If there’s one thing that I’ve learned through losing Christianity, it is this: belief is not a choice.
Try it. Pick something you don’t believe in—it can be anything: Shiva, aliens, Santa Claus...
Now on the count of three, believe it.
1...2...3................
How did it work for you? I assume not so well. Just examine anything you believe in or don’t believe in and you will find out pretty quickly that belief is not a voluntary act. I never chose to believe that my friends and family love me—the overwhelming evidence simply convinced me. I never chose to believe stepping a piece of broken glass would cut my foot, I just realized it from experience. Trying to make myself believe broken glass would not hurt me is an impossible task because the facts all point in the opposite direction.
A belief arises from solid evidence, conviction, and sometimes a bit of emotion. Only in the absence of these three things does belief become a conscious decision.
For example: Some people look at the world around them and come to the automatic conclusion that there must be a god. Some people look at the world around them and conclude the very opposite. As I said in my first point about the existence of God---each side presents a pretty good case, and (for me) the evidence is inconclusive. It is in situations like this where belief becomes subject to an act of the will: I come to no conclusions concerning the existence of God, so in this case I have the ability to choose what to believe.
But though the "existence of God" question is pretty much up in the air for me, the evidence against the God of the Bible strikes me as pretty conclusive. Of course, there are a lot of people out there who could not bring themselves to disbelieve Christianity either. Humans are very diverse: Different facts hit different people in different angles. I don't think my methods of reasoning things out are any superior to those of the rest of the human race; they are simply my methods, the way my mind is wired.
Still, countless Christians have accused me of leaving the faith for one of three reasons:
1. I’m angry at God.
2. I have become too selfish and sinful to want God in my life.
3. I just don’t care.
No matter how ardently I try to assure people that none of these answers are true, they usually don’t get it. My intellectual conclusions are mistaken for selfish motives. It’s frustrating to no end.
(Christians: how would you feel if I accused you of rejecting Allah for one of those three reasons above? You would probably be pretty offended too. My guess is you’re not mad, you’re not selfish, and you’re not apathetic; you simply don’t believe Allah exists. Your conclusion is based on reason alone.)
Now I’m sure some non-Christians don’t believe for precisely the reasons I mentioned. I won’t deny that. But that’s not the way it was for me; I never wanted to leave Christianity—in fact, I waged a battle with my own mind for a while, trying to force myself to believe it. But those attempts failed pretty quickly—I knew I was lying to myself, just as you probably knew you were lying to yourself when I told you believe something on the count of three...
So why in the world did I leave Christianity if I didn’t want to? (Key words here: Did. Not. Want. To.)
The answer is simple: I had to.
-Monica
Actually Allah is God, that's their word for Him. Arab speaking Christians say Allah as well as the Muslims. It's Mohamed that we have a problem with.
ReplyDeleteYou're one of the few Christians I've ever heard say that Allah is not a "false god".
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think you had to?
ReplyDeleteDoes forcing onself to believe something ever work? Is there a difference between forcing oneself and just deciding? Or does it seem like forcing because sometimes we have to deny ourselves? Rhetorical questions!
And no, the Christians more than likely did not decide on reason alone. More than likely, they decided on faith alone (general statements, I know).
ReplyDeleteI had to because I couldn't believe it anymore... it all just seemed to far-fetched to be true.
ReplyDeleteI don't think forcing yourself to believe something can work, because it can never really be a genuine belief. You can tell your self over and over that you believe something but it isn't going to make it so.
True, true, there is a faith element involved for most Christians... I guess what I meant is, their reasoning supports their faith. For them faith is only a bridge between where reason falls short and true belief begins; their faith is supplemental to reason, not in spite of or opposing reason. For me however, reason leads in the opposite direction and faith is unable to reconcile my reason with Christian beliefs.
ReplyDeleteNo, forcing youself is never a good thing. Going along peacefully is the best bet.
ReplyDeleteHmmm.... I guess the only thing I've really been given (by most of my Protestant friends) a reason for believing is the fact that God does exist. Many will just say "it's in the Bible". I don't think they understand that not everyone accepts the Bible as their basis.
So, you think faith is just a cover up for what they don't know? Well, if their religion is true, why should they know all the answers?!
What is "true belief"? Are you saying that faith and reason must be separate?
(my apologies, dear Protestant brothers and sisters, if you were scandalized by my previous comment)
ReplyDelete"Many will just say "it's in the Bible". I don't think they understand that not everyone accepts the Bible as their basis."
ReplyDeleteEXACTLY! They try to force that presupposition of you without establishing any proof!
"So, you think faith is just a cover up for what they don't know?"
If you want to put it that way, yes. Honestly I think that descriptions is a little demeaning towards faith---I don't think faith is bad, or weak or anything like that, I just think it's abilities and worth are blasted way out of proportion.
"True belief"..... is complicated. But basically it is when someone is truly convinced of something... without forcing themselves, without deluding themselves. I don't think faith and reason are necessarily separate, but they can be. It really just depends on the situation: everyone's different.
Faith only is obviously something that is lacking. Why can't both faith and reason coexist in their proper orders? Why not have both?
ReplyDeleteThey certainly can and should coexist. But faith can't counteract reason, at least for me. I know some people are more driven by faith, some by emotions, some by reason, and all by a combination to some extent. For me, faith has to be working in the same direction as my reason. When I tried to use my faith to push against my reason, reason won out.
ReplyDeleteThey should be balanced. However, while you shouldn't believe in something that is unreasonable, you also shouldn't reason something without faith. Remember that human reason is limited. Aristotle was a genius when it comes to reason, but even he got things wrong.
ReplyDeleteI agree, they should be balanced. But what happens when they blatantly contradict eachother?
ReplyDeleteUm, then they aren't in balance? Or one is faulty? However, since reason is limited and faith can be infinite, one might think that faith should win the battle. However, I think that you may be thinking of when one particular element of reason contradicts a faith. If the rest of reason supports it, then the one contradiction is more than likely in error (in other words, it only seems to be a contradiction). All too often we take the exceptions and make them the rule because we are bored with the rule.
ReplyDeleteBTW, you still have to see The Dark Knight. :-D
ReplyDelete