UntemperedSchism
Newly Faithful
I had a conversation with one of the ministers at my church this weekend about crises of faith and the idea that faith is a state of mind that should abhor proof and the search for it.
As an atheist I had opportunity on almost a daily basis (usually on Twitter) to argue with believers and it never struck me as odd that the vast majority of them had constructed or utilized pre-constructed and vastly complex arguments for the existence of God. In fact, the practice of religious apologetics goes back essentially to the birth of mainstream acceptance of monotheism. Defenders of the faith; attempting to use logic to prove God exists for millennia.
As a newly baptized Christian, I have to ask, why?
Everywhere in the three big monotheistic traditions the importance of faith is extolled. The idea that, by believing in something that I cannot possibly prove, I undergo a transformative experience by that very thing, is a staple of Christianity in particular. Jesus is constantly lamenting that his disciples don't fully believe or understand the scope of His power and condemns those who blatantly refuse to believe without evidence.
The fact that He makes a distinction between those who come to believe after seeing a miracle, and those who will not believe until they do is interesting to me, and sparked the discussion I mentioned up top. Those who need evidence in order to believe don't actually have faith if they receive that evidence; they have knowledge. They've ruined the process of questioning that faith requires by demanding answers. If we're right the answers will come; if we're wrong it won't matter. What's the rush?
We spend an incredible amount of time trying to find and offer proof. Whole institutions of sham science (like the I.D. crowd or Creation "Science" or Y.E. Geology) have sprung up like weeds to both bring ridicule upon Christians in general, and do tremendous damage to the intellectual development of our children; all in the name of "proving" that God is real. To justify faith.
I don't understand why there is so much blindness at play here. One of the most important commandments placed upon us by Christ is the requirement to simply believe; not to seek out knowledge, but to trust that His message was true and that the little voice that informs our experience and choices is the Spirit of Truth guiding us when we ask.
We are a people commanded to believe, not to know. Is the experience of faith not enough in itself? Isn't the process of asking the questions; trying to better understand and listen to God, not more important than expending time trying to justify those attempts to people who either aren't there yet or might never be?
You hold open a door for the person behind you, you don't spend half an hour trying to drag them through it.
Maybe if we put less pressure on ourselves to be right in the eyes of everyone else, we'd be less inclined to periods of doubt.
Thoughts?
As an atheist I had opportunity on almost a daily basis (usually on Twitter) to argue with believers and it never struck me as odd that the vast majority of them had constructed or utilized pre-constructed and vastly complex arguments for the existence of God. In fact, the practice of religious apologetics goes back essentially to the birth of mainstream acceptance of monotheism. Defenders of the faith; attempting to use logic to prove God exists for millennia.
As a newly baptized Christian, I have to ask, why?
Everywhere in the three big monotheistic traditions the importance of faith is extolled. The idea that, by believing in something that I cannot possibly prove, I undergo a transformative experience by that very thing, is a staple of Christianity in particular. Jesus is constantly lamenting that his disciples don't fully believe or understand the scope of His power and condemns those who blatantly refuse to believe without evidence.
The fact that He makes a distinction between those who come to believe after seeing a miracle, and those who will not believe until they do is interesting to me, and sparked the discussion I mentioned up top. Those who need evidence in order to believe don't actually have faith if they receive that evidence; they have knowledge. They've ruined the process of questioning that faith requires by demanding answers. If we're right the answers will come; if we're wrong it won't matter. What's the rush?
We spend an incredible amount of time trying to find and offer proof. Whole institutions of sham science (like the I.D. crowd or Creation "Science" or Y.E. Geology) have sprung up like weeds to both bring ridicule upon Christians in general, and do tremendous damage to the intellectual development of our children; all in the name of "proving" that God is real. To justify faith.
I don't understand why there is so much blindness at play here. One of the most important commandments placed upon us by Christ is the requirement to simply believe; not to seek out knowledge, but to trust that His message was true and that the little voice that informs our experience and choices is the Spirit of Truth guiding us when we ask.
We are a people commanded to believe, not to know. Is the experience of faith not enough in itself? Isn't the process of asking the questions; trying to better understand and listen to God, not more important than expending time trying to justify those attempts to people who either aren't there yet or might never be?
You hold open a door for the person behind you, you don't spend half an hour trying to drag them through it.
Maybe if we put less pressure on ourselves to be right in the eyes of everyone else, we'd be less inclined to periods of doubt.
Thoughts?
