The Great Divide

One reason I started this blog was to share what I've learned from extensive studies of theology and Christian apologetics over the years. And I've found through much study that an honest analysis reveals Christianity to be as reasonable a belief as it is homiletic (devotional/emotional). Sure, I may never be able to convince some people of this, but that lies in the fact that truth in this world is complicated enough to require lots of study. And since few people are committed to publicizing such an image for Christianity, perceptions on this matter will always be slow to change.

I think this is why religion in general is passed over by many smart people - it is never presented to them in logical or rational ways – ways they can actually understand. But in order for me to present Christianity in such a way, I naturally must respond to the objections brought up by people who reject religious belief. And for this reason, people could easily perceive me on the opposite side of such individuals – constantly fighting them off as enemies of the faith. It would not be unlikely for skeptics and Christians alike to take this view either, since humans naturally tend to simplify conflict in terms of duality - a sort of “good vs. evil” where only one side wins.(Even worse, they interpret the Bible this way)

To me the extremes of this dualist thought are most evident through popular dichotomies of “religion vs. science” and “democrat vs. republican”. I hate how such ideas become divisive in ways beyond what is necessary. There is more to being religious than whether one rejects science, and more to rejecting science than lack of knowledge, concern or understanding. (Recent studies have shown the most stubborn “creationists” are also the ones with the most schooling). There is also more to being a scientist than one's views on evolution or creation. Being a Democrat is about more than taxes and women's rights, and being Republican is not just all religion and big business. Like the issues themselves that divide us, as humans we are more complex than such simplifications allow.

This is why I have always seen problems with the “atheist vs. Christian” portrayal. There is more to skeptics than hatred of religion or inability to understand in it. There is more to Christianity than blind faith and anti-intellectualism. While I'm not afraid to point out problems with skeptical arguments, I actually owe much to skeptics and credit them with developing my insights into religion as much as many Christian resources. In some cases, I have more respect for some atheists than Christians I know, and the even rarer agnostics may be closest to sharing my views!

Does this seem odd to you? Perhaps shocking? If so, it shouldn't be. Only by embracing skepticism could I achieve the confidence in my belief I now have. Only then did I feel empowered enough to engage and evangelize others in a way that is educational rather than condescending. Only by clearly understanding my belief was I convinced enough to communicate it more intelligibly, not only to those who need it but to Christians who need better discipline and teaching.

So how can I embrace skepticism without being it's champion? How can I find anything in common with “enemies of God”? Simple - it is an over-generalization to even see skeptics as enemies to start with. Certainly their disbelief separates them from God and blinds them from knowing the true peace offered by Jesus. And this makes them enemies of God - but so was I before I believed. Skeptics have rarely done anything to offend me personally (except the ones that ignore anything I'm saying and parrot their point to death), and are therefore hard to see as enemies.

The real issues for me lies in what motivates the disbelief. Is it fueled by honest questions or doubts about religious belief? Or is it fueled by a negative perception of religion, formed from bad experiences with individuals close to them? Is the individual simply rebelling against status quo, failing to put effort into understanding religion more than popular perceptions allow? Did the individual leave their rebellion phase behind them, or are they just looking to be contentious? How these questions are answered does much more to shape whether I will see someone as an enemy. People committed to poor logic and personal tirades are therefore my enemies, whether they are Christians or skeptics.

What endears me to skeptics is they almost all can answer that first question (“Do you have honest questions or doubts”) affirmatively. Most did not choose to walk away from God for malicious reasons, although that can motivate them later. What typically begins their exodus is they considered serious questions about religious belief, but were not fortunate enough to be shown concern for such matters by Christians who should have cared. Instead, they were told to “just believe” or “have faith” - as if that were possible for someone who is constantly analyzing every detail of the world around them. In short, many skeptics have just been unable to make sense of popular belief, and without having careful or caring responses in return they cling to disbelief.

You see, I discovered early in my Christian walk that many questions asked of skeptics are natural to anyone who is simply inquisitive. How? Because I discovered the answers to such questions on the Internet only after having asked them myself! Yes, many skeptics fail to make the effort getting legitimate answers, but that is a separate issue and not any less commonplace in Christian circles. The reality is that Christian belief, as parroted from many pulpits and Sunday School rooms, lacks deep thought and scholarly engagement. So when deep thinkers try to engage, they find themselves still underwhelmed, and this is a bigger problem than whether or not the skeptic believes in God.

If I have so much in common with skeptics, as I claim, then why am I a Christian? The answer is simple – while I go through the same processes of questioning information, my approach to finding answers can be fundamentally different or more thorough (depending on the individual). That, and I find myself okay if I can actually be proven wrong by evidence. But to reach that place, my flow for analyzing information involves a series of questions designed to make extra certain I know my topic. A few examples are as follows:

1. Do I like this material because it merely says what I already believe? Or did it truly engage a clear conflict of logic and information? For example, I am careful of this when reading through creationist materials. Sometimes the material contains legitimate questions of the scientific conclusions in current research. Sometimes it contains nothing more than hollow logic that begs questions. Do I accept the whole of the material then because I want to believe it? Is it not more responsible to sort through and believe only what is proven? (In case you're wondering, my beliefs on origins are too complicated to pigeonhole into most theories)
2. What is the source of this information? What expertise does this person have? For instance, when a scientist speaks about religion, what level of exposure have they had? Do they have degrees in either topic? If not, how much of their criticism is worth even considering? Is it really the result of intense theological studying (on top of their scientific research), or is it merely trying to exploit flaws in popular belief without considering other avenues? Going with the creationism example above, I often look to see if am I reading critiques of geological research from an active geologist with a PhD, or if am I reading the words of a self-proclaimed expert and pundit (like Kent Hovind) wanting more attention.
3. Does this information appear to have an agenda? Is the critique I'm reading just trying to disprove Christianity, or is it merely speaking to explain what it knows and laying out flaws that could apply? How much is the author staying within their expertise? Conspiracy theory often fails on this point. Most such sources want only to find ways government looks bad (this is an agenda!), assuming anyone with a secret agenda must certainly have criminal or evil intent and want to abuse power. Not that theories against Christianity are better, but isn't it possible that sometimes governments have good reasons to be secretive?
4. How much does the material speculate, and how much does it deal with fact? This is related to the others in the sense that speculation leads to problems forming solid conclusions. But more specifically, it deals with whether or not a case is even made with facts or opinion. There are millions of internet posts, comments, forums and places to visit where opinion is all you will see. Facts loom in the background like the proverbial straw in the hay. Are these places from which to read, believe and adopt patterns of thought and opinion?

Now, to make this point I generalized from my experiences. There are certainly some skeptics who are not guilty of failing to ask these questions with their research. They know how to check information. What often is true is they are simply unaware of what scholarly materials are available on a subject, or what competing opinions may exist. The theology they are then exposed to continues to remain little more than what is caricatured by the vocal "know-it-alls" that saturate the entertainment industry.

Nonetheless, you can hopefully see how skepticism can be healthy. By definition, after all, it relates more to doubt and asking questions than it does actual disbelief. It is a process which helps one be certain their beliefs are not just personal, but in fact reflect reality. And this itself, dare I say, is actually the lost spiritual art of discernment – something not only encouraged by the Bible, but seen as something seek after more than other spiritual gifts.

So although I'm Christian, perhaps you can see why it is not unusual to find me fact-checking numerous claims against Skepdic. Or how I can follow blogs like Skeptophilia, cheering the author when he speaks within his expertise (he is not strong on theology). This is also why I watch shows like Mythbusters regularly (I have over 3 dozen episodes on my DVR), having been known to even question their approach to experiments. This is why I get kicks out of shows like Mentalist, Bones and House – not because their main characters have a hatred of religion founded in flawed understandings, but because when they operate within their expertise, there is much that can be learned from them (despite the fact that they are impossibly smart by real standards)

Through all this exposure to negative opinions of Christianity, I still remain Christian. Why? Because each of these sources have only taught me how to think better in many ways. I have learned to recognize how knowledge is applied to real-life situations, whether it is scientific or religious (discerning where critics of religion are misguided). I have ultimately learned to develop a fonder appreciation for the idea of certainty applied to belief. I have only been more endeared to the uniqueness of Christian thought as I've come to understand it more, rather than being pushed further away from it, as I suppose many Christians fear would happen if skepticism is more embraced.

So, if you have found yourself believing in this great divide between believers and non-believers, between atheists and Christians – join my in taking every thought captive at this moment. Learn to see our fellow humans for what they can still bring to God's kingdom. Recognize their limits as well - they often attack popular Christianity but like most other Christians, they are rarely aware of its disagreements with scholarly Christianity. So be careful to be contentious. These individuals are still gifted by God, after all. The same God who can and has used his enemies to teach his people lessons. Israel repeatedly learned this way, and God's enemies still received the punishment they deserved in the end. Believing God will do likewise, shouldn't we embrace our enemies while there is time to learn from them? Who knows – in the process they may be able to learn a thing or two from us.