Beginning in the wrong place

Sometimes we don't understand or accept something because we begin at the wrong place.  In other posts I've mentioned that if a scientist begins with a 'nothing but the material world exists' bias, then, by definition, he cannot believe in anything spiritual and will, because of his framework, reject any evidence that does not conform to his paradigm.  In this post I want to discuss a few errors of approach to the issue of Christian Evidences that might interfere with someone arriving at an unbiased conclusion.

Focusing on the mysteries without first considering the evidence.  August 6, 1945 an atomic bomb code named 'Little Boy' was dropped on Hiroshima Japan.  The devastation was immense and the death toll attributed to that one bomb was around 90,000.  Now, whatwould you think of someone who, when presented with evidence about this said "I can't accept the idea that one bomb did so much damage.  It us utterly incomprehensible to me how one bomb can do so much damage".  While it may be true that someone might not understand exactly how a nuclear weapon worked, and it may be unimaginable that one bomb could do this [it was unimaginable until it happened], it did actually happen.  One bomb did actually do this and it is very poor logic that would deny the evidence because there are parts of that evidence that you do not understand.

Should spiritual truth be thought unreasonable because there are some mysteries in the Bible?  Should I reject the biblical explanation of the supernatural because I don't understand the supernatural?  After all, shouldn't we expect that if the Bible is truly a revelation from God that there will be some elements in it that are not easily understood and/or explained?  What would be the value of a revelation from God if it only contained things that could be discerned by normal human reasoning?  We accept many things without full knowledge of how they work.  How can green grass be eaten and then produce feathers on a goose and hair on a cow?  Why does a certain chemotherapy work on one patient and not on another?  Granted science is beginning to understand some of the workings of things that have been mysterious for centuries, but patent, out of the box rejection of something based on the fact that you don't understand it, or that it 'seems wrong' is foolish.

Focusing on objections to the exclusion of corroboration.  Some who reject Christianity do so in large part because they spend much time reading, discussing and interacting with those who object to Christianity without reading, discussing and interacting with those who embrace it.  Many are the college students who have read Richard Dawkin's attack on faith, and then, upon hearing the objections, consider the matter settled without entertaining the thoughtful answers available to those

objections.  There is no other field of inquiry, except religion, that we make the very unreasonable mistake of first considering all the possible objections before we examine the direct arguments in its favor.  Many times in discussing with those opposed to Christian faith I have asked "Which books have you read which claim to expose Christianity as a fraud?" and usually there is a list of books, websites, or forums.  Then, the follow up question "Which books have you read in defense of Christianity?" which normally elicits a blank stare.

It is foolish and illogical at best, and dishonest at worst, to claim you have come to a reasoned rejection of Christianity when you have only investigated objections to Christianity and not defenses of it.

Why is this such a common error?  I suspect it is in large part because we've grown up in a nation where previous generations, by in large, received Christianity as truth.  In that climate, belief is easy, even belief without seeking reasons for that belief.  In that situation, your belief is often a product of the belief of those around you, instead of a hard earned personal belief.  Then, faced with objections, you are intrigued, thinking, 'yeah, that's a good point', and intrigued, you are motivated to focus time and energy on the objections, thinking that what you had accepted without evidence has no compelling evidence because you never had the need to search for it.

When Christianity was first being spread to the world, the case was very much the opposite.  The presumption was against Christianity, and it's novelty led many people to examine it from a "Why should I receive these guys as messengers from God and the Bible as His word?"  Those people ended up with a strong, deliberate, reasoned faith.  Beginning with a presumption that Christian writers must be able to answer every one of a never-ending parade of re-purposed, re-dressed objections before I will consider evidence in it's favor is the wrong starting point.  There are many, strong, convincing arguments for Christianity.  We should begin by considering them, are they true, and if they seem so, then consider if any of the objections are sufficient to shake them.

Failing to deal fairly and wisely with difficulties.  It is much easier to ask a caustic and leading question than it is to answer that question, regardless of your position [just look at the flat-earth arguments].  I would like here to make a few suggestions about how to deal with difficulties because it is true that honest inquiry will reveal difficulties in whatever you believe.

Face it honestly.  Don't try to dodge, or deny that you have seen a difficulty.  Dishonesty is against the very fabric of what Christianity stands for, and dishonestly dismissing a difficulty because it is difficult is unwise, illogical and contrary to a genuine search for truth.

Face is humbly.  Do not imagine that because you haven't found the solution to a difficulty, no-one has, or that you cannot find it.

Face it fearlessly.  Men saw difficulties hundred of years ago, and Christianity still stands.  It has stood test after test and we don't need to fear that now it will fall to criticism.  Dan Brown, who wrote The Davinci Code is not the greatest critic of Christianity, he is just the most popular [in recent memory.]

Face it determinedly.  Do not give up in your quest for a solution,

and if, at length you cannot find a solution, you may at least discover that the difficulty does not discredit the faith.

Face it in the context of the entire Bible.  Nothing is better at explaining scripture than other scriptures, and the more familiar with the Bible as a whole you are, the better equipped you are to deal with difficulties.

Emphasize what you believe.  In the final analysis, we all believe something.  You have no choice, you must risk your eternal soul on some belief [You are actually doing that even if you deny you have an eternal soul].  If you find yourself in the mental conflict between faith and unbelief, give preference to faith.  Jesus never asked anyone to be untrue to their beliefs or convictions, or even to their hesitations or doubts [see Mark 9:24].  What he asks instead is that men should emphasize their faith and not be ruled by their doubts.

Immediately the father of the child 

cried out and said with tears, 

“Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!”

Failing to make serious work of studying.  Current culture in America is to take the easy way out.  That may have always been the case, but it certainly seems true today.  Most of us want the cliffs notes or the movie instead of the book.  Why?  It's easier.  You don't have to work hard to understand.  This failure is no where more common or dangerous than in an examination of Christianity.  When faced with doubts or objections, our faith may be shaken, but when we are presented a book on evidence, it looks/seems difficult and we are oftentimes not willing to make the investment of looking hard, thinking hard, working hard to wade through it.

It is one thing to ask a question, it is another to provide real, genuine, thoughtful answers to to those questions, and at times it is hard to grapple with those matters and understand technical or detailed answers.  Think back to our example of the nuclear bomb.  I can ask "how exactly does an atom bomb work?" in seven words.  A complete answer though, would take thousands of words and require very technical, detailed, complex, yes, just plain hard to understand explanations.  The same may be true of objections to Christianity.  Some of them can be easily and quickly answered, others however involve a long process of reasoning or gathering a great deal of evidence.

If you are willing to ask the question, be at least honest and fair enough to do the work necessary to determine if there is a legitimate answer.

Failing to understand when a thing is proved.  Some objectors seem to believe that Christianity cannot be established unless and until no possible additional

objections can be raised.  However, there is nothing which is objection proof.  Controversy has been waged on every issue.  A skilled attorney can bring objections against any testimony, even truthful testimony.

This vulnerability to objections is easily seen in the resurgence of the flat-earthers today.  It has been clearly and resoundingly proved that the earth is spherical, yet there are objections, some sounding quite plausible, and when there is an objection, there will always be a doubter.  This is no more evident than in doubters against Christianity.  Many times, when an objection is answered, the objector will make an ever-so-slight modification in the objection and act as though it is an entirely new objection.  I am firmly convinced that, given sufficient time, a clever man can present a plausible objection to any established truth.

Dr. Richard Whately has presented a number of plausible objections against the existence of Napoleon Bonaparte in his book "Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Bonaparte", yet few if any actually doubt that Napoleon did indeed exist.*

My point about this is that any truth, no matter how established and basic, can be objected to and doubted.

So, we have looked at five errors that can interfere with an honest, unbiased examination of Christianity.  Looking honestly at yourself, do any of these errors seem familiar, or comfortable to you?  Or are you really, genuinely, determined to find truth, wherever it may be?

*Oddly enough, this book was written in 1819 when Napoleon was still alive  - I actually had a personal experience with this when someone erroneously posted on facebook that I had died.  A friend called me to verify, reporting that he had received several calls from people who had not bothered to call me, but were wanting to make sure he had heard I was dead to know if he had details on my demise.
Note:  I am indebted to Dr. James Bales and his book The Roots of Unbelief for helping me to understand the errors mentioned in this post.