The question of unbelief 2.5

My friend David Hayward (a facebook friend, anyway…) has written a very interesting post on the 10 Movements of faith, most of which don’t sound very faith-like, using words like questioning, doubt, rejection, darkness, abandon and fear.  From a Western evangelical point of view, these are bad words, things that we either try to avoid, ignore, heal, or if nothing else fails, condemn.  However, perhaps David is right; perhaps we should not fear these, but recognize them as signs of growth.

I’ve seen these stages over the years in many friends and acquaintances.  I don’t know that everyone goes through all stages, at least concerning core beliefs. As I commented on David’s blog, I think the Western evangelical church is often geared towards keeping people at Stage 1, where people can be entertained, placated, and manipulated.  Growth  – as any parent can tell you – is often hard to deal with.  Then, some folks are just better at dealing with questions than others. And, as I have mentioned, it may not be our core faith that’s challenged, but the “baggage” that we often receive along with the Gospel, or perhaps even the nature of our faith.  Again, I think David is on to something: if we never go through these stages, we’re not growing.  As my favorite songwriter has written,

It’s not that hard
to figure it out
Where there’s no question,
there’s no doubt

– Glen Phillips, There Comes a Time

As we read through the Gospels, it seems that Jesus even encouraged questioning and doubt at times – consider the story of the Rich Young Ruler, for one, or the “eat my flesh” teaching.  A preacher that I heard many years ago said that God “offends the mind to reveal the heart.”  If we won’t challenge our own beliefs, sometimes God himself will.  The ancient church traditions – such as the Eastern Orthodox and Anglican – seem better able to deal with these stages of faith, and even anticipate and encourage them.  There is a wealth in the liturgical and mystical (speaking of the old mystical tradition, not what currently passes for mysticism) traditions that the evangelical church simply cannot understand; and perhaps it is this very issue – dealing with these “negative” stages of faith – that acts as a barrier between the old and new.

So, what happens when the church fails to recognize these stages as growth rather than “backsliding?”

At the close of his post, David asks

Can we consider the possibility that someone abandoning their faith and leaving the church could actually be a potential development in their spirituality, a stage where they are being beckoned to abandon their child-like faith to move toward a more mature and adult faith? And can we allow people to linger in any of these movements without time limits? I think these are important questions to consider.

Fundamentalism, and even more temperate versions of evangelicalism, leave no room for those who have to step outside of the program. If they fail to “experience” God like they are supposed to, or question some of the teaching, they are often condemned, or treated as immature (the “weak in faith”).  However, I think we need to ask ourselves, exactly who is “weak in faith,” those who dare risk their faith to deal with their questions, or those who insist on suppressing doubt?

Posted in Epistemology, Faith, Science & Doubt | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The question of unbelief 2

My last post dealt with a question John Loftus asked at Debunking Christianity, “Tell us why we don’t believe?” (Actually, it was not so much a question as it was a demand.)  As I said, it is an interesting question, that I think does tend to confuse Chsitians who believe that they can somehow argue someone into becoming a Christian.  The simple fact that some people can choose not to believe is therefore troubling.

John suggests 3 hypothetical reasons why there are atheists:

  1. Ignorance: If this is the only reason, then he is right in saying, “then show me what I’m ignorant of.”  If the lack of information is all that stood in the way of people becoming Christians, then evangelism would be quite simple.
  2. Sin: He didn’t put it that way, but that’s what he meant; willful disobedience to the truth.  He then goes on a mini-rant about how people will gladly sacrifice for what they think is true, so people would not disobey what they thought was true, especially if it meant going to hell.   However, I think he’s in part answered his own question: If God tells us to believe, and we don’t, then yes, we’re being willfully disobedient to the truth, even if we live our lives as living sacrifices to good causes.  Believing in a falsity, no matter how sincere our belief, doesn’t count.
  3. Failure to experience God: Again, a good point. If belief rested on experience, then God could just do a little dance and the whole world would believe. However, the Gospel accounts make the clear point that seeing miracles isn’t enough; a wicked people will still seek just one more sign. Perhaps the issue is not one of not experiencing God, but rather, recognizing truth (God) when we do experience it.

I still think that perhaps the best discussion of why some people choose disbelief (and I believe that it most certainly is a choice) is C.S. Lewis’ book The Great Divorce.  While not a theological work by any means, he demonstrates the kind of thinking and acting that leads to unbelief, and points out that people who have chosen unbelief would not be happy at all in Heaven. Hell is not, then, a punishment, but rather, a lifestyle choice.

The choice to not believe can, I think, be influenced by factors other than wilfull disobedience, including ignorance, as mentioned above, or from mental programming we’ve received wtih conflicting and errant information. Much programming, I think, is actually emotional, either as a result of sins we’ve committed, or sins committed against us (which is why that section of the Lord’s Prayer is so important).  It’s not unusual for very vocal atheists to have a religious background, and it would not surprise me to find that some of their analysis is emotionally based. The point has often been raised that many of use choose the religions we were raised with; however, the opposite effect is also seen.

Another such factor are worldviews, which have everything to do with how we perceive and process information. Our worldviews, which are instilled in us from a very young age, are often difficult to identify and work around.  Modernism, the worldview of the West, is no exception, and can be especially difficult due to its anti-historical, self-aware nature. As Loftus has said in the past, modernism is the Achilles’ heel of Christianity.  He, of course, believes modernism to be true and good (as a good modern would say), so it’s effect on Christianity is therefore, favorable.  I obviously disagree.  However, I do agree with the “Achilles’ heel” statement, and think that in part, this answers Loftus’ question.

In part 3 of this discussion, I will introdue my “teacup” analogy.  I bet you can hardly wait…

Posted in Random Thoughts | Leave a comment

The question of unbelief

How could you forsake the love of God that way
Don’t fade, you’re staying here with me
Don’t fade, I need to know that someone still believes

– Don’t Fade, Glen Phillips

A week or so ago John Loftus over at Debunking Christianity (a very interesting site) asked Christians to tell him why he didn’t believe:

But since you believe we will be punished by God in hell (however conceived) if we don’t believe, then you need to offer some explanations for why we don’t believe. Surely a good God like yours wouldn’t punish us if we weren’t deserving of it, right? And surely your God wouldn’t punish us for our disbelief without offering us a clear testimony with sufficient evidence to believe, right?

Now, John’s testimony is that he was a Christian, received a Th.M. from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and studied under William Lane Craig. But, over time he came to unbelieve in God – an opposite response of what we’d generally expect. And, there are others who have similar stories.  John suggests three possible reasons for not being able to believe: ignorance, willful disobedience, and a failure to experience God – all good questions to consider.  Concerning the question of ignorance, is disbelief merely a matter of not enough information?  In John’s case, I would have to presume the answer is no; he’s got a theology degree, and I haven’t.

As far as disobedience goes, he asks a very profound question in response: “Who in his right mind would be willfully disobedient of that which he knows to be true, if the truth is that he will go to hell if he is?”  Of course, the question of being in one’s right mind is another issue. I suppose one could hypothesize that unbelief is a type of psychosis resulting from the inability to reconcile the sinful nature with a works-oriented theology, like Paul describes in Romans chapter 7.  It’s really an interesting thought, along the same lines as, “does OJ really think he’s innocent?”; but it’s not an idea I would pursue at this point.

I think that John’s 3rd option – a failure to experience God – deserves some real thought.  A hard-core double-predestination Calvinist would probably pick this option and write these atheists off as merely people whom God has rejected.  However, I’m not a Calvinist, and I don’t think the answer is that simple. On this question, John writes:

Have we just failed to experience God in our lives? Do we need to experience something that we didn’t? What kind of experience do you mean? A miracle? Well, whose fault is that? God knows what we need to believe, and if so, why doesn’t he provide it? If God did the greater deed, by sending his son to atone for our sins, then why doesn’t he do the lesser deeds by providing us the evidence and experiences we need to believe?

It’s somewhat interesting that John wrote this post last week, as I’ve been thinking about this question myself. Why, indeed, do some people appear to be blind to what seems to be the clear revelation of God?  I believe that God, indeed, has revealed himself, and quite clearly, as Paul writes in Romans 1:

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Part of the answer, at least for some, might be answered by Loftus’ own proposition that modernism is the Achilles’ Heel of Christianity.  We differ, however, in that John believes modernism to be the superior worldview, whereas I take an opposite view.  Perhaps – at least in part – buying into modernism is tantamount to planting seed in a field of weeds; the clear result is that faith is choked out.

I began this post quoting Glen Phillips, who is perhaps my favorite singer/songwriter. He seems to understand faith and doubt in a way that I find quite remarkable, being he’s not a Christian, or even necessarily religious (per an interview in 2004; although, the song “Thank You” on his latest album implies he’s at least a Theist).  I’ll end this post with a verse from “Dam Would Break” that seems relevant to this discussion:

What is this ice that gathers round my heart
To stop the flood of warmth before it even starts
It would make me blind to what I thought would always be
The only constant in the world for me
And every hour of every day
I need to fight from pulling away
And if my mind could only loose the chain
The dam would break

Posted in Epistemology, Faith, Science & Doubt | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

The truth about the bailout

I’m beginning to think that the writers of Saturday Night Live are the only people in the country who really know what’s going on. The following clip is a good example.

And, if you didn’t see SNL’s Thursday version of Weekend Update, you’ve got to check it out.  Truly profound.

Posted in Humor and/or Sarcasm, Politics/Current Events | Tagged , | Leave a comment