I have been reading Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian. I first came across Bertrand Russell in my Sociology and Political Science classes for his philosophical arguments on the use of nuclear deterrants. On top of that he was first and foremost a mathematicial, but has since become reknown for his positions on a wide range of political and social issues. So when I heard he had written an essay on this topic, I had to get my hands on it.
It is very refreshing to read critical ideas rather than always looking at apologetics, and I think ultimately this will help me develop a rather balanced view. Russell originally delivered this as a lecture in 1927, so some of his arguments, particularly in the fields of science have since become outmoded. But he makes other interesting points to ponder, which I will not go into here. The statement he made that struck me the most was a comment about Immanuel Kant, the famous economist.
He was like many people: In intellectual matters he was skeptical, but in moral matters he believed implicitly in the maxims that he had imbibed at his mother's knee. That illustrates what the psychoanalysts so much emphasize - the immensely stronger hold upon us that our very early associations have than those of later times.
He also said, of course I know that the sort of intellectual arguments that I have been talking to you about are not what really moves people. What really moves people to believe in God is not any intellectual argument at all. Most people believe in God because they have been taught from infancy to do it, and that is the main reason.
I think there is a lot of truth in these statements. And it was brought home even stronger when a colleague saw that I was reading the book and asked why. After my reply, his response was that sometimes it is better not to ask such questions or they might shake our faith. But what is Faith? I got two nice definitions from another book I began reading to answer other burning questions. According to Guidance and the Voice of God by Phillip Jensen and Tony Payne, many people believe faith is "believing something is true even though all the evidence is against you". However, they challenge that faith should not go against empirical rationality, which is very much similar to my own view which I blogged at length here and here.
I have always been reluctant to discuss Christianity in the past because I always felt this pressure to evangelise people, yet without any confidence in my own knowledge and understanding. Ever since I became a religious cynic, it has been a lot easier to ask the difficult questions and try to find the answers. As a Christian all my life, I often wonder what questions I would have asked if I was contemplating conversion. Since I never had that chance, now I like to ask people why they are not Christians, and try to see the world through their eyes. So far so good ... which brings me to a final thought.
People always seem to take the emotional tack when sharing Christ. You are a sinner, Jesus died for you, you can go to heaven. Everything seems to be predicated on the sob story of the cruxifiction, and the wonderful news of salvation. Perhaps the cynic in me is speaking again, but we seem to be assuming a lot of people to believe what we say. Maybe I am too pragmatic, but I thought a better order would be:
1) Do you believe there is a God and creator?
2) Do you believe there is any single correct religion?
3) Why should Christianity be the correct religion?
And only then would the audience interest be piqued to delve into the message of salvation.
Well, maybe that's just me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
You certainly aren't alone.
I agree with you on the order of "believing." The ultimate question is, "is there a God?"
I think it takes humility to really know God. It's our pride that keep us away from Him. God is not for us to "looking for," but He is the one who found us. He is at our doorstep, but it's our pride that keep Him outside.
God is not church. A lot of people seem to mistaken that.
Faith is not blindly believing. It's based on knowledge. Like any other relationships, my faith for God based on past experience with Him.
(It's a loaded post, there were much I want to say, but it would be too much...)
Welcome back!
Well,as a non-Christian in early teenagehood, my burning question was firstly: What, if any, is the meaning of a human life? And after much dissatisfaction running through economics, politics, human rights, philosophy, I got to religion. And there, my pre-eminent question was precisely: Prove to me that there is a God before you talk to me about your religion.
Christianity won because of its immense historical evidence and internal coherence. (And of course, now that I know so, because of the grace of God and the work of the Spirit.) The proof of God is had by working backwards from the proof of the truth of the Scriptures.
(Am not sure why/if the crucifixion sob story per se works at all. I'd always said that it was really too bad if Jesus died for me. Why bother me about it? If he was completely deluded about our problem of sin and his ability to save us, that's his own pasa (literally) innit?)
annk: I don't think (2) and (3) are actively preached, because for most people in a church, they would have gotten past these issues. And maybe because I have always been in the church, I never had the chance to give it that much thought.
shadow: wish you could have been around last night when the topic turned to religion, and my friend threw the exact question back at me. (i hate arguing with rgs girls.) i also believe that the evidence for christianity is compelling because of historical evidence and internal coherence. but i guess until i have explored the others myself, i can't really say that with much authority.
Post a Comment