Rational Agnostic
Well-Known Member
In John 20:29, Jesus supposedly states "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
In other words, this is a verse praising gullibility as a virtue. It is, according to Christianity, apparently virtuous to believe extraordinary claims that are unsupported. Why is this the case? I find it very strange, especially considering the fact that many Christians are just as skeptical as anyone else about everything, except the claims of their religion.
For instance, if I told you that there was, say, a plane crash in your neighborhood, most of you probably wouldn't believe me, at least not without first checking the evidence and *seeing* for yourself. Yet, when a less believable claim is made about a guy who, 2000 years ago, supposedly died and became alive again three days later, with the only evidence to support this claim being the contradictory reports of documents written by anonymous authors decades or more after the alleged events took place, these same Christians who are skeptical about everything else will believe that these events took place. Do you see the inconsistency? Why do so many Christians believe that gullibility is a virtue when it comes to believing the claims of their religion, yet remain skeptical about much more believable claims? Also, why should gullibility be a virtue at all? Gullibility, or "faith" in the absence of evidence is useless, and helps no one. If anything, it should be considered a "vice" and not a virtue.
In other words, this is a verse praising gullibility as a virtue. It is, according to Christianity, apparently virtuous to believe extraordinary claims that are unsupported. Why is this the case? I find it very strange, especially considering the fact that many Christians are just as skeptical as anyone else about everything, except the claims of their religion.
For instance, if I told you that there was, say, a plane crash in your neighborhood, most of you probably wouldn't believe me, at least not without first checking the evidence and *seeing* for yourself. Yet, when a less believable claim is made about a guy who, 2000 years ago, supposedly died and became alive again three days later, with the only evidence to support this claim being the contradictory reports of documents written by anonymous authors decades or more after the alleged events took place, these same Christians who are skeptical about everything else will believe that these events took place. Do you see the inconsistency? Why do so many Christians believe that gullibility is a virtue when it comes to believing the claims of their religion, yet remain skeptical about much more believable claims? Also, why should gullibility be a virtue at all? Gullibility, or "faith" in the absence of evidence is useless, and helps no one. If anything, it should be considered a "vice" and not a virtue.