It has crossed my mind on several occasions that many of my friends and/or acquaintances from the past (mainly those who are "friends" on facebook) may be wondering what in the world happened to me. I am obviously not the same person that you knew back when we knew each other better. Maybe it is egotistical of me to even think that you have given my situation any thought, but knowing many of you to be sincere, kind, caring people, you probably have been concerned. I know I would be about you if our situations were reversed.
Specifically, what I am speaking of is my spiritual situation. My previous post (written sometime in 2008...I don't blog much) is actually pretty accurate still, but I thought I would write an update.
It has now been approximately one to two years since I have attended church. I can't quite remember when I stopped going. Sunday mornings have never been so wonderful... A quiet, relaxing morning with a cup of coffee and a newspaper/book seems to be much more of a spiritual experience than most of the times that I have been to a church service.
Back on track: I don't think there is one specific experience on which I can blame my digression (or progression, depending on your viewpoint). It seems that it was a slow process with ups and downs... kind of like the stock market. If my spiritual life was on a line graph, it would probably look a lot like a market-watch analysis... and just as we are having a financial recession right now, my line graph would also reflect a recession... probably bottoming out more than ever before! Again, it would depend on your spiritual position as to whether this is good or bad; Richard Dawkins would definitely see this as a positive trend...
To try and make a long story short, I am no longer a "Christian." This is probably stating the obvious, but why not just come out and say it? Perhaps one day I will come to know that Christianity is truth, but I am far from convinced at this point. I don't necessarily believe that one particular religion has it right and everyone else has it wrong. Don't mistake this as saying that I don't believe in absolute truth. What I am saying is that I don't know that anyone has it right! Over the centuries, religions have come and gone, many of them buried in the ruins of their long-forgotten civilization.
Side note: After watching Bill Maher's newly released DVD Religulous this past weekend, I found it interesting that there have been many "saviors" throughout time that had many similarities to Jesus Christ; Many of them were born of a virgin, crucified, and resurrected (according their religious traditions). For example: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm
After being a "Chaplain" in high school, a "Spiritual Life Director" in college, a Bible study leader at various times, a praise band member at church, a Christian camp counselor, on several mission trips, speaking in chapel in high school, a VBS leader, an AWANA attendee for my entire childhood, a church member my whole life (and the list goes on), and now a Christian drop-out... I would find that pretty confusing if I were you. After 29 years of life, I can say with confidence that the last year and a half (or so) has pretty much been the happiest and best of times for me. I'm sure I've used the analogy before, and not to be cliche-"ish," but it is like when you have a sliver of wood removed from your finger; the tingling and the relief is sweet.
For those of you that would now say that I was never "really saved," or that I was "just going through 'the motions'" (as I probably would say about me if I were you), I can say with the utmost confidence that I was not. I wholeheartedly believed it all. I had the times of great spiritual highs (and lows), and really experienced what I thought to be the "presence of God" at times. For those of you that know me well, you know that I try and have always tried to be as genuine and frank as possible; I hate putting up a front just to impress people, and I try my best to never be fake. I would not have spent 27 years of my life living a facade. I struggled often, and questioned many times, but I never "went through the motions." It was as real as it gets...
I want you to know though, that I am still asking the questions. I have not given up. I want TRUTH... I want to KNOW... Merely settling for what was ingrained into me since birth is not good enough for me. The religion of my culture is not necessarily the religion for me. As Thomas Jefferson said, "Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
So, after my random rambling, I hope that this might answer (perhaps vaguely) any questions of "What happened to Josh?" Quite frankly, I don't even know the answer to that question... But I'm searching for answers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I applaud both your searching and your honest letter and reflections about doing so. Your vigorous and unrelenting pursuit of truth is admirable and commendable. I am sure you have and will get many warnings and messages of concern, but I just want to say that I think none the less of you and appreciate the fact that you are not settling for a religion that has not helped you on the path toward truth thus far. Someday, you should show me how to brew my own beer by the way.
Josh, I probably don't really know you "well," but I remember our time at LU and your sincerity. I can relate in so many ways to some of the struggles you have posted.
Anyways, I will bite at the Jefferson quote (for fun:)). Blaise Pascal, when arguing against skeptics who accused certain Christians of believing against all reason or learning, argued that faith, even if it is "blind," would still be completely within reason. For, to make a wager of zero in the chance of an infinite return (no matter how improbable), is far more rational than to risk an inifinite reward to gain nothing.
I thought of this post and your last one when I was reading the following:
"Not everyone, by any means, has had the experience of the 7th of Romans, that agony of conflict, of desire to do what we cannot do, of longing to do the right we find we cannot do. It is a great blessing when a person gets to the 7th of Romans and begins to realize the awful conflict of its struggle and defeat...of all the needy classes of people, the neediest of this earth are not those who are having a heartbreaking, agonizing struggle for victory, (or you could say, truth), but those who are having no struggle at all, and no victory, and who do not know it, and who are satisfied and jogging along in a pitiable absence of almost all the possessions that belong to them in Christ".
Thank you all for your comments so far. It is nice to have feedback and to hear differing perspectives. At this time, I would like to respond to Will's comment regarding Blaise Pascal (please see his comment, since he did a great job summing up what Pascal said.)
I remember reading in Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" about Pascal's theory that you spoke of. He basically said that if God is the God you say he is, then to "believe" in him just because it may have a better probability of a good payoff at the end, rather no payoff (or "infinite return," as you put it), even though it makes sense on paper, you cannot fool God into thinking that your faith is genuine if it is simply playing the lottery and hoping for a good result. I have often thought about "What if there is a...(fill in the blank, i.e. 'hell,' 'heaven,' 'God,' etc.)... it would be less of a risk to pick something and hope it's right... but I'm pretty sure God is smarter than that. That may be a good argument for things like investing on Wall Street, or putting money in the bank (for instance, the parable of the "talents" when the one guy burried all his money and did not make it multiply at all), but when it comes to God and spirituality, I think it is impossible to truly buy into it based on odds. If someone is already a true believer, then this could give them a sense of satisfaction that they at least have something invested, but for one who is unsure of what truth is and really wants to passionately follow that truth, it is not possible to find answers by trying to roll a dice or beat the spread.
Josh, I completely agree. I don't think you can just choose to believe and make yourself saved. Yet, that's based on my theology and the content supplied by what I believe to be God's revelation.
I don't think Pascal intended this argument as he wrote it to pursuade someone to choose to believe in God because it's a good deal (risk nothing to gain everything). Pascal himself was a fideist and didn't even think faith should be based on reason (as some would understand reason). So, as it is, it doesn't serve as some positive apologetic towards belief.
Pascal's wager is really a 3rd party discussion. Intellectual Skeptic A and Intellectual skeptic/Theist B talking about the Ignorantly faithful Christians C. From an objective standpoint (the discussion of A and B) how irrational is it for Christians to be Christians? If you have an either or option, God or no God, than in reality it really isn't irrational since you lose nothing by it -- and, as you know, have everything to gain. I think the wager is limited to that, and is really a mind exercise more than a way to approach God.
Nonetheless, I don't think Dawkins would be justified in saying sincere Christians are irrational in their pursuit of God -- how could they be, what does he have to offer by means of atheism?
Another comment on sincerity. If Dawkin's main argument against Pascal's wager is that the wager belief would not be sincere and therefore non-saving faith anyways, where does that leave him?
It would have to leave him with the view that sincere faith very well may be a rational good wager. Thus, what is the motive of Dawkins? If sincere faith, from a non-subjective view, is rational, then why try to pursuade sincere believers away from that faith, when, in fact, he has nothing greater (payoff) to offer in this world or the next, by his own admission?
Will, I am enjoying our discussion.
A couple of statements that jumped out at me from your latest post are:
"If you have an either/or option, God or no God, than in reality it really isn't irrational since you lose nothing by it -- and, as you know, have everything to gain."
And:
"...why try to persuade sincere believers away from that faith, when, in fact, [Dawkins] has nothing greater (payoff) to offer in this world or the next..."
I agree that Dawkins' atheistic views offer no payoff for the next life (and I would not necessarily align myself with Dawkins... I am not sure where I am at, but I don't think I'm quite to that point. I referenced him merely as an example of a rebuttal to Pascal, just as you would probably not completely align yourself with Pascal--you used him as an example in rebuttal to Jefferson). I do think though that Dawkins may have something to offer in this life. Even a hard-core atheist like Dawkins would probably agree with the Bible when it says that "the truth will set you free." (John 8:32)
It is and has been freeing to step outside the box that I've been in for my whole life and view the church and Christianity as a whole from the outside. I'm not saying that I have found "the truth" (far from it, I think), but I do think that merely pursuing the truth is a revolutionary and liberating experience. I do hope to have some answers and come to a logical (non-fidiest) conclusion, but what is there to offer from Dawkins' standpoint (or that of many other viewpoints)? The freedom of seeking truth. I don't believe that there are multiple truths, but when the scales fall off and one explores the world of all the possibilities, it is a great thing. I think that is a definite positive "payoff" in this life. Obviously it would be good to come to some sort of conclusion though.
As far as having "nothing to lose" and "everything to gain" from being a Christian, Paul seems to have said otherwise. In 1 Corinthians 15:12-19, he said that if Christ was not raised, then "our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" and that they (Christians, or those hoping in Christ) are "of all men most to be pitied." If I am not sure that Christianity is true, I do not want to waste my life trying to follow it, only to come to the end and realize that it was a crock. I think that either way, there is a risk and there is definitely something to lose whether you are an atheist or a Christian.
Thanks for the comments Josh.
You state:
"As far as having "nothing to lose" and "everything to gain" from being a Christian, Paul seems to have said otherwise."
Ok, but I was thinking from an either/or of: God or No God. Paul only loses everything if two things are true at the same time: 1) Christ was not Raised
AND
2) God still exists.
If atheism is true Christians would have lost absolutely nothing by being Christian. It is only if atheism is NOT true, and Christ is not raised, that we (and atheists) have a problem -- we are still in our sins and their is still a judge.
Does atheism really offer something in this life -- even if it is true (and the truth will set us free?)? I would say, from logic and the history of the 20th century, consitent atheism would naturally lead to despair and depression. The all important word here is "consistent;" any "happy" atheist is an inconsistent one. John Paul-Sarte basically said that for people to be happy they must create illusions of meaning for themselves in order to find fulfillment. This doesn't sound like a very "freeing" experience to me? As soon as the atheist becomes enlightened to reality, he must immediately trick himself into thinking what he knows doesn't really matter...despite that everything inside of him says it does:
J. Paul-Sarte -- "That God does not exist, I cannot deny, That my whole being cries out for God I cannot forget."
As the guy from the matrix said:
I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? Ignorance is bliss."
I realize your not aligning yourself with Dawkins...but, since this started with Pascal and the rationality of atheism or theism, I have to say (especially in light of the above), even if atheism were true, holding to it "consistently" doesn't work in the "real world." It would cause the type of life atheists (inconsistently) don't want to live -- ergo, atheism, even if true, is an irrational position to hold.
Post a Comment