I thoroughly enjoyed this honest, heart-felt interview with a fellow who, after years of evangelizing, Bible college, and ministry, has left the faith.
The following excerpt from the interview exposes a tendency in certain circles.
For me, the route to unbelief was solely intellectual. I made a conscious decision to be open-minded, to read the “opposition,” and go wherever the truth lead me – even if it was away from God. It doesn’t seem like many Christians are willing to be that open-minded. But I think it’s very important. Otherwise, through cognitive dissonance, we only see what agrees with our worldview, and reject and explain away what contradicts it. The beauty of reason is that we can consider any proposition and attempt to figure out whether it’s true or not. But religion already has the truth. It’s not seeking it. It’s defending it. That mindset has to be overcome.
Note that tendency he identifies: The tendency to circle the wagons around some part of the truth and make the sole purpose for living defense. Offense is no more desirable. It seems like healthy, constructive expressions of the truth would be better. Consider the Parable of the Talents. The best way to defend something is to bury it.
The worst way to use something is to turn it into a hammer, so everything else is approached as if it is a nail. The best way is to find constructive, creative uses for that something, whatever it is, and keep seeking new understandings of how to use it even better.
Thank you for posting that. I shall return to read it again.
does this mean i have to start believing in dinosaurs?
To be serious just for a moment….What makes this man’s concept of neutral reason any less naive than his concept of faith? The idea that he could access some imaginary treasury of reason from which he could objectively evaluate his faith, free from pre-rational commitments seems to be every bit as naive as the most poorly thought out understanding of faith.
Yes, and you are right to turn his comments back to the matter of alleged Objective Reason to which he allegedly has access. Here are some thoughts along the lines of postmodernism’s and post-secularism’s challenge to Objective Reason:
http://colinburch.blogspot.com/2008/12/postmodernismpostsecularism-report-on.html
In my experience — speaking of pre-rational commitments — the liberty experienced following the writer’s appropriation of “reason” is related not to the content of the theological commitment he used to have, but to the emotional and social nature of the groups with which he was once affiliated. The lack of clarity and consistency he experienced in those groups caused him to seek other ports. So, by placing himself in judgment over others, he can say the commitments are only valid if one can consistently and perfectly live those commitments. But on a cognitive level, are we to assume that each thought and feeling he has are always and purely rational, and that each thought and feeling within the religious groups are always and purely irrational? And, the affirmation of the seemingly bedrock principles of Objective Reason eventually become circular — we are always reasoning within a context, because we can never entirely transcend our contexts.
Limabean – What the writer means is that you should not believe in dinosaurs. Pure reason can only be based upon that which is sensorily perceived. Because you have never seen one, it means that don’t exist.