Michael Collett's thoughtful article "God and the problem of sincere disbelief" must have touched a nerve.
Within an hour of it being published on Wednesday, I received a flurry of emails from believing Christians asking me what I thought.
Collett and I share in common our religious upbringing. He tells the bitter-sweet tale of his coming to non-belief without rancour. He says that he made an extensive investigation of the evidence and decided that it was not for him.
First, he says: "Being a Christian means having particular views about history and science." Christianity either stands or falls on the truth claims it makes.
Second, he says: "It always seemed unconscionable to me that someone could be denied salvation not because of a moral …show more content…
Rather, he finds it "unconscionable" that a person could be judged for simply and honestly coming up with a different view of things that happened in the 1st century AD.
And that's the central point that Collett makes in his article: that for him, a big problem for belief in the Christian God is the existence of people who sincerely do not believe in the Christian God.
As he says:
"Could God really deny salvation to someone just because they're unconvinced by the historical basis for the resurrection?"
If Christianity claims that such sincere, 'simple' disbelief is enough to get you judged by God, then Christianity is itself making a morally questionable claim (says Collett). In his view, his not believing is honest, even morally virtuous. How could he be condemned for it?
It's an argument for unbelief on the basis of the existence of sincere unbelief.
I hope I've put Collett's case, or rather told his story, in such a way as he would recognise it. What is refreshing is the way in which he can say that rational truth claims are part of what believing means. Belief, or 'faith', isn't some post-rational or a-rational or irrational thing. It involves evidence.
The problem of sincere …show more content…
It's not an outlandish idea, even if you yourself don't believe it.
If such a God did exist, then it would not be unreasonable that he would demand of his beloved creatures not only that they believe in him in the sense of "believe that he exists", but believe in him in the sense of "worship wholeheartedly".
Believing in God in that fuller sense (which is what is actually meant by "believe" in the verses from John's gospel that Collett cites) would indeed be something that human beings ought to do. Indeed, to not believe in him would be disastrous, since he is the source of all life, love, and hope.
But if he doesn't exist, then not believing in him makes not a bit of difference — in which case, the atheist or agnostic has no grounds for a protest against God for demanding that we believe in him and worship him.
Which is where I want to suggest: isn't Collett's protest really not an argument against the existence of God, but a protest against the God that exists? Isn't there a tacit acknowledgement that God exists in this
Within an hour of it being published on Wednesday, I received a flurry of emails from believing Christians asking me what I thought.
Collett and I share in common our religious upbringing. He tells the bitter-sweet tale of his coming to non-belief without rancour. He says that he made an extensive investigation of the evidence and decided that it was not for him.
First, he says: "Being a Christian means having particular views about history and science." Christianity either stands or falls on the truth claims it makes.
Second, he says: "It always seemed unconscionable to me that someone could be denied salvation not because of a moral …show more content…
Rather, he finds it "unconscionable" that a person could be judged for simply and honestly coming up with a different view of things that happened in the 1st century AD.
And that's the central point that Collett makes in his article: that for him, a big problem for belief in the Christian God is the existence of people who sincerely do not believe in the Christian God.
As he says:
"Could God really deny salvation to someone just because they're unconvinced by the historical basis for the resurrection?"
If Christianity claims that such sincere, 'simple' disbelief is enough to get you judged by God, then Christianity is itself making a morally questionable claim (says Collett). In his view, his not believing is honest, even morally virtuous. How could he be condemned for it?
It's an argument for unbelief on the basis of the existence of sincere unbelief.
I hope I've put Collett's case, or rather told his story, in such a way as he would recognise it. What is refreshing is the way in which he can say that rational truth claims are part of what believing means. Belief, or 'faith', isn't some post-rational or a-rational or irrational thing. It involves evidence.
The problem of sincere …show more content…
It's not an outlandish idea, even if you yourself don't believe it.
If such a God did exist, then it would not be unreasonable that he would demand of his beloved creatures not only that they believe in him in the sense of "believe that he exists", but believe in him in the sense of "worship wholeheartedly".
Believing in God in that fuller sense (which is what is actually meant by "believe" in the verses from John's gospel that Collett cites) would indeed be something that human beings ought to do. Indeed, to not believe in him would be disastrous, since he is the source of all life, love, and hope.
But if he doesn't exist, then not believing in him makes not a bit of difference — in which case, the atheist or agnostic has no grounds for a protest against God for demanding that we believe in him and worship him.
Which is where I want to suggest: isn't Collett's protest really not an argument against the existence of God, but a protest against the God that exists? Isn't there a tacit acknowledgement that God exists in this