It has now been about 3 years that I have seriously doubted Christianity, and a more accurate term maybe unbelief (I’m still not comfortable about specifically labeling myself). During this past year, my hope in regaining my Christian faith is slowly but steadily disappearing. I have delved into researching the resurrection, and left with the conclusion that there are just too many missing pieces to make belief in a supernatural entity possible. I then started delving into the arguments for the existence of God, and I’ve found these to be even less convincing. This next year I will be looking more into the details of the resurrection. Specifically the details of Jesus’ death and also look into the Shroud of Turin. I hope this isn’t risky and cause me further doubt. As always I’m open to suggestions.
This path towards unbelief has had many ups and downs. On the good days, I appreciate that this struggle has forced me to research things I most likely would not have done willingly. It has caused me to seriously reflect on my beliefs. On the bad days, I am sick of this struggle and want to just give up on searching. Luckily my bad days have so far been followed by a renewed strength to keep working on this.
Over these past 3 years my unbelief has affected relationships–some for the worse, but most for the better. Many of my relationships have grown deeper and stronger. I believe it is because we are now dealing with painful struggles and tough questions. Superficial niceties were replaced with deep questions and challenges, or a supportive embrace.
The bad part of relationships is that I often feel dishonest. I still regularly attend church and interact with Christians, however, I struggle with knowing who I should tell of my unbelief. I don’t really want to tell everyone my business, but I also don’t like putting on a show. Attending church causes other mixed feelings. On the one hand I feel like a black sheep, a stranger in a strange land, but on the other hand, it is one of the few things that is giving me strength to keep searching.
Another issue that is increasingly troubling me is how this will affect my kids. On the one hand I am committed to raising my kids with Christian beliefs, but at some point, when they are mature enough to understand, I need to be honest with them too. I am becoming anxious just thinking about all the implications.
Well here’s hoping for a better and more successful year in this struggle.
“The bad part of relationships is that I often feel dishonest. I still regularly attend church and interact with Christians, however, I struggle with knowing who I should tell of my unbelief. I don’t really want to tell everyone my business, but I also don’t like putting on a show. Attending church causes other mixed feelings. On the one hand I feel like a black sheep, a stranger in a strange land, but on the other hand, it is one of the few things that is giving me strength to keep searching.”
I feel a lot like that too. Friends who would understand, I don’t want to threaten the faith they have. Friends who wouldn’t understand, well, what’s the point.
I don’t like sitting on the sidelines at church. I miss teaching and leading a small group, but I couldn’t do that, even at the church we are going to now which is more open to questioning. I developed those gifts over many years and now they sit because I am in an environment where my beliefs don’t match those around me.
But it is worth it if it leads to, “Superficial niceties … replaced with deep questions and challenges, or a supportive embrace.“
This post makes me wonder what I would have felt like if my de-conversion occurred while I was heavily involved in a church or if I had kids. My involvement in churches was always sort of freelance because I never believed in joining a church since they make you agree to a statement of faith and I felt that my faith was between me and God and that no organization should dictate what I believed.
ATTR,
“I developed those gifts over many years and now they sit…” You’re talents aren’t going to waste. You are doing a great job teaching and leading through your blog.
Mike,
I don’t think I ever agreed 100% with the churches I have joined. I doubt if there is a church out there which believes everything I do; especially since my beliefs have changed over time. I do think it is important to be part of a local church as it can be a place that provides support and encouragement.
I think fellowship is very important in maintaining beliefs that are not necessarily going to maintain themselves. My problem wasn’t so much with the church’s individual beliefs, but with their requirement that I sign off on their doctrine, their certainty they they had it right.
Point taken. I do agree there is a lot of herd mentality that goes on in churches, but I have also seen atheistic herds too. People with similar beliefs tend to stick together, which has the consequence of reinforcing those beliefs. There is a vast array of churches out there. Some are strict in their requirements, and other are more flexible. For doubter, I would still recommend sticking with a church that shows doubters compassion and allows them to be honest and open about their doubts. I think dropping out of church maybe unhealthy and unnecessary. I have seen many on the internet that just go from one herd to the other herd without seriously examining their beliefs and why they have them.
I suppose it would depend on the denomination of the church. I’ve read stories of atheists wanting to serve in the church because their families went there and being denied.
Personally, I’ve never been much of a joiner.
Hi Mark,
I’ve posted here before. I often think to come back here on occasion and see how you are doing. Before you give up your search, I hope you will consider this question:
God promises that all who seek him, will find him. On what have you based your definition of seek? Who has determined the rules and the parameters of your quest? If you can honestly say it’s the Bible, then you should be able to confidently walk away from Christianity.
I would ask this same question regarding your definition of God and man.
Take care,
David
Hello Mark,
I want to wish you good luck in finding the honest truth, and I truly hope God presents himself to you.
Have you read The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology? If not I highly recommend it
“God promises that all who seek him, will find him.”
“If you can honestly say it’s the Bible, then you should be able to confidently walk away from Christianity.” – I don’t get it… the promise is from the bible… and studying the bible should allow you to confidently walk away from Christanity? What sense does that make?
David,
There are many reasons for this (kids, wife, family, friends, interacting with others in society, etc.). My motivation may go up and down, and my focus may change, but I still plan to keep searching or at the least keep learning.
I don’t plan to give up on searching–God willing
Mark, a belated thanks for your comment #3. :^)
Hello,
I just saw this website and thought I would add a few comments, as a recent convert to Christianity and someone who has, at times, had intense doubts.
I would offer that ultimately the human condition is such that we MUST choose something to trust and believe in. Faith is not an intellectual agreement to a set of doctrines that seem reasonable, but it is the grounding and basis for our very being – for what or for whom do we live? For one, it might be personal comfort, for another it might be to please the crowd, and so forth. Christian faith is an attempt to shift the grounding to God Himself, so that every action is done out of love for Him. A “weak atheist” is one who is hiding from the reality that we must have faith, that we must live our lives by and for something or someone.
The fact that you want to believe is significant. Do you want to believe to fit in? It doesn’t seem so. We want to believe because faith gives us peace of heart; it just feels right; it is what our heart truly yearns for. Blaise Pascal was a brilliant man of deep faith who also had significant doubts…one of the often-quoted gems from his “Pensees” is “the heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of”…
Convincing intellectual arguments can be made by both Christians and atheists. If you are beginning to think that the atheists or rational or reasonable, please keep in mind that often the people you are debating, especially those of the “New Atheist” variety, generally lack any sort of philosophical or historical perspective on the issue. There are some heavyweight works out there that take the debate to a higher plane than what you usually see these days – I recommend “The Everlasting Man” by G.K. Chesterton or The Brothers Karamazov.
All the best.
“A “weak atheist” is one who is hiding from the reality that we must have faith, that we must live our lives by and for something or someone.”
It’s been a while since someone told me what my motivations were. I wouldn’t presume tot tell you why you were a Christian.
Justin,
I also agree that there are many intelligent people on both sides of the debate, which makes for a lot good reading.
I agree everyone has faith/belief in something or someone. For me I have faith in the natural world and science’s ability to explain it. There are many reasons why I want to believe. Some superficial (wanting to fit in with my friends and family), some not (wanting a supernatural savior). However, wanting something doesn’t make it true. If so, I would be able to fly and have super powers
Mike,
I don’t think Justin is saying what our motivations are, but just that everyone has faith (belief) in something. For me I believe in the natural world and do not yet believe in the supernatural.
Sorry Mike, what you say is true, did not mean to be condescending.
I think that if you want to have faith in the natural world, it’s OK, but you have to realize the limits of such a faith. The main problem is that if you only have faith in the natural world, you can’t tell me that one thing is right and another wrong; that one thing is good and another is evil. It is perfectly permissible to kill another human being in this worldview if you are consistent about it – killing someone doesn’t break any natural laws. So if you are a materialist, I think you have to be prepared to take it all the way. A lot of times people are in the hazy ground of wanting to keep the Christian ethics (love your neighbor, be charitable, etc…) but dispose of the Christian God. For me that’s not fair; you have to choose Christianity or Nietzche.
Christianity did not invent the ethics it teaches. Heck even Jesus’ law of reciprocity isn’t original. Love your enemy is probably the most radical thing that Jesus taught and in these war times it is the very first to be cast away by far too many Christians.
Look at all the varieties in Christianity, some are pro-choice and others pro-life, some pro-war, some pro-peace. Are you telling me they are not choosing their morals just the same as non-believers? Sure, they have a much smaller buffet table because they limit themselves to the Bible and their interpretations of it, but it’s the same thing.
Even if there is such a thing as absolute truth, none of us can really, truly know that until we die.
Hi,
I find your article very interesting, for I myself was the same as you. I had many questions and doubts. My friend gave me an English Qur’an, and truly brother, it answer every question you ask. Stop listening to what people tell you. Start from zero. Read the sources of both religions and decide for your self. Read the Bible from cover to cover, and then read the Qur’an from the Fatiha until the end. We don’t want you to lose faith, but we want you to find reason for your faith. You will most definitely find the answers for all these questions you have asked.
God bless you for searching for the truth.
May God guide you.
James, forgive me for being a bit skeptical but the Qur’an can answer all my questions? It can give evidence for the supernatural? It can answer the problem of evil? It can prove the historicity and truthfulness of its claims? Granted I am not a Qur’an scholar, but the little bit I know indicates that Christianity stands on firmer ground (historical, theological, logical, etc.)
Hey Mark!
Wow!
I found your site because I googled “doubting christian” because I wanted to see if anyone could offer me any reasons to not totally and completely abandon christianity. I haven’t found any yet.
Most christians seem to think that all they have to do is quote a verse and everything is okay. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way if you are questioning the verse being quoted.
I’m conflicted because I attend church with my wife and I enjoy it. But then I think about the fact that I don’t have any proof that any of the things recorded in the bible ever happened. Then I think, “no proof doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, only that there’s no proof that it did” ARRRRGGGGG!!!!
I have settled somewhat on Deism as I still think the universe was created. I just can’t get with “it just happened”.
Anyway, I was perversely comforted by the fact that you have apparently wound up at the same place I am concerning christianity.
Scott,
May I offer you some reasons not to totally and completely abandon Christianity? Some reasons could be:
1. It actually could be true. So wouldn’t it be worth it to seriously investigate it. This could be a way that God is trying to get you to think about Christianity more, so that one day you can help someone else out.
2. You will definitely grow in your relationship with your wife as you struggle and work through your doubt. It will force you to discuss tough issues.
3. You will grow as a person as you investigate Christianity more.
Don’t too quickly make a decisions either way. There are smart and thoughtful people on both sides of this issue. Many would say that being a Deist is a great first step, because if you believe there is a god what is the next rational belief. I would have to say Christianity is the best one out there.
I’m glad that you have found some comfort finding someone in the same place as yourself. When I started doubting Christianity I was discourage that I couldn’t find anyone in my shoes. It seemed that the resources out there were either Christian evangelists or Atheistic evangelists. That’s one of the reasons why I started this site.
Good luck Scott, and be encouraged.
Hi Scott, welcome to the club!
Thanks guys.
I’m not as optimistic as you seem to be about the possibility of xtianity being true Mark. For me there is just too much that I’m supposed to just believe whether it can be verified or not, whether it make sense or not. I’m too sceptical for that.
That’s what makes it hard. I wish I could go back to believing, life would certainly be much easier emotionally, spiritually, relationship wise, everything would be so much more peaceful if I could just go back.
Scott, I agree that there is a lot that requires belief whether or not it can be verified or not. But there is a continuum from complete verification to no verification, and you have to find out where you are comfortable at. I think it’s unrealistic to have complete verification or knowledge of God, but on the other hand I would like some evidence before I believe in something. That’s why I’m trying to search as best I can. But at the same time, I need to be careful that I don’t keep moving the goal post either.
I too understand how hard this is, and wish I could go back to believing. However, if I’m truly honest with myself, I don’t think I would want to have the blind faith I once had. And if by some act of God my faith comes back, it will be a more robust and stronger faith.
“However, if I’m truly honest with myself, I don’t think I would want to have the blind faith I once had.”
Mark, I feel exactly the same way, I just wrote a note to myself this morning: “But I can’t say I wish I could go back, knowing what I know now.” I wrote more down, but basically was wondering if I would want to forget all I’ve learned the past two years in exchange for a greater level of happiness or meaning in my life.
I understand what you are saying about moving the goal.
When I started this journey, I was a believer who had gone through a bad experience concerning doctrine. So I decided that I would read and research the bible for myself and let the chips fall where they may. What I meant was, “whichever denomination comes closest to what I understand the bible to say is the one I will align with”.
However, as I started my research on Joseph (I picked him because I figured nobody could get as powerful as he was and there not be any evidence of him), I kept coming up empty. I researched more characters, same result.
I still say, as best as I know myself, that what I am looking for is reasonable evidence of the bible. In my mind, if I can validate what can be validated, say Joseph and the other major players, then I have a reasonable basis to believe what hasn’t yet been validated. My problem is that I cannot validate any of it. I cannot find any proof of any of the OT major players. This is a problem for me because if there is no Moses/Exodus, then there is no Torah handed down from god on the mountain. And if that isn’t true then the rest of the story, right up through and including Jesus, falls apart. If there is no law, there is no sin; if there is no sin, there are no sinners; if there are no sinners; there is no need for a savior, which make the story of Jesus unnecessary. Short and to the point!
I am sure that not every single thing in the bible can be proven, but I DO expect that a book “inspired by god”, “god breathed”, “men of old spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” would have SOME reasonably verifiable facts. And being the reasonable guy that I am (IMHO!), I asked myself if I confronted a Muslim with the same lack of proof of his religion, would I consider him an idiot (at worst) or just having blind faith (at best) for continuing in Islam. I knew that I would. So I turned the spotlight on myself and stopped calling myself a Christian.
My only question now is whether or not to completely “come out” as it were and let everyone know that I no longer believe or do I continue as I am and think (maybe hope) that somewhere someone will come up with some proof.
And don’t even get me started on the esoteric/spiritual stuff!
Scott,
Would you say you came from a fundamentalist background? It seems that most of the people I have met that have lost their faith have come from more fundamentalist congregations. I don’t know if that is because of numbers or that fundamentalism clashes more with modern reality. Anyway, just wondering.
Interesting that you started with Joseph. You must have read some fascinating books. When I started going through doubt, I personally made sure to stay far away from the OT for several reasons: 1) I knew Gen 1-10 couldn’t be taken literally 2) OT is farther removed from modern history than the NT 3) I knew that many scholars didn’t hold the OT to be always literally true. 4) I knew the OT was going to make even more questions for me.
I understand that finding no evidence for Joseph and other characters was very frustrating, but did you find no evidence for the historical Jesus? I’ve found some hope because there is strong evidence for a real historical Jesus. I was actually surprised that both believing and unbelieving scholars agree that there actually was a man named Jesus who was crucified. Whether he rose from the dead is a completely different question though.
Regarding your comment about sin, I would disagree. I know I sin all the time. Granted one may have different definitions of sin, but I’m often convicted of the bad things I do. However, I don’t think I’ve sinned against some cosmic creator, but I’ve sinned against other people. I think this view that sin is against God leads people to ask for forgiveness from God in the privacy of their prayers instead of asking for forgiveness from the person they actually sinned against.
Regarding the inspiration of scriptures, I have typically taken this loosely. Inspired in that this is what God wanted for us to know about Him, but not that it is literally true. I think this is because at an early age I knew that parts of the Bible couldn’t be taken as literally true. However, sometimes the “stories” can have truth and meaning in them. I sometimes find this insulting, and think that God shouldn’t treat us like babies by telling us “stories” that have some sort of “message”. But maybe this is the best way?
For instance, was Jesus’ crucifixion all about the physical pain and suffering or was it more for our understanding? Can we really grasp what the separation of the Trinity meant? Or what taking on our sins meant? Wouldn’t an infinite God have to talk to us like babies?
Where I think the “stories” and factual evidence need to split is in the resurrection of Jesus. If Jesus’ resurrection is just a “story”, than that makes Christianity pretty worthless. So that has been where I have tried to focus. Where real and meaningful evidence may lay.
Regarding “come out”, I have decided to partially come out. For a long time I didn’t tell people (except for my wife) because I was sure that I would come out of it. But as months turned into years, I have slowly told more and more people. I have no real advice on what’s best, because I think it depends a lot on the situation. However, I think doubt/unbelief can get very lonely and isolating if you don’t tell anyone. In addition, by “coming out” I have run into great people who have been great resources in my search for truth.
I never thought much about it, but yes, I do have a fundamentalist background. I guess it makes sense that we would make up the greater part of the deconverted population because we took the Bible literally and once we discovered that it couldn’t be read that way, we became disillusioned and left.
I take it from your comments that fundamentalism is not your background. I cannot imagine a fundamentalist church teaching that Gen 1-10 is not literal.
I have read some very interesting books. Not on Joseph specifically, but on bible inerrancy from both the believer’s and the nonbeliever’s perspective. Interestingly, I began with Dan Barker’s “godless” because he is a former preacher and I could relate to his experiences from his time as a believer and when he began to doubt. At the time I read him, I was still a believer, so many of the arguments he made about the bible and christianity upset me. But as I have continued to research things, I find myself more and more in agreement with him although I am not ready to join FFRF.
I do recall reading one book in particular “Egypt and Bible History” by Charles Aling and I read it because it was written by a believer to believers. I was sure he would provide me the proofs I was looking for concerning Joseph, Moses, the exodus. But he didn’t and as I have studied more I find that most Christian apologists don’t either. My experience has been that they either infer biblical facts from similar historical facts or they offer “reasons” (excuses in my view) as to why there are no facts. This is unacceptable.
I simply started with Joseph because, as I said, he seemed to me to be the earliest biblical figure for whom I would reasonably expect to find historical data. As important as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are to Judaism and Christianity, in general world history, they are just people. I haven’t found any reason to believe that the historians of their day would have written about them.
As to sin, since my definition of sin came from I John, I considered sin to be a violation of God’s law. No law, no sin. That’s not to say there is no right or wrong, there’s just no “God’s law” that requires appeasement.
As to your question about Christ, no, I have not found significant historical evidence of him. There ARE mentions of him, for example Josephus, but when I looked into that I found that there were only two mentions of Jesus by Josephus and one of those two mentions was suspect because Josephus called Jesus the Christ which is something a Jew of his day simply would not do. So that leaves one credible mention. Hardly compelling. Furthermore, don’t you think that if Jesus was who the NT claims and did what the NT claims there would simply be more anecdotal evidence? For example, according to the Matthew’s gospel when Jesus was crucified the graves of holy people were opened. Now wouldn’t you think that someone, somewhere would have written down, “You’re not gonna believe this, but grandpa came back from the dead today!” Also, Paul argues in I Cor 15 that 500 people saw Jesus after his resurrection. But none of them wrote one word about it? And so my research went.
I was never one to take the bible allegorically (due to my fundamentalism and my tendency to be a black-or-white person) therefore it has never occurred to me to assign “spiritual but not literal” meanings to the stories. Either the bible is the word of god or its not.
Thanks for your comments. Its nice to talk with someone who, while is in the same boat I am, doesn’t live in the same quarters!
Scott, I can relate to much of what you wrote. For me, the book of Daniel was the proverbial straw that broke this camel’s back. I spent probably the better part of 18 months trying to understand liberal/progressive Christianity, and I can honestly say I think I get it a bit now. In the beginning I was like, wow, this is a different religion than the one I was in, and I still feel that way. I do not have the faith or belief of a Christian per se, but share a lot in common with liberal Christians, and it is a good place to be because it gives me and my wife some common ground. Not that we are in a super liberal church, but at least a lot more so than where they were.
Good luck with your journey! It can be a lot of fun really, compared to employing the pretzel logic to hold literalism together, and despite the turmoil that can go with changing faith and relationships.
I hadn’t thought about Daniel, but if I apply the same reasoning I used with Joseph, I would think that it should be just as easy to find some type of evidence for him if he actually existed. He got to what, viceroy of the Babylonian kingdom or something like that? Surely there would be some type of paper trail, to-do notes, legal briefs, decrees he signed, that kind of thing.
I take it from your post that other than personal curiosity, I can save my time. Would that be a fair statement?
I’ve said on another site I hang out on that I am coming to the conclusion that the “Jews” didn’t exist as we know them until ca. 600 BCE. My survey (I have in no way done exhaustive research) of verifiable history of Israel all seems to dead end about the time of the Babylonian captivity.
To be honest my study of Daniel was regarding the fulfillment of the prophesies in Daniel, not his existance. The prophesies, in my opinion, were written during the time the events were taking place, not 350 years prior. I think that is pretty easy to substantiate. Though it needn’t take away from the inspiration of the book, it can still be seen as allegory for the people at that time. As for the actual existence of Daniel, I have never read of any outside verification, but I have never looked into it either. I actually like the idea that the stories were based on legends of real people at some time.
I have read parts of a couple of books about Jewish history by archaeologists. I agree that the Jews didn’t exists *as we know them* until around 600 BC, but there may be evidence for a later date. The difference is whether they are the people depicted in the bible in 600 BC, and I don’t think they are. William Dever pretty harshly rebukes revisionists who would say all of Israel’s history was fabricated at a later date. At the same time, he is not one to view the bible as divinely inspired or inerrant, just that the stories contain fragments of real people and probably some real events. Israel Finkelstein is a bit further towards the revisionist end of the spectrum, but still relatively moderate. Both write at a layman’s level (else I wouldn’t have probably read them).
hi, i’m new on here.. just searching for support after a rough spot in my relatively new return to faith. i’m having trouble of more of the spiritual-type right now vs the intellectual (though i have a good deal of that too) basically whether I believe Jesus is the son of God or not.. strangely enough earlier today I had some questions answered (i thought) earlier today and felt very close to God and faith… only to have a crisis after watching a couple national geographic channel specials on Jesus: The Man and Jesus- Arrested, which pointed a few discrepancies and had a theory about Jesus basically being a very effective revolutionary who was also focused on protesting Rome’s occupancy. I feel like this theory doesn’t entirely match up either… but it was enough to shake me somewhat. It seems here’s something in my heart that won’t let me get away from Christianity.. I feel like i know Christ in my heart, though part of it and my mind are struggling.. so I’m not giving up yet. It’s encouraging being on here though, reading about these concerns and knowing i’m not alone… i really like how thoughtfully this seems to be run and how everyone is remaining civil and tolerant. so, hi, its nice to “meet” all of you.
also… this may sound naive, as i’m not particuarly well-versed in this period of history (biblical/pre-biblical times), but are there actually sufficient records for most of what happened during that period? To my understanding (again, admittedly not great), there are not alot of records that exist for many historical figures (especially ones that were not rulers, who made a great effort to leave documentation) or events. I think alot of the history of this time has been pieced together painstakingly from a considerably meager amount of records. Is this true? Just wanted to point out that maybe lack of records for biblical figures may not be as big of a problem as it may seem…
Elle,
Thanks for visiting. I’m glad that you can feel that you are not alone. Doubt is tough already as it is. Feeling alone in the struggle makes it even worse. I’d like to make a suggestion if you are open to it. Be careful about basing your beliefs/faith on what you see on National Geographic. They often pick story lines and commentators that are entertaining, and not always the ones who are more historical accurate. I’d recommend Mark Roberts‘ book. Also, remember that relationships take time and at times are uncertain. And as you can imagine belief in an unseen deity is probably the toughest type.
Hi Elle,
Welcome to the site. While it’s not super active, some of us have email notifications set so you should get replies to any questions you have.
As to your question about history, my advice is to tell you to study for yourself. With the Internet you can find plenty of credible resources that should allow you to draw your own conclusions. In addition, the very nice thing about the net is that you don’t have to fight your way through hundreds of pages of history books in order to answer a specific question.
All the best to you,
Scott
thanks for the support guys
. Mark- i definitely don’t think it’s ggod to take national geo at face value, the specials i saw were put together by people who may have had thier own agenda and theorize accordingly, it just kind of opened up some of my own questions, but i think i came out of it a bit stronger, maybe. and i’m doing okay.. still have some trouble but am just taking it slow and trying to trust God. i hope you all are doing well too, you will be in my prayers.
Thanks Elle for the prayers. I just wish they worked
because spiritually, I haven’t done well for 3 1/2 years and concider myself an unbeliever. But thanks for the good thoughts anyway 
Mark,
I just want to commend you again for generating a blog that seems to let people question their faith in what seems to be a “safe” atmosphere. I like the fact that I don’t see a ton of bashing from either side. I’ve just grown so weary of “the great debate”. It seems that we gain so much more insight and wisdom when we can walk along side of others (no matter what their beliefs or persuasions may be).
You are probably already very aware of this web site, but (as a Christian), I’ve really come to love some of his more provocative videos (www.recycleyourfaith.com) (check out the ones in his “graveyard”). I like the fact that many of his videos (and the people in them) tend to leave us in a place of tension, rather than satisfaction and complacency. For whatever reason, this feels more appropriate than the black-and-white answers that I’ve so often heard bantered about (more so from the evangelical camp).
Anyway, I just want to encourage you in your search over this next year (or so) into the resurrection. I love your questions, but I especially love your humility. IMHO, I don’t think one can ever over-emphasize the importance of humility in one’s search for truth.
Jason
Jason, thanks for referencing recycleyourfaith, i really enjoyed the videos i’ve watched so far. One of them opened up a can of worms for me though, and I was hoping to start a discussion on it, as I can’t get it out of my mind…
I watched the video “What’s the point of Jesus?”(which you can watch here http://www.recycleyourfaith.com/2010/03/29/whats-the-point-of-jesus/ ), which discusses the idea of substitution/satisfaction atonement… the man in the video, Bart Campolo, talks about how the concept that God needed to kill somebody to forgive our sins doesn’t make much sense. In a way I agree, but think there may be other ideas that can align with christianty to explain why Jesus came and died.. still working this out.. what are your thoughts?
Hey Elle,
Some of Craig’s videos on “recycle your faith” are very provocative indeed. This particular one (along with all the other’s in his “graveyard”) have been banned/censored by various Christian organizations, due to their “heretical” nature. Craig’s point in all of his videos (much like Mark here on his blog) is to start dialog (not debate). So, Craig creates sound bytes to stimulate dialog, not necessarily because he agrees with the person he is interviewing. With all of that said, I personally thought Bart’s interview about Jesus not coming to die was a little weird and I personally don’t echo Bart’s same sentiment regarding this issue. Although, I did like listening to Bart’s perspective. The thing that I’ve found most useful with Craig’s web site is the discussion is seems to generate among the viewers (even behind the scenes).
One more thing, before I sign off… What do you think Jesus thought his purpose was when he walked the earth? I know a few places where he says things like this: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” or “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners” or “just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” or “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.” In other words, I think Jesus had many purposes for being here (in his own mind) and I believe he thought that “having to die as a ransom” was one of those purposes.
Jason
Scott:
I’m not sure which ideas are most important to you, but I wanted to comment on a few things you said.
About the Old Testament: my impression is that nobody had any idea what was going on with the Jews back then (except for the Jews). It is some nicely-preserved text, though, and I’m sure it didn’t arise from thin air. Kenneth Kitchen has a book on the potential reliability of stuff in the OT which I haven’t yet read, but looks interesting.
About sin: I’m sure the Jews had a law. Call it “the” law, if you will. I don’t know if Moses actually carried tablets down from a mountain, but there’s no reason to believe they didn’t have a law. They were big into that.
About Jesus: unlike the OT, I’d say the existence of Jesus is pretty well-supported. There are only a handful of maniacs out there (atheist or not) trying to deny that. If you wipe away the gospels, yes, you won’t find much other textual evidence, but the gospels are pretty good. What other textual evidence would there be about a guy like that? The gospels were written by people, so there are naturally going to be some embellishments (possibly a few stories that aren’t true) and contradictions in details. But while I doubt a lot of things, I see no reason to suggest that Christianity came spiraling out of the mid-east without even so much as a real live Jesus behind it. One can argue that they mythologized him completely, but I don’t think one can reasonably argue that he was never there.
I think people are a bit mixed up with “taking the Bible allegorically.” It’s possible for something to be factually inaccurate, but nonetheless literal, and serving the function of a real story. I don’t have a problem with identifying some parts of the Bible as more factually accurate than others, because that’s what people did when they put the canon together in the first place.
Steve,
I would agree with what you said. But Christians and non-Christians could agree with that. The problem is that I don’t see the evidence to believe in a supernatural all powerful God.
Mark ,
I think the evidence for God is pretty good, but I find the evidence for Christianity to be (how should I say this), difficult for me to accept. I don’t see much hope in life without Christ, but……….. It’s the stories in the Old Testament that really, really bother me. The one that I find horrifically difficult and childish is the story of Noah and the flood. I just shutter at the details when I read the story and find myself angry and embarrassed… Now, with that said, I do see some interesting stuff being bantered about by the Holocene Impact Working Group:
http://tsun.sscc.ru/hiwg/PABL/2007_Discover%20Magazine.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/science/14WAVE.html?_r=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_Impact_Working_Group
http://tsun.sscc.ru/hiwg/hiwg.htm
So, what about the evidence for God’s existence……. Why not the Cosmological and Teleological argument combined in a sort of scientific/philosophical way? This is not a proof, but I think it’s very strong evidence that points in a pretty good direction towards theism….. It’s obvious to me that scientists now see evidence for some major, major fine tuning and in order to get around the implications of this evidence, it seems like they make their leap from methodological naturalism to philosophical naturalism in regards to various multi-verse theories. It seems to me that physicists are making a tremendous leap of faith (with ZERO evidence) in their assertions of a multi-verse…. There was a very cool special for which I’ve lost the original link, but here is a snippet talking about fine-tuning that I found very illuminating:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnuxCZrtxq4
These are the kinds of things that make me feel that I am not as irrational (for believing what I believe) than the rest of humanity…..
Jason
Hey Steve,
I agree that the old testament didn’t arise out of thin air, but keep in mind that in Jewish and Christian circles it is the “Word Of God” and in the circles I used to run in, inerrant. Well, if one is going to claim inerrancy, one has a pretty high standard to meet. And I think verifiable existence of your major characters ought to be one of the tests the “Word Of God” could easily meet.
This dovetails with the point about the law. I don’t necessarily disagree that the Jews (or the people we now know as jews) had a “law”, but again, in Jewish and Christian circles it is “The Law”, i.e., “God’s Law”. Well, that’s a whole different claim than “Jewish traditional laws”.
As stated earlier, I haven’t yet found any compelling evidence for Jesus. There may have been a rabbi named Jesus (Yeshua, actually), but there were many rabbis and messiahs in the 1st century CE. The thing that would have set Jesus apart is his miracles and especially his resurrection. But I cannot find anything to substantiate these things. I have found writings that refer to his followers as people who believe he existed, but so did I!
I do find it interesting that secular sources like the History channel on TV talk about biblical figures as if they actually existed, but I haven’t yet seen one take a critical look at the evidence for their existence.
For example, I find it curious that most verifiable proof of the existence of the Jewish people pretty much begins around the 6th century BCE. What is the historical period of the Jewish people as recorded in the bible? Creation until the 6th century BCE! Don’t you find it a little coincidental that the very period we are supposed to believe is divinely recorded is the period we can’t validate?
Don’t take my word for it, do some research and see what you find. With the internet it won’t take long. For all of his biblical greatness, see how much evidence you can find that King David’s empire ever existed. (Hint: One piece of verifiable evidence). See what you can find about Solomon. What about the magnificent Solomon’s Temple? What about all the other prominent old testament characters?
I’ll tell you. You will find lots of talk about them as if they are factual, but you will have a hard time finding anyone who says, “We know this person existed because we found xxx”.
Therein lies the rub.
Scott
Jason,
The apparent design of the universe is the only thing that keeps me from becoming a full-blown atheist. Otherwise, I have no reason (the agnostic in me) to believe (the atheist in me) that any type of deity exists.
And even looking at a designed universe requires that we infer that God exists or existed. That is too much for some atheists, but for me it is just too far of a leap to say, “BANG! It all just happened!” even over 13 billion years. Maybe they will prove it some day, but probably not in my lifetime.
Your slightly deistic leaning agno-atheist,
Scott
Scott,
Your comments make sense to me. I agree that this seems to be a pretty big problem with all-out atheism. A friend of mine (who is an atheist) really leans heavily on “we’ll know it all someday” and the various multi-verse theories. To be honest, the idea of multi-verse theories almost seem indistinguishable from the concept of heaven and hell (especially if it’s theorized that those other universes can somehow interact with our own in some strangely illusive manner).
Jason
Hey Mark,
I know you had mentioned that you were going to research the resurrection over the course of the next year or so. You may want to reach out to this guy…. Just a thought:
http://www.recycleyourfaith.com/2010/09/27/question-everything/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+RecycleYourFaith+(Recycle+Your+Faith)
Jas
Jason,
Nice little clip. I read Mike’s book for the Resurrection. Unfortunately Mike is going over to the dark (fundamentalist) side with his latest book on the evidence for God. From a look at the table of contents it looks like half the book is anti-science. I’m sure it has to do with the co-editor Dembski, but when you put your name on a book, you have to at least have some knowledge of the subject. So I now have to be extra cautious in what he writes.
On the topic of intelligent design/ belief in God etc, I found this lecture by Rob Bell very interesting. It’s pretty long but I really encourage you to watch the entire thing (it’s a series so the clips are all linked and play consecutively.) Things have not been very easy with “my faith” lately, I’m not sure where I am, if I’m even a ‘Christian’ right now or not, but it’s things like this that keep me connected to it through everything. It’s funny how much controversy there is around Rob Bell, and people screaming heretic, when lately his material is one of the only things right now that gives me hope for remaining in this vein of belief.. anyways what do you guys think?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JePLJbqlbEU&feature=PlayList&p=F2E93B4BEE5C7C88&index=0&playnext=1
Let me start by saying that I was raised a Christian so it has always been in my life. Which some could say gives me bias, but when it comes to the logic of what I’ve discovered as of not too long ago I don’t think bias plays too much of a factor. You be the judge.
I’ve had times when faced with doubt. Off and on. Mostly do to what I see as a failure of youth groups not fully divulging all information. They really should be teaching the parts of the bible that can be confusing if not an outright challenge to your faith. Most of the challenges can be explained pretty easily through logical reasoning. But from what I observe in others I tend to think more deeply and dwell longer on the complex issues. The average Christian may have a harder time with some of these challenges. Though logic helps A LOT, faith will always be required.
A while ago I read the description of a book called “The Privileged Planet”. The description talked about the very specific set of laws the universe has that are REQUIRED for life to exist. I did not read the book, but it got me thinking heavily and here are some of the things I’ve concluded which heavily reinforces my believe in God.
So really there are only two choices of how the universe came about that I’ve found made any logical sense so far.
1. God
2. Infinite Dimensions
One universe with no creator is as impossible as anything can possibly be. Here is my logic on this…
In a universe that came about out of pure random chance nothing is a given. This means everything that exists and the state of that existence is by pure chance. So for every single thing that exists there was a role-of-the-dice if you will. Then there was another roll-of-the-dice for the strength or behavior of that thing. Some examples…
Item – Setting (May be more than one.)
Light – Speed
Gravity – Strength
Mass – Density
Electromagnetism – Strength
Water – Density and Properties (Expands when Solid)
Protons
Electrons
On and on and on the list goes.
Now take out any of these things and life is impossible anywhere in the entire universe. Then take the setting of any of these things, change it, and life is impossible anywhere in the entire universe. You get the idea.
It is impossible to have life given one shot of pure randomization.
So with either choice, God or infinite dimensions, you end up unable to prove or see either.
Then lets take into account a couple other things….
1. Given the enormous complexity of the most basic cell possible. The likelihood of one forming by pure accident is approaching impossibility itself. If you don’t understand how a cell works, replicates, gets energy, etc, then I suggest you study it. It is amazingly complex. Good luck with that happening by accident.
2. Life is not simply the alignment of the proper elements into a functioning system. If this were the case it would be possible for machines to one day be self-aware instead of just movie fiction. Let say that we did come into existence by pure chance. Just because we are a complex system of elements working together in an intelligent way does not mean we have life. We are beyond a complex machine. A computer will never really have life, and we will never really be able to create it. The best a machine can do is imitate life. Because it takes more than programming a complex system with information to make it alive.
Given these things I see it as blatantly obvious that God exists. You’d have to turn a blind eye to this logic to not see how impossible it is that we merely came about by accident.
Now once you’ve determined that God does exist, the next step is determining how you believe he interacted with the world he created.