Skepticism - healthy or not?

[QED]

Skepticism is a useful tool that we all employ from time to time. If anyone tells me something that sounds important I always like to know that I can verify it somehow if I wish to. The more important the issue, the stronger my urge to know that I can check-up on its validity.

However, when it comes to Christianity, it would seem that the opposite is true. The more important the message, the less concerned most people seem to be with their inability to establish its veracity. They appear to be content with letting the enormity of the message compensate for their inability to check on its truth. I would argue that this sort of suspension of regular skepticism is not good for Christianity as a whole.

Unfortunately the subject is so sensitive and people have such emotional ties to it that I fear the way to honest and open research is utterly blocked despite the fact that there is a plentiful supply of interesting research material available. Like countless others, I would like to know the real story behind Christianity but I fear that I never will because of the huge amount of inertia in the subject.

I find this frustrating and disappointing. But after 2000 years of heavy investment it appears that Christians have painted themselves into a corner and are unable to move from it despite the phenomenal wealth of written material and forensic-style investigation techniques available. This leads me to three questions:

1) Is skepticism an unreasonable approach to Christianity?
2) Would a less rigid approach to the subject make Christianity more generally acceptable?
3) Is there a concerted effort going on to establish the real story behind Christianity?

[ST88]

1) Is skepticism an unreasonable approach to Christianity?
I wouldn't think so. Jesus in Matthew 7:15 says to beware of false prophets, and that should be enough to make one at least suspicious. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 says to "Prove all things." I think people in general don't feel like they have the time or the resources to check out every claim, so the shorthand way of checking on the veracity of various claims is to believe someone else who appears sincere and have, themselves, claimed to have checked everything out. Witness the importance of testimonials in everything from political races to kitchen appliances.

Skepticicsm shouldn't be an unreasonable approach, but the nature of faith makes it less likely that any skepticism would extend beyond some details of the story -- instead of being skeptical of the story itself.

2) Would a less rigid approach to the subject make Christianity more generally acceptable?
I'm not sure I know what you mean, here. And maybe I'm the wrong person to answer this question. The only thing that would make Christianity acceptable was if it were indisputably proven right. For a rationalist like myself, that would involve personal revelation. Otherwise, there is no other possible approach that would be sufficient.

3) Is there a concerted effort going on to establish the real story behind Christianity?
Boy, you're really asking for it with that question.

I doubt that the effort is "concerted", but I'm sure there are some organizations that are trying to get at what actually happened at places like Golgotha and Galilee. And there are others who say that the "real story" doesn't matter. And there are others who say that we already know the real story.

[israeltour]

QED,

I agree with the majority of what you wrote. I am in complete agreement that much of the church will not look at their beliefs with a critical eye. Where I part from you is the role of faith... and even there just saying "faith" isn't entirely clear, because everyone appears to excercise it differently.

I started with faith in God... I just knew He was there. I don't know how. I could sense Him. So I went with it, and He's confirmed my faith countless times, to the point where my faith cannot be shaken... it just explains too much. So, I have undoubtedly frustrated some at my unwavering acceptance of God and Christianity. I've questioned it enough that I'm done questioning it. However, I still question the fine details of it... why does scripture say what it says? why is it written as it is? Essentially I've moved from whether God exists and whether Christianity is the way to reconciling what scripture appears to say with what appears to be true... and I've been reconciling those things for myself over the last several years. Every time I gain a new insight, it's confirmation of my faith. In the meantime, I'm constantly aware of the other criticisms people have, but I cannot investigate them all at once, so they do not persuade me, generally because I have not investigated them yet. I do so one at a time. I frequently find that the church is wrong, but that God is right, and so is scripture once you understand it. And so it goes.

To answer your questions:

1) Is skepticism an unreasonable approach to Christianity?

Yes, if it is your starting point. By starting with skeptism, you are shutting out the Holy Spirit, saying "I don't want to start with you." And it's rare when skeptism leads a person to change his mind. Josh McDowell comes to mind... but he's the exception. It generally doesn't happen, because it takes spiritual investigation to come to spiritual conclusions... purely intellectual excercises lead only to intelltectual conclusions.

However, once you have faith, don't simply accept everything your church says as gospel (so to speak) because only God has a monopoly on the truth. Investigate the scriptures yourself to find what God means. If you find your church right most of the time, you're at a good church. If not, ask whether its mistakes are getting in God's way and consider moving on. In that respect, skepticism is quite healthy, but I don't start with it.

2) Would a less rigid approach to the subject make Christianity more generally acceptable?

No, or else Unitarian congregations would be bigger than they are. In fact, it is the more rigid ideologies (religious and otherwise) that tend to be the most successful. Examples include Catholocism, Protestantism, Islam, Communism, the ACLU, and the NRA.

3) Is there a concerted effort going on to establish the real story behind Christianity?

Many, but they all have agendas. But, I don't how it could be otherwise. Investigators with faith will see everything through their faith, and investigators without faith will miss the truths that come from the Holy Spirit.

Something you seem to hint at, which I am very much in agreement with, is that sometimes the church comes to a conclusion that is reasonable for the time in which they live... but it's wrong. The earth-centered universe is my favorite example. The church then resists accepting the truth, to the point where honest investigation in alternate meanings is considered heresy. A more modern example are YECs who doubt the salvation of OECs, because in their opinion the OECs don't accept the "obvious" meaning of their own Bible. This turns off the skeptic and confuses the faithful. Honest investigation is indeed the key. But where you start and where you end is determined by whether you have faith... and people rarely cross over.

I therefore advocate skeptism within a framework of faith.

[Tilia]

Skepticism is a useful tool that we all employ from time to time. If anyone tells me something that sounds important I always like to know that I can verify it somehow if I wish to. The more important the issue, the stronger my urge to know that I can check-up on its validity.

However, when it comes to Christianity, it would seem that the opposite is true. The more important the message, the less concerned most people seem to be with their inability to establish its veracity. They appear to be content with letting the enormity of the message compensate for their inability to check on its truth. I would argue that this sort of suspension of regular skepticism is not good for Christianity as a whole.

Are not Christians the best judges of that? And are they likely to take the advice of self-confessed sceptics? I think not.

Christians today do as the first ones did from the very beginning, as instructed; deliver the gospel to those who will listen, and move on from those who will not. For those with genuine questions, or when people attempt to misrepresent their view, they explain or correct as appropriate, but otherwise they are not very interested in those who present themselves as sceptics.

[Tilia]

quote="israeltour"

Something you seem to hint at, which I am very much in agreement with, is that sometimes the church comes to a conclusion that is reasonable for the time in which they live... but it's wrong. The earth-centered universe is my favorite example.

Whoever it is decides that the arrangement of the visible heavens is worth much debate is not the church. The church is concerned with the heaven that cannot be seen, as well as its own practice of justice and mercy on the earth.

A more modern example are YECs who doubt the salvation of OECs, because in their opinion the OECs don't accept the "obvious" meaning of their own Bible. This turns off the skeptic and confuses the faithful.

Does anyone believe them? Not in my experience, unless they are persons of little education, and credulous, too. YECs are known as 'liars for Christ' by even the relatively unsophisticated in religious matters. YECs at first pretended that OECs did not exist, now that they cannot do that, and their position is seen to be a legalistic lie, they have no option but to badmouth the real Christians.

[israeltour]

Skepticism is a useful tool that we all employ from time to time. If anyone tells me something that sounds important I always like to know that I can verify it somehow if I wish to. The more important the issue, the stronger my urge to know that I can check-up on its validity.

However, when it comes to Christianity, it would seem that the opposite is true. The more important the message, the less concerned most people seem to be with their inability to establish its veracity. They appear to be content with letting the enormity of the message compensate for their inability to check on its truth. I would argue that this sort of suspension of regular skepticism is not good for Christianity as a whole.

Are not Christians the best judges of that?

Not always. As far as stubbornness goes, we can rate pretty high. In my opinion, Christians sometime believe falsehoods in faith... such as when the church believed the earth was the center of the universe, and the stars literally resided within the earth's firmament. Clearly, skepticism has its place. Time will tell what other falsehoods the church will eventually disavow... falsehoods that atheists already realize as such.

And are they likely to take the advice of self-confessed sceptics? I think not.

Like I said, we're stubborn.

Christians today do as the first ones did from the very beginning, as instructed; deliver the gospel to those who will listen, and move on from those who will not. For those with genuine questions, or when people attempt to misrepresent their view, they explain or correct as appropriate, but otherwise they are not very interested in those who present themselves as sceptics.

All true, and for the most part it's proper, since most people do not have the time to spend their lives studying beyond the truths revealed to them through faith, and a straight forward reading of scripture.

However, as I responded before, I believe faithful Christians should follow up with some skepticism, questioning their interpretations, especially where it appears to conflict with science and history. Proceeding in faith, God does reveal the answers. But ask not, get not.

[Tilia]

Skepticism is a useful tool that we all employ from time to time. If anyone tells me something that sounds important I always like to know that I can verify it somehow if I wish to. The more important the issue, the stronger my urge to know that I can check-up on its validity.

However, when it comes to Christianity, it would seem that the opposite is true. The more important the message, the less concerned most people seem to be with their inability to establish its veracity. They appear to be content with letting the enormity of the message compensate for their inability to check on its truth. I would argue that this sort of suspension of regular skepticism is not good for Christianity as a whole.

Are not Christians the best judges of that?

Not always. As far as stubbornness goes, we can rate pretty high.

Where do you get this 'we' from?

In my opinion, Christians sometime believe falsehoods in faith... such as when the church believed the earth was the center of the universe,

That is nothing to do with faith. Divine instructions are, though, and the advice of either sceptics, or of those who claim to be Christians, that contrast with those instructions, are to be totally ignored by the faithful.

[israeltour]

Skepticism is a useful tool that we all employ from time to time. If anyone tells me something that sounds important I always like to know that I can verify it somehow if I wish to. The more important the issue, the stronger my urge to know that I can check-up on its validity.

However, when it comes to Christianity, it would seem that the opposite is true. The more important the message, the less concerned most people seem to be with their inability to establish its veracity. They appear to be content with letting the enormity of the message compensate for their inability to check on its truth. I would argue that this sort of suspension of regular skepticism is not good for Christianity as a whole.

Are not Christians the best judges of that?

Not always. As far as stubbornness goes, we can rate pretty high.

Where do you get this 'we' from?

Case in point.

In my opinion, Christians sometime believe falsehoods in faith... such as when the church believed the earth was the center of the universe,

That is nothing to do with faith.

If we're talking about a belief that Christians would back up with scripture, then we are indeed talking about faith. A straight forward reading of Genesis 1 could seem to support an earth-centered system to those who didn't know better. So, it seems, the skeptics of the day were right.

That is nothing to do with faith. Divine instructions are, though, and the advice of either sceptics, or of those who claim to be Christians, that contrast with those instructions, are to be totally ignored by the faithful.

When the church believed scripture described an earth-centered universe, and took it on faith, what would you have told them do when a skeptic told them the earth was not at the center? Would you have told them to totally ignore it? It turns out they did for quite a while, and to what end?

In general, you're correct that Christians should discard teachings that are contrary to scripture... but I suggest doing so with more humility and self-scrutiny.

[Tilia]

quote="israeltour"

Skepticism is a useful tool that we all employ from time to time. If anyone tells me something that sounds important I always like to know that I can verify it somehow if I wish to. The more important the issue, the stronger my urge to know that I can check-up on its validity.

However, when it comes to Christianity, it would seem that the opposite is true. The more important the message, the less concerned most people seem to be with their inability to establish its veracity. They appear to be content with letting the enormity of the message compensate for their inability to check on its truth. I would argue that this sort of suspension of regular skepticism is not good for Christianity as a whole.

Are not Christians the best judges of that?

Not always. As far as stubbornness goes, we can rate pretty high.

Where do you get this 'we' from?

Case in point.

A Christian does not make that sort of claim.

In my opinion, Christians sometime believe falsehoods in faith... such as when the church believed the earth was the center of the universe,

That is nothing to do with faith.

If we're talking about a belief that Christians would back up with scripture

Which we aren't. That is not what Christians talk about. The foundation of the truth is the church. The church preaches the gospel, the truth of which it supports with changed behaviour. They are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for them to do, a light set on a hill, the salt of the earth. Those works are their support, not the Scripture. There are many who have become Christians who have never even possessed a Bible, let alone read one. Anyway, Christians alone decide what is Scripture and what is not, and they alone decide how it is to be interpreted for their use. Their enemies, both those who oppose them head on, and those who pose as Christians, will of course attempt to misrepresent them; particularly the latter, who have no genuine fruits of the Spirit to support them.

A straight forward reading of Genesis 1 could seem to support an earth-centered system to those who didn't know better.

I don't agree, as it happens. Genesis 1 is conspicuously mystical, particularly for those who read it in Hebrew. The tendency of much of mankind to read it literally is stubborn perverseness, and helps to justify the divine view that the majority of mankind is fit only for disposal. The talking snake of Genesis 2 seals their fate, anyway.

So, it seems, the skeptics of the day were right.

They were right about the science, but of course they did not know any better than the 'church' about what really matters, either! In the darkness, ignoramus called unto ignoramus. Unless they wanted to be ignorant, of course. Unless they didn't want to know better.

That is nothing to do with faith. Divine instructions are, though, and the advice of either sceptics, or of those who claim to be Christians, that contrast with those instructions, are to be totally ignored by the faithful.

When the church believed scripture described an earth-centered universe, and took it on faith, what would you have told them do when a skeptic told them the earth was not at the center?

I would have told the 'church' to learn to read. And the sceptics, too. In Hebrew, preferably, but their vernacular versions should have sufficed.

When Paul spoke to the Greeks of Athens, the circumference of the earth had already been calculated (and very accurately, as it happens). The Greeks also then had a 'theory' of evolution, much less accurate, but the view existed. There is no indication that these matters occupied anyone's mind when Paul spoke. Cosmology is not the Christian's business. Christ is. Even those who read the Bible should be able to work out that much.

'For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.' (1 Cor 2:2 NIV)

[AlAyeti]

"Christians have painted themselves into a corner and are unable to move from it despite the phenomenal wealth of written material and forensic-style investigation techniques available."

///

Whose "forensic-style" investigation techniques are being believed?

That is a fair question as well.

Christians do not shrink from defense. The evidence demands a verdict.

For example, the details of Jesus' physical conditions on the Cross has been weihged by "experts." Or has it? An educated person with great credentials, if Christian, is marginalized instantly so that their perspective is discounted by non-Christians, without any hope of dialog. NARTH for example. Yet, a non or anti-Christian is given total license to promote any view no matter if anti-scientific, anti-empirical or not. Pregnancy for example. "It" is human and alive from the moment that science has shown us that sperm penetrates ovum, but no. . . not really, it's all according to the scientist doing the writing.

The attack to evaporate Biblical beliefs is unrelenting in literally a 360-degree endeavor. That is not a paranoid assertion but one that is easily proved on the internet and in the political and social arena.

Whether Jesus ever existing, or the names and places mentioned in the Bible, to opinions about moral and social views, no credibility is given to Biblically-based Christian or Jewish perspectives by detractors of Biblical belief systems. And those who seem to loathe everything and everyone who base their beliefs and opinions from a Biblical foundation are ridiculed for them, and yet absurdities believed "by the masses" easily disproved by scientific methods, are "unchallengeable."