May 7, 2010

“When atheists read the Bible, they — by virtue of their being atheists to begin with — are starting with the premise that the Bible is false. I highly doubt that most atheists are reading the Bible with the goal of figuring out for themselves whether the content is authoritative.”

Hi.  Let me preface the rest of this article with the statement that the quote I just laid out is actually something I do not believe.  I think we can all agree that it is highly intolerant, an extreme case of bad stereotyping, and just plain wrong.  But I want you to keep the quote in mind because it is part of a point I’m going to try and make in today’s piece.

One of my ways of relaxing and passing the time is reading webcomics.  This can actually be a hard thing to do at times, because it seems more and more webcomics are becoming ‘adult’ by nature.  I suppose this is the way of the internet.  I’ve been very pleased to find a webcomic named Max vs. Max.  It is a story about a Christian, struggling with faith, and trying to make each through each day.  It’s clean, it’s funny, and thankfully it doesn’t try to beat you over the head with a large print King James Bible.

The creator, Wes Molebash, signed up for an account at formspring.me a place where you can be asked and answer questions from anonymous or not anonymous readers.  Not surprisingly quite a few fans of the webcomic begin to ask questions about his faith.  At one point he mentioned that “…the Bible holds up under heavy scrutiny.”

One reader, a person who writes in the blog No Forbidden Questions, was stunned by this answer, and probed with a further question essentially of ‘… What do you say to objections like these?”  They also posted links to youtube videos.  Wes answered, and his answer inspired a blog post from the reader.  You can read it here: http://www.noforbiddenquestions.com/2010/05/heavy-scrutiny-for-the-bible/

And it’s that post I’d like to address.  Firstly, I’d like to thank NFQ for starting out polite.  At no point did the writer call Wes stupid or use any sort of name calling or anything else of the sort.  And it’s that sort of debate that really allows mankind to grow.

But there are quite a few issues I’d like to take with the post itself.  Because things did quickly start to go downhill, suggesting an unhealthy bias and large amount of stereotyping and intolerance on the writer’s part.

Let’s start with the most blaring comment that came right out and slapped me.

“When Christians read the Bible, they — by virtue of their being Christians to begin with — are starting with the premise that the Bible is true. I highly doubt that most Christians are reading their Bibles with the goal of figuring out for themselves whether the content is authoritative.”

And now you see the “trick” I pulled.  And I’ll admit that it was a “trick”, but not an unfair one.  If a statement is brash or intolerant when phrased towards one ‘set of people’ then it is so no matter what ‘set of people’ it is phrased towards.

What boggles me about this statement, and many statements made in this blog post is the vast generalization and intolerance featured in it.  And I don’t mean in just the usual way of generalization.  This author, for instance, treats each and every single Christian as though they were born and raised Christian and never knew any other life.  (Take their later comment in the comment section: “It’s stuff you get taught practically from birth, and it comes with threats of eternal hellfire for those who do not believe. It’s hard.”)

There are quite a few Christians who were born and raised a Christian.  And knew no other life.  It’s true.  But even more true is that there is an equally great number of Christians who were NOT born and raised Christian.  But came to this belief later in life.  Not all Christians are taught practically from birth.

I myself did not become a Christian until I was 18.  This previous weekend I had the wonderful opportunity of listening to Nathan Grubb for a class.  This is a man who is the son of a Pastor.  One who committed adultery, drank excessively, and practiced every sin he preached against.  This was a man who had every reason not to believe the Bible, not to believe in God, and for a great portion of his life did not.  And now he does.  There is C.S. Lewis, a person who although born in to a Christian family was not Christian and was in fact a person who argued against it (against J.R.R. Tolkien actually) until the age of 32. (And not before at first declaring himself just a theist as opposed to a Christian)

The list goes on and on, and so I find myself dismayed at such a statement which ignores such a greater fact entirely.

Even the fire and brimstone comment is out of place.  This isn’t the 1950′s.  I have never heard a fire and brimstone sermon.  They aren’t common.  And haven’t been for a very long time.  (Yes they exist, but my point is they are not every day lecture as the comment suggests)

I’m also confused and take issue with a few other statements.  For instance, NFQ writes, “…I was also disappointed by Molebash’s use of the old, hackneyed response to contradictions in the Bible: that you have to look at the context.”

I feel this in part comes from two faults.  One being Wes’s, and one being the writers.  There are times when the issue of context isn’t a matter to discuss where ‘contradictions’ in the Bible are mentioned.  Point against Wes.  But there are many times when it IS.  Point against the writer.
What I find confusing is that the writer begins to list several areas they feel context has nothing to do with.  The reason I find this confusing is Wes didn’t bring up these subjects, NFQ did, so applying it to the talk with Wes seems out of place to me.

Context is important in the Bible.  Some things were meant for certain cultures, some things were meant for all time, the problem is often determining which is which.  Context, however, can never be determined from a single line of the Bible and it’s a mistake to use context as an argument for or against this way.  Broaden the portion of the Bible you are looking at instead of focusing in on just one line.  (Also, I thought this section would have been a lot better without the extreme sarcasm, it really brings down any ability I have to take the writer seriously, which is a shame because I want to.)

Another thing I take issue with is where the writer states: “I got referred to someone else who “does a better job” of answering my question. This is another one I get a lot. Personally, I wouldn’t be able to believe in anything as bizarre and counterintuitive as religion without being able to provide an extremely good explanation of it myself…”

I’m confused by this statement greatly.  Whether you believe in Creationism, or Evolution, or a hybrid, chances are you believe that every human is unique.  They all have strengths and weaknesses.  They all have things they are good at, and things they are bad at.  And no one is good at everything.

Yet this statement seems to suggest that every Christian should be able to adequately, thoroughly, and eloquently be able to answer every question they receive about faith without a moment’s thought.  That just boggles me.   Christians aren’t by definition perfect public speakers and writers.  Some of us just stink at explaining things.  Some of us can’t explain how to program a VCR let alone expound upon the mysteries and complexities of God.  And the lack of ability to do so is not a point against faith and God or even the believer.  It’s a natural and normal point of life.

There are plenty of atheists who can’t answer every question they are posed either.  Should the reverse be true?  Of course not.

Furthermore, the suggestion that not having the answers right now (As mentioned in the statement: “Well, guess what? They haven’t figured out all the hard questions. We are still waiting.)means that there are no answers, or won’t be answers and etc. etc. is just off and again wrong.  Sometimes, as Christians, as atheists, as anything at all, we don’t know all the answers.  Sometimes we never do find all the answers.  That doesn’t mean those answers don’t exist.

Let me pose this question.  Right now Science has yet to find an answer for an impossible number of things.  Should I therefore no longer treat Science as a valid point of view, or something to be trusted because it can’t provide me the answers to the hard questions “right now?”

The answer is of course no.  And the same applies to the hard questions regarding Christianity.

My point here today is this.  Yes.  Christians have bias.  And you know what? So do atheists.  So do pagans, and politicians, and everybody else.  NFQ seems to miss this entirely.  They actually portray atheists as completely unbiased (“When atheists and/or skeptics read the Bible (or any other text describing supernatural claims), they consider the claims and consider the evidence for and against them, then they attempt to come to a conclusion on the likely truth value of those claims.”), and Christians as completely biased and completely unable to look at the Bible without bias.

If you must stereotype then do it fairly, and the fair truth is that on average both atheists and Christians are equally biased when it comes to the Bible, although in different directions.  And both are equally capable of reading, examining, and determining the truth and authoritativeness of the Bible.  If they want to.  And you can’t question how willing one side is to do that without conceding the same of the other.

Saying “I’ve never met a Christian who…” or “I’ve never met an atheist who…” is not only wrong, but a weak argument.  You haven’t met every atheist and every Christian.

Healthy debate, intelligent thinking, and true fact seeking means putting aside all preconceptions of a person, a group, an oath or creed, and looking at what is beneath instead.

To quote an episode of one of the Star Trek series, “Challenge your preconceptions or your preconceptions will challenge you.”