Monday, October 19, 2009

A Testimony

I'm happy to say that, for the foreseeable future at least, this isn't going to be one of those current events blogs where I riff on the latest headlines, so my topics are going to have to come from other sources. My last post left a number of dangling threads. I might as well pick one of them up.

I said in that post that I was raised Lutheran but decided at some point to stop being one. It might be worthwhile to explain why.

This is something I rarely talk about in detail in my religious discussions. One of the reasons is that, while there are many religious subjects that can be discussed without incurring anyone's wrath, the question of whether a specific god exists or not tends to be more provocative. The existence of God is extremely important to a great many people, and openly doubting the validity of a given religious belief takes some measure of caution if you want to avoid pissing everyone off. So to be on the safe side, I generally try to present my point of view without explicitly arguing why I think other beliefs are wrong.

Nonetheless, I do have reasons for not being a Christian, and I think they're fairly decent ones. For the most part, they're not the stereotypical reasons you frequently hear from bandwagon atheists or from Christians attempting to catalog the justifications people give for not believing.

My loss of faith had nothing to do with the so-called "problem of evil," which is often used to argue that an all-good, all-powerful god would never allow evil and suffering to persist. Though it may be a bit callous of me to say so, I never lost much sleep over that one. I was accustomed to viewing evil solely as the outcome of human decisions.

It also had nothing to do with the hypocritical actions of religious followers, and I still think that's a dumb reason for not believing in God.

It had nothing to do with the supposedly excessive behavioral restraints required by a religious worldview. My life had little in the way of debauchery and depravity while I was believer and, sadly, not much has changed since.

It had nothing to do with the theory of evolution. I lost my faith around the end of high school but I didn't get a decent explanation of what evolution was until my third year of college.

Hell, it even had nothing to do with Richard Dawkins. The God Delusion was still years away from being published when I stopped believing, so I was not seduced into godlessness by Richard's dazzling displays of reason and logic.

My loss of faith was slow and gradual and probably had many subconscious factors that I'm not even aware of. At the heart of it, though, was my expanding perception of God and my inability to see Christianity's exclusive validity when compared to all the other world religions. In the interest of laying all my cards on the table, what follows is, to the best of my memory, the story of how I got to where I am today and the reasons why I continue to hold this position. I present it not under the naive assumption that it'll convince anyone of anything, but simply to chronicle my own personal rationale for not being a Christian, and perhaps to better understand my own thoughts on this issue.

To begin, I should mention that religion played a big role in my youth. I was enrolled in a private Lutheran school the moment I turned three and stayed there until my eight grade graduation. It's fair to say that my school promoted a fairly conservative theology. Lutherans are big on biblical literalism, and the particular denomination that I was raised in--Missouri Synod--is among the most conservative of the many Lutheran denominations. For instance, it's a matter of doctrine that you reject evolutionary explanations for the origin of species. Indeed, my school made sure to point out that evolution was false and that God created the universe exactly as described in Genesis, complete with six twenty-four-hour days. You attained salvation through Christ alone and everyone who didn't accept Christ was going to hell. And while I'm not sure they taught this explicitly, I also got it into my head at some point that only Lutherans go to heaven.

I believed all of this and more for a good ten years of my life, beginning when I achieved complete sentience somewhere around the age of two or three. Things began to change somewhat when I started high school, my first three years of which were spent at a private Catholic school. This may not sound like a big change, but it was. Though private and religious, my high school had a large student body with many different faiths represented among them. Because of the relative diversity, the school was obligated to take a more religiously open-minded stance. True, most students were Catholic, but there were plenty of Protestants as well, along with some Muslims, Buddhists, and even a few angsty teenage atheists.

The religious courses I took during those first three years of high school were noticeably different from the ones taught at my previous school. They discussed a number of historical details about the scriptures that I had not previously known, such as when the books were written and by whom. They were more likely to note the humanity of the Biblical authors rather than simply describe the whole thing as the inerrant word of God. They also introduced a number of less literal ways of interpreting Bible passages. They were still a solidly Christian school, of course, but the theology was a bit more nuanced and appealing than what I had been exposed to before, their god slightly more open to compromise. By the end of my first year, I was convinced that all Christians, not just Lutherans, went to heaven.

During my sophomore year I was able to take a class on world religions. This was something I had always wanted to do, ever since I first heard that other religions existed several years prior. Back then my interest was more like that of a sleazy tabloid reporter. I didn't want to understand the other religions so much as hear the scandalous details of their crazy sacrilegious beliefs. By the start of my second year of high school, however, I was genuinely interested. Surprisingly, I found a lot to like in the major religions that we discussed. My teacher presented them without bias or ridicule, so I gained a good deal of valuable insight. I found Hinduism to be particularly appealing, perceiving a certain logic in its doctrines of karma and reincarnation. It got to a point where I kind of wished I had been raised Hindu instead of Christian. That I had such thoughts at all probably says a lot about what I was thinking regarding the exclusivity of the Christian faith. I still considered myself a Christian, but I had a new found openness to other religions. I recognized that the mutually exclusive teachings between the various faiths meant they couldn't all be right, but I began to think that maybe being "right" wasn't what was important. There was something vaguely noble about each religion's unique search for God, and it became tempting to see them all as possessing some degree of validity or a piece of some greater truth, kind of like that analogy of the blind men and the elephant. Perhaps God was big enough to accommodate all of them. By the end of my second year, I was convinced that all religious people went to heaven.

But that world religions class put another idea into my head, too. It took a while for the implications to really hit me, but eventually it turned into what was probably the strongest intellectual reason I had for leaving Christianity. Though the class focused mainly on the beliefs held by each of the religions, we were also taught their respective histories. Most religions have their own creation myth which typically places their origins way back at the beginning of time itself. But they also have historical beginnings here on Earth, when like-minded human beings first began organizing themselves into groups according to their beliefs. Before, I had been used to thinking of Christianity as the only religion of genuinely divine inspiration, but as I thought about the historical details of all the major religions, it became harder to see how this could be the case. Yes, as Christians we believed that our version of the supernatural world was the correct one, but every religion had believers who thought the exact same thing about their own faith. They all had mythical histories embellished with supernatural events meant to establish their credibility. They couldn't all be right, and given the difficulties with piecing together ancient history, how could we ever be sure which, if any, was the one true faith? It was the first time I had really thought about this question and I didn't have a good answer.

This was perhaps the first true hint of doubt to enter my mind and it only got stronger from there. Over time, I began thinking about religions with their historical contexts in mind. I started to wonder whether they might simply be products of the cultures that "discovered" them, their individual details determined by the location, people, and circumstances from which they emerged. Given that my belief in God was still relatively intact at this point, these thoughts translated into a sense that all religions were equally valid, that they were all reaching for God in their own way. At the same time, these ideas were having an influence on how I thought about God. What used to be a small, personal and knowable God grew increasingly large and incomprehensible. I considered other forms that God might take, many of them contrary to how the Bible tends to describe him. God was becoming too big for the Bible alone.

What happened towards the end of high school and immediately afterward I can only write about in a general sense. The reason is because it becomes increasingly difficult for me to sort out exactly what I thought and when after my sophomore year. As I said, my loss of faith was very gradual. Though there were some diversions along the way, the basic trends I've described above more or less continued as time went on. There was no one defining moment when I decided once and for all to stop being a Christian. In the years following my world religions class, my perception of God simply became increasingly grand but more abstract and nonreligious. Eventually, God became so vague that I wasn't sure he existed at all. I eased into a sort of theistic agnosticism for a while, then just agnosticism. The historical circumstances of each religion now told me that they were all equally invalid, at least as far as their claims on divine knowledge were concerned. By the time I started college, there was no heaven.

Now, it may be that I simply didn't try hard enough to keep my faith. I'm sure there were authors I could have read or youth groups I could have joined had I really wanted to. But the fact that I didn't put up a strong fight, that I lost my faith without really feeling like I was losing anything, suggests it just wasn't that important to me anymore. There were probably psychological issues at work too, but I won't speculate on those now. The willingness with which I allowed my original perception of God to be so thoroughly amended and ultimately abolished indicates that, in the end, the God of Martin Luther just wasn't right for me. Nor was any other god, for that matter. The more I thought of it, the more sense it made to claim ignorance of God's ultimate nature and existence. In other words, I didn't choose agnosticism; agnosticism chose me.

Since then, I've read and thought a lot more about the subject. In recent years I've attempted to flesh out the reasons for my admittedly hazy position in more detail, figuring out exactly what I think and why. I've even familiarized myself with various religious authors and their arguments to make sure I didn't miss anything. Unfortunately, I've seen no reason to abandon that initial feeling of doubt.

For all the hysteria over evolution, the big bang and all the other scientific theories that supposedly conflict with religious teachings, I think the strongest case to be made against any religion as divine revelation is a historical one. One of the big reasons I've never seriously considered taking up my faith again is that I still fail to see what makes Christianity unique among all the other religions. Yes, there are a number of beliefs within Christianity that no other faith holds, but the same can be said of every religion. All religions have something that makes them different from the rest. But is there a good reason to think that Christianity's claims are uniquely true? Did God really make a covenant with a man named Abram thousands of years ago? Did he really lead someone named Moses and 600,000 Israelites out of Egypt? Did Jesus really raise from the dead? Or, like the stories found in Hinduism or Greek mythology, are the Biblical stories inspiring myths tailored to a specific people at a specific time? In my view, the later is infinitely more likely.

That, in the end, is the biggest problem for me. If I were to summarize the major obstacle preventing me from embracing any of the three great Western religions, I would say simply that I can find no compelling reason to think the Bible is divinely inspired, or that its stories are an accurate account of a god and his people. As challenging as it is to piece together a complete history from the ambiguous archaeological scraps left by ancient civilizations, what little we do have makes it increasingly difficult to read the Bible as a representation of actual events. It has undoubtedly enriched the lives of many millions of people over thousands of years, occasionally providing its adherents with the strength needed to endure unimaginable turmoil. It even offers some fundamental truths about human nature. But I do not believe that the god it describes exists anywhere outside its pages. I am ever more convinced that if there is a god, he or she or it is grander than anything humanity has yet imagined.

12 comments:

  1. Sup Ethan

    I have to say, this blog post has been some of the best reading I've done my whole semester. It's probably because you hit on some real issues that probably haven't received enough attention in the (often too comfortable) Christian community, and that require a deeper grasp of the historical surroundings of the development of Judaism and Christianity (Judaism's ultimate fulfillment!) than the information you might get from a simple primer on church history.

    I really appreciate how you recognize the delicacy of this whole discussion, and it's quite refreshing to do some dialogue with someone pretty steeped in Christian theology (with a hint of Martin Luther and stale legalism in there, sorry about the “asshole” experience).

    Nevertheless, I do believe (as you probably guessed!) that there are some important observations to make that rub up against your conclusions, and point us back the reality that the only historical explanation for the "phenomenon" of Christianity is that, well, these things really did happen.

    The main thrust of your story (and argument) is that you saw the uniqueness and believability of Christianity diminish as you saw the similarities it had with other religious/cultish myths. The history of the human search for deity and purpose seems more and more uniform and unoriginal (in its core elements/rituals) as the chronicles of history are explored, and Christianity seems to fit right into that pattern. Because of this, and the fact that nothing strikes you as immediately unique or special about Christianity, we really shouldn’t treat Christianity with any special reverence or consider its truth claims any more real than other false myths. I hope this is fairly accurate.

    First, if this serves as an actual argument against the truth of Christianity, it would have to be at best, a shaky one. Personally I think there are many good ways to account for the similarities among world religions past and present, and that the Christian worldview provides the best answer for these very similarities. But, simply recognizing that religions and cults are related, rather than why they are related would not in itself give a good argument against Christianity’s truth. We would have to look at specific instances of similarity, look at origins and historical chronology, look at possible causal connections, etc., and to my knowledge there still aren’t any persuasive arguments that Christianity is hopelessly borrowed from other myths or basically non-unique, as I’ll discuss in a second.

    ReplyDelete
  2. To argue that Christianity is false because it seems to echo some patterns of other myths and religions would be like a young man who desperately wants to find his long-lost biological father, and is shown a few likely candidates that include the real father. No matter how much the real father shouts out his identity and tries to persuade the son, the son finally rejects that he could have any biological father because they all seem to have the same types of facial features, body types and hair color. But surely we’d agree that this is no way to proceed. I understand that you’ve put way more thought into this than what I’ve summarized, but this is only to say that your main “reason” for not believing in Christianity is more assertion than argument. We have to move deeper in, beyond just the fact that religions tend to come out similar into why they come out similar, and seeing if there really is anything that special about Christianity.

    The Christian worldview, as contained in Scripture, gives us some very good reasons why cultures throughout history have given similar answers to questions and issues pertaining to ultimate reality, to the divine, to sin/judgment, and salvation. Secular anthropologists and scientists get it half right when they reason that myths exist because of psychological needs and tendencies built into the human species from evolution. But they don’t go far enough. Because in the end, they deny that these echoes of the divine are anything but cheap, random evolutionary mechanisms that help us survive throughout the millennia. Of course, this reasoning cuts much deeper than they would like, because to follow this reasoning would be to cast doubt on having any kind of workable epistemology at all. Why relegate religious/mythical beliefs only to survival mechanisms with no relation to truth, but leave other beliefs untouched by this “belief”? I think a better way to go, and the one that Scripture gives us, is to say that people retain these inerasable echoes because they point to something that’s really there: the God of Scripture. The tendencies and needs of the human heart to be connected to God exist not as a decoy, but point to something real, just like the pangs of hunger point to the reality of food, and the ache of loneliness points to our need for community and companionship.

    The book of Romans gives us the best clues to this. Romans 1-2 is an explanation of the spiritual state and destiny of those who are cut off from the traditions of Judaism and the law, yet are nonetheless exposed to the power and creativity of Yahweh in nature and in conscience. This is key: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.” (Rom. 1:18-23) Later in Romans 2: “For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.” (2:14-16)

    ReplyDelete
  3. These passages provide some incredible insight into the issue of religious myth. Fascinating, because at the same time they explain the reason for the creation and similarity of religious myth, as well as the reason for divergence and uniqueness. It speaks of an indelible imprint of God’s character on their hearts, as well as an ability to grasp and recognize the basic attributes and character of God through the natural world. It’d undeniable that people at all times have had the need to make something ultimate, something the driving purpose of their life, that gives them ultimate meaning, purpose, and identity. The Bible explains this tendency as rooted in our hearts, hearts that have been wired to worship God and enjoy Him above all else. We are either worshippers of the true God, or, as John Calvin said “idol factories,” looking to anything but God to worship. One thing is sure from Romans 1: we are built to worship God, and turning from Him does not erase that tendency, it only redirects it to destructive, misplaced idols. And that also explains the divergence of various myths: different cultures retain their need to worship and orient their lives around an ultimate, divine “story,” but because they “suppress” the truth of God in sin, they manufacture alternate, unique ways of worshipping creation.

    If this is true, I think we can begin to see how and why myths, especially of the religious type, persist throughout history and various cultures. The plurality yet unity of all the myths starts to make sense: people from all times and cultures are imprinted, because of their Creator, with the need to worship, and they sense the tension, at various levels, of their fallenness and need for some form of "salvation." The truth of Christianity is the reason for the creation of myth, and all myths point in some vague way to the reality of the Christian meta-narrative and it's Savior God in the person of Christ. On this point, C. S. Lewis makes a (as usual) brilliant observation on the relation of myth to fact in the Christian religion. Lewis was an unarguably brilliant scholar of mythical literature (Cambridge professor and lecturer) and was not afraid to take on the challenge of Christianity as being purely of mythical origin. Yet he saw something beyond just brute "fact" when it came to the historical claims of Christianity. He saw in the historical events of Christianity a fulfillment of myth, the very culmination of myth: "The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact. The old myth of the Dying God, without ceasing to be myth, comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history. It happens—at a particular date, in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences. We pass from a Balder or an Osiris, dying nobody knows when or where, to a historical Person crucified (it is all in order) under Pontius Pilate. By becoming fact it does not cease to be myth: that is the miracle. … God is more than god, not less: Christ is more than Balder, not less. We must not be ashamed of the mythical radiance resting on our theology. We must not be nervous about "parallels" and "pagan Christs": they ought to be there—it would be a stumbling block if they weren't." I think Lewis is dead on. We should expect echoes of myth within the Christian story, because all people at all times and cultures are themselves participating in that story, and trying in their own, sin-tainted ways to construct worldviews that recognize the inescapable realities of the sense of the divine, the personal knowledge of their own sin and the evil in the world, and the need for saving from themselves and renewal for the world. Empirical pluralism doesn’t necessitate philosophical pluralism, that’s a huge leap of faith: just because we observe the plethora of similar answers given by different cultures and tribes doesn’t mean that there therefore can be no singular, true answer to those questions.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You do hit on an essential issue concerning the historicity of Christianity: if Christianity is not founded on historical events that happened in space and time, then it is utterly false, and as C. S. Lewis put so well, it would be even immoral to encourage people to follow a system that demands worship, sacrifice, and self-denial for a liar or fictional person. The apostle Paul put it this way: "… if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain."(1 Cor. 15:14) The early Christians, far from being mythical dreamers, desperate fabricators, or power-grabbers understood the importance of their beliefs being rooted in real, space time history. The efforts of form/textual critics of yesterday and today to encourage us to smile nicely at the naïve attempts of men to fabricate history to fit their agenda, completely avoids the insistence of the biblical writers that what they believed and saw and wrote was history, and that experience or feeling was only secondary to the objective facts of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection (1 Cor. 15:1-3)

    And this, in fact, IS where orthodox Christianity sets itself apart from other religions altogether, where it is completely unique: it is inseparably bound up in history. Where you find Christianity to be non-unique (in its history) I find it to be utterly unique. The system of Buddhism could be completely divorced from the person and acts of Buddha and this pose no threat at all to the system. Even a “revelation”-oriented religion like Islam does not require any specific messiah figure to receive that revelation; the teaching of Islam could have come through a different person than Muhammad at a different time, or arisen over a period of time through the Muslim community. Likewise with other key Eastern and Middle Eastern religions

    ReplyDelete
  5. But to divorce the acts of God in the world in the Old Testament and preeminently in the person of Christ from history would be to see Christianity as any kind of viable religion fail completely. (see especially pg. 6-7 of this. The historical events of the life of Christ, His death on the cross, and his resurrection are the culmination of all the Old Testament's promises and serve as the basis of the promise of what God is doing and will do in history until the end of this age and beyond. Christianity is not an a-historical system of morality or sophisticated teaching but a Person-centered, event-centered reality. That Christianity was unique is seen by the reaction of the Roman society surrounding the new Christian church, which actually dubbed Christians “atheists,” due to their refusal to pluralize their God, and insistence on Christ as Lord over all kings and gods. In addition to the phenomena of Jesus, there is the way the Jesus taught about how to approach God and relate to Him that sets Christianity apart from all religions: grace and faith. Whereas all religions past and present focus on the obedience aspect of religion as primary, Christianity insists that grace is primary and the driving force of relating to God. All other systems look to their merit, performance, level of enlightenment, ability to transcend, prayers prayed, lashes inflicted to approach God. In that sense, all other religions are actually quite primitive and regressive, seeking to appease a God through some kind of bartering and sacrifice. Christianity focuses on “done” in Christ, versus “do.” All we need to approach God is nothing. Christianity squeezes out any last island of merit and forces us to be reliant only on Christ for our righteousness and renewal. In other religions (and even the most “non-religious”) the dynamic is putting God in debt by your performance. In Christianity, Christ has already paid the debt that we owed God by his death and resurrection, and by humbling faith we embrace and trust that work. Needless to say, this is no irrelevant truth cut off from the rest of life. Security and love are the things the human heart yearns for most, and the gospel is the only thing that truly gives us those things, because God’s love is set on us eternally in Christ by faith, so we can be confident and secure, yet we are also deeply humble because we see the ugliness of our sin take by Christ on the cross. No other religion in history has or will offer this amazing dynamic.

    ReplyDelete
  6. So yes, history is an utterly important issue when it comes to the veracity of Christianity, and yes, Christianity must be historically true to be anything at all. And I believe it is. The person of Christ, unlike the messiah figures and savior gods of myth stands out as firmly rooted in history, surrounded by an effort by the writers of the gospels to point out their historical surroundings. The history and claims of Christ set Christianity apart from every other religious way of viewing the world, and we are obligated, because of the weight of His claims, to consider Jesus and either write him off or embrace him. No other historical religion confronts you with a Person like this. As Lewis says “There is no question what we can make of Him, it is entirely a question of what HE intends to make of us. You must accept or reject The Story. The things He says are different from any other teacher has said. Others say, ‘This is the truth about the Universe. This is the way you ought to go,’ but He says, ‘I AM the Way, the Truth and the Life.’ He says, ‘No can reach absolute reality, except through Me. Try to retain your own life and you will inevitably be ruined. Give yourself away and you will be saved.’"

    Last, there is one controlling factor throughout all of this response, and that is the reality of Jesus as historical Lord and the one who demands that all thinking about the world be done in submission to him. In the end, there is no way I could empirically or historically prove every instance and event of the Old and New Testament happened, and no well-informed Biblical scholar claims that either. Just like all worldviews have their controlling assumptions, the one I'm working off of here is the existence and authority of Jesus, and Jesus has everything to do with history: He is the author of history and has set its course (Col. 1:15-17); history continues because of Him (Heb. 1:1-2), and He has been involved and foreshadowed at all points of biblical revelation (Luke 24:25-27), and history has its goal in the praise of the glory of Jesus (Rev. 5:13) I can't attempt to objectively, scientifically examine and prove every historical event in Scripture, and move forward as I'm convinced each event actually happened. But if Jesus is everything He claimed to be, then I can work backwards from Him, because Jesus had the highest view of Scripture any one has ever held; He lived and breathed God's law throughout His life, and made some of the most sweeping, convincing statements about Scripture that I'm obligated to rest on. He quoted it and based His arguments on it (Jn. 10:34-36), studied it, prayed it, and taught it. I believe in the historicity of Abraham, Moses, the prophets, and creation because the very "Word" of God (Jn. 1:1) came and testified that his revealed, written word was true. I think there are other extremely persuasive internal and external evidences that point to the supernatural nature of the Bible, but in the end my faith hinges on Jesus and His take on Scripture. And I firmly believe we can know this Jesus from the New Testament, and attempts to relegate the New Testament to the world of myth, hope, or legend just don't cut it (we've discussed this before, but good source here from a prominent textual scholar: here, as well as here). And I believe that that Jesus of the New Testament confronts us with the reality and historicity of the whole story of Scripture, from creation up to Revelation 22 and the recapitulation of all creation. If He is who He said He was, he stands out among all other events and persons in history (and according to Scripture, stands outside of history itself now, reigning over His creation), and it’s because of Him that I believe everything in Scripture from Eden to the New Jerusalem.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It was interesting, because in your blog, you consistently couple your objections from history along with your perception of God changing. That’d be another area worth talking about! Also worth talking about might be the idea of explanatory power of worldviews. I think the resurrection of Christ is both objectively true and existentially satisfying, and I think any viable worldview needs to incorporate that. There are no true rationalists; we all believe what we believe, especially our deepest beliefs and values, based on a mixture of faith and reason, and I think the existential realities that Christianity offers are unmatched. Because Christianity is rooted in history and is an objectively true account of the world as it is, it allows us to make sense of our desire for justice, our admiration and captivation with beauty, our yearning for relationship and deep joy, our disgust with the depths of our wickedness, and our dream of a world renewed and transformed. We are all believers in the resurrection, whether we assent to it or not, because only the resurrection makes sense of our yearning. So the history of Christianity complements our experience, and vice-versa. Another day, another time.

    Needless to say, I’ve said enough already, but I felt that there was much to be argued here, and if this really is your biggest objection to the Christian faith, I hope you’ll consider what I’ve said. No worries if there’s no time to respond back or anything!

    Later

    PS: If you have time, I highly recommend perusing all of these articles that address the question of Christianity's relation to myth:

    http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html,
    http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycatwho1.html http://www.triapologia.com/hays/ThisJoyfulEastertide.pdf
    http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html
    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/11/were-infancy-narratives-meant-to.html

    ReplyDelete
  8. I meant to take that "assholes" comment out. It was one of those lines that felt good in a childish sort of way when I first typed it but seemed really out of place as soon as I actually thought about it. So disregard that. It's just some residual teenage angst. I was kind of bitter towards most of my classmates in high school but it had nothing to do with their religion. Hopefully that much was clear.

    Aaron, I never imagined someone would give such a thoughtful and detailed response to my post. I'm tempted to just give up now, but that'd be lame. Your comments probably deserve a response more than my original post did, so I'm obliged to give one. I don't think I'll be able to respond to everything, but hopefully I'll address most of the main points.

    I should start by emphasizing that this post was intended more as autobiography than argument. It is, as the title suggests, something of a testimony. It's a personal story of how I arrived at my current beliefs. As an argument against Christianity I admit that it's not much to holler at, but that wasn't really my main purpose. I did actually plan on going into more detail on why I don't think Christianity is divine truth, but ultimately decided that would be a bit too much for one post. So if some of the arguments seem a bit vague or undeveloped, that's one of the reasons why.

    Still, there obviously are SOME arguments in there and they do need defending. To that end, I want to say that some of your response was directed at ideas that I don't exactly subscribe to (admittedly, this may be due to my vagueness on certain points). I think you got my general idea, but there are a few things that need clarification.

    First of all, I do acknowledge the uniqueness of Christianity regarding its specific theological claims. All religions have something to separate them from the others, and Christianity is obviously no different. When I say that I fail to see what makes Christianity unique, I mean that I fail to see what makes it uniquely TRUE. My basic argument is that the one thing it has in common with all other religions is that it was the product of humans and humans only, with no divine guidance or intervention. I've heard the theories about how Christianity was supposedly inspired by Greek mystery religions or pagan cults or older resurrection myths or what-have-you, but that's not what I'm arguing here. I'd more-or-less agree with you that these similarities don't pose a serious problem. So I've actually put way less thought into this issue than you give me credit for.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The main reason why I'm skeptical actually has more to do with the roots of Judaism than Christianity. This is one of the things I had planned on discussing in greater detail before deciding to save it for later. My argument basically starts with the observation that the archeological support for many of the key Biblical stories is virtually nonexistent. There is, for example, nothing to suggest that a mass exodus of Israelites out of Egypt ever took place, nor is there evidence for a sweeping military invasion of Canaan like the one described in the Book of Joshua. These archeological gaps pose a bit of a problem, particularly for those dedicated to total biblical inerrancy. Throughout the Bible, God's character is revealed largely through his interactions with his followers: his cursing of Adam, his promise to Noah, his covenant with Abraham, the liberation of Moses and revelation of the ten commandments, his military support for Joshua, and so on. If these people and their stories are myth, then what can we conclude about the God who is said to have communed with them, the same God who, hundreds of years later, sent his son to die for our sins?

    I agree with you entirely that Christianity is tightly bound to history. But I also see that as its greatest weakness. Simply put, if the history that Christianity depends upon is not what really happened, it becomes increasingly difficult to make that necessary leap of faith--at least for me it does. I fully acknowledge that the Bible is composed of numerous literary genres, and that each one has to be read for what it is. But many of its most important stories are written as clear historical narrative, as events that believers are to assume actually happened. What do we do, then, if many of those events never happened?

    So far I've been looking at the very beginnings of Judaism/Christianity, but as you rightly point out, you can also start with Christ and go backward. If Christ is who he says he is, then of course we can trust scripture to represent the truth. But I think that if Christ really is who the Bible says he is, then there should be no conflict between the Bible's historical narratives and the archeological evidence. In my view, a glaring discrepancy at ANY point along Christianity's timeline is potentially jeopardizing. The extensive genealogies provided in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke demonstrate as well as anything that Christianity depends on a clear chain of historical events and individuals running from Jesus all the way back to Adam (according to Luke). If that chain is missing any of its links, then the claims that the Gospels make regarding the nature of Christ are much harder to accept.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Unfortunately, many of those links are missing. Adam was almost certainly not a historical figure, which means that neither were many of his close descendants. Moving further down the line, the evidence for men like Abraham and his sons is limited at best. The Bible mentions them, yes, but with no corroboration from other sources they could just as easily have been legendary characters. Others, like King David, probably did exist, although the Biblical accounts of their lives are likely to be heavily embellished, and they certainly did not descend from a lineage beginning with Adam.

    Granted, in some sense it doesn't really matter if these men were historical or not given that Christ is supposed to be the son of God. He was supposed to have been born of a virgin, after all, so Joseph's ancestry would be irrelevant. Nonetheless, the Gospels do go to the trouble of establishing this genealogy, so it is of some importance to the authors, and they do present it as a fact of history. The fact that such a genealogy is all but impossible gives us another reason for doubt.

    So that's my "case" in a little more detail. As you can see, it has little to do with the similarities between Christianity and other religions. I'm dealing solely with the historical claims made in the Bible and by members of the Abrahamic religions. What I came to believe after my world religions class was not that the doctrines and theology of Christianity were suspiciously similar to those of other religions, but that, like those other religions, Christianity was a product of its unique environment, culture and history--and NOT divine revelation.

    Having clarified that, I'd like to respond more directly to some of your comments. For starters, I think the jury is still out regarding the evolutionary origins of religious belief. There are two main sides to this debate. One argues that religion is an adaptation and the other that it is an accidental byproduct. To my knowledge, neither side has "won" yet and I'm not really prepared to discuss this at length. I will say that if it is a byproduct, our religious yearnings would not technically be the same as our feelings of hunger or loneliness, both of which have obvious evolutionary reasons for existing. But I'll also say that even if religious belief is a byproduct, that doesn't disprove the existence of a god, and I've heard atheist psychologists who hold this view of religion admit that. It would cast doubt on the existence the specific gods proposed by human religions, though.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Still, I will readily concede that, regardless of how they got there, religious beliefs are natural. You say they're the result of an impression left by God himself. Personally, I'd rather not jump to conclusions. Yes, they could have been placed there by God, but how could we really know that? This gets to one of the main issues I often have with discussions regarding God's existence and character: In the end, it's all just speculation. It's cosmic literary criticism of a work by an unknown author. That's fine, of course, so long as everyone realizes that they're only speculating. As William Lane Craig, Francis Collins, and others point out, you can't PROVE the existence of God. We can look at the universe and conclude that such-and-such is this way because God made it so, but we can never know that for certain, and there are often competing explanations.

    As an example, let me give you a quick alternative explanation for the similarities between various world religions. It's not particularly thorough but it'll work for now: All but the most stubborn postmodernists will admit that human beings have an inherent nature, and anthropologists have long noted a number of human universals that are present across all cultures. As we've both acknowledged, one of these universals is a belief in the supernatural. We also know that the human brain is highly responsive to its environment. It's extremely adaptable, which is probably one of the reasons its made us so successful as a species.

    But there are limits. Malleable though our brains are, they're nonetheless going to steer us towards common ends on a great many things. They are both adaptable and restricting. With these two qualities in mind, I think we can begin explaining both the great variety among the world religions and their many similarities. Religions are different because each one emerged and evolved in its own environment and in response to specific conditions. They are similar because they stem from the same essential, vague intuitions. Our shared human nature and common heritage guides our religious inklings down a common, albeit wide, path. Though the specifics of each afterlife may vary, we all naturally feel that we will continue to exist after death. Though our gods take thousands of different forms, we feel that SOMETHING out there created and/or watches over us.

    In short, most of us find it easy to believe that God or an afterlife exists, but the specifics change from culture to culture, and I think this is ultimately due to how our minds evolved. That doesn't disprove God's existence, but as I said, it makes me skeptical when someone claims their particular god is the real one. Adjust the parameters of their religion's ancestral environment just a little and their god might have come out much differently. I'm undoubtedly leaving out a lot of details, but the main point is that there are explanations for the existence and nature of religious beliefs that don't involve divine intervention. In fact, much of what we think and feel can be explained along these lines.

    ReplyDelete
  12. As for your comments regarding the uniqueness of the Christian faith, I agree that there is much to set Christianity apart from other religions. Here I'll only say again that the same can be said for every faith. So far as I can tell, there are no clone religions. Each one has something that makes it stand out from the others. That isn't to say, as you point out, that one of them can't be true. But for reasons I've discussed above, I don't find that very likely to be the case.

    Personally, I'm more open to the existence of God than my comments might suggest (I'm going to explain why in future posts). As I've said elsewhere, I think it's very peculiar that anything exists at all. Furthermore, I want to reemphasize that, in general, I don't think natural explanations of the world disprove God's existence. But when I talk about God, I'm talking about something beyond what we find in various world religions. Yes, it's an almost worthlessly vague conception of God, but as feeble-minded human beings who were not "designed" to seek objective truth, I think we need to ask ourselves, honestly, how much we can really expect to know about the defiantly vast and complicated universe we find ourselves in, let alone any being that might have been responsible for it all. We should, of course, keep seeking for as long as we're around. That desire for knowledge is the one thing that makes us unique as a species; without it, we're just slightly less hairy chimps. But before we get too far along, I think it'd be wise to check our arrogance and prepare to be humbled by what we find.

    I think I'll leave it there for now. I want to talk about some of this stuff more in future posts, but in the meantime, feel free to respond to what I've said here if you get the chance. As I said in the first post of this blog, one of my reasons for doing this is to develop my thoughts on these sots of issues, and I can't do that without feedback. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts about archeological support for the Old Testament or anything else I've brought up. If you're wondering about my "sources," I got a lot of information from this 2 hour special on PBS's NOVA called The Bible's Buried Secrets, which in turn borrows liberally from a book called The Bible Unearthed by Neil Asher Silberman and Israel Finkelstein. As always, you can find a lot of this stuff on Wikipedia too.

    ReplyDelete