is very doubtful indeed; then we have two anonymous people writing in the names of other people, a doubly dubious letter that became part of Christianityʼs “inspired canonical Bible,” and that is simply too much uncertainty for me to swallow.
Why hasnʼt N.T. Wrightʼs book on the resurrection of Jesus converted highly intelligent fellow Anglicans? Why hasnʼt Wright even faced up to the most telling criticisms and reviews of his arguments? Also, why does Paul say that “flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God,” and the “stomach shall be destroyed;” but decades after Paul—in the Gospels of Luke and John—Jesus is described as striving to convince people that he had “flesh and bone” and “eats” fish? Somethingʼs fishy.
I have met many compassionate people of different beliefs and faiths, and read many wonderful things in books other than the Bible, including books about the experiences of Christian monks who have fellowshiped with priests and monks of other religions. Dom Bede Griffiths, C. S. Lewisʼs lifelong friend comes to mind in this respect, because Griffiths set up a Christian-Hindu ashram in India and fellowshiped with people of other faiths for many decades and wrote about it in his books. I have also read about the history of Deism, and of Unitarian Christianity, and about famous Unitarian Christians who helped found the institution of modern nursing (Florence Nightingale) and the American Red Cross (Clara Barton). I have also read about the history and contributions of freethinking individuals both Christians and non-Christians throughout history. I have read about the debates between Castellio and John Calvin on the subject of “heresy/heretics;” and I have read the new book, Freethinkers : A History of American Secularism by Susan Jacoby that details the contributions of freethinkers to American society from the days of the Founding Fathers to today. So I am past fearing “hell for unbelievers,” or, fearing what might happen to the world if everyone believed in evolution.
And speaking of Adamʼs “fall” and sin “growing more abundant” (Paulʼs letter to Romans) in the world, I ran across a book by Lawrence H. Keeley, called, War Before Civilization (Oxford University Press; 1996), in which Keeley cites archeological evidence to argue that human beings used to kill each other more often in the past than today, percentage-wise.

Keeleyʼs charts of relative mobilization rates and casualty rates among tribes and modern nations are fascinating. He suggests that the terrible Twentieth Century wars would have had a death-rate twenty times higher “if the worldʼs population were still organized into bands, tribes, and chiefdoms”: the typical tribal combat casualty rate of .5 percent per year, during the course of the century would translate to “more than 2 billion war deaths.” See: War Before Civilization

Keeley also pointed out that a higher percentage of the populace of Europe was killed in the 17th century (during religious-related warfare, when everybody was a creationist and believer in the Apostleʼs Creed) than during World War 2.

I also read elsewhere that evidence of cannibalism in the human past continues to surface in ancient archeological digs and even has been discovered inside human genes.

So if you take the long view, and agree with Keeley (though I have read criticisms of his conclusions), deaths due to intertribal warfare and murder were more prominent in the past than in the present, i.e., percentage-wise per total population. So if Adam fell, it appears he may have fallen upward not downward over the centuries.
I have a host of specific questions related to the cosmos and biology:

Why We Believe In A Designer
There is also the history of the Christian church, a history of schisms and conflicts too numerous to mention. History proves that Christians fall just as blindly into the same dirty ditches dug by their alpha male primate leaders as all other human groups in religion and politics.
Religion is undoubtedly addictive. Having “final answers” is sort of like getting hooked on heroin. In fact some drug addicts claim they beat the drugs by getting hooked on Jesus and Bible reading/memorization. However you donʼt hear about addicts for whom the Jesus cure ultimately fails, since bad press is never shouted from the rooftops. Instead you hear about the few for whom it worked out great. To think otherwise or to entertain doubt is simply to be blinded by the devil.

Christianity also mutates to fit the society itʼs in. In America, Christianity is just as secular and kitschy as American society in general, with Christian t-shirts, books, records, stadium-filled rallies, Christian theme parks, and apologetics cruises, not to mention bestselling books about promises of growing rich (Prayer of Jabez), as well as Christians voting to support the military industrial establishment with increasing funds while Jesus warned that “All who take up the sword shall die by the sword.” Jim Wallis, the Christian editor of Sojournerʼs magazine and author of Godʼs Politics, asks, “How did the faith of Jesus come to be known as pro-rich, pro-American and pro-war?” See also the book, The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience by Ron Sider who details further evidence of Christian worldliness. Sider has admits, “Poll after poll by Gallup and Barna show that evangelicals live just like the world… Evangelical Christians and born-again Christians get divorced just as often, if not a little more, than the general population. And Barna has discovered that 90 percent of the born-again Christians who are divorced got divorced after they accepted Christ [The Barna Group, The Barna Update, ‘Born Again Adults Less Likely to Co-Habit, Just As Likely to Divorce,’ August 6, 2001, http://www.barna.org]… Or take the issue of racism. A Gallup study discovered that when they asked the question. ‘Do you object if a black neighbor moves in next door?’ the least prejudiced were Catholics and non-evangelicals. The next group, in terms of prejudice, was mainline Protestants. Evangelicals and Southern Baptists were the worst.” [Ron Sider speaking in Christianity Today, April, 2005, Vol. 49 Issue 4, “The Evangelical Scandal”]

Meanwhile in the Southern Hemisphere, Christianity of a most conservative and unintellectual sort is growing fast via promises of miracles, etc.

Those are some of the questions I have pondered and that have led me to question what I formerly believed.

How Believers Believe, Why Doubters Continue to Question

Believers minds are webs of “interconnected” information that all point toward the truth of every other thing they believe, whether hypothetical or historical, whether seen or unseen, concerning this world or the next. There are no sliding scales of probabilities concerning any of their beliefs in particular. Instead, everything is “related” to everything else, and “proves” it.

Doubters have no way to “crack open” such a tightly sealed circular bubble or egg of “reasoning.” That is also why believers insist, “Accept it all, accept my holy book and my interpretation, my church, and my views of the seen and unseen worlds, or skip heaven and suffer eternally.”

To put it another way, a believer asserts the Bible is holy, infallible, inerrant or perfect, and a particular interpretation of it by his church is equally so, and the interpretation coincides with an unseen reality, say the Trinity, which they insist exists.

But a doubter looks at the plausibility of claims piled on claims, beginning with the claim of a holy or infallible book, continuing with the claim of a particular church's holy or infallible interpretation of that book, and ending with claims of knowing the final unseen reality. The doubter points out how the unknowns and/or the improbabilities continue to rise along the way.

Let's consider a particular case, “The Trinity.” Believers begin with a book like the Bible and assert it is holy, infallible or inerrant. Next they assert that a particular interpretation of that book is likewise, holy, infallible or inerrant, and they find the “Trinity” in that book by emphasizing particular verses and interpretations of those verses, and downplaying questions raised by other verses. For instance, the Jews wrote and possessed over half the Bible for centuries yet never came to believe in the Trinity, but instead came to believe and stress that “the Lord our God is one God.” Trinitarian Christians (there are non-Trinitarian Christians by the way) claim that God let them know the “truth” about “the Trinity” in the “New Testament,” while the Jews only had part of the “truth” in the “Old Testament.” The doubter wonders whether God neglected to tell the Jews the “truth,” and if so, why, and if the answer to that question is not also unproven or doubtful. The doubter also wonders whether some human beings merely invented newer interpretations and newer religious ideas over time. Even in the N.T. the books do not agree as to what Jesus's connection with God or divinity is, because the earliest three Gospels, which are presumably our earliest preserved stories about Jesus, don't directly promote the idea that Jesus was “God,” and it remains unclear exactly what the historical Jesus himself believed, since even those earliest three Gospels are partisan documents and contain later interpretations of Jesus. James D. G. Dunn a moderate evangelical, agrees with many mainstream scholars that it is doubtful that the historical Jesus considered himself to be the Messiah, and that none of the teachings of sayings of Jesus in the fourth Gospel are historic.

There is an old story of a missionary trying to convert an Indian. The Indian made a little circle in the sand and said, “That is what the Indian knows.” Then he made another circle a little larger and said, “That is what missionary knows, but outside there the Indian knows just as much as missionary.”
—Robert Ingersoll