Doubt is very healthy thing. Skepticism prevents a person from being brainwashed and duped … plain and simple. The moment a person begins to have blind faith in human beings, religious theology or false sales pitches, they stop seeking truth.
When a person believes they already know absolute truth, they are only fooling themselves. Something can certainly be true even though it cannot be proven. But until a theory or theology can be undeniably confirmed, everyone should doubt it. Doubt leads to new discovery because doubting people seek truth. When doubt is equated to sin, guilt and fear become our biggest man-made roadblocks to progress and discovery.
Believing in something without seeing and without proof is a personal choice. But this choice is the equivalent of wearing a blindfold. Ignoring flaws, facts and new discoveries that begin to further reveal the truth that goes beyond what people believed 2,000 years ago.
10 ways to embrace doubt and seek truth:
Tags: Believe, Bible, Discovery, Doubt, Evil, Faith, Fear, Find, Knowledge, Religion, Science, Seek, Skepticism, Technology, Theology, Theory, Truth
October 1, 2009 at 11:06 am |
Nice post, though I suspect that the faithful are afraid of offending their sky daddy with the thought crime of praying to another god, even as an experiment.
One can enjoyably cultivate the habit of skepticism by reading James Randi’s site. http://www.randi.org/site/
October 1, 2009 at 11:48 am |
That part of the video fails to realistically speak to religious believers. Prayer to other Gods would show lack of faith, thus giving them the justification of why their prayers were unanswered.
Not to mention the whole, “thou shalt not test the Lord your God” argument. This is a key teaching to Christianity. Thou shalt not test God, because God always fails the test. Unless of course you are Moses and need to part a sea, or Elijah and need fire to come down from heaven to disprove the god Baal.
October 1, 2009 at 11:32 am |
I love the theme of this post, probably my favorite de-conversion theme — doubt is good! Doubt is the freedom to observe evidence yourself and draw your own conclusions about it, to believe what you are led to believe. I so much despise platitudes to “just trust” that are thrown out there to diminish doubt, it makes me want to scream.
October 1, 2009 at 11:46 pm |
Agreed. Considering that I’ve seen conmen like Madoff work along the same lines of “just believe” thought, I’m not too amused when religion asks for the same sort of staunch faith without evidence.
October 1, 2009 at 12:24 pm |
On the flip side, doubt can be overdone. Consider the Creationists who are doubtful of isotope dating, plate tectonics, DNA sequencing, etc. etc. etc. It is a standard Creationist tactic to find any tiny uncertainty or disagreement in the science of evolution and magnify it beyond all recognition.
October 1, 2009 at 12:31 pm |
That’s a good point, but at the same time, they have a right to doubt. They are certainly taking doubt to a disingenuous extreme, but nobody is telling them that they should repress doubt and force themselves to believe something. If they do not believe in plate tectonics (post flood, heh, heh :^) ), then fine, they can doubt plate tectonics as they learn about them. But at the same time they should doubt their own presuppositions about plate tectonics in light of the fact that nobody believes their special pleading theories but their own circle.
October 1, 2009 at 12:45 pm |
Yes, it can be overdone, but only if skepticism is based in unproven or superstitious “truths”. Creationists deny isotope dating, plate tectonics, DNA sequencing because of an ancient book.
Truth seeking skepticism is what drives progress. In the future, DNA sequencing may very well be an archaic practice because a doubter strove to find a better way.
October 1, 2009 at 3:11 pm |
I have never been able to understand how someone can have no doubt. I always wonder if people claim they have no doubt but in truth it is just a front they put up to hide their fear of the truth.
October 1, 2009 at 11:49 pm |
Well, they do have reason to fear it. It’s never set anyone free in the modern age (contrary to John’s claim in 8:32). In the age where justice can be brought with money, it can conversely ruin people who try to reveal it.
And furthermore, Truth is relative and can be rewritten. A look into the recorded history of past wars is an indication. Japan makes absolutely NO MENTION of its occupation of Southeast Asia in their texts. Ha. <_<
October 3, 2009 at 8:12 am |
The apostles didn’t ask anyone to believe without evidence. They presented the evidence and later wrote about what they had witnessed. As an example, prophesy and fulfillment of prophesy is evidence. One can accept the evidence and believe, or they can deny it and not believe. Faith is what you have when there is evidence but not absolute proof – like, for example, believing in God or believing in the theory of evolutution. I have faith in God because I believe the evidence that He exists, you might have faith in evolution because you believe the evidence the theory provides. I don’t see the difference between you and I on why we believe, just what we believe.
October 3, 2009 at 8:14 am |
I think you are redefining evidence. What is the type of evidence you say has convinced you that you are right and other religions are wrong?
October 6, 2009 at 1:51 pm |
You’re right. The apostles supposedly worked great feats of power. If I saw someone who could raise the dead and verifiably cure disease with nothing more than an incantation, I would give that person the benefit of the doubt.
The Bible says that real believers should be able to do such things. In fact, it even says that signs and wonders should increase as the second coming approaches. I guess I just like to hold people to their word, the authors of the Bible included. If they can’t deliver, then I consider them to be on the same standing as the rest of the snake oil salesmen.
October 6, 2009 at 9:17 pm |
Do you have evidence that what the apostles claimed didn’t really happen? Surely if it were all a hoax than there must be some evidence of that, seeing how the cult of Christianity was minuscule in numbers compared to other sects like pagans and atheists.
When you say we should be able to do signs and wonders, do you mean signs and wonders that would make you believe? You have complete and total access to a book that verifiably precedes Jesus’ time, combined with other letters and records that verifiably date to the first century that can offer you the sign you are looking for – that is if you were really looking for a sign. It seems to me you are looking for reasons not to believe.
October 6, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Your “evidence is based in texts written by unknown authors 40-70 years after the events took place. The earliest books by Paul are by a man who admittedly never even met Jesus. Unless you believe the ridiculous story from the road to Damascus.
The Bible conflicts itself over and over again. If the Gospels were used as evidence in a court case they would be immediately thrown out. No proof of authorship, extremely inconsistent testimony and a massive gap of time between the events and the time the books were written.
Add to this they were written in a time with no source of news other than word of mouth. If someone said a guy came back from the dead, no one could disprove it. The response would be, “Really? That’s amazing!” Christianity spread the same way every other religion has, folklore and fictional testimony.
The only reason you believe is you’re willing to overlook the obvious flaws, conflicting teaching and impossible stories of the “Word of God”. There are no signs and wonders today, because there were no signs and wonders then either.
Doesn’t it make you wonder why God was so willing to reveal himself through supernatural miracles in ancient times, but today we only have a poorly written book to base our belief? Don’t you find that even a little bit odd?
October 7, 2009 at 8:03 am |
If two people witnessed a mugging in Central Park from two different perspectives and correlate perfectly except for a few minor details, would you toss their testimonies out of court? That is what you are suggesting we do with the Bible. You want to take a few minor inconsistencies, exaggerate them, and write the whole thing off as fiction. All the while you ignore the incredible cohesiveness of the Scriptures from the most ancient of the Old Testament to the most recent of the New Testament. The fact that the Gospels are not exactly the same shows that there was no collaboration in writing them.
I believe because the evidence is compelling. I suppose it’s the same reason you believe in the ridiculous theory of evolution. The evidence that Jesus is who the Bible claims Him to be is much more believable than the absurd notion that all living things on earth evolved from some microorganism that somehow accidently mutated into millions of plant and animal species. Don’t you find that a little odd?
October 7, 2009 at 9:26 am |
The Gospel accounts are not simply different perspectives. I’ve heard this sermon many times and it just doesn’t hold water.
They differ on major facts on the birth of Jesus, his miracles, his teachings, his death and his resurrection. Every important Gospel story conflicts on major facts, not small details. You can overlook these flaws because you have faith in the Bible as fact. The Bible says it’s true, so it is.
Don’t you think the creator of the universe could inspire a less flawed and poorly written testimony of the most important story ever told? If the story is true and eternally important, God should not intentionally confuse people with poorly authored ancient texts. It paints the picture of a very small god.
I find it comical that you compare your faith in God to the scientific theory of evolution. You base your entire faith in the words of primitive men. Science has developed countless theories through centuries of research. It is always changing as we learn more.
Your belief requires faith. Belief in science does not because a theory does not claim to be unquestionably true. It is a theory. And I am not threatened with the fires of eternal torment for not believing in a scientific theory. Apples to oranges.
And no I don’t find it odd that microorganisms mutated into millions of species. Genetically, we share 98% of the same DNA as apes. You can debate on how the universe was formed, but biological evolution on earth is as close to fact as a theory can get.
October 7, 2009 at 3:25 pm |
I did not compare my belief in God to the theory of evolution; I compared my faith in God to your faith in the theory of evolution. Belief in a scientific theory does require faith when the theory cannot be confirmed. Apples to apples. As I said before, there is no difference.
There are no conflicts in the bible that negate the evidence of who Jesus is and why we should believe in Him. I can deal with conflicts in the text because I can see the bigger picture. The Bible does not claim to be infallible and entirely God breathed. It takes faith to come to the conclusion I have come to, and my faith was preceded by a comprehensive examination of the evidence, which continues to be ongoing.
October 8, 2009 at 6:41 am
I think you missed the whole second half of his post, but that’s okay, I’ll reiterate.
Science doesn’t require faith. It doesn’t insist that you believe it beyond all contradiction and doubt. In fact, science thrives on doubt and uncertainty. Careers are made by disproving commonly accepted theories. Evolution is no different. It has been reworked and constantly updated to fit the evidence.
Secondly, the Bible does claim to be inerrant and entirely God breathed. It makes a very clear point of this. To say otherwise shows a total lack of Biblical knowledge.
2 Tim 3:16 – “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”
Proverbs 30:5-6: “Every word of God is flawless”
You didn’t comprehensively examine anything. If you are so unfamiliar with what the Bible actually says, how can you believe everything in it? That’s like signing a contract without reading it, fully assured that it won’t bite you in the ass. Actually, that sounds like the very definition of blind faith to me.
October 7, 2009 at 8:30 am |
“If two people witnessed a mugging in Central Park from two different perspectives and correlate perfectly except for a few minor details, would you toss their testimonies out of court?”
Do you think the stories from the bible, uncorroborated by external sources, could be held up as valid testimony in a court of law? Additionally, most scholars of the bible believe that in some form the gospels of Matthew and Luke borrowed and added to the same material used by the author of the gospel of Mark. That doesn’t show collaboration in their writing, it shows copying. That needn’t remove a view of inspiration of the scriptures, but it doesn’t support your argument. You believe what you believe about the consistency of the bible by faith, not by a critical evaluation of the evidence.
“The evidence that Jesus is who the Bible claims Him to be is much more believable than the absurd notion that all living things on earth evolved from some microorganism that somehow accidently mutated into millions of plant and animal species.”
According to Newsweek in 1987 (Newsweek magazine, 1987-JUN-29, Page 23):
“By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science…” That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms to be about 0.14%”
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
“Absurd notion” to you is warranted belief of 99.86% of scientists in the US. Don’t you find that a little odd? And how do you account for the great number of believing Christians who are scientists working in the relevant fields who believe in evolution? Guess you know better than them…
October 8, 2009 at 3:22 pm |
Janus,
Paul was referring to the Old Testament Scriptures, not the Gospels and letters. The writers of the New Testament wrote their own words from divinely inspirited knowledge; they also included things from their own knowledge, research and recollections. How else do you explain the difficulties with the genealogy in Luke 3? Luke obviously used the Septuagint to extend the genealogy back to Adam. The error in the Septuagint was carried into Luke’s Gospel and is at odds with the Hebrew record. There are other issues with that genealogy as well.
The New Testament writers were not prophets speaking the words of God; they were witnesses to God’s revelation, empowered by the Holy Spirit and commissioned to spread the Good News. There are a lot of pastors out there teaching that every word of the Bible is God-breathed, and that is simply not true – at least as far as the New Testament is concerned. So when some believers, who are not well grounded in their faith, come across difficulties and conflicts, they naturally question the validity of the Bible and consequently the existence of God. And that is a good thing not a bad thing. I want to encourage new Christians to question the Bible and the existence of God; because that is the only way they will ever come to understand why they believe.
Those who cast away their faith because they can’t deal with a difficulty, throw the baby out with the bathwater. How does a so-called believer dismiss all the messianic prophecies simply because they find some conflict somewhere else? That suggests to me that they had no root, like plants in the sand in the parable of the sower. They receive the word with joy then soon wither away.
Blind faith is when someone places their full trust in people who lead them to believe whatever it is they believe. Often when these people encounter evidence contrary to the theology they hold, they not only turn away from what they learned, they also turn away from their faith entirely. To them Christianity is a burden from which they feel liberated when they finally let it go. But to those who are well rooted in their Christian faith, conflicts in theology serve to strengthen their faith because the truth becomes clearer.
October 11, 2009 at 2:09 am |
I’m gonna go backwards a bit.
“But to those who are well rooted in their Christian faith, conflicts in theology serve to strengthen their faith because the truth becomes clearer.”
You ever heard of the prisoner’s dilemma?
“Those who cast away their faith because they can’t deal with a difficulty, throw the baby out with the bathwater. ”
Alternatively, it can be argued that those who DON’T give it up have already dedicated their entire lives to a belief. With so much at stake, they cannot afford to give it up.
Just a quick look at a basic Ponzi scheme reveals people who are in this very stage. While Ponzi schemes are different from a religion, from the POV of the faithful it is the same for both: “difficulties are transient and rewards would be forthcoming for those who stay on”.
In the case of the Ponzi scheme, this POV is pure delusion. And therein lies a double standard – if both were to run on pure faith alone, what makes a religion so much more believable than a Ponzi scheme? What’s the difference between a Ponzi participant’s delusion and a worshipper’s staunch faith?
The truth doesn’t become clearer in any case that involves faith. In the case of religious loyalty, faith only serves to harden hearts against other points of view, against other peoples – and sometimes against one’s better judgment or morals.
October 11, 2009 at 6:15 am |
What you are describing and comparing to a Ponzi scheme is “blind faith.” Faith should not be blind; that was the point of my comment.
October 11, 2009 at 7:31 am
And that’s the problem. There’s no way to differentiate between “Faith” and “Blind Faith” until it’s much too late to tell.
To have faith in something is to believe in something – or the success of something – or the continuity of something – even if that isn’t guaranteed.
Even if one hedges his bets and believes in that which has a high chance of coming to pass – it’s still a choice made upon a gamble.
This is a given, since no human can see the future, nobody can accurately predict the outcome of anything, and nobody can be sure situations would remain the same forever.
Faith comes into play to supplant any lack of evidence, answers or proof. It is blind by nature, and no amount of wordplay can remove this fact.
This is much like the way an “Educated Guess” is still a “Guess” in deed.
October 13, 2009 at 6:48 am |
More important, doubt hinders self-righteousness.
You accept the notion that you, your beliefs, your knowledge and your interpretation may be wrong.
If you always honestly ask yourself whether what you’re doing is good or evil, you’ll be able to recognize when you do evil.
If you are not used to doubt, you’ll do often evil without realizing.
Fundies anyone?
November 9, 2009 at 4:03 pm |
It’s not evil to doubt.