Not too long ago I sat on the airplane waiting to fly out of Orlando back to Dallas. The plane was delayed for quite some time as, for some reason, the checks that they perform on the plane were taking longer than normal. Unfortunately, it gave me time to think about all the things that could go wrong with the plane. I wondered how many components they had to check. Think about it. Do they really check those things good enough to put more than two-hundred people thirty-thousand feet in the air. What if they missed something? I thought to myself. There is just so many things to miss! I worked myself into a panic and then had to calm myself by attempting to reintroduce common sense.
When it comes to faith, many of us have the same type of questions that keep us from ever really relaxing. All the things that we fail to check. All those things that we could be wrong about. These possibilities cause us to lose our joy and replace it with doubt and spiritual panic.
I have found that there are two very similar tentative and paralyzing conclusions that stem from this type of doubt holding people’s faith at bay:
1. I did not check everything out.
2. Someone knows something I don’t.
I did not check everything out
Though we need to be diligent, informed, skeptical, and wise in our faith, we need to be careful that we don’t work ourselves into an impossible situation. I don’t know how many people I have talked to who are always one fact, one verification, or one piece of evidence away from belief. Often, no matter how many reasons we have to believe, we simply cannot trust. “Yeah, but what about . . .” is the most common thought in our head. It goes on and on. There are always other possibilities to explain the evidence. Even if the other possibilities are simply punts to anomalies (“well, maybe there is some explanation for the resurrection that we don’t know about”), with this mindset in the driver’s seat, to us, these serve as legitimate reasons for us to suspend our faith commitment.
When it comes to essential Christianity, what I have found, is that these “Yeah, but what abouts” normally don’t even have any bearing on the truthfulness of Christianity, but only on the validity of some interpretation of a non-essential aspect of the faith.
“What about evolution?”
“How did Noah get all those animals on the ark?”
“Why did God allow all those kids to die in the Arkansas flood?”
“Why does God allow so much evil?”
“What words did Christ really use in this passage? Matthew says this, but Mark says this.”
“Why do the Catholics include the Apocrypha and Protestants don’t?”
“Why is there so much disagreement among Christians about the details?”
“What about the Inquisition?”
On and on it goes. Now, to be sure, sometimes the questions are not ancillary to essential Christianity, but so many times they are. However, the types of questions listed above (and a thousand others like them) should not prevent anyone from accepting the central belief of Christianity—that Jesus Christ, the son of God, died for our sins and rose from the grave and that we must repent and trust in him to be saved.
Another problem with this line of thinking is that it unconsciously commits to non-belief while waiting to have everything we think we might have missed answered. However, the methodology carries an inherent double standard. Why doesn’t our non-belief have to have all the questions answered? Why are we not suspended in a state of belief until all of the reasons why we could be wrong about non-belief are answered? If the evidence is sufficient, why does non-belief enjoy the benefit of the doubt.
It is most certain that we have all missed some things. We will never have all our questions answered. This is impossible. Like with the airplane, we must be willing to rely and trust in the evidence, even if there is something that we could have missed. There is a sufficiency in probability that we must be willing to live with. If we are not, we will forever be in a perpetual state of doubt. We will always be one answer away from faith and assurance.
I believe that the Christian faith is the most probable explanation to everything, even though I could come up with a thousand objections and possible alternatives. I also believe that the statement, “the sun will rise tomorrow” is only probable. I could come up with a thousand objections and doomsday scenarios that could poke holes in this theory. However, the possibility of alternatives does not amount to their probability. Just as it would be insane for me to bow a tentative knee in credence to alternatives to the sun rising tomorrow, so, for me, it would be insane to bow the knee to unbelief about Christianity just because I could bring up some possible objections.
There is a point when the evidence is sufficient, even if we missed something. There are some basic checks that we do before the flight of faith, and I encourage everyone to concern themselves with these. But when you start checking the aisle lights of the plane, the stability of the tray holders, the on-board telephone, and the possibility that a Boa Constrictor could have been maliciously planted in the cockpit to kill the pilots mid-flight, you have turned your quest for truth into an excuse for non-belief. This methodology does not work in any area of life, including your religious faith. There comes a time when you must relax and cease giving your doubts control that their substance does not demand.
What if I missed something? I am sure I have, but I have not missed the main things and they persuade me to rest in Christ.
Next, I will talk about the second objection: “Someone knows something I don’t.”
22 replies to "“What if I Missed Something?”"
CMP said: “Another problem with this line of thinking is that it unconsciously commits to non-belief while waiting to have everything we think we might have missed answered. However, the methodology carries an inherent double standard. Why doesn’t our non-belief have to have all the questions answered? Why are we not suspended in a state of belief until all of the reasons why we could be wrong about non-belief are answered? If the evidence is sufficient, why does non-belief enjoy the benefit of the doubt.”
This is the concept of the burden of proof. When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on him or her making a positive claim. If we are interested in discovring what is true, it is thousands of times better than its opposite, which you are implicitly advocating.
Consider an example. You see strange shape floating and moving in the air, a far distance away. There are a hundred possible explanations – only one is true. If you start out by assuming that every claim is true, only 1% of your opinions are true. If you start out by assuming that every claim is false, 99% of your opinions are true.
Furthermore, if you accept the approach that CMP is implicitly advocating, you would be an adherent of every religion, until you show each one to be false. Have you shown that Zurvanite Zoroastrianism is false? If not, you must assume that it is true!
CMP, this is a pretty basic concept, are you genuinely advocating the opposite of the burden of proof?
Travelling by car is more dangerous than flying.
–
I agree with CMP that in relation to sufficiency in probability, nothing is 100% certain. If you are waiting for 100% certainty, you will beleive nothing.
Muslims could say the same thing-or any religion. You’re basically saying “Don’t worry about the details, just relax and trust.” I think that approach works for peace and happiness, but doesn’t help you find the truth.
What helped me to try to find the truth is expanding the possibilities in my own mind. Asking myself questions, like:
What if none of it’s true?
What if part of it’s true?
Which parts are likely true?
What if my mind has been living in a dreamworld all these years?
Kinda like if people are doing their life and come across a situation-they automatically try to fit it into their Bible world. What if they stopped trying to do that? What if they thought OUTSIDE of the Bible?
Anyway, when I opened up my thinking possibilities, the world made more sense in most ways, not all.
Boz,
I can see how you read this. These things are always clear in your mind while you write them but when others read them, sometimes you leave some things out that would clarify the misunderstanding.
My point is that for many people, even when the probability exists on the side of belief, the unanswered questions continues to give unbelief the benefit of the doubt. When I talk to folks who follow such a method, they feel justified in their unbelief simply because there are some stones that have yet to be turned.
On a specturm of unbelief to belief, there is a time, well before absolute certianty, that one has to start giving belief the benefit of the doubt. If you say that you cannot due to these unanswered questions, then you have committed yourself to this double standard without justification.
Lynn, I am not saying don’t worry about the details at all. I guess what I am saying is that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck we should assume it is a duck even though there are so many other things we could examine. To do otherwise is grounds for clinical insanity in every other area.
My point is that the cardinal issues of Christianity are clear, even when there are some of the details (global flood/local flood, date of Chronicles, character of the church, problem of evil, evolution, etc.) are not as clean.’
I think that the theological method fides quaerens intellectum “faith seeking understanding” plays a big part here. There is a true and valid faith that we can have even though our understanding of all the details will not be complete.
5.C Michael Patton on 13 Jun 2010 at 1:11 pm #
Lynn, I am not saying don’t worry about the details at all. I guess what I am saying is that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck we should assume it is a duck even though there are so many other things we could examine. To do otherwise is grounds for clinical insanity in every other area.
Why a Duck?
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51OW9HQFHhL._SL500_AA300_.jpg
Seriously, though, Lynn kind of beat me to it, though I was going to say Mormonism and the Book of Mormon. And I think the threads here at PandP about what are the fundamentals of Christianity, as well as the existence of numerous discordant and non-communing-with-each-other Bodies of Christ, tend to raise a question about whether “the cardinal issues of Christianity [really] are clear.”
So, what is clear? That Jesus died. That Jesus rose from the dead. Okay, I think most every Christian agrees with that. But there is still disagreement on what the atonement involved and accomplished, and how; what salvation is; whether salvation is eternally secure; whether salvation is monergistic or synergistic; whether the Trinity is THE correct doctrine of God; what one must do to be saved; etc. And the wars over words like justification and pistis christou indirectly impact the cardinal issues, and turn some of the widely-held beliefs about these things on their heads.
It’s a time of upheaval in the world and in the church, and I think that Evangelicals’ questioning of once-sure things, as well as non-believers’ reluctance to jump in without better and more complete answers to the questions they have, may be symptomatic of that.
Boz,
To echo CMP slightly in his response. You talk about “burden of proof”. Now being a lawyer I know a bit about this phrase to say the least. The question is not is there a “burden of proof”, rather it is “what is the burden of proof”. In law for instance there are typically three for different situations. Now it seems what you are advocating is that essentially you can’t believe a positive statement about reality unless you can prove it with mathematical type certainty. Of course in the real world there is exceedingly little we can know with that kind of 100% certainty. For instance does you’re significant other really love you or is he/she just faking it??? Is this chair going to hold my weight when I sit down on it??? Is this car roadworthy???
Now of course we can look for signs that these things are true. For instance I can inspect my car, kick the tires a bit, and see to the best of my ability that it is road worthy, but there is no certainty. There could be a bolt that’s been manufactured improperly that as soon as it’s stressed is going to break causing me to lose control of the car.
I just can’t be certain in a mathematical way about most things and I have to just exercise faith that my car is going to hold together. I think that is what CMP is getting at.
CMP said: “My point is that for many people, even when the probability exists on the side of belief, the unanswered questions continues to give unbelief the benefit of the doubt. When I talk to folks who follow such a method, they feel justified in their unbelief simply because there are some stones that have yet to be turned.
On a specturm of unbelief to belief, there is a time, well before absolute certianty, that one has to start giving belief the benefit of the doubt. If you say that you cannot due to these unanswered questions, then you have committed yourself to this double standard without justification.”
Thanks for clearing up that misunderstanding. I agree that we should accept a claim with the level of certainty that the available evidence dictates.
Michael T,
The legal burden of proof, used in a court of law, is different to the philosophic burden of proof, used in debate. I am discussing the philosophic burden of proof.
I am advocating that if a positive claim is made, we should assume the negative position, until the evidence demonstrates that the claim is more likely than not. The strength of our opinion should be commensurate with the strength of the evidence. The goal of this approach is to maximise our true beliefs and minimise our false beliefs. Do you agree with this approach?
–
Regarding 100% certainty, If we are waiting for 100% certainty, we will beleive nothing.
I agree with CMP that to require a standard of proof for Christianity that we don’t require in other areas is cheating. I left Christianity because I considered its important claims very probably false, notably the existence and goodness of the god my church was telling me about.
On that latter one, I’m surprised to see the Problem of Evil make CMP’s list of non-essentials. I’d say doubt over whether God cares about suffering and evil is a major challenge to Christianity. It strikes at the goodness of God and hence his worthiness to be worshipped even if in fact he does exist. People who reject Christianity solely on those grounds have rejected it for a legitimate reason, it seems to me: if God is indifferent or malevolent, the Resurrection doesn’t signify what Christians think it does, even if in fact it happened.
I didn’t spent a lot of time looking into the Resurrection before I became a Christian (I don’t think that’s uncommon among Christians). I’ve spent a little more time since leaving, though I’m hardly an expert. One thing I would say, on CMP’s point against double standards, is that the Resurrection is less well attested than other miracle stories that Christians don’t accept, presumably on Humean grounds where they haven’t closely investigated the story. Apparently that was Chris Hallquist’s point in his book on the Resurrection, though I’ve not yet read it.
All topics are significant if they are part of an argument that Christianity is false or if they undermine the reasons for believing.
If a large part of your faith is based on the teleological argument, then the case for evolution should undermine your faith. It does no good to say particular theories of creation are unimportant. If the reasons for a belief are undermined, then the belief should fade.
If a large part of your faith comes from the way Christianity makes sense of the human condition, then the way that Christianity doesn’t make sense of the problem of pain/evil should help undermine your faith.
If a large part of your faith comes from the way God always comes through with “please help me finish my homework” prayers, seeing how he doesn’t come through with “please help the drowning children” prayers should help undermine your faith.
If a large part of your faith comes from having four independent witnesses of Jesus via the Gospels, then seeing that Matthew is largely copied from Mark should help undermine your faith. The impact is not that we don’t know precisely which wording Jesus used. The impact is that things like this are clues to figuring out where the Gospels came from, and learning where they came from undermines the case for the Resurrection. That’s a big deal.
A clue might not have any significance in and of itself. It does not matter what size of gloves OJ Simpson wears. But it matters because the answer could help answer the question of his guilt or his innocence. Similarly, it’s a mistake to suppose an issue is not foundational simply because it deals with a point of doctrine that is trivially in and of itself.
I think many would disagree that these questions “normally don’t even have any bearing on the truthfulness of Christianity, but only on the validity of some interpretation of a non-essential aspect of the faith.”
The acceptance of evolution has led many to a liberal version of Christianity or even non-belief. Sure, the actual concept of evolution is not directly referenced in what one may choose to call the critical core of Christianity, but it sure does impinge on most of the these core values. The nature of man, the fall, original sin, death & suffering, Adam, historicity of Genesis/Exodus, interpretation of passages referring to creation/ Adam. If a traditional evangelical becomes convinced the evidence for evolution is compelling it will inevitably drive a reevaluation of many key concepts.
Or, to take another question listed, the differences between Matthew and Mark. Conclusions derived from a study of these differences can directly impact one’s conclusions on the truthfulness of the key claims of Christianity. If Matthew’s embellishments to and reworking of Mark’s accounts lead one to conclude the gospels do not reliably report history, then we are not talking about a “non-essential aspect of the faith” but rather the faith itself.
Boz,
I am well aware of the differences between legal and philosophical burden’s of proof. They are similar concepts in many ways though, just different applications. I would agree that a positive claim about reality should be disbelieved absent any evidence that it is true. I think we would likely disagree though on what qualifies as evidence and what the level of proof necessary for belief is.
“I am advocating that if a positive claim is made, we should assume the negative position, until the evidence demonstrates that the claim is more likely than not. The strength of our opinion should be commensurate with the strength of the evidence. The goal of this approach is to maximise our true beliefs and minimise our false beliefs. Do you agree with this approach?”
I will choose to disbelieve this positive claim about burden of proof until it is empirically verified. Please do so and include a colored chart and three proofs of purchase. And did you disbelieve the validity of this methodology before you adopted it? What evidence convinced you of it?
Second to this, when speaking metaphysical claims (which everyone holds in one form or another) all you’re doing by employing this method is remaining agnostic in order to avoid dogmatism. It’s not making you right in what you believe at all. It’s only maximizing your true beliefs because they are all remaining noncommittal. But they don’t tell you anything true about reality at all. They only make you look less stupid if the claim ends up being proven false.
Ironically, however, you adopt what cannot be verified in your ultimate beliefs, and thus show that such a methodology is self refuting. Ultimately, when speaking of metaphysical issues, it is left up to faith first, anyway you slice it.
It’s good to hear from you, Hodge.
I can assure you Michael that 99.003% of the time flying is safe.
Did you know that Chuck Swindoll has a fear of flying? I love you
man, and miss seeing your smilely face. al
For any thinking individual doubt exists. Be that doubt regarding the resurrection or the problem of evil in regards to Christianity, or whatever problem one finds in regards to another claim, doubt will exist. The question becomes, do you allow doubt to make your choice or not. Further, is the question important enough to you for you to bother to try to find the answers to your doubts.
I have found considerable evidence for the resurrection that most people ignore, and this evidence suggests a solution to the problem of evil, but again it is largely ignored. I found these answers because I cared enough to really dig. What another does or does not research, or accepts or rejects is not my concern directly. I am not responsible for their choice, only for my presenting the evidence.
I think it’s key that evidence about the Resurrection has come up here. Important issues surround that. But equally important is the Church’s (or anyone’s) interpretation of the Resurrection… the theology regarding this supposed event. This quickly throws us, as it should, to seeking the development of viewpoints or doctrines — to find as much as we can about how, when, why they developed and under whose main influence.
It was this area, of “Christian origins” and NT scholarship, that I came to devote much of my spare time to after being a solid Evangelical from childhood to age 45, theologically well educated and a teacher/apologist, etc. My switch from “belief” to “non-belief” around 15 years ago has only been solidified further the more deeply I’ve looked (literally hundreds of books, plus articles, blog postings, etc.), the better I’ve understood the nature/genres of Scripture and the development of earliest Christianity. But still, I do give room that Jesus MAY have experienced bodily resurrection (though the supposedly historical evidences are very weak and easier to interpret otherwise, to me)…. The Shroud of Turin being not fully “settled,” it seems, contributes to my not reaching a firm conclusion against bodily resurrection, though it’s not the only factor.
But given that all, I have no “temptation” to still interpret (as I long did) the possible Resurrection as a validation of any given theology that can be derived from the NT canonical (or that era’s non-canonical) books. Certainly, Resurrection, in and of itself, would do nothing to establish “penal substitutionary atonement” or any atonement theory. Nor does any set of Scriptural statements combined to created such a doctrine by Evangelicals or other earlier parties impress me as truthful or bearing validation as being from God.
The “doubt” issue is mainly, and properly, around what to make of various human theologies derived from Scripture, whether it…
continued… sorry I couldn’t get “edit” to work…
…”whether it is God-breathed or not.”
Really liked this post and have been impatiently waiting for the promised second installment (Someone knows something I don’t).
Don’t forget it!
jmk
[…] note, this is both an extension on my doubt series but also the promised follow up to the “What if I Missed Something” […]