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.

 

Is The Christian God Failing Us?

1) If the God of the Bible exists

2) And it is generally accepted that he wants the world to believe in him (1 Timothy 2:3-4, 2 Peter 3:9, Ezekiel 18:23, John 3:16-17).

3) Why is it that roughly two-thirds of the world, possibly more, lack the basic underlying assumptions needed to conceive of this God correctly?

4) Not only that, but why is it that even when many people are confronted with the Bible’s claims, they remain in a place of uncertainty and/or disbelief?

5) Would this be attributed to human choice or would it seem more evident that if this God exists he has failed to provide the means to bring the world into a correct understanding?

Thanks for your input. I’m trying to help all of the Apologists out there!

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.

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.

The Diary Of A Truth Seeker

We all make mistakes. When it comes to our beliefs, what makes it especially difficult to change them is our sense of deep kinship with family, friends, and our greater communities. Like it or not, there are often consequences attached to our beliefs.

These consequences stem from a long history of social interactions, and yes, social conditioning. There are many communities and families where it is simply socially unacceptable to be skeptical about religion! This is the truth. I am speaking on behalf of millions of people right now.

A truth seeker has a choice. We can suppress our doubts and search for the truth in secret. I happen to think that there are a vast number of religious people all over the world that feel and live this way. Thank you Internet for becoming so widely accessible!

Another option is that we can be honest about our questions and doubts with everyone we know. This has highly varied outcomes and consequences. It can range on the world spectrum of being put to death for blasphemy all way to a softer form of social rejection from our closest friends and family. Thankfully, I live in a country that highly values diversity of thought and even many of my friends and family have been accepting of my decision to no longer believe in the Christian faith.

It’s been a mixture of responses toward me personally. It has helped me learn who my closest and truest friends really are. Thankfully, many of them are still Christians. Yes, with as much as I question and criticize Christianity I still have Christian friends, and I still love them to death!

It’s a complicated line to walk sometimes but in the end I hope that everyone who knows me understands that I am deeply interested in finding out the things that are true. If we think about our search for true things as being like a dude with a huge machete trying to chop through the brush, that’s me. I have my machete in hand and I’m attempting to work through many of life’s deepest questions.

Sometimes we realize that we’ve chopped our way to a dead end, well, the attitude of one navigating through the thick jungle and the attitude of a truth seeker is just the same. If we need to turn around and find another pathway, then dammit, that’s what has to be done! In the arena of our beliefs and our doubts it could well turn into a rather interesting progression over a lifetime.

I cannot guarantee that I will always be an Atheist, though, I also cannot equally guarantee that I will someday come back into a belief in God. The future for me and many of my fellow truth seekers is simply undetermined. This also makes the pursuit just a little more savory and exciting!

Did you want to know the third option? The third option is to basically not care about what is true. It is a passive, lazy, and rather pathetic path to take. I don’t have much respect for the guy who throws in the towel. Not when it comes to treasuring and valuing what is true.

I would point such a person to Science! Be it Science, Mathematics, Philosophy, and learning from the vast conversation about Religion all throughout the world. It’s worth our time, our energy, and our very lives!

 

 

Hell: A Failed Form Of Justice

As a recap here is a list of my main criticisms toward cultivating belief in the concepts of God and hell, as presented by many conservative Evangelicals. My disclaimer here is that not all conservative Evangelicals agree with what I am saying in this post. It appears, however, that there are segments that do.

With that said, a failure to intersect claims about hell, God, souls, etc.., into our present reality is a failure to speak from a legitimate position of concern. This is regardless of how serious hell may seem to the Christian.

It puts these claims into a knowledge category that is admittedly conceptual even within the lives of most Christians. An inability to demonstrate the truth of these claims leaves them on par with all other religious claims out there! There is no reason to give any more credence to Christianity than any other set of faith-based claims.

What this means is that reliable forms of knowledge and evidence are not forthcoming for the Christian. They would do well to consider whether it is time to suspend judgement about whether there is actually a God on the other side of this equation?

Whereas the Bible appears to teach that people knowingly suppress their knowledge of God, specifically the Bible’s God, our world situation is such that a myriad of external factors appear to influence the minds of people to believe and value vastly different religious and philosophical ideas. One’s immediate family, culture, and region of the world plays a large role in this process.

This would seem to speak against some kind of internal awareness of the Bible’s God. People do not knowingly suppress information that they do not possess. They embrace the ideas and beliefs that they were raised with and exposed to in their immediate context.

This should bring into question whether it is justified for the Bible to hold a position that condemns all people who do not believe in Jesus as their Savior. Since many Christians themselves do not profess firsthand knowledge of God, this should also give credence to the fact that humans do not suppress the truth, or knowledge of God, in their unrighteousness.

On a final note what does either an eternal or temporal hell do to resolve the problem of human suffering? It seems to me that the traditional view of hell, a place of eternal conscious torment, would serve to magnify the problem of human suffering to its highest degree.

Not only would this world have been a place with an immense amount of unwarranted human suffering, but the prospect of unending hell would be a purposeful intention, on the part of God, to never put an end to the worst possible suffering. It is safe to say that anyone who believes in a literal eternal hell is giving credence to the idea that suffering must find no solution or resolve, ever.

A temporal hell doesn’t fare much better in the sense that salvation through Jesus alone is going to fill up hell with the vast majority of humans that have ever existed. It will have been a purposeful plan, on the part of God, to extinguish a vast majority of people that He has created. Simply to make a statement about a way of salvation that He chose to implement.

Neither predicament appears to be conducive to saving and restoring humanity meaningfully. Sure, maybe for a select few who believed in Jesus, but certainly not for the majority, or even for our race as a whole.

As one who has read through the Bible firsthand, I have to unfortunately agree with the interpretation of many of these passages. It becomes a very selective view of redemption served on a plate of extreme condemnation. A form of punishment that intends to never let up or even consider creating a path toward the restoration of sinners.

 

 

 

Hell: A Failed Hypothesis

I’ve recently just read up on the equivocation fallacy and now I am wondering if there is not some kind of fallacy with regard to why many conservative Evangelicals believe that anyone who does not believe in Jesus is going to hell? An often cited justification for this position is a passage in Romans 1 that essentially teaches that wicked people, anyone not trusting in Jesus, suppress their knowledge about God in their unrighteousness.

In such a view humans are left without excuse because what can be known about God has been shown to them. Even His eternal power and godhead. The clear implication here is that people naturally turn away from the God they somehow know about. They knowingly go after false gods, false religion, false ideologies and their goal is to worship sin and to remain unaccountable to the one true God.

There’s just one problem here. We, as human beings, are all born into this one world. A very, very diverse world, mind you. Within this one world, especially depending upon one’s own region and culture, religion is vastly different. What is considered sacred, holy, and true is totally different and varied depending upon where we are born.

So, what we have are hundreds and hundreds of competing religions, many of which claim to be exclusively true, and they are all vying to be treasured within our minds and our lives. If the majority of human beings do not claim to have special revelation and knowledge from God, then what justifies the notion that human beings deserve hell due to external factors that prohibited them from believing in the “true” religion?

For Christians, the Bible is the only source in this world that tells them, “Salvation is exclusive to those who believe. Period.” Well, considering that this is a very diverse world, and considering what can actually be known from a human vantage point, there are countless other theories about salvation, about God, about truth, and about whether or not one or more gods even exist!

It all comes down to this notion of special knowledge. Do Bible believing Christians truly have special knowledge and authority from which to discern the ultimate fate of the human race? Considering the arguments in my previous post, I think the most sensible answer is, no. Christians do not have such knowledge.

From what so many admittedly confess with regard to their lack of knowledge about God’s existence, I think a case can be made that human beings do not have some kind of internal knowledge about the true God that they actively suppress. Only one source is saying this while all other evidence about how people gather knowledge seems to point strongly to the contrary.

While the Bible as a whole may have many verses that teach that Jesus is the only way, we live in a world that contains a vast amount of counter examples both within and outside of other religions. If the vast majority of humans that exist don’t have special, immediate knowledge of God, this is reason to rethink our source of authority when it comes to judging our worldwide fate.

Why should we think that anyone has a corner on the truth? It makes the doctrine about hell less believable because this teaching fails to account for the world predicament we find ourselves in.

It appears that I am turning this into a series of blog posts, so, stick around as I still have more to say about why belief in God and hell is truly problematic with regard to what people know. Human knowledge and human suffering appear to be two big problems that find no resolve within the framework of many conservative Christians.