Great comment. I'm in a similar boat. For me the structure fell apart instantly and I have also been repelled when reaching out to the faithful, who generally don't want to take the risk of facing their own secret doubts, or even see questioners as evil. This blog has been a rare signpost on what is maybe a different viable path. So I just subscribed and hope to find out more
Thanks for sharing this. I've been in the same boat my entire Christian life. And for the reasons stated, I too find validation in the Humble Skeptic. And because of that, I intend to keep supporting the Humble Skeptic.
I didn't know there was a name for deconstructing. Maybe I didn't know there was a name for it because there isn't. Maybe. Maybe it's just reasonable doubt repackaged.
One of the reasons (and I'm not asking for absolution) that I can't abide church -- and haven't been able to attend (much less belong) for decades -- is that the church's solution to reasonable doubts is and always will be to invalidate them, or pretend that they don't exist. Or that having them is a sign of weak faith.
And I don't blame them. Church is a haven. Church is where like-minded go to share belief, not question it.
There is no church for doubters -- even us doubters who believe BECAUSE we are capable of doubt.
Being able to ask questions isn't a characteristic of no, little, or weak faith. It's the manifestation of the greatest faith. True faith isn't protectionist of its object. It is endlessly exploratory because it believes in the transcendent reality of its object.
At least, that's what I believe.
I don't think faith is what anyone wants -- religious prayers for more of same notwithstanding (I don't think that's even what such prayers mean). The Humble Skeptic is right, even if it is a lone voice shouting in the wilderness that we don't believe by faith. We demonstrate faith in what we believe.
No, I think faith is what we who suffer the common human condition of ignorance are left with. We've got to believe in something by which to map our course through our ignorance.
I don't think (again, counter to what prayers might indicate) that faith is measured in "more" or "less" -- except insofar as it might measure the distance between what one knows and what one has to act on for survival, sanity, or actualization.
And to a very real extent, I don't think faith operates in the hypothetical. I'm pretty sure faith is the evidence of things not seen. In other words, if one wants to guess what a person has faith in, how he lives would be among the best indicators.
So, I don't accept that faith is a religious proposition. Faith is a human proposition.
Faith may also operate most like what we currently think of as "bias". Faith, like bias, determines how we ultimately act, or what we act on after we've consciously, subconsciously, and unconsciously analyzed our environment, our communities, our world, and our universe.
I believe Jesus is alive.
The only evidence I have of that comes from the Bible, not experience.
If Jesus is not alive, I agree with the Apostles Peter and Paul when they said that if Jesus was not resurrected, then Christians then, as now, are sadly deluded.
I think Christianity makes a better than average religion too. But I'm pretty sure that what Jesus demanded is WAY harder than religion, except for the fact that I also believe in redemption. So, Jesus' demands, minus Jesus' grace would be the most unkind universe imaginable, and a burden I can't imagine carrying, much less believing it easy.
I've said it before, but if I thought God was imaginary, I would be an atheist. If I thought God was a myth, I'd be an atheist. I believe in a proposition to the extent that I think it is true. I exhibit faith in any proposition to the extent that I believe it to be true -- not the other way around. I don't believe that faith makes anything true. I do understand the squishy nature of evidence.
Try to explain that in church. Try, even, to have that discussion with your pastor ... as you can see in his eyes that he is already formulating an answer to the question you didn't ask.
When I contemplate the larger issue of questioning the barbed and uncomfortable issues of our ... (I was going to say "our faith", but, of course, "faith" is the very confusing nomenclature at the center of it all, isn't it? ....and "our religion" is equally sticky. ... so, what I'm talking about is the collective belief system of the orthodox believer) ... I often think about the now famous (because it was unintentionally and unconsciously both comical and revealing) "What is WRONG with you people?!" rebuff from R.C. Sproul. I can't believe nobody in the audience stood up and responded "What is wrong with YOU?!" That Sproul made a career of debunking what he couldn't steelman was evidenced in his strange rebuff.
Here's what's wrong with me, Dr Sproul. You're describing a paradox, and I -- like billions of other humans throughout time and history -- cannot simply ignore one side of that paradox to the exclusion of the other side. You display two audacities: 1. That your explanation of the unexplainable should be accepted without question, and 2. That you are in a unique position to speak for God.
All that said, I equally don't go to church because church is happier without my questions. It's how they are tentatively holding on in a world that makes no sense. In a world with so many unanswerable questions, they are more comfortable with any answers.
May I have it both ways too, and seem as squishy in my complaint as I am criticizing others for being? May I appear totally hypocritical and observe that I, too, dislike the doubters? I find their questions generally falling into the categories of:
1. Asked and answered so many times through history that no wonder we roll our eyes when asked yet again.
2. Not even well thought out. Like the old Monty Python argument sketch -- you're not arguing, you're just being contrary.
3. Categorically answerable within the question. It should be easy enough to answer yourself.
4. Asked about claims that Christianity doesn't even make of or for itself.,
So, I guess I deconstruct. But I don't think it's like taking down a tower of blocks. I think it's more like realizing that life never stops handing me more blocks and I never get to simply ignore the blocks as they come. I have to decide if they belong in the ongoing tower project, or if they can be discarded. Humble Skeptic is a key source for helping sort the blocks.
Great comment. I'm in a similar boat. For me the structure fell apart instantly and I have also been repelled when reaching out to the faithful, who generally don't want to take the risk of facing their own secret doubts, or even see questioners as evil. This blog has been a rare signpost on what is maybe a different viable path. So I just subscribed and hope to find out more
Thanks for sharing this. I've been in the same boat my entire Christian life. And for the reasons stated, I too find validation in the Humble Skeptic. And because of that, I intend to keep supporting the Humble Skeptic.
I didn't know there was a name for deconstructing. Maybe I didn't know there was a name for it because there isn't. Maybe. Maybe it's just reasonable doubt repackaged.
One of the reasons (and I'm not asking for absolution) that I can't abide church -- and haven't been able to attend (much less belong) for decades -- is that the church's solution to reasonable doubts is and always will be to invalidate them, or pretend that they don't exist. Or that having them is a sign of weak faith.
And I don't blame them. Church is a haven. Church is where like-minded go to share belief, not question it.
There is no church for doubters -- even us doubters who believe BECAUSE we are capable of doubt.
Being able to ask questions isn't a characteristic of no, little, or weak faith. It's the manifestation of the greatest faith. True faith isn't protectionist of its object. It is endlessly exploratory because it believes in the transcendent reality of its object.
At least, that's what I believe.
I don't think faith is what anyone wants -- religious prayers for more of same notwithstanding (I don't think that's even what such prayers mean). The Humble Skeptic is right, even if it is a lone voice shouting in the wilderness that we don't believe by faith. We demonstrate faith in what we believe.
No, I think faith is what we who suffer the common human condition of ignorance are left with. We've got to believe in something by which to map our course through our ignorance.
I don't think (again, counter to what prayers might indicate) that faith is measured in "more" or "less" -- except insofar as it might measure the distance between what one knows and what one has to act on for survival, sanity, or actualization.
And to a very real extent, I don't think faith operates in the hypothetical. I'm pretty sure faith is the evidence of things not seen. In other words, if one wants to guess what a person has faith in, how he lives would be among the best indicators.
So, I don't accept that faith is a religious proposition. Faith is a human proposition.
Faith may also operate most like what we currently think of as "bias". Faith, like bias, determines how we ultimately act, or what we act on after we've consciously, subconsciously, and unconsciously analyzed our environment, our communities, our world, and our universe.
I believe Jesus is alive.
The only evidence I have of that comes from the Bible, not experience.
If Jesus is not alive, I agree with the Apostles Peter and Paul when they said that if Jesus was not resurrected, then Christians then, as now, are sadly deluded.
I think Christianity makes a better than average religion too. But I'm pretty sure that what Jesus demanded is WAY harder than religion, except for the fact that I also believe in redemption. So, Jesus' demands, minus Jesus' grace would be the most unkind universe imaginable, and a burden I can't imagine carrying, much less believing it easy.
I've said it before, but if I thought God was imaginary, I would be an atheist. If I thought God was a myth, I'd be an atheist. I believe in a proposition to the extent that I think it is true. I exhibit faith in any proposition to the extent that I believe it to be true -- not the other way around. I don't believe that faith makes anything true. I do understand the squishy nature of evidence.
Try to explain that in church. Try, even, to have that discussion with your pastor ... as you can see in his eyes that he is already formulating an answer to the question you didn't ask.
When I contemplate the larger issue of questioning the barbed and uncomfortable issues of our ... (I was going to say "our faith", but, of course, "faith" is the very confusing nomenclature at the center of it all, isn't it? ....and "our religion" is equally sticky. ... so, what I'm talking about is the collective belief system of the orthodox believer) ... I often think about the now famous (because it was unintentionally and unconsciously both comical and revealing) "What is WRONG with you people?!" rebuff from R.C. Sproul. I can't believe nobody in the audience stood up and responded "What is wrong with YOU?!" That Sproul made a career of debunking what he couldn't steelman was evidenced in his strange rebuff.
Here's what's wrong with me, Dr Sproul. You're describing a paradox, and I -- like billions of other humans throughout time and history -- cannot simply ignore one side of that paradox to the exclusion of the other side. You display two audacities: 1. That your explanation of the unexplainable should be accepted without question, and 2. That you are in a unique position to speak for God.
All that said, I equally don't go to church because church is happier without my questions. It's how they are tentatively holding on in a world that makes no sense. In a world with so many unanswerable questions, they are more comfortable with any answers.
May I have it both ways too, and seem as squishy in my complaint as I am criticizing others for being? May I appear totally hypocritical and observe that I, too, dislike the doubters? I find their questions generally falling into the categories of:
1. Asked and answered so many times through history that no wonder we roll our eyes when asked yet again.
2. Not even well thought out. Like the old Monty Python argument sketch -- you're not arguing, you're just being contrary.
3. Categorically answerable within the question. It should be easy enough to answer yourself.
4. Asked about claims that Christianity doesn't even make of or for itself.,
So, I guess I deconstruct. But I don't think it's like taking down a tower of blocks. I think it's more like realizing that life never stops handing me more blocks and I never get to simply ignore the blocks as they come. I have to decide if they belong in the ongoing tower project, or if they can be discarded. Humble Skeptic is a key source for helping sort the blocks.
A deserved praise for your most honest and intelligent and - even aesthetically - brilliant work.