Evaluating Pastor Paul Washer’s Advice To Doubters

 

Advice for the “person who wants to believe, but they don’t, or are trying and they can’t.”

In this video Paul Washer says,

“True faith is not the elimination or removal of all doubt.”

This is considered by Paul Washer as a reliable approach to the truth claims of Christianity. Faith, or a desire to believe, is the recommended pathway to the truth. Now, let’s think this through a bit more. If true faith is not the elimination or removal of all doubt, is this then as a result setting one up to make a decision that isn’t sufficiently objective in nature?

In other words we have 1) The truth claims of Christianity being met with 2) A form of belief and/or faith that need not be arrived at in an objective manner. It can derive simply from some stated desire for Christianity to be true. Does this seem like a fair representation?

“Faith and repentance are both Christian virtues, now like all virtue they are subject to sanctification.”

What this appears to be implying is that a “faith approach” to the truth claims of Christianity just needs to start somewhere with something, namely, a desire to believe. From there sanctification is assumed to strengthen one’s belief over time.

Now, I have another relevant yet challenging question. Is this idea of sanctification arrived at objectively? If not, we can consider this belief to be an additional assumption that is arrived at subjectively. So, now we have the idea of exercising faith and assuming a process of sanctification as the recommended approach to the truth claims of Christianity.

Does this approach convey any potential for being logically problematic? Is this a reliable way to arrive at the truth? I’ll let my readers ponder that for themselves.

“The fact that you are now desiring God and wanting to know God is evidence that God is already at work in you. And He who began a good work in you will finish it.”

In response to this it can be asked, Pastor Paul, does one’s desire to believe and know a God truly make it evident that this God exists and is at work within people? So, with that reasoning, if one is desiring to believe and know one of the Hindu gods, is this evidence that one or more of the Hindu gods are at work behind the scenes? In the end, would Pastor Paul be willing to apply this standard outside of a Christian context? If not, perhaps this logic is more likely faulty and should be avoided?

“If you find that there is a desire to seek the Lord genuinely within you, He is already at work in you.”

Again, is this being offered by Pastor Paul from a place of objectivity or subjectivity? Which is more likely in this instance?

“It’s your prerogative to seek Him, (God), but it is His prerogative, when He decides, to be found.”

Now here’s another important question to add into the mix. Going by this logic, is it then up to each seeker of God to subjectively decide the moment at which they have found God? At which God decides to be found by them?

It needs to be asked, if this is the case, is this a reliable standard by which to arrive at the truth? It seems that people give many different subjective descriptions of what their so called “God moment” is or was. I’m brought to wonder, is this a way to discover truth or is this a way to cultivate and enhance belief out of some meaningful subjective experience or experiences?

“Where you are right now, with what you can believe Him, and how you can, follow Him, just, with whatever you have, keep going on, keep going on, keep going on, He’ll make Himself known to you.”

At this point, any objective seeker of the truth deserves to ask, how? How is this not potentially a recipe for erroneous thinking and belief? It’s a worthy question because the bar appears to be set rather low in this instance. Whatever one’s subjective experience of God becomes, no need to question. Latch on! The assumption is, “that’s God! That’s His voice, that’s His answer!” “That moment you had during worship, don’t forget that. That moment you were overwhelmed with feelings of hope and love, don’t forget that. Pick the mountain top moment, pick the heightened emotional experience, call it God and rest in faith. Rest in assurance. It’s more real than anything.” Well, maybe, maybe not, right?

“If you desire to be saved, you can be.”

Finally, I think I would slightly agree, however, the question is not whether one can become convinced that they are saved. That happens a lot. Especially with the type of questionable reasoning we’ve been examining here. The question is whether this is the reality of what is going on when people approach the claims of Christianity in this way? Are we encountering an approach to the truth that relies more or less on objectivity? What is the price that one pays in doing so? It’s a valid question, a valid question indeed.

My conclusion is that there is no issue or problem at all if one experiences doubt towards the truth claims of Christianity. In the larger scheme of things it’s good to ask, “Is Christianity guilty or not guilty of offering truth claims that can be arrived at objectively in the world? In my recent conversations with other Christians, most of them would agree with a ruling of “not guilty.”

I think that’s quite a significant admission. It means that people are arriving at their belief that Christianity is reliable, subjectively, rather than objectively. It’s a gamble. Well, if it is a gamble and a question mark on whether Christianity is true, is anyone really at fault for doubting? Perhaps in a case like that, this God would want to consider rewarding those who doubt? We are after all attempting to be cautious about how to best arrive at true beliefs.

Do we doubters and skeptics deserve a little credit? I guess we’ll find out sooner or later.

 

Christian Conversion (Part 2) What Could It Be?

“But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” -Titus 3:4-7

Continuing on from my previous post, if Christian conversion is not a supernatural process, what is it? How can we best understand it? In the case that we are mistaken, in example, if it is the case that we are unable to discern between God and a deep intuitive feeling, then it is important to grasp that this may be the best way to sum up what faith is psychologically.

This sense of the Spirit of God dwelling within us, whether that seems more accompanied by certain feelings or not, could simply be, at best, a deep and heartfelt sense of intuition. An intuition that could be failing us as a barometer for truth because of the distinct possibility that past miracle claims and claims to divinity cannot be guaranteed as either reliable or legitimate.

The New Testament seems to teach that receiving the Holy Spirit is a kind of guarantee of one’s salvation, but many honest believers, including myself when I believed, admittedly have a difficult time knowing this claim tangibly. That is, in a way that can be confirmed as reliable. It is recognized that this is what Scripture seems to teach, but as to whether one can be reliably certain that they have the Holy Spirit, well, that too often becomes a matter taken on faith.

One may be beginning to notice a pattern here? Regarding New Testament miracles, including the resurrection, and regarding Christ’s claims to divinity, the question remains, can we make a definitive ruling that such claims are reliable? If so, what is our process for determining that?

Then as it relates to discerning whether one has the Holy Spirit this conundrum pops up yet again. How is it that I can reliably know that I do in fact have the Holy Spirit? It begins to be a matter of not whether we desire to believe these claims, but are these claims in fact presenting themselves as without a doubt able to be relied upon? Are these claims, as a rule, true in their essence? If so, how can we know this for ourselves?

The alternative to this supernatural interpretation, again, could be that at best what Christian conversion appears to be is a heartfelt sense of intuition that wants, perhaps even feels like it needs Christianity to be true. This sentiment is often expressed in worship.

“I need Thee every hour, teach me Thy will.”

At the core of the gospel message it is stressed that one of our greatest human needs is being met. The need to be forgiven. The need to be reconciled to God. Now, this is probably deserving of another blog post. What human needs is Christianity claiming to meet? What role does this play in our ability to distinguish between reliable and potentially unknowable information?

It is certainly a tedious process to begin the journey of attempting to discern how reliable a set of claims present themselves to be? What can we know personally? How certain can we be? Once we’ve determined how certain we are, based upon what can be known, how should this inform belief? What does this reveal about a mindset of faith in contrast to these important questions about determining reliability?

As a reminder, here’s what we are trying to determine.

1) Assuming that you presently believe that Christian conversion is a supernatural process, how are you attempting to rule out the distinct possibility that it could simply be a deep sense of intuition, one in which you deeply desire for these claims to be true without actually knowing it?

2) How important is it to be able to know to some degree that Christian claims are reliable? Does it seem fair that discerning reliability would serve to best determine how to judge whether it is true?

3) If, while in the process of investigation it would seem that the reliability of these claims is unable to be determined, how does this go on to inform your sense of certainty? Are you more certain or less certain? What is the relationship between certainty and belief?

Thank you for taking the time to consider these important questions. Perhaps if you know something that I don’t know, something that deeply convinces you that Christian claims can be determined with a high degree of certainty as reliable, you’ll want to share that with me below? We may or may not see eye to eye in how to determine reliability, but I am definitely always open to other arguments.

By the way, I’ve decided that I will be doing a third post to this blog series. We’ll be exploring the human needs that Christianity claims to meet and trying to gauge how deeply that may come into play when informing one’s sense of certainty? Should be a pretty fun topic so don’t go away!

Christian Conversion: Part 1: Questioning Assumptions

There is a mindset, yes, dare I say it, a process of religious conversion that can be explained. Particularly, the supernatural language that is used within Christianity to incite and explain a conversion response. I am a person that has, as a rule, reevaluated many things about my own past.

In my attempt to be transparent and demonstrate how it is I believe that I was mistaken, and how many others today are likely mistaken, I have come to pinpoint as exactly as I can how it is that supernatural conversion can be explained naturally.

I write this to Christians who believe that they are born-again. Evangelical Christianity, especially, stresses this idea that becoming born-again is in fact a supernatural experience. It is quite literally thought of as God transforming the human heart. It is quite literally this idea that through the process of regeneration God is now, for the first time, residing within a person’s heart.

It is important to be able to extract a big assumption out of this. That assumption being that coming to Christ is without a doubt a supernaturally driven event? The point I’d like to stress with my Christian friends is this, it might not be. It truly, as a matter of serious evaluation might not be.

It may feel to us as a matter of deepest heartfelt longing and desire that it is God. God speaking to us, God moving us, God leading us, God transforming us from within, but whatever these feelings, these inklings, these intuitions are, it may in fact be all that they are.

We need to take note of this, we need to be aware of this. WE CAN BE MISTAKEN. Especially as it relates to seemingly supernatural phenomena. So it is that I now have a challenge for the Christian. How is it that you can reliably know for yourself that you have met the living God? Is it important for you to be able to discern this for yourself?

A problem that arises here, both for myself when I believed, the duration of that belief commitment being for ten years, and for those who still believe today, is that this is a bit of a Wizard Of Oz scenario. It appears that we have no idea who or what is behind the curtain, and this should be a matter of concern.

Based on some rather obscure miracle claims from thousands of years ago, we are willing to commit without knowing? To worship and adore without truly knowing whether there is a receiver of it? Even right now many are whispering to themselves, well, that’s the whole point of having faith.

I suppose that at least one is being honest in admitting that they won’t know the truth of these claims until they die, that is, if there even is a chance to know after death? The thing of it is that Christians aren’t taught to live silently. They are taught to spread this message to the world as gospel truth, and this is now where I have a valid contention with faith.

Faith acts as if it is true without knowing it is true. It heralds good news to the world without knowing in all actuality if it is legitimate. To any logician this should raise some red flags. So that’s why I’m now here, working in the trenches, attempting to make it clear just how presumptuous faith appears to be.

To state it plainly, it appears as if faith is all too willing to ignore the process in which we can legitimately come to know a set of claims as true. Like a broken record I tend to stress that there appears to be no valid way to establish whether miracles and claims of divinity are even reliable. This could be a logical disaster.

In part two of this blog post I will delve further into how Christian conversion can go on to be understood as a natural process. It involves concluding differently about basic assumptions and seeing how it plays out in reality. Stay tuned!

Reliability Isn’t Merely Assumed And Then Believed

Miracles, divinity, presence. Say it again with me, miracles, divinity, presence. These are three separate categories which would appear to incite skepticism within many open but cautious inquirers into Christianity as well as into the world’s religions at large.

Contrary to what some folks may think I am actually quite ready, willing, and open to meet my maker if in fact it is accurate to think about my existence in those terms. I am not opposed to a good God existing, but I am also not in favor of giving credence to such beliefs if I cannot gain a reliable foundation from which to build certainty.

When I used to identify as a devoted Christian I was under the mistaken impression that doubt was a terrible trap to fall into for too long. It took a little time for me to adjust to the fact that being skeptical is yet another useful tool in the arsenal for discovering and highlighting what is true.

As it pertains to claims about miracles, the divinity of Jesus, as well as the idea that God is present, more specifically, in the form of the Holy Spirit residing within a person, it would appear that there are good grounds to question whether there is sufficient reason to believe that these claims are inherently reliable.

What makes this project challenging is that I am presenting a case for the Christian to reevaluate how he or she is presently building their own foundation for sufficient certainty. My argument is that Christians do not have sufficient means from which to conclude that miracles, divinity, and presence are reliable avenues from which to gain certainty. I would equate gaining a sense of certainty to forming a belief that Christian claims are in some way reliable.

I will first focus on the nature of these claims and what they appear to require from the Christian in order to solidify belief. From the very onset Christianity requires assumptions that are not necessarily legitimate to accept as it relates to making a solid case for inherent reliability.

Miracles

• At most it would seem that one can only assume that miracle claims are inherently reliable. Assuming that a historical Jesus literally turned water into wine, walked on water, and rose from the dead is not a clear indicator that he actually did. The question remains, would beginning with this assumption actually merit a belief that such claims can be understood as reliable? This brings into question whether gaining a sense of confidence about this issue is warranted in light of an inability to discern what is factual?

Divinity

• At most it would appear that one can only assume that Jesus was divine by accepting Christian doctrine. This does not establish whether he was actually divine. Again, this brings into question what is actually contributing to one’s belief that such claims are even reliable to accept in the first place? How is the Christian bridging the gap between the assumed reliability of this claim, a form of reliability that cannot be guaranteed, and their belief that it is in fact true? Assuming reliability does not actually show that the claim that Jesus was divine is legitimate in its essence. If not even the Christian can gain insight into the inherent reliability of the claim that Jesus was God, what exactly does a Christian understand as their own source of assurance? What rests at the foundation for properly forming one’s beliefs?

Presence

• Let’s narrow in on the claim that a Holy Spirit resides within a person. How is it that a Christian gains certitude about the reliability of this claim? Could it be just as likely that a Holy Spirit does not reside within a believer? That it may not even exist? How would one attempt to discern the difference? How does one evaluate and conclude that such a claim is trustworthy?

It is fair to note that not everyone thinks in the same way. That being said, I am trying to honestly inquire into how an assumption about the inherent reliability of miracles, divinity, and the presence of God in one’s life leads to a sense of assurance? My honest evaluation is that this appears inconsistent. In other words, it appears insufficient and not well supported given what can be known about these matters. I don’t see how assuming reliability should further lead into a belief that these claims have shown themselves to be legitimate in their essence, especially as it relates to these three very questionable categories.

Are You Sure About Your Christian Beliefs?

​

I find this to be an intensely interesting inquiry into trying to understand the essence of one’s confidence as it relates to miracle claims, claims that someone is/was divine, or even that a Holy Spirit is thought to somehow reside within a person. How is it that one gains and remains in a state of assurance, trust, or certitude about the assumed reliability of the claims I mentioned above? 

Let’s just narrow in on the claim that a Holy Spirit resides within a person. How is it that a Christian gains certitude about the reliability of this claim? Could it be just as likely that a Holy Spirit does not reside within you? How would one attempt to discern the difference? How does one evaluate and conclude that such a claim is trustworthy?

The Unifying Element Between Faith And Skepticism

A significant unifying element between faith and skepticism, between belief and unbelief, is that both parties in this debate DO NOT ACTUALLY KNOW THAT A GOD EXISTS. A minority of believing Christians and people of other faith’s do claim to know to some degree or another that God exists, but I estimate that this is not representative of a large majority of people who believe in the existence of God.

I think that this common element is quite telling. The honest answer for so many people all over the world is that WE DO NOT FUNDAMENTALLY KNOW IF GOD EXISTS. If God isn’t a person that we can get to know and relate with, THEN WHY CALL GOD A PERSON? We don’t know God like we know other persons, the personhood of God becomes indistinguishable from an abstraction. An abstraction that looks like this.

Many Christians, Muslims, and Jews do view their devotional lives as an interaction with God on some level, but this is a transaction between God and people that is entirely done in faith.

It is being done in a Hebrews 11:1 fashion.

“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”

People are praying to God, reading their Scriptures, writing in their journals, and living in their communities with a deep conviction that God is leading them and guiding them. I’m of the view that conviction and knowledge are two separate things. WE CAN HAVE A FIRM CONVICTION ABOUT ANYTHING AND STILL BE WRONG ABOUT IT. So it is that THE REWARD OF HAVING FAITH IS NOT THE SAME AS HAVING THE REWARD OF KNOWLEDGE AND RELIABLE EVIDENCE.

Take away the rewarding feelings that accompany faith, and what are these people left with? They are left with the admonition to act as if God exists without even knowing it. If you can’t act as if God exists, you won’t feel rewarded and it may be the beginning of a new search for a more reliable form of assurance.

It may bring one to recognize just how strange and peculiar it is to act as if they are in a relationship with God, without actually knowing it. I mean, think about it, isn’t this a most odd way to talk about a seemingly real relationship? Why must it be so, as in, why is this the normative or dominant way that people relate to God?

It’s as if a large black curtain rests between people and their God. Is He on the other side or not? God is believed to be behind the curtain pulling the strings. He is thought to be listening but He doesn’t talk back. He is thought to be present but He doesn’t put His hand on your shoulder. It is assumed that He loves us, but let’s be honest, feeling alone and waiting on God are sometimes one in the same.

Believers in God, of course, learn to accept this, and it even gets further explained as being a necessary component in the journey of faith. If we can keep acting as if God exists, things will get better in time. “Let patience have its perfect work.” There’s a reason for everything and “God knows those reasons.” “His thoughts are higher than your thoughts, and His ways are higher than your ways.”

These are promises, right? God will fulfill them later in life. Oh, but wait, that’s often too early. Don’t worry, God will show you His ultimate purpose for everything that happened, the good and the bad, the thick and the thin, and He’ll do this AFTER YOU DIE. For what is this life but a few fleeting moments to endure?

If we start acting like this existence is the only thing we truly know of for sure, our faith might be in trouble. “Don’t act like that, friend, remember the promises of God. These promises are reliable, you may not actually know that a God exists, but you can trust Him. He’s reliable. Just keep acting like He is there, He’ll reward you. Just wait and see.”

Faith is a very important component for believing in something without knowing it is true. My friends, just imagine yourself in a world where having faith is a foreign mindset. In other words, instead of advocating faith, most people just honestly respond, “I don’t know,” when asked if God exists.

It’s clear, straightforward, and upfront. It is acceptable for people to simply say, “I don’t know.” They say this without flinching and they instead structure their time and their lives around what can be known.

I say this because if God exists, and if it was evident that God exists, I suspect that there would be a lot more driving that hypothesis than culture. At this time in history it is still culturally normative to believe in God. In other words, it is still culturally normative to act as if God exists without knowing it.

GOD LIVES OR DIES WITH CULTURE, NOT WITH EVIDENCE. If God was evident the debate wouldn’t rage on as it does. Between Theists of all stripes people are arguing about which God or gods to believe in, and between Theists and those who are skeptical we’re still trying to establish if this being even exists. There’s two issues that I see.

1. If God exists, who could it be, and how many are there?

2. Does God even exist at all? Or will God die with the whims of what culture accepts as normative at the time?

Evidentially speaking, our world situation may well be what one could expect if religion is made up. Made up ideas tend to fall out of favor over time. Greek Mythology is outdated for a reason, am I right? So are many other ancient religions.

Believers of course are going to keep hedging their bets, they’ll say, “well, you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist.” Yes, they’re right about that, I can’t prove without a doubt that there is no God.

I can, however, make the point that 1) Most people, believers and skeptics, do not actually know that God exists. This is very much to the disadvantage of the believer because evidence can’t be used to put this matter to rest, only arguments in the form of wagers and alleged best guesses.

2) Without evidence that translates into knowledge, we are unable to differentiate the God of classical Theism from all other mythical beliefs. I don’t know about my readers but I find it highly important to separate myth from fact.

3) Since faith involves acting as if God exists without actually knowing it, it becomes apparent that truth isn’t the main objective of faith. After all, truth is able to be identified and bring people of vastly different viewpoints into agreement. Does belief in God work like this? I don’t know. Find me an apologist for Christianity, an apologist for Islam, and an apologist for Hinduism and let me know what they figure out?

If God isn’t known in this world in such a way that people from every culture can rally around the clearly known facts about this being, then what does this say about a God that is thought to intervene and make Himself known in the world? Why be so secretive? So hidden? Why keep billions of people guessing and erring about how to properly define and understand the most basic aspects about Him? Bear in mind, religions like Christianity and Islam attach very heavy penalties upon people for getting this information wrong.

Worshipping the wrong God, and even thinking about God in the wrong way isn’t taken too kindly by all three of the worlds largest Monotheistic religions. I am at the end of the day challenging how reliable “faith” is as a method for determining what is true? In my opinion, it breaks down, especially when trying to discern between fact and fiction.

Assurance? Are You Sure?

“The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children” -Romans 8:16

I am just one human being out of many. I certainly have not experienced all of the same things that other people have experienced, so why should I pick on the Christian? I pick on the Christian because I was one, yes, a very seriously devoted person for many years. This is also an opportunity for my Christian readers to be challenged in their perspectives. Living a life of faith is definitely a different way of dealing with knowledge and certainty. How should people deal with knowledge and certainty? We’ll return to this later.

This verse from Romans that I quoted above is precious to many believers. Believers of all stripes are convinced that the Holy Spirit dwells within them, just as it was thought to indwell Jesus and his earliest followers. For some folks it may bring to mind these words, “I will dwell in them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.” 2 Corinthians 6:16

When people talk as if a God is in their midst. When they have a mindset that the Holy Spirit dwells within them I am brought to wonder if it is the language itself that they are most taken in by? I mean, let’s be honest, this is the language of intimacy. It’s the language of having a close union with God. I know how people feel when they use this language. People feel as if God is truly present. Like he is right there in the room. Like he is speaking to their hearts.

My challenge for those who feel this way is to ask whether they can truly speak from a place of knowledge, or whether feelings are the primary driver of this vehicle? Feelings can be deceiving, but not only can feelings be deceiving, our sense of interpretation can be poor if we are looking for subtle signs of guidance. Navigating this inward terrain of feelings and little subtleties that seem like guidance could well be a form of self-deception. Such can be the nature of subjective experience.

This is a fair warning for those who are interested in what is true. Being fascinated and interested in what is true involves practicing discernment, especially introspective discernment. What you once thought was guidance from God could later be understood as an indiscernible pattern. It is fine to acknowledge it as such. We want to be cautious about what is true. We want to guard the truth and avoid error, at least this should be the goal.

So here I am, a former Christian, putting it out there for those who still believe. How is it that you can know the difference between God’s Spirit and your spirit? If it is thought that God is an inner witness, how are you to know whether this inner witness is God or just you? Please take your time and think carefully about this question.

There’s a whole spectrum within Christianity that ranges all the way from people who think God speaks to them just like another person is talking to them, all the way over to those who say that they take a passage like this by faith. They take it by faith because they don’t have this sense of the inner witness of God’s Spirit. They wouldn’t know how to begin to tell the difference between their own inner witness and God’s inner witness.

As an outsider looking in, who knows what it’s like to be on the inside, I’m more prone to think that those believers who admit that they wouldn’t know how to tell the difference between God’s witness and their own inner witness, are likely being the most intellectually honest.

It’s a mighty heavy burden to say that one undoubtedly knows the voice of God. It’s typically the more Charismatic Christians that think God is speaking to them in some form. The question remains, how introspective are such people? How discerning do they strive to be? Otherwise, they are at risk of exhibiting delusional thinking.

At the end of the day, a truth seeker should be willing to say, I could be wrong. I may need to change my mind about whether I can know that God is actually giving me clear assurances. About whether I know the difference between God’s inner witness and my own self?

To take this a little further, I think it would be refreshing to see more people admit that they are not even sure if God is there. For many it would be an intellectually honest admission that God’s presence and existence in their lives may be in question. There is no fear in this because what we all should strive to avoid is pretending to know things we don’t actually know.

This gets us into trouble and it sets us up for a hard fall. So how should Christians deal with knowledge and certainty? Can knowledge of God be so private and subjective that there is virtually no longer any room for discernment? Is this honest?

Should certainty relate to what we know? Knowing something, truly knowing something involves ruling out alternative explanations. Are people interested in knowing things clearly? Should this move them to a more objective approach in their understanding of knowledge and evidence?

The reason I changed my mind is because I didn’t want to fool myself anymore. What I thought was God’s assurance, presence, and guidance in my life, was not. I had to reason hard about what was going on in my own head. It was met with personal trials. Hitting rock bottom is often when one is encouraged the most to not give up on faith, however, that in itself may be a myth.

Faith is thought to bring many folks close to God, but please pay attention to the other side of the aisle. For many folks there comes a point where faith loses all meaning. It loses all relevance if assurance cannot be obtained. If an honest person cannot tell the difference between a real God intervening into their circumstances and simply having an affair with the language of the Bible, then at some point, talking like Jesus talks in the Gospels, or like Paul talked in his writings begins to lose its flavor entirely.

A thirst for the truth is a thirst for knowledge. It’s a thirst for discernment. It’s a thirst for reliable forms of assurance and certainty. When I speak about the nature of reality I want it to be known to my friends and readers that I take that very seriously. Whether I’m accountable to God or not, I am first accountable to myself.

The same should be true for everyone, if God created us, He didn’t bless us with a knowledge of himself in the same way we know ourselves. We know ourselves best and it is from there that we work outward by interacting with other people and the reality of the external world.

Does God exist? I can’t ever entirely rule that out but thus far my accountability to myself and the reality of the world around me doesn’t impress upon me that God is the best explanation. I’ve heard the explanation, I’ve interacted with it, I was a devoted Christian for many years. I spent many hours over the years both in prayer and devotion, and I am either an orphan of a real God that hasn’t impressed upon me a knowledge of himself, or I am a child of nature. The clearest information that I can gather is that I am a product of this universe.

I’ll leave my readers on a poetic note. I recently wrote this.

 

We are all orphans, but we are not…

We are orphans if we think God is our Father

We are children when we know nature as our Mother

It’s all about perspective, you see?

We are orphans if we pray to a Deity

We are children when we stand in awe of the universe

Not only are we children, we are a way in which the universe knows itself

 

On Pretending To Know Things We Don’t Know

 

Is anyone here familiar with the phrase, confidence building? I ask this because as I’ve surveyed what faith in God appears to be, it appears that the Bible itself advocates a mindset of faith as a kind of confidence building exercise.

Instead of focusing on yourself, faith asks you to focus on God. Relating again to yourself, the exercise may look like this. You say things to yourself such as, “I’m a good person, I’m smart, I’m funny, people like me. I can accomplish my goals. I can learn through the pain and the struggle.”

Now, shifting the focus to God, many of the same things are said and highlighted. “God is good, He is all-wise, He’s my source of joy, He likes me, no wait, He loves me. God will help me accomplish my goals. I can learn through the pain and the struggle.”

These are all rewarding feelings, are they not? This is why faith is often so highly treasured. It makes us feel loved and valued. It makes us feel as if God is there in the good times and in the bad. Who could be a greater friend?

Now, this is one aspect to having faith that I don’t deny brings many people joy and comfort within their lives. For many years this was the role that faith played in my own life. Over a period of time, however, the mindset of faith that I had, a faith that I indeed felt was very strong, began to gradually lose its strength as I challenged myself with the hardest questions I could use to test its validity.

What is faith exactly? Hebrews 11:1 gives the clearest definition of it.

“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”

Assurance and confidence are pretty well synonymous. This is a mindset that forms and gets built up by reading the Bible. Just think about the Gospel narratives in the Bible. At the end of each Gospel Jesus is portrayed as a victorious Savior who defeated death so that we could live and have a relationship with God. The death of Jesus is only just the beginning because the Gospels tell us emphatically that God raised Him from the dead and that he ascended into heaven shortly after.

These narratives are interested specifically in how you feel about Jesus. Who do you think he was? Is this a hopeful message? Could you see yourself as one of the disciples encountering Jesus after you thought he was dead? Would you be like a doubting Thomas? In John we get this intimate picture of Jesus appearing before Thomas and putting his hand into the nail prints and the wound that was still in his side from the crucifixion. Thomas responds by falling to his knees and worshipping God. It’s a very moving story, I won’t deny anyone that.

My questions involve asking whether being moved by this account is a good enough reason to believe? This is where it gets tricky because people undoubtedly are very moved by this story. Christians often say, it is the greatest story ever told.

I get concerned when people start talking about faith as if it is a form of evidence. Hebrews 11:1 would like us to think this. Other translations render faith as the evidence of what is unseen. This is where I now see it as necessary to get gritty, are faith and evidence synonymous? I don’t think so. Regardless of how moved I may be by the story, regardless of how moved billions of others may be by this story, I cannot agree that good discernment would have me equate faith with evidence.

Faith is a form of confidence that gets built up from reading the Bible’s stories, nothing more and nothing less. Faith feels great. It’s an exercise of boosting one’s confidence about things we neither see or know about. Think about it, if people really knew that God exists, there would be no need for faith. Faith is the encouragement to act as if the Bible is true without actually knowing it.

Consider this other verse from Hebrews 11:6, it says, “And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.”

It doesn’t get any more explicit than that, does it? Drawing near to God requires faith. Another important aspect of faith is this idea of acting as if God exists without actually knowing it. If one doesn’t act as if God exists, it won’t be a rewarding experience. If you act like it, however, if you can make yourself believe it without actually knowing it, you will feel greatly rewarded.

For whatever reason, this is the best way to go if we want to feel as if God exists. We need to act like it, and if we can’t act like it, we won’t benefit from it. I don’t want to sound mean when I say this, but I am hard pressed on whether there is a difference between having faith and pretending? In other words, faith appears to be acting upon what one doesn’t know. It’s pretending to know things that one does not know.

Faith is pretending to know that God is there when we don’t actually know it. It is pretending that our prayers are being answered without actually knowing it. It’s pretending that we have a soul without actually knowing it, and it is pretending to be saved without actually knowing it.

My conclusion is that faith should not be equated with evidence, this is a poor way to characterize knowledge. Faith is best understood as a confidence building exercise that happens from reading the stories in the Bible, and another important aspect of faith is to act as if God exists when we don’t actually know this. Faith is pretending to know things we don’t know.

I wish everyone the very best in their search for what is true. Take care!

 

 

Seven Problems With A Mindset Of Faith

These are some of my reasons for not viewing faith in a rewarding light. Since I am most familiar with the Christian understanding of faith I make a few explicit references to how a mindset of faith is poorly encouraged within this line of thought. I think it is valuable to pass these insights along because I’m not sure how aware many believers are about the downfalls of believing on poor grounds? This is a call for my believing friends to take a close look at their foundation for understanding truth claims. Does a mindset of faith deeply undervalue evidence? This is for my readers to decide.

1. A mindset of faith acts as if it is a valid resting zone. Rather than resting on a surefire case that miracles have happened in history, the reward instead comes from suspending reason and believing in the miracle anyway. This would appear to be a red flag because truth is not being distinguished from myth. Instead one is encouraged to rest within this new mindset. The search for ultimate truth is thought to be over. Questioning any further appears antithetical to one’s decision to believe.

2. A mindset of faith as a natural consequence does not value evidence. The point to having faith is not whether the evidence is strong enough, the point of having faith is to act as if a truth claim made on poor evidence is true. Jesus is thought to be the Savior. Having faith that he rose from the dead is the highest reward anyone could ever receive. It is thought to lead to eternal life. The thinking quickly becomes, “I would be a fool to pass up this offer.” In this scenario, desire trumps evidence.

3. A mindset of faith is in fact acting upon what one doesn’t actually know. People don’t actually know without question that a God exists. The whole point of having faith is to act as if God exists. In what other discipline would it ever be encouraged to act upon what one doesn’t actually know?

4. A mindset of faith sees doubt in a negative light. It is thought that doubt will drive one away from God. In all actuality doubt is moving away from a mindset of faith. There’s a difference. Based upon what anyone can actually know for sure, why should faith be seen as the best avenue for understanding what is true about the God question? If natural doubts are arising with regard to that question, with regard to assurance, this may actually be a very positive thing. It might be a closer way to reflect what is true with regard to the God question. This question may not have an answer. It may not be a question that provides good evidence and assurance to the seeker.

5. A mindset of faith argues that morality is best understood by trusting in the commands of God. It appears antithetical to entertain the notion that God may not be the best foundation for morality. Earlier Philosophers like Plato asked a very important question concerning God’s relationship to what is good. He said, “is that which is holy loved by the gods because it is holy, or is it holy because it is loved by the gods?”

This is known as Euthyphro’s Dilemma. A modern way of stating the question would be, “is something morally right because God commands it, or does God command it because it is morally right? If it is right only because God commands it, then this makes God’s commands arbitrary and moral principles are not self-evident. If God commands something because it is morally right, then this would imply that morality is self-evident regardless of whether God is in the picture. In essence, morality without God.

6. A mindset of faith often involves accepting claims about the human condition that could well be inaccurate or false. In example, while many of us can agree that we as people do not always live up to higher standards, that we sometimes act impulsively, and that we sometimes do morally reprehensible things, this does not actually meaningfully demonstrate that people are infected with a sinful nature. A belief in sin and a sinful nature carries with it the assumption that people are cursed and fallen from a prior state of perfection. There is no evidence for this claim. This is totally taken on faith. One can agree that people do morally bad things without accepting the idea of depravity. Are we all guilty of falling short of higher standards, yes. Have we all done things that we highly regret, yes. Does this make us sinners? No. To be a sinner implies that we can confirm that God exists, this doesn’t appear to be possible apart from divine intervention.

7. A mindset of faith often acts as if truth is only ultimately known and experienced by the ingroup. In other words, it is thought that some truthful things about the nature of reality can be hidden from those who do not adhere to the same faith position. This stops the conversation because now it is thought that those who are not in the ingroup are at a disadvantage. It is thought that the rest of the world is deceived. If one does not conform to the standards of the ingroup then this breeds distrust and they walk away feeling confirmed that the world walks in darkness, for only those who believe are in the light. Could this be arrogance? It well could be.

Share this:

If one does not know that a God exists, does this give them any reason to believe that a God exists? Why or why not?