Can Man Live Without God?

I'm reading a book called "Can Man Live Without God?" by the Christian apologist [1] Ravi Zacharias. I'm intrigued that his premise in the introduction of the book addresses the frustration of those such as myself, who feel the church broadcasts so much anti-intellectualism. This thought is expressed in the second of these two paragraphs, in which he describes the purpose of the book:

Though proud skepticism is rife in academic bastions, the human spirit still longs for something more. This tension must be addressed, especially at this time of cultural upheaval, and it is imperative that the answers [Christians] espouse meet not only the intimations of the heart but the demands of the mind. Here the greatest question of our time must be considered: Can man live without God? It must be answered not only by those who are avowedly antitheistic, but also by the many who functionally live as if there were no God and that His existence does not matter.

But in all fairness, there is another side to this story, justifiably provoking the contempt of the skeptic. Much of what has passed for the Christian message has been nothing more than frothy God-talk -- mindless, thoughtless, and in its exploitation of people, heartless. This, too, will not do. Just as so much of antitheistic thinking when scrutinized is sensically impoverished, so also much religious verbiage, seeped in emotional drivel and bereft of reason, can be tossed at unsuspecting audiences in the name of orthodoxy. The ruinous end of the latter, in its destruction of lives plundered materially and spiritually, may be greater than the ideas perpetrated by the openly cynical. Is there an answer to all of this? I sincerely trust there is. And it is to find that common ground of interaction that this material is presented.

(Italics mine)

I've been openly skeptical of other Christian apologists, but, I must admit, Zacharias' straightforwardness and balance in reasoning is disarming. I'll post further thoughts on this text as I explore it further.

1. For those that don't know, the term "apologist" comes from the Greek word meaning "defender," in the sense of a defense attorney. A Christian apologist is one who "defends the faith."

Anthropic Principle, Revisited

Thinking further about the theistic view of the Anthropic Principle (that fine-tuning of the universe for the purpose of life points to a Creator), I read an article called "Has Science Found God?" by Victor J. Stenger, an athiest and secular humanist.

One point I thought interesting:

To [the theist], the big bang provides "evidence" that creation took place in time - just as in the biblical (that is, Babylonian) myth. Something cannot come from nothing, and so the universe needs a creator. That the creator must have come from nothing is finessed away. God is a different "logical type" than the universe - a type that does not require creation. Theologians do not make clear why the universe itself cannot be of this logical type.

To a mind trained in Christianity, this rings of "worshipping the creation, not the Creator." Not that this simplistic statement is intended as an argument that debunks his claim, I just think it's interesting that throughout history the concept of a creator god was pitted against those who worshipped the sun, moon, or rain or saw meaning in the stars. Now, the creator concept goes up against thinkers who place the Universe on the top of the heap as the ultimate "being." In an odd way, not much has changed.

That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun.

Ecclesiastes 1:9

Stenger's full article here.

An e-mail conversation with friends, Part 6

Pistos responds to my quick e-mail:

Zeteo,

Thank you for your email. I wanted to get mine out earlier, but better late then never. I really appreciate your openness and honesty about your feelings. And am very glad to hear that you have been listening (and letting it sink in sometimes :) to Ravi. And I am much happier about labeling you a seeking and confused theist than an outright agnostic.

>>Zeteo Wrote>> How do I know if the roots of my intellectual doubt are moral in nature? Even if they are, do the questions themselves become any less relevant? The simple presence of sin in my life does not prove, even when working in a Christian framework, that the questions are rooted in moral shortcomings, for Christians sin as well. Why does the source make a difference in the validity of a question about a truth claim?

I believe that this is a huge issue. And to be honest, I'm not sure if there is any "three step method for determining the root of intellectual doubt." Habermas actually wrote a book on it (if I remember right) as he experienced doubt after the death of his wife. However, I think that to the extent you can distinguish your intellectual questions from your moral / emotional experiences, you will be more at ease.

Why does the source of doubt make a difference in the validity of a question about a truth claim? Good question! What are your thoughts? If nothing else, if your doubt is really biased on emotion / moral issues, then all the "truth" in the world won't help take away the doubt. So is there a moral (or immoral) source for your doubt? Maybe even if it isn't something you are struggling with at the moment but before when the doubt started? If nothing else, I know that for me, my flirtations with doubt have been when I wanted to serve #1 and not God (which is really what I meant about serving two masters). I believe we all have a tendency to rebel against authority, and God is the ultimate authority. Is that really the risk you want to take though? We are born into the enemy camp. We want to serve ourselves. That's what it means to be a sinner. So if our "doubt" isn't biased on the validity of a truth claim (which sounds and feels so pure and nice) but really on a desire to ditch God's authority in our life (which is probably more like it and doesn't altruistic at all) then I doubt we can end up agreeing about a truth claim regardless of the evidence.

As to Christians sinning, of course we do! :) Not that I'm proud about it. But at least we know (even if we don't always act like it) where we should go to deal with our sin (which is the cross, surprise, the same place we all need to go). Personally, I have found that the less time I spend seeking God (and this is as a Christian) the more I end up sinning and the more I feel far from God and start to doubt and sin more and feel farther.... I suppose its like any other relationship.

>>Zeteo Wrote>> Anyway, this was meant to be a simple e-mail expressing my gratitude for your attention. There's just so much I feel I want to say when I know there is an ear that is listening to me.

Again, thank you as well for being open to me. I'm here. I'll listen, and I'm praying too. If it helps, I'm glad.

>>Zeteo Wrote>> I'll get back to the matter of the resurrection. I'm reading the link you mentioned. Makes me want material by Craig, considering the reverence the atheistic author seems to have for him.

Craig has a web site, and although it could use some updating in format, at least there is some information there.

Yours,

Pistos

An e-mail conversation with friends, Part 5

This e-mail from me does not address everything from Pistos' last e-mail. Just a quick one:

Pistos,

Without the time to address everything in your e-mail, let me thank you for engaging me in this. I've felt so alone in this struggle for so long. [… 2 personal sentences omitted …] I have literally obsessed 24/7 about this issue since our conversation.

I think I may have found a proper definition of an apologist. Paraphrasing a podcast (http://www.rzim.org/radio/radio.php) by Ravi Zacharias whose archives I've been listening through, the job of a Christian apologist is to remove the intellectual obstacles of a seeker in order to let the seeker see that their problems are moral, and no longer intellectual, in nature. I feel like I've been playing both apologist and seeker for myself for quite some time. My claim now is simply that I cannot be both, and I should most accurately be called a seeker.

How do I know if the roots of my intellectual doubt are moral in nature? Even if they are, do the questions themselves become any less relevant? The simple presence of sin in my life does not prove, even when working in a Christian framework, that the questions are rooted in moral shortcomings, for Christians sin as well. Why does the source make a difference in the validity of a question about a truth claim?

Another comment on our Saturday discussion: You're right, I'm not an Agnostic in the purest definition of the word. I am a Theist. I am agnostic not in the sense that I firmly believe that truth about God is unknowable; I am an agnostic only insofar as I don't believe I can claim to know truth about God currently. Thus, I am not a Deist, for they make truth claims about God's actions and relationship to the world. I am agnostic Theist, in that I believe in God, but I don't know what to do with it.

I admit that's a pathetic position. It's certainly not a position I recommend as far as letting you get to sleep at night.

Anyway, this was meant to be a simple e-mail expressing my gratitude for your attention. There's just so much I feel I want to say when I know there is an ear that is listening to me.

I'll get back to the matter of the resurrection. I'm reading the link you mentioned. Makes me want material by Craig, considering the reverence the atheistic author seems to have for him.

Your friend,

Zeteo

An e-mail conversation with friends, Part 4

There are some good points made here -- Pistos responds:

Zeteo,

>>Zeteo Wrote>> That's one of the hang-ups that I have: that someone can come to life-saving faith by illogical means. Is the correct conclusion all that counts? Even if it is come to through untrue or groundless means? Perhaps so -- it's true in life.

If you don't play in the highway because you think dragons will eat you, won't you be less likely to get hit by a truck? I don't recommend being illogical, but I don't think one has to be Spock to believe either.

>>Zeteo Wrote>> Then why be an apologist? If reasoning cannot compel one closer to the truth of the Bible, what good is apologia?

Back up a sec. I never said that "reasoning cannot compel one closer to the truth of the Bible." I said that you can't argue someone into the kingdom. After all, even knowing the truth undeniably doesn't mean you're saved. Satan (oh, sorry there I go using Biblical examples again) knew the truth, but that didn't stop him from rebelling against God.

My point was that being is more than just pure logic and thought. You are also a being with emotions and volition, which both have an incredible influence and power to delude our thinking, as I'm sure you know.

>>Zeteo Wrote>> The requirement that you have faith first ("Believe and then you'll see") makes Christianity seem almost gnostic in nature: once you're in the "saved" group, you'll understand the reasoning.

I never said that you must believe before seeing the light either (although we could begin a discussion on election, and that may shed an entirely different light on the subject. For several months I was convinced of the existence of God and the fact of the resurrection, but couldn't quite see if God had chosen me or not. That's where my faith came in.).

It is easy to beat up a straw man, let’s make sure we are very careful about what we are saying. Faith is a gift, and cannot be arrived at by reason. However, I believe that reason can defend the truth, and that the truth can stand up to the test of reason. I also believe that intelligent people who want to be faithless can find means of misrepresenting, misinterpreting, distorting, or otherwise ignoring the truth. Many "wise" men have found Christ's cross foolish, and being fools called God dead.

The resurrection, by the way, is very unscientific! By it's very nature, it is outside the realm of science. It was a super natural act. As such, it is outside the realm of repeatable, laboratorizable experimentation. What that means is we can't dismiss it outright as David Hume would have us do. We can however use scientific sleuthing to arrive at a verdict of beyond reasonable doubt. Which reminds me, how have you set your standards for "reasonable" doubt? What got me mad Saturday is that I saw that your doubt (which I had actually heard you express before) has begun to demand that you raise the definition of "reasonable" so high that I'm not sure you can ever know much at all.

>>Zeteo Wrote>> No, but see above. If the mind is corrupt, why be an apologist? If the mind is corrupt, why does God command us to use it as an instrument with which to love Him?

Hang on, that's two questions, slow down. :) The mind is very corrupt. The reason I still use it is I haven't gotten the replacement in yet. Recognizing that it is corrupt though helps me not to be overly proud in my own assessment of my ability. Pride after all is not next to godliness. Why be an apologist? Because I believe that my faith is defend-able and because it is required of me (1 Pet 3:16).

Why does God want corrupt sinful people worshiping Him? Good question. Ask Him sometime. I don't know.

>>Zeteo Wrote>> You're /reasoning /with me in your e-mail. You're /reasoning/ with me to convince me that my mind cannot be trusted. My mind is all I've got -- I /have/ to trust it. Even to concede your point -- that I cannot trust my mind -- I would have to trust my mind. What do you suggest that I do trust? The minds of others? The Bible? How do I trust the Bible or God (as portrayed in the Bible) without being assured in my own mind? (I'm not saying that you cannot trust the Bible or God, just that you cannot trust either one without being "assured in your own mind.")

I think my point is extent of trust. I like reason and logic, but both are tricky and can be used to misrepresent truth. There an ton of bad logic out there, and I don't what you to let yourself get caught up in it.

>>>>Pistos Wrote>>>> Are you so sure that you are not unjustly biased?

>>Zeteo Wrote>> No, I'm frankly not sure. Which is exactly why I'm in the mess in the first place. I am biased in two ways (on a good day: sometimes I'm really confused ;) ): (1) I've been conditioned to believe by what I've been taught as a child and (2) I'm conditioned to disbelieve by what I've seen in practice and have reasoned as a man. So I'm torn, and I'm trying to apply reason to get myself to some sort of conclusion.

"what I've seen in practice and have reasoned as a man"

Deep. That could cover any range of subjects. Just 'cause you may have some half-wit "Christian" friends doesn't mean we are all bad or all crazy. What exactly do you really mean here? I think you just dumped a bunch of feeling from other issues into our nice healthy debate about reason and resurrection.

>>>>Pistos Wrote>>>> I heard you spout hook-line-and-sinker every whisper of higher criticism without any question as to their authority or objectiveness on the subject. I just want to make sure you realize that you are a firm believer in their dogma.

>>Zeteo Wrote>> And yet if I believed Josh McDowell without question -- even though his authority, objectiveness, or even correctness might be suspect -- I would be saved. Is it really a matter of who I'm believing and who I'm questioning, or is it a matter of the conclusions I'm coming to? Don't think, either, that I'm not capable of coming up with questions on my own without the whispers of higher criticism.

No kidding. We all have a propensity to rebel, of course you can come up with doubts. The question is what you do with them. There are reasonable answers that you have forgotten. For now, let's ignore this issue, and get back to it later. I just want to let you know, that although I think lower criticism is good and healthy, higher criticism is a bunch of trash and you are wollowing in it.

>>Zeteo Wrote>> But your assertion that I accept liberal dogma unquestioningly is not exactly accurate. As I said, I'm torn. Without prompting, I brought up the point Saturday that the disciples went out an got themselves martyred for what they believed. That speaks volumes, if the volumes in which those stories are written can be trusted. In other instances, I think the criticisms make more sense than the fundamentalist viewpoint. I'm trying to come to a resolution between the two. What I admitted Saturday is not that I believe all the dogma spouted by one side or the other, it's that I /don't/ entirely believe either yet. I'm not yet black or white.

Good. Maybe there is still hope yet.

>>>>Pistos Wrote>>>> Are you really interested in God, or does love of money consume you? You cannot server two masters Zeteo. I'm sorry you have chosen the temporal things to be your master.

>>Zeteo Wrote>> The conclusion that money is keeping me from God is a bit unfair, in that I'm not making much of it comparatively and passed on offers for a lot more. It's not entirely unfounded, either, as I was somewhat consumed by materialism in years past. However, I wouldn't now say that money is the driving force in my doubt.

But when did your doubt start? In "years past"??? Just a thought.

>>Zeteo Wrote>> Now I can tell you what I fear: death and eternity. I am absolutely terrified both that the Bible is right and that the Bible is wrong. I fear that the Bible is right and I'm an unbeliever. I fear my inability to decide, and my lack of faith to fill in the gaps. For years I prayed for wisdom on this matter. For years I got more and more confused and saw more that showed me the ineffectiveness of Christianity. I know that Christians are not Christ, and wrongs are committed in every name, and I fear that my doubt and my experiences might lead me to dispel the good because of the bad. I fear not having the time to make up my mind. I fear hell.

Good. That's healthy.

>>Zeteo Wrote>> On the other hand, I fear the naturalistic answer even more. I fear an eternity of non-existence upon death. I fear a godless, centerless life without purpose. I fear the believable rationale of the naturalistic explanations of the origins and evolution of religion. I fear that my own observations of these things -- prior to the influence of others -- led me to the questions that torment me. I fear that a questioning, faithless nature has been ingrained and evident in me since I was a child, and that I've been influenced to model my behavior in a Christian way and claim I have all the answers while ignoring my doubt.

At least you're being more open about it. Although I still say you owe it to your missionary parents to tell them there beloved son is going south. They should at least have the right to pray.

>>Zeteo Wrote>> More to your question of what I love, while I do value honesty and open-mindedness, I don't think that I have exactly epitomized those attributes in my "search for truth" in the past few years. Towards the end of my undergraduate education, I exhausted myself emotionally with the issue and became so frustrated with what I saw that I decided that it was easier to just not think about it. Indirectly, you made the point on Saturday that my inability to fully articulate my position betrays a lack of recent thought or effort. While I have a library of apologetics texts, it has been literally years since I've cracked them. If you accomplished anything on Saturday it was to remind me to continue in my search. It's a search that I feel desperately inadequate to carry out, but, under eternal penalty, inescapably required to complete. Zeteo

Hmmm... At least I can be a catalyst for something then. Even if it ends up being change for the worse.

Incidentally, googling for "Jesus resurrection" came up with this interesting article, from one of your fellow I-hate-Josh friends:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jesus_resurrection/index.shtml

I actually didn't finish reading the meat of it, but at the end, he sounds rather unconvinced either way. Interesting. I suppose we could dissect it piece by piece.

Anyways, I ordered Wright's book as well. I'm waiting for it to come in.

Pistos

Role of an Apologist, Role of a Seeker

Listening further in the Ravi Zacharias "Mind & Heart" series, I came across his definitions of the roles of the Apologist (an answer to the question I put to Pistos) and the Seeker. According to him, paraphrased in my words:

Apologist - The job of a Christian apologist is to remove the intellectual obstacles of a seeker in order to let the seeker see that their problems are moral, and no longer intellectual, in nature.

This would be why Pistos was probing for a moral issue (the question about if I'm serving money) behind my doubt in his letter. He was trying to determine if I'm being honest that I don't have enough reason to believe or if there is a moral impediment to my belief. In other words, am I being honest that I'm unconvinced intellectually or is there a moral behavior that I know I'd have to give up if I became a Christian, but refuse to do so? I'm unsure, but I think my questions are more intellectual in nature.

Seeker - The role of a seeker is to :

1. Be ruthlessly honest, or you will be smothered with your own deceit.
   
2. Get into the Bible; he suggests the Gospel of John.
   
3. Be aware of the emotional & experiential baggage you're taking with you in your search. Get help for it, maybe from a book.
4. Know that the propositional answers you come across in your search will become relational answers as you develop a relationship in your own experience with Jesus.

You shall seek me, and find me, when you shall search for me with all your heart. -- Jeremiah 29:13

This promise is effectively all I have to go on. I'm trying to be honest, as number 1 requires, and I suppose I need to honestly and thoroughly consider the possibility of a moral, not intellectual, impediment.

Anthropic Principle

Today I'm pondering the Anthropic Principle: the concept that there are physically observable constants in the universe such that if they were only slightly different, the Universe would not be able to produce life. For example, cosmologists claim that if the rate of the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang were different by only one part in 10^55, the development of carbon-based life would be impossible in any part ot the universe.

An e-mail conversation with friends, Part 3

My response to Pistos's letter.

Pistos,

>>Pistos Wrote>> I urge you to speak with your parents soon on this issue.

My previous discussions about doubt with my parents have been entirely unfruitful. I would prefer to keep them out of it and come to conclusions on my own. They know that I struggle with it. You saw that my brother was not surprised.

>>Pistos Wrote>> I apologize for putting things so bluntly the other night, and for not being more equipped...

You did nothing wrong -- you weren't overly blunt. You were emotional because I took you by surprise, but you listened and pointed me towards resources, addressing my questions directly with reasoned responses. I'm not upset with you -- on the contrary, I appreciate your willingness to talk with me. Almost to a man, every other Christian friend I've had has not addressed my concerns or considered them important outside my own crazy head.

>>Pistos Wrote>> I'm sorry to hear that McDowell's book stunk so badly on the issue. Like I said before, maybe that helps someone...

That's one of the hang-ups that I have: that someone can come to life-saving faith by illogical means. Is the correct conclusion all that counts? Even if it is come to through untrue or groundless means? Perhaps so -- it's true in life.

>>Pistos Wrote>> If any book can help you, the ones that you bought should be able to. Hopefully they will. However, without a complete change of heart and an injection of faith into your life, frankly I doubt they will. And that saddens me greatly. You can't be argued into a relationship with Jesus.

Then why be an apologist? If reasoning cannot compel one closer to the truth of the Bible, what good is apologia? The requirement that you have faith first ("Believe and then you'll see") makes Christianity seem almost gnostic in nature: once you're in the "saved" group, you'll understand the reasoning. Reason has to be able to point to truth; otherwise, we should all be fideists (believers in faith only, not reason). Remember the noble-minded Bareans: they started with what they accepted (Jewish O.T.) and reasoned that what Paul and Silas were teaching was true. In my case, I'm not starting with the same assumptions.

>>Pistos Wrote>> Are you sure that you can be assured in your own mind? The mind, Zeteo, is also corrupt. It can be whacked out, disillusioned, mislead.

No, but see above. If the mind is corrupt, why be an apologist? If the mind is corrupt, why does God command us to use it as an instrument with which to love Him? Reason has to be able to point to truth, or we're all in trouble. You're reasoning with me in your e-mail. You're reasoning with me to convince me that my mind cannot be trusted. My mind is all I've got -- I have to trust it. Even to concede your point -- that I cannot trust my mind -- I would have to trust my mind. What do you suggest that I do trust? The minds of others? The Bible? How do I trust the Bible or God (as portrayed in the Bible) without being assured in my own mind? (I'm not saying that you cannot trust the Bible or God, just that you cannot trust either one without being "assured in your own mind.")

>>Pistos Wrote>> Are you so sure that you are not unjustly biased?

No, I'm frankly not sure. Which is exactly why I'm in the mess in the first place. I am biased in two ways (on a good day: sometimes I'm really confused ;) ): (1) I've been conditioned to believe by what I've been taught as a child and (2) I'm conditioned to disbelieve by what I've seen in practice and have reasoned as a man. So I'm torn, and I'm trying to apply reason to get myself to some sort of conclusion.

>>Pistos Wrote>> I heard you spout hook-line-and-sinker every whisper of higher criticism without any question as to their authority or objectiveness on the subject. I just want to make sure you realize that you are a firm believer in their dogma.

And yet if I believed Josh McDowell without question -- even though his authority, objectiveness, or even correctness might be suspect -- I would be saved. Is it really a matter of who I'm believing and who I'm questioning, or is it a matter of the conclusions I'm coming to? Don't think, either, that I'm not capable of coming up with questions on my own without the whispers of higher criticism.

But your assertion that I accept liberal dogma unquestioningly is not exactly accurate. As I said, I'm torn. Without prompting, I brought up the point Saturday that the disciples went out an got themselves martyred for what they believed. That speaks volumes, if the volumes in which those stories are written can be trusted. In other instances, I think the criticisms make more sense than the fundamentalist viewpoint. I'm trying to come to a resolution between the two. What I admitted Saturday is not that I believe all the dogma spouted by one side or the other, it's that I don't entirely believe either yet. I'm not yet black or white.

>>Pistos Wrote>> I am saddened almost beyond words Zeteo. I hope you realize this, because perhaps in written form these words don't portray there emotional content.

I understand. Believe me, I understand. This struggle more than anything in my life has torn my mind and heart asunder. I can see the pain in your words, and I regret causing it. I know you feel betrayed, and I know what you believe the consequences of my actions are. Knowing these possibilities is what applies so much pressure, pain, and heartache to this search. It has taken me years to be able to express myself aloud, outside my own thinking. Never had I done it with one so close as you until Saturday.

>>Pistos Wrote>> Are you really interested in God, or does love of money consume you? You cannot serve two masters Zeteo. I'm sorry you have chosen the temporal things to be your master.

The conclusion that money is keeping me from God is a bit unfair, in that I'm not making much of it comparatively and passed on offers for a lot more. It's not entirely unfounded, either, as I was somewhat consumed by materialism in years past. However, I wouldn't now say that money is the driving force in my doubt. I don't think the "you cannot serve God and Mammon" concept necessarily suggests that if you're not serving God, you're serving money. I feel more like I'm in a frustrating position of limbo, not knowing what to do, rather than serving money or God.

>>Pistos Wrote>> What is it if anything that you love Zeteo? Do you really love honesty and open-mindedness, or are you pre-convinced by your need to be approved in academia by the other liberals?

Quite the opposite. There is not a single person in my life that is a liberal and is encouraging me to disbelieve the Bible. My current spiritual status is entirely a product of my own thinking and investigation. I'm not trying to impress anyone. My entire peer group and family group consists of Christians: my parents, you guys, the folks at our church at home, my Bible study, etc. Many of the lab members at the University are Bible-believing, conservative-church-attending Christians. I don't have a close friend in town -- either now or during college -- who is not a Christian. My wife and her family are Christians. I've become more ostracized and isolated in the process of asking questions and thinking independently than I would be if I just gave in and kept the mask on. I'm not trying to win friends or influence people. I'm not seeking anyone's approval here, or I would have continued to pretend to be something I'm not. Don't think it's an easy think to realize that you're different from everyone around you, and don't think it's a simple thing to risk to let them know.

Now I can tell you what I fear: death and eternity. I am absolutely terrified both that the Bible is right and that the Bible is wrong. I fear that the Bible is right and I'm an unbeliever. I fear my inability to decide, and my lack of faith to fill in the gaps. For years I prayed for wisdom on this matter. For years I got more and more confused and saw more that showed me the ineffectiveness of Christianity. I know that Christians are not Christ, and wrongs are committed in every name, and I fear that my doubt and my experiences might lead me to dispel the good because of the bad. I fear not having the time to make up my mind. I fear hell.

On the other hand, I fear the naturalistic answer even more. I fear an eternity of non-existence upon death. I fear a godless, centerless life without purpose. I fear the believable rationale of the naturalistic explanations of the origins and evolution of religion. I fear that my own observations of these things -- prior to the influence of others -- led me to the questions that torment me. I fear that a questioning, faithless nature has been ingrained and evident in me since I was a child, and that I've been influenced to model my behavior in a Christian way and claim I have all the answers while ignoring my doubt.

More to your question of what I love, while I do value honesty and open-mindedness, I don't think that I have exactly epitomized those attributes in my "search for truth" in the past few years. Towards the end of my undergraduate education, I exhausted myself emotionally with the issue and became so frustrated with what I saw that I decided that it was easier to just not think about it. Indirectly, you made the point on Saturday that my inability to fully articulate my position betrays a lack of recent thought or effort. While I have a library of apologetics texts, it has been literally years since I've cracked them.

If you accomplished anything on Saturday it was to remind me to continue in my search. It's a search that I feel desperately inadequate to carry out, but, under eternal penalty, inescapably required to complete.

Zeteo

An e-mail conversation with friends, Part 2

The following is the response I got from Pistos.

Zeteo,

I urge you to speak with your parents soon on this issue. I don't know how long I can contain myself. If they ask me how you are I don't know what I would say. I would probably tell them to call you. If you want to be honest, then they deserve to be devastated as well.

I apologize for putting things so bluntly the other night, and for not being more equipped, but your soul, when all said and done, is your responsibility before God, and not mine.

I'm sorry to hear that McDowell's book stunk so badly on the issue. Like I said before, maybe that helps someone, but its obviously not what you want. If any book can help you, the ones that you bought should be able to. Hopefully they will. However, without a complete change of heart and an injection of faith into your life, frankly I doubt they will. And that saddens me greatly. You can't be argued into a relationship with Jesus.

>>Zeteo Wrote>> I just don't want to misrepresent myself any more, so I can be assured in my own mind that my conclusions are honest.

Are you sure that you can be assured in your own mind? The mind, Zeteo, is also corrupt. It can be whacked out, disillusioned, mislead. Are you so sure that you are not unjustly biased? I heard you spout hook-line-and-sinker every whisper of higher criticism without any question as to their authority or objectiveness on the subject. I just want to make sure you realize that you are a firm believer in their dogma.

I am saddened almost beyond words, Zeteo. I hope you realize this, because perhaps in written form these words don't portray there emotional content.

What is it if anything that you love, Zeteo? Do you really love honesty and open-mindedness, or are you pre-convinced by your need to be approved in academia by the other liberals? Are you really interested in God, or does love of money consume you? You cannot serve two masters Zeteo. I'm sorry you have chosen the temporal things to be your master.

Pistos

An e-mail conversation with friends, Part 1

The following e-mail chain is a conversation between my Christian friends and I. As I'm sure it's easy to guess, their names (as well as mine) have been changed to Greek words.

Pistos and Elpis,

I thought I would send an e-mail along about our discussion Friday.

I've been wanting to discuss my earnest doubts of Christianity and Christ with you guys for quite some time. You two are the most well-read and well-equipped Christian thinkers in my group of friends. Yours are words I trust as I've seen your testimony and know your intellectual gifting and honesty. I've felt for a long time that yours would be voices of reason in the midst of the turmoil in my mind.

The thing that has prevented me from fully expressing myself previously was a fear of judgment of my weak faith and damage to our friendship. Even now I'm terribly sad and afraid to think that I might have irrevocably changed the nature of our relationship. But lately I've taken the policy of thought that I can only be honest. Misrepresenting my position as Christian is evidence in my character of the very intellectually dishonesty that has sickened me in the Christian church. When Pistos asked me how I'm doing spiritually, I could not resort to a practiced equivocation, spoken in the Christian language in which I'm well-versed. If I count myself among the goats, I don't want it to be a surprise to me; I don't want to lie to myself and others about where I stand.

At the same time, I hope you will treat my confession with a strong measure of discretion. I have never been as candid with any of my Christian friends from home as I was with you Saturday. I have not lied; I have simply avoided the full disclosure of my doubt. My reasoning is that I need to come to my own conclusions outside the influence of the conditioned responses of my upbringing. Discussions with my parents and other members of our church at home bring up guilt and a desire to please them, leading me to want to agree with them -- but leaving me just as empty and unsatisfied with the positions I end up expressing. I hope that you will permit me the opportunity to represent myself to my family, especially.

I appreciate the focus of thought you presented in our discussion. I have been thinking quite a lot about determining the logical "root node" of Christianity (I'm thinking in terms of data structures here). Reasoning that starts with "Is there a God?" can quickly get muddy, metaphysical, and complicated. Meditating on Pistos's (really Paul's) assertion that Christianity starts with the resurrection led me to re-think this logical root. "Is there a God?" is actually a question that can be addressed after the resurrection is considered.

Saturday night I retired a bit early in order to read the resurrection material in my brother's copy of Josh McDowell's "A Ready Defense". His reasoning immediately reminded me of why I hate reading Josh McDowell. He just appealed to authority by quoting several dozen people who agree with him. Then he stated that he's given the issue "700 hours" of thought and come to the conclusion that Jesus' resurrection is un-doubtable. Next, he said that we should believe in the resurrection because the Bible says so. Finally, he concluded with a brief paragraph about extra-biblical sources, none of which he directly mentioned (except Josephus, who never actually even discusses the resurrection).

I did, however, take Pistos's advice and buy Gary Habermas's book on the "Case for the Resurrection of Jesus" as well as a book called "The Resurrection of the Son of God" by N.T. Wright, a conservative Anglican apologist. Those were the best two I could find on Amazon.

Anyway, I should probably get back to work. I just thought I'd write to tell you that I appreciate your friendship, and I admire you guys in your ability to discuss these things with me without hatred of me. I understand that it must feel like a betrayal, and I apologize for that. I just don't want to misrepresent myself any more, so I can be assured in my own mind that my conclusions are honest.

Your friend,

Zeteo

Thought from Ravi Zacharias

As I seek for answers, I want to include all sources, whether they be of religious or secular origin. To be as unprejudiced as possible, the religious convictions of a person should bias me neither towards nor against their statements; each statement should be evaluated upon its own merit, regardless of the source. From time to time, I will post quotes here that I'm thinking about, often without comment. As I am listening to a series of lectures from Ravi Zacharias, a Christian apologist, today's quote comes from him:

[God has] put enough in this world to make faith one of the most reasonable things. He's left enough out to make it impossible to live by sheer reason alone.
Ravi Zacharias, Mind & Heart (Recorded Lecture)

Revelations

After years of being in the fundamentalist Christian church and calling myself an apologist or a Christian who "struggles with doubt," I finally revealed my true beliefs to my two best Christian friends. I told them I'm somewhere between an Agnostic and a Deist. What's followed has brought the pain of my past struggles with doubt into sharp focus in the present.

This blog is intended as an excercise for myself. I will lay bare, as honestly as I can, the history of my experiences in the Christian church. I will document, as thoroughly as I can, my current search for knowledge.

I'm writing this blog to see my thoughts on the screen with the hopes that the comments of others and the thought it takes to express myself in writing will somehow lead to a conclusion about truth.

Come along with me if you wish. Help me if you can. And by all means, keep searching yourself.