Do Non-Believers Willfully Refuse to Believe?

One contention that many Christians make about nonbelievers in general and ex-Christians like us in specific, is that we have hardened hearts. We refuse to believe because we rebel at the notion of obeying the commands of a righteous and holy God. It’s not the truth we seek, for we know the truth, it’s claimed. It’s that we reject the truth because of willful ignorance. We simply refuse to believe. They will quote some passages in the Bible like Romans 1 to reinforce this belief of theirs, and nothing we can say will change their minds on this issue. My attempt at answering such a contention will probably be received no differently, but I like to try. So here goes.

Christians who have not yet accepted the idea that “all truth is God’s truth” will believe what the Bible says, regardless of what I say here. But they fail to understand two things. In the first place, they fail to understand that not all Christians think this way because those Bible passages can be legitimately interpreted differently. I’ll not go into this here, but their whole contention is built, not on what God says, but how they interpret what God says, if he said it at all. In the second place, whenever exegetes have tried to interpret the Bible, those who accept that “all truth is God’s truth” will interpret the Bible in keeping with what we learn from science, philosophy and experience, for these things are a check on proper Biblical exegesis. Experience, for instance, has always been a check on exegesis, whether it comes to Wesleyan perfectionism, perseverance of the saints, second coming predictions, Pentecostal miracle workers, understanding marriage, parenting, ministry, and so on. The whole science/religion discussion is an attempt to harmonize the Bible with what scientists have experienced through empirical observations of the universe. While experience is not the test for deciding what the Bible says, the Christian understanding of what the Bible says must be able to explain personal experience.

So here we are as former people who lived and breathed the Christian way of life and faith. We claim we left because the reasons to believe simply were not there. This should be a check on the Biblical exegesis of the relevant texts, rather than forcing Christians to claim we rejected the Christian faith because we are in rebellion against God.

That being said, consider too that people sincerely and honestly disagree over almost everything that we can disagree about. Name it and there is probably a disagreement about it. Which diet is the most effective for losing weight? Which sports player was the greatest in his or her sport? I could go on and on, about some scientific results, politics, ethics, economics, anthropology, and history. From the scholarly level to the peon level we disagree about everything there is to disagree about. And this goes for religion as well. There so many religions and sects within them that if each one was a person we’d be able to fill up the largest stadium in the world with them.

I’m not saying that of all the religious and non-religious views that none are correct, only that it reveals an incredible amount of chutzpa to claim with complete assurance that he is not only correct, a large claim in and of itself, but also that the others know the truth and willfully reject it. The Christian had better be absolutely sure his Biblical texts say exactly what he claims them to say before making such a wildly implausible contention.

Undismayed, the Christian will claim as evidence for their interpretation of the relevant Biblical texts that the claims of the gospel are unflinching and absolute, demanding a complete surrender and commitment such that people who know the truth and don’t like it will rebel against it. But is this really true? The Greek word for repentance, metanoia, means a “change of mind.” That’s what it means. Of course, implicit in the meaning of the word is that a change of mind leads to a change of behavior, and that is true, such that if there is no change of behavior then it’s clear there was no change of mind. But think about this. If someone was really convinced of the truth of the gospel then he has already changed his mind! One cannot change his mind and also refuse to change his mind. His mind has already been changed. And if changed he would change his behavior in keeping with what he believes. It cannot be otherwise. And what exactly is the gospel that he changed his mind about? That God loves him, died on the cross to save him, will bring him into the eternal pleasures of an eternal bliss which avoids the eternal pains of hell. All God asks is to obey him in return, although such obedience doesn’t actually save us. If someone actually believed this he would willingly obey God. This would be a no brainer. If someone accepted this as the truth he would surrender to God in obedience. It’s the least he could do, especially since this God will also help him, grant him answered prayers and forgive him when he falls.

Futhermore, if people do reject the truth of the gospel because it demands too much of them, then how do these Christians explain militant Muslims who reject the gospel? They are willing to fly planes into the World Trade Centers for what they believe. And while I think such obedience is immoral and misguided, I don’t see very many Christians with that same kind of commitment, say for just one example, when it comes to selling all and giving to the poor, or at least, giving till it hurts. There are Tibetan Monks who sacrifice everything for what they believe too, or a Mother Teresa, if she was all that, anyway. To say people reject the Protestant gospel (since I mentioned Mother Teresa) because they reject the demands of the gospel, is simply ludicrous.

We nonbelievers and former Christians do not believe because we do not think the evidence is there, period. To say otherwise one would have to deal with my arguments here. And if you cannot reconcile the relevant biblical texts to these arguments and our testimonies, then perhaps you too should consider that the Bible is not the word of God like we do. The relevant Biblical texts were written in an ancient era which is unlike our democratic free speaking era, where we’ve learned that sincere and honest disagreements are a part of daily life, and acceptable. In the ancient era (and during the Inquisition) people were killed for believing differently, because people who believed differently were considered evil in a collective society which demanded unity on such matters. We still find the barbaric notion of the “thought police” in Muslim countries today. But it is barbaric, and this same kind of barbarism is reflected in certain interpretations of the relevant Biblical texts about those who don't believe.

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

Lept for joy watching Marlene Winell on CNN last night (had never heard of her) I looked her up and found you. Absolutely enjoyed the post! Certainly going to quote some of your points in my next kerfuffle. Being the only ex in a family 'of', there is always a kerfuffle.

Bruce said...

I'm probably in the minority of atheists, but I have never believed in any type of god. I can remember being a kid in grade school and listening to other friends talk about going to church and such and just thinking to myself "How can they believe that stuff?" I can honestly say that I cannot remember a time in my life where I was ever tempted to believe in any type of god because I have never been presented with one iota of credible evidence to support a god's existence. Even as a child I knew that you can't walk on water and you can't come back to life from the dead. That is not willful ignorance. That is a rational conclusion from someone who was never indoctrinated.

And please, don't give me the argument that I don't really "know" your god so I can't make an honest decision about it. I know as much about your god as the majority of believers in this country. After all, I was raised in this predominantly Christian culture. Most of the people I know who claim to believe in a god don't go to church on a regular basis and they seem to have no problem knowing their god and being secure in their beliefs. Besides, if it takes a PhD in religious studies before you can truly make a decision about any god then the overwhelming majority of believers have no right making a positive claim about their god's existence as well.

Anonymous said...

I'd like to turn that around. I'd like to see a christian test this hypothesis on themselves. I'd like them to try to make themselves believe in Santa again.

I do not want to comapare god to santa, I just want them to put their money where their mouth is and try to do what they are accusing us of doing.

Then when they can't, think back to when they stopped believing in santa and remember if they had to be told or if they just figured it out for themselves. And if they were told there was no santa instead of figuring it out for themselves, why don't they still believe?

There is plenty of documentation and anecdotal evidence to show that it is likely that santa does exist. Every year Norad tracks santas path across the world. Since the government expends this amount of taxpayer money to use sophisticated equipment and there is no reason to lie about santa on such a grand scale, then it must be the case that Norad is really tracking santa.

Chris Wilson said...

"So here we are as former people who lived and breathed the Christian way of life and faith. We claim we left because the reasons to believe simply were not there. This should be a check on the Biblical exegesis of the relevant texts..."

John,
If I'm reading you right, which I know you doubt that I am, you are saying that your interpretations lead you to conclusions that are different than where my interpretations lead me,as a believer. Your Biblical exegesis or critical interpretation differs from mine. So what. I am persuaded, you are not.

Your question at the post heading is a non sequitur. Willfully refusing to believe makes no sense. You either are persuaded to believe or you are not. The term willful implies intent. How is intent in anyway related to belief?

In any case, this is a straw man. Christians don't disagree with you because you willfully refuse to believe, we disagree with you because you willfully mis-represent what we believe and what we interpret as the truth of God...

...in my humble opinion.

Chris Wilson said...

"I'd like them to try to make themselves believe in Santa again."

Lee,

You willfully reject Christianity. That is something you can willfully do. No question about it. But do tell me how you can willfully refuse to believe. Do you squeeze your eyes shut real tight and hold your breath? Tell me how its done, please.

Can this really be a claim that Christians make against ex-believers? As a Christian I make no such claim of you. I say simply, that your reasoning faculties have lead you to disbelief. Where you were once persuaded, you no longer are. Simple.

Anonymous said...

Hi Chris,
I say simply, that your reasoning faculties have lead you to disbelief.
thanks for understanding.

You willfully reject Christianity. That is something you can willfully do. No question about it. But do tell me how you can willfully refuse to believe.
1. I am an anti-christian (anti-supernaturalist really), I willfully participate in activist pursuits.
2. I did not willfully lose my belief. That is just something that happened.
3. My activism is "push-back" to evangelicals success in undermining science, government in a superpower, and sound principles of human rights (aids in africa, for one example).

I agree that you can't force yourself to believe, that was my point. Once you lose your belief, without new information, most likely you won't get it back. Its an aspect of defeasible reasoning.

Anonymous said...

Chris said...Willfully refusing to believe makes no sense. You either are persuaded to believe or you are not.

Then Chris said...Lee, You willfully reject Christianity. That is something you can willfully do. No question about it. But do tell me how you can willfully refuse to believe.

You seem to be claiming that no one can refuse or reject her beliefs, since if a person has beliefs then she has beliefs, and that’s it. That is, we cannot refuse or reject that which we believe, since by definition we believe what we believe.

In my opinion this is stating the obvious, and as such is non-controversial.

I was addressing the issue of whether or not nonbelievers willfully reject (or refuse) to believe in Christianity against the evidence. My answer was that it is not true to say this. I was addressing your claim that we want (or desire) to reject Christian beliefs, and this is what you claim we do.

The honest truth is that I wanted Christianity to be true! I really did. But in the end I came to believe it is a delusion, just like Santa is a pretend person.

zilch said...

Bruce- I, like you, have never believed in God. Sure, I spent lots of time in my youth with religious people of various kinds, especially Bahá'ís, but I somehow never succumbed. Perhaps what saved me (so to speak) were the two questions I was ignorant enough to suppose I had thought up myself, when I was about twelve: If God made the world, who made God? and: If only one religion can be true, why is it that most everyone raised in Christian countries is Christian, and those raised in Muslim countries is Muslim? These are still questions to which believers have no good answers.

Chris- I have also spent lots of time with Christians, and in church, and have sung more masses than you can shake a stick at. But I do not "willfully refuse" to believe; I simply do not believe, based on the evidence. Do you "willfully refuse" to believe in Santa, or the FSM?

auld hat- Welcome. I checked it out, and you have a real spritely happening blog yourself.

vjack said...

We atheists are a stiff-necked people.

Sorry, I've been reading the Old Testament and simply couldn't resist. I have no idea what that even means, but it sounds too good to pass up.

goprairie said...

I do not think whther you believe or not is a choice. Anymore than if someone gives you a glass of water and asks if it has flavor or not. Even if someone put in a trace of flavoring, either you taste it or not. You can choose to ADMIT it has flavor or not, but whether you taste it or not is not a choice.
However, you could refuse to taste it. That is more often what I have been accused of. I have been accused of refusing to read the Bible enough, refusing to attend a prayer meeting or church, refusing to 'open my heart' to God, and most often it comes with an accusation that it is with some rebellious intent and a final sigh that I will someday give in, as tho at 49 I am still in the throes of some teenage acting out.
But because the very CONCEPT of a God is not something I believe in, because the concept itself has too many contradicitons and counter-arguments, I am convinced that no amount of prayer or reading or listening about it will overcome that, so I DO choose to not do the things they tell me might change my mind. I DO chose to not spend my time looking for a way to change my belief, e.g. retasting that water to see if it has flavor.
But then, I am under no more obligation to seek to change my beleif than they are to do the same. And when it comes down to it, because I have read the Bible to attempt to champion such things as gay rights and abortion rights and equal rights for women, I know some parts of it in more detail than most lukewarm Christians who are not williing to read their own Bible in much detail, and I am certain, for some of them, they are not willing to do that because deep inside they know it will not stand the intellectual test they would be forced to give it if they really read it in any detail. So in that respect, they are more unwilling to open themselves to disbelief than I am unwllliing to open myself to belief.

paul01 said...

Chris

You are aware that William Lane Craig maintains that "unwillingness" is always present in unbelief?

GordonBlood said...

My God its a miracle! So to speak I actually agree with this post more-less that atheists cannot help their disbelief for a whole hoest of intellectual reasons and so on. I (and most Christian I would hope) simply maintain they're wrong, as most atheists maintain I am wrong (Shrug). With that said however I have met atheists (actually im freinds with some, though they prefer the term agnostic) who basically will argue that they wont commit themselves to Christianity because its to hard. So its not an argument that doesnt exist, indeed before his conversion the great Columbia professor Mortimer Adler said the same thing.

Chris said...

As a former Christian I've witnessed countless believers explicitly state that they avoid thinking about difficult issues or problems with their beliefs. As a college professor I've had countless students tell me that they were warned against studying philosophy because it would make them "question their faith". There is no doubt in my mind that many believers simply refuse to sincerely entertain the possibility that their beliefs might be mistaken because it would cause them psychological and existential difficulties.

Bill Gnade said...

Dear Chris (the OTHER Chris),

So, you are a college professor! That's exciting! It's a pleasure to join this discussion with you.

Do you really know a lot of students who were warned not to study philosophy because it might lead them away from their faith? Maybe you do; I've no reason to doubt you. However, I note that nearly every evangelical college in America (and surely every Catholic one), has a philosophy department. Moreover, every one of these departments teaches within the Western tradition of liberal arts; from Thales to Wittgenstein, every philosopher is to be studied and understood.

As you no doubt know, many of the Western philosophical tradition's greatest contributors were Christians; and some of the greatest living philosophers are either Christian or stand in some form of theistic tradition. Frederick Copleston, the great Oxonian Jesuit, gave us what might be the most comprehensive history of philosophy ever written, wherein he did not recoil from the most difficult issues ever raised in philosophical discourse. It is my experience that my Christian peers are not one whit reluctant to explore the biggest intellectual challenges. I myself stand in a curious amalgam, part skeptic, part Catholic, part Episcopalian, part evangelical. But my theism draws me towards someone like Nietzsche, who interests me to no end. In fact, I love the guy. So for me, faith draws me towards the fire, not away.

Your comment reminds me of another I once noticed somewhere else on the web; some suggestion that Christians were anti-science. When I asked my interlocutor how he might explain the presence of science departments in every fully-accredited evangelical and Catholic university in America, I was greeted with something of a smirk. When I added that one of my old professors, a Harvard man and world-renowned biologist expert in estuarine studies, was an evangelical, well, things just fell flat. Had our discussion not fallen into silence, I would have loved to have pointed out the many Christian friends of mine who are medical doctors or doctors of psychology. (I just helped a man who received an emergency implant at this state's premiere cardiology center, a mainline Catholic hospital.)

Of course, Christian or not, theist or atheist, people do run away from hard challenges. It is perhaps all tied to psychology, to the parameters that define the comfort zones of the people we know. We probably all have some line we can't cross, some threshold that brings us anxiety, fear, dread; some point that kicks starts the old flight reflex.

Maybe what you've experienced, Chris, is that religious students who attend secular universities are more guarded when it comes to exploring life's deeper questions. You do teach at a secular school, don't you? (I assume this from your own post.) So perhaps your experience speaks to a very different phenomenon.

Anyhow, I hope that you enjoy your time here. Your Blogger profile suggests you are quite new to blogging; perhaps your professorate will lead you to more fully develop your presence in the blogosphere.

Peace to you,

Gnade

Bill Gnade said...

Dear Everyone,

I don't see how will can be severed from belief. Perhaps someone here can explain it to me. Surely we have all known someone who has refused to concede he has lost a debate, or has denied compelling evidence, solely to maintain his claim to superiority or certitude. If religious believers refuse to budge an inch toward understanding, then surely non-believers are equally vulnerable. I say this because no one is inerrant; there are no claims to infallibility swirling about. I mean, we all walk this world with these words spilling over our lips, "I might be wrong," "I am wrong," and "I am sorry." In other words, we can't be too confident in our beliefs, can we? Does not our diffidence prove that the beliefs we hold are indeed rooted to our very wills?

I know that when someone provides evidence to me -- like my child telling something about a conversation that took place in the lunch line at school -- I choose to believe; I do not follow some compelling set of syllogisms that lead me to my beliefs. Sometimes there is some syllogistic aspect to my beliefs, at least with some things. But I doubt anyone can really suggest that belief and will are not necessary companions to each other. Words like recalcitrant, stubborn, intransigent, and incorrigible were not coined with the religious in mind. These words speak to the complexities of human nature, irrespective of religious proclivities or the absence thereof.

I must say that for me this is probably the best post I've ever read by anyone here at DC. I thank John for writing it; I applaud him for the way he wrote it, too.

John, I like this particularly because your voice does not sound at all angry. I know how hard it is not to get pissed off; some of my most angry moments in life have been the result of interactions with Christians. But I think you are much more effective when you are able to simply state your case. I know that I am less likely to prematurely react and respond if any essay's anger is at least constrained to its own theme, if that makes sense: If a writer is going to be angry because Christians can be stupid, that's fine; but if it is clear the writer is really angry about something that HE is not writing about and yet weaves barbs into his text directed at that other thing, well, that stinks, and it distracts me.

You should pass this piece around. It deserves a wider audience.

But I DO disagree with you. I have seen in my own life people willingly reject WONDERFUL things; I have seen some of the most inexplicable suicides where victims just reject bliss! How can this be? You say people would never reject paradise; I say I've seen them do it, at least the paradise one can find in THIS life, the one that we CAN "prove," the one where "evidence" prevails.

Did anyone here see "The Remains of the Day," the great film starring Anthony Hopkins and Emma Thompson? Did not the butler reject the beauty and bliss his heart longed for? Didn't you squirm as he did this; didn't part of you shout at the screen, imploring him to take a risk, a leap of faith even, toward the paradise of human love?

Perhaps this is a bad film to use as an example. I remember the eerie and compelling film, "The Rapture," starring Mimi Rogers, that showed an obdurate heart's actions in the face of direct revelation. The climax is a stunning moment; it strikes me as absolutely true. (If you have not seen this mainstream film and its depictions of extreme fundamentalism's most bizarre notions of the rapture, you should rent it. It's rated R. I did find much of it very hard to watch. It is not in any sense a "date movie.")

Anyhow, John. Excellent post.

Peace to you,

Bill Gnade

Unknown said...

Mr. Loftus:
I have been an atheist all my life because I have never seen any evidence that any god exists. Would you be so kind as to kick off a discussion of why so many people, many of whom are quite intelligent, are at the same time so credulous. Should someone object to my assertion that believers are credulous, perhaps you could coax them into providing us evidence to the contrary.

goprairie said...

"I don't see how will can be severed from belief."

I see it as similar to a sense. You cannot DECIDE you will like a flavor. If you like broccoli, you may be certain you will hate cauliflower and may be more likely to find it distasteful than a person who likes broccoli. So you may have a notion up front that will color how you interpret the sensation of taste. But if someone tells you this thing tastes like broccoli and you expect to hate it and it actually turns out to taste like wonderful chocolate, you can't decide to not like it. You can decide not to TASTE it. So wanting to beleive or not beleive can color how you interpret the data, but once your beleif is nudged toward disbeleif, you cannot choose for that not to have happened. You can choose to never took at any data that might shake your belief if you have been prewarned, or you mgiht choose not to look at any data that might inspire you to beleive.

As an example, there was a video going around that was claimed to be an angel or demon - taken from a gas station videocam. Beleivers saw a blue light that came and went and went behind things even. Non-believers saw that it moved in jerky motions like a crawling insect and came and went like an insect flying and landing back and that it was fuzzy because the camera was of fixed focus length so the appearance of overlap was merely the out of focus edge fuzz. You could choose not to view it to not have nudge your beleifs. But if you saw it and got an eerie feeling, you 'beleived' it, but once someone pointed out how the movements resembled how bugs move and why would an angel move that way, you could not force yourself to keep believing.

Are there beliefs that you think can be chosen for or against? How? Before seeing the 'evidence' or after? What do YOU think?

said...

A great many of The Old Testament’s stories come from earlier tales (e.g., Gilgamesh, etc) and the style is, mostly, a direct rip-off of The Egyptian Book Of The Dead.

To learn more of TOT times, view this YouTube film

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7iQRFP_e90

The New Testament, well . . . . . to learn more than enough of TNT’s creation, view this two part YouTube film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzY2bVsZK5s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sckuqPulRGk

And, as a special Humbug surprise, the hit parody song
“The Little Bummer Boy”

http://www.soundlift.com/band/music.php?song_id=82930

AND, if that ain’t enough, you may join moi’s YGroup
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Tor_Hershman/

May you all have a delightful ‘Someone’s Been Embezzling Oil And Selling It On The Side’ Eightdays, a wonderful Solstice, the happiest possible Humbug and may your Hollowdays be filled with the most joyous of pleasures.

Stay on groovin’ safari,
Tor

Gandolf said...

Yeah the thought that non believers willfully refuse to believe , is a load of rubbish in my opinion .

Its the Contradictions lack of real evidence and tall storys combined with the knowledge that the land where this book origins come from are not even blessed with lots of humanity even today. So its not surprising such a judgemental nasty book full of damnations and hell exists .

I had this book as the word of god rammed down my throat from birth ,the fear of questioning any of it was passed on from my parents .So i suggest taught christians (willfully refuse to question or disbelieve out of fear)this trait being that that has been passed on down through time .One of the very reasons this book was written for in the first place , CONTROL !!.
What helped me was thinking that any real word of god would be spoken and written so that even a child would/could understand , this is not the case this book shows all the trappings of mans confused mind ! along with the many foolish contridictions and mistakes one would expect .
No doubt back in the days it was written they that thought it all up and wrote it would have considdered the measurements and all the data given for the story of noahs ark would have all sounded rather convincing to men/women of those days with the knowledge they then posessed (for instance).But of course we now know how much a elephant actually eats etc and just how much room would be needed to keep all these animals , and that certain animals can only survive on fresh food something that would have been rather hard with no fridges or freezers in a boat out at sea for such a long time .
For me it has nothing to do with willfully refusing to believe other than willfully refusing to believe what is so obvious to be olden time crap , thought up by uneducated minds searching for reasons for our existance ! along with those that seized upon a way to control out of fear .

Chris Wilson said...

Bill,

I think that beliefs are a passive result of the acquisition of knowledge. I also think that knowledge is acquired both willfully and unwillfully (?), perhaps unwillingly is a better word. I think it is quite possible to acquire knowledge against our will, that will in fact inform our beliefs.

People who are victims of assault have formed beliefs this way. Their beliefs are disconnected from their wills.

M. Tully said...

bill gnade said:

"When I asked my interlocutor how he might explain the presence of science departments in every fully-accredited evangelical and Catholic university in America, I was greeted with something of a smirk."

Just curious Bill,

Do the professors of science in these universities apply to religion the same strict standards of evidence that they apply to physics?

That would be the true test (please provide evidence).

Tully

Bill Gnade said...

Dear M. Tully,

You wrote:

'Do the professors of science in these [Christian] universities apply to religion the same strict standards of evidence that they apply to physics?

That would be the true test (please provide evidence).'


I guess I would answer your question by asking you if the professors in your alma mater's English department used the same strict standards as those used in the physics department. In other words, one wonders what you mean. Even economics, poli-sci, sociology, and psychology are called the social sciences for a reason; these soft sciences could not use the hard methods of the physical sciences. For some, history approaches the status of science, but only in the most strained sense of that word.

So, I guess what I am saying is that you have asked a question that is impossible to answer, because you are making a false comparison. Do you use the same strict scientific standards as those used in physics while writing comments here at DC? Maybe you can make a case for it. But I doubt it.

I also don't recall a single philosophy student heading off to spend four hours in a required philosophy lab. But maybe my experience is very different from yours. Perhaps there should be a philosophy lab.

The point of discussion, at least for me, is something Chris the Professor said that seems to me to be a sweeping generalization. If Christians are afraid to face "hard questions," then I believe it is Chris that needs to explain the evidence that I have presented: countless Christians are indeed in the sciences, and in philosophy.

Do you think, M. Tully, that Chris' observation was an accurate one? (I'd like to hear what others think on this topic, too.)

Peace to you,

Bill Gnade

M. Tully said...

Bill,

I apologize for taking so long to respond. Sometimes earning a living gets in the way of enjoyable discussion.

Let me answer your questions in reverse order. Do I agree with Chris’ statement that he has encountered many believers who willfully refuse to listen to anything that might challenge their beliefs (which by the way, I do not consider “to be a sweeping generalization” as he clearly states his opinion is based on personal observations)? Yes, I do. Most believers that I know are far from theologians in both their beliefs and their willingness to test them. Here in the U.S. a popular Christian bumper sticker states, “The Bible Said It. I Believe It. That’s the End of It.” Bet there is not a whole lot of probing questioning going on there. A look at the history of religion will reveal much encouragement of organized faiths for their faithful not to ask probing questions – heresy anyone?

As for believers engaging in science or history? Sure, but it is done under the auspice of compartmentalization. Again, here in the U.S. (where you live things may not be as ridiculous), we have a Virginia University called Liberty. The university is run by, and only endorses, a young earth creationist point of view. Yet, they have both a Biology and a Geology department. How can that be? I’ll tell you how. They apply strict scientific standards of evidence up to the point where it will conflict with their religious worldview and then all bets are off (see bumper sticker above). The same goes for history. Theologian and historian, the Reverend Mark Roberts, was once asked if he thought the dead actually got up out of their graves and walked around after the resurrection. He answered that as a Christian he was absolutely sure but as a historian not really. HOW CAN HE DO THAT? Could you see an historian being asked if she thought forced collectivization under Stalin was a good for the Russian people and she answered, “Well as a Marxist of course I do but, as an historian… eh, not so much so.” She’d be drummed out of the profession (historian not Marxist). But I think the most interesting thing, and also the most powerful point, is the casualness that Roberts has when he makes his statement. It is stated as something neither profound nor a weak hedge. It is nonchalant, a normal statement from a believer. Compartmentalization is the standard operating procedure.

As for the English department of my alma mater, no they did not follow the same standards for evidence as the physics department. But, then again, they never made any claims about the physical nature of the universe. Had they, they would have been held to the standards of physics. Nor did they frequently make historical claims. But, when they did, they were held to the same standards of history. I am more than willing to give theology departments the same criteria. Make a claim about the physical universe – follow scientific methodology. Make an historical claim – follow the accepted rules of evidence of historians. And if you want to make a claim about the use of alliteration in the book of Exodus, then yes, you can follow the standards of the English department.

Best wishes,

Tully