One of the positions that people take as regards to religion or faith that I cannot truly understand is a refusal to consider alternatives. "There's nothing that can shake my faith", or "nothing you can say can talk me out of what I believe". While steadfastness in the face of adversity or persecution is admirable, often it is a refusal or inability to think about what one believes. While many people have thought deeply about their faith and made reasoned decisions about it, I'm not convinced that this represents a majority. One thing that I have long attempted to do was to question what I believed and considered possible alternatives. My leaving the Catholic Church and embracing the teachings of The Way International was a decision that I made after weighing the evidence. In retrospect I didn't have enough information to accurately form a judgement about what The Way was saying, but at the time it made sense. I wasn't mad at the Church, or the Pope or anyone or anything, I just thought The Way made more sense. Similarly, when I left The Way, I had spent a full year examining what they had been teaching and came to the decision that it no longer made sense to me. Granted, what got me started was immoral and unethical behavior by the leader and chief teacher, but in the end I would have retained the beliefs that I had learned in The Way if they still made sense.
Finally, my decision to no longer consider myself a Christian came after more thought and introspection. Once again, I wasn't mad at anyone, but had come to the conclusion that there was no reason that I could see to view the Bible as having come from God or view it as superior to any other "holy" book. At best it was a collection of books, essays and letters that reflected how various people had viewed God over the years.
Does my tendency to question and my willingness to change make me better than anyone else, or even think that I'm better than anyone else? To quote State Senator Ernie Chambers from last year's dedication of a Humanist/Atheist exhibit at the State Capitol: "It's not my place to tell you that something that gets you through the night is wrong. Everyone is entitled to have whatever beliefs help make them a better person. What is wrong is when we try to legislate some people's opinions for everybody. Then we have a problem." I may be completely wrong about the Biblical God and Christianity. Those who espouse Pascal's Wager might suggest that since I don't know, the safer course would be to believe in the Christian God. But Pascal engaged in a logical fallacy when he formulated his famous wager; it's a false dilemma - there aren't only two choice: believe in God or don't believe in God. There are a multitude of choices: be a Christian and be an atheist are certainly two among them, but there are many choices as to what kind of Christian to be; others choices include be a Muslim, be a Buddhist, be a Pagan, follow Hawaiian huna, venerate the Hindu gods, convert to Asatru and worship the Norse pantheon and on and on. So the wager doesn't really make sense.
When I finally get to the part of my journey since leaving Christianity, it will be evident that I am constantly changing, evolving and looking for more evidence.
Part Three up next!
No comments:
Post a Comment