The Banned said:
The apostles watched Jesus heal people and raise them from the dead, and they still scattered. I think a little doubt is allowed for. Two things that come to mind are:
1. Are you unconvinced of God or certain God isn't real and this material world is all there is? People in the former camp (which it sounds like you) I would think have a shot. If thomas watched Jesus walk on water and still demanded to see if He was really resurrected, maybe we can get a pass for our doubts. However, the latter camp totally writes off the possibility of God, which I think leads to problem #2
2. Are you doing what is right because YOU are the good person who knows it all and are just so wonderful. Or are you doing what you think is right (even when you sometimes don't want to) because you believe there is a truth that we are called to. You have said before you don't believe in absolute truth. In my opinion (which just an opinion) this could be a stumbling block because we're back to deciding that WE know what is right. If, on the other hand, we believe there is an absolute truth (or something similar if that phrase is too loaded) and we're all struggling through this life to get there, there would seem to be room for God to work on you, even if you personally wouldn't call it God.
Another thought is the apostle Paul. Why, out of all the haters, was he the one converted by apparition. My personal belief is because he was one that was genuinely doing what he believed God wanted. Genuinely trying do what was objectively right. He was completely wrong, but with his heart in the right place, he was open to conversion. The others fighting against Christianity had personal motives and personal desires in their heart and were left to their own devices. I don't know you or your mind set, but I think if you are genuinely seeking what is right and true, you'll get your answer in due time.
This world is so full of information that it's constantly bombarding us facts and counter facts, I don't blame anyone for having doubts. I remember taking two classes at A&M. Two upper level Kinesiology classes, back to back time blocks. One professor tells us all that there is NO EVIDENCE that slow twitch muscles fibers can convert to fast twitch through training and vice versa. Walk up the stairs and down the hall for the next lecture where we are told there is CLEAR EVIDENCE that with enough training you can change your muscle fiber ratios. Right then and there I start doubting many things I've been taught. Obviously this is going to leak into matters of faith, as religion is one of the biggest targets out there and has the most implications on our lives.
1. I would very much put myself in the camp of 'unconvinced'. I find the gnostic atheist position that there certainly is not a God just as troublesome as the gnostic theist position that there is certainly a God.
Assuming the accuracy of the NT, Thomas witnessed many miracles before the Resurrection and so maybe its fair to be critical of his doubts. At the same time, I find it hard to blame someone for wanting evidence of something before believing in blindly. What I am uncomfortable about Thomas's story is the line Jesus gives after this occurs:
Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." . . . I don't like this statement or its implications.
2. I don't know if there is absolute truth. If there is absolute truth, I am very much unconvinced that any human alive knows or understands that truth. Again, its a problem of demonstrating the claim. Prove to me that you or anyone else knows the mind of God.
Hypothetically, if you were an atheist or otherwise unconvinced that any of the religions at our disposal were true, would you still believe in absolute truth - something like a moral absolute objective truth born of and a product a natural material-only world? I think that would be a hard position to defend. Sam Harris tries, but I've never bought into his argument. I think that I do what I think is right and what I think is good. The foundations for my definitions for right and good are developed through empathy, parts of religious philosophy, parts of secular philosophy, human experience. The objectives for my moral philosophy revolves around human well-being, ethical and compassionate treatment of others, environmental responsibility, and the promotion of critical thinking and evidence based problem solving. I think there are valid criticisms of secular humanism, but I still think its a reasonable and honest attempt at a moral philosophy given a lack of conviction that any religion is true..
The bombardment of information that you described feels like a blessing and a curse. Your story about the two opposing views about muscles works as a good analogy here, I think. You have two people (maybe experts?) who have studied a topic and reached a different conclusion that they both feel very strongly about. One may be right and one may be wrong. Or its possible that the truth is somewhere in the middle. As a student listening to the opposing views, I would be inclined to take a somewhat agnostic position - believing that there is opposing evidence that needs further study before certainty is justified. If I were to decide to study the question and become an expert on slow twitch muscles, I may begin to side with one position over the other. I may even begin to feel certain that one theory is right. But, when I have respect for the intellectual integrity and honesty and sincerity of the experts that are certain that the other theory is correct, I will maintain a sense of humility and skepticism toward my own certainty of my own conclusion. I am fallible. I make mistakes.
And now, I am using the analogy above for the purposes of circling back to my original posts on this thread. When I have respect for the intellectual integrity and honesty and sincerity of Christians, I am very willing to maintain a sense of skepticism about my own conclusions. But, more importantly, it gives me a since of respect toward your worldview. Whether I believe it to be true or not, it is something you believe with honesty and sincerity and with all of the very best intentions. And your freedom to continue to believe is worth protecting and respecting.
And my hope is that this sentiment might go both ways. If I can convince you of the honesty and sincerity of my intentions, I hope to gain a respect for my worldview. Even if you believe my worldview is wrong, I hope that it is something you believe to be worth protecting and respecting. This is how we coexist.
I initially spoke up in this thread because even though Christians probably had good reason to be upset with the Olympic ceremony, I don't find it useful to respond with insult. In general, I think both 'sides' fail to show respect for the beliefs of others. And because this is a board with a lot of Christians, I think I find myself usually picking at the Christians. I would like to think that If this was a board full of atheists, I would be equally willing to criticize them. Like I told Derm early in this thread - I think all of us on this board can do a better job of 'calling out' our "team" when they are being disrespectful.
