The Need for Certainty – Is that what Christianity is about?

[lycheng]

In the Religious Pluralism thread, I posed the following question to Christians:
Do you believe a true Christian can say something like: “I might be wrong about God?” Jook, the person who started the thread said:
I have thought about that. If I'm wrong, if there is no God, if Christianity was just some incredibly elaborate make-believe tale, why then my ultimate fate is no different from what any atheist nor agnostic has already accepted for himself. After I die, that's it. The End.

And what about yourself? Have you pondered the reverse situation?
After reading his response, I realized I probably should have phrased the question this way:
Can a Christian be considered a true Christian if he/she posses some doubt in the biblical accounts of God? This is a question about basic Christian tenants, not about what a Christian thinks a non-believer believes would happen to them after death. In other words, does Christianity demand 100% certainty on all questions of a spiritual nature?

Some Christians would say yes, Christianity demands 100% certainty not just that God exists, but the Bible is the word of God. They draw their strength from this certainty and call it faith. As they live in a mostly secular world, they see their beliefs being challenged every day. Annoyed and angered by this, they might develop a mindset that the root of all the problems in the world is a lack of faith in God, with God being a Christian God.

You don’t have to be a Christian to believe a lack of awareness of things outside of themselves will lead to problems in the long run. I believe it, and I’m a Humanist who thinks God probably doesn’t exist.

But the similarity stops there. While the demands of certainty probably drive some to form absolute conclusions about the world, I, on the other hand, am quite comfortable with the limitations of knowledge and acknowledging the subjectivity of religion.

Can a true Christian say, God probably exists according to the Bible, but I really don’t know? Or is spiritual certainty at the heart of Christianity?

[Vetrean]

How can you be spiritually certain? I haven't had any sort of epiphany about life and religion as perhaps some 'Christians' do(although that shouldn't be a prerequisite to being a Christian), so I can't say 'God exists, beyond all doubt, regardless of what the situation looks like.' To say 'there is absolutely no chance God does not exist' is just denial.

[nskripchun]

I think a need to be certain about something is more a part of human nature rather than being an exclusive property of just Christians.

Our need for certainty is one of the reasons that people love routine and stability - most people like to wake up in the same bed each morning, be able to eat their favorite breakfast, and go to a job where they're certain they'll get paid for what they do.

As for the nature of spiritual beliefs and certainty, I think it's hard for anybody to have any sort of realistic committed belief system unless you have a high degrees of certainty.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you don't have be 100% certain of your faith to actually practice it - you got folks that attend church on Sunday every Christmas or go to a Buddhist temple once a year who probably aren't 100% certain of the spiritual realities that are being espoused at those various institutions, but people do it anyways, whether it's out of habit, or out of respect, or out of superstition.

[minbo]

Christianity is too big to make blanket statements about who is a "true" Christian.

The Catholic church starting with Pope Pius XII in the second Vatican council accepted that "true" Catholics can form their own opinion on evolution and formation of the world, as long as they unquestioningly accepted Church Doctrine over non-corporeal matters.

Pope John Paul went further, stating that "In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points....Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies -- which was neither planned nor sought -- constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory." In this statement, he implicitly accepts that parts of the Bible is apocryphal and not a literal truth.

Pope Benedict XVI followed up with the statement "According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution."

In accepting this "doubt", is the Catholic church no longer a "true" Christian organization? Benedict just came out with another statement that only the Catholic church is the one true church, and all other Christians are "wounded". I'm sure the other Catholic denominations disagree.

[lycheng]

I think a need to be certain about something is more a part of human nature rather than being an exclusive property of just Christians.
Agreed.
As for the nature of spiritual beliefs and certainty, I think it's hard for anybody to have any sort of realistic committed belief system unless you have a high degrees of certainty.
Very true. This is also true for science (viewed as a belief system).

When a scientific theory becomes part of the accepted literature, a high degree of certainty also must be met. However, in science, incremental steps to Certainty are typically the norm. That’s because scientists are very careful in defining their concepts such that they can be submitted for independent verification via the peer review process.
Big revolutionary changes in science do take place (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Revolution). But that’s usually the exception rather than the norm.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you don't have be 100% certain of your faith to actually practice it - you got folks that attend church on Sunday every Christmas or go to a Buddhist temple once a year who probably aren't 100% certain of the spiritual realities that are being espoused at those various institutions, but people do it anyways, whether it's out of habit, or out of respect, or out of superstition.
Thanks for that Nskripchun. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the reason you went “out on a limb” is that not all Christians agree on the matter of Divine Grace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Works).

Can someone receive salvation through faith in Christ alone, or can someone also receive salvation through Good Works. If I’m not mistaken, disagreements among Christians over this lead to the Protestant Reformation. Furthermore, I think Roman Catholics also believe the Church itself can grant the Sacrament of Penance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrament_of_Penance_%28Catholic_Church%29) for those who fallen from Grace with God.
Speaking of Catholics…
Pope Benedict XVI followed up with the statement "According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. […snip]
Isn’t it surprising that the oldest Christian denomination, the Roman Catholic Church, is actually progressive when it comes to understanding the role between Science and Religion! It took them hundreds of years of course (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church), but at least they came around.
In accepting this "doubt", is the Catholic church no longer a "true" Christian organization? Benedict just came out with another statement that only the Catholic church is the one true church, and all other Christians are "wounded". I'm sure the other Catholic denominations disagree.
Why can’t Christians just get along….. ;)

[howstrange]

In accepting this "doubt", is the Catholic church no longer a "true" Christian organization? Benedict just came out with another statement that only the Catholic church is the one true church, and all other Christians are "wounded". I'm sure the other Catholic denominations disagree.
____
Why can’t Christians just get along….. ;)

^
I think Christians are at a moment in time where they have the ability to open themselves up to the viewpoints of all the Christian churches, from Roman Catholic to Protestant. I've experienced my wide share of these churches and can tell you that neither has the whole truth and many have false interpretations of the bible. It is possible to integrate the various truths that each church does have, and at the same time, leave behind the falsities. My advice to any Christian is to expand your views by "church hopping". Of course the various congregational leaders are sure to react negatively towards this integrative approach, but I think this is a gateway towards enlightened and compassionate Chistian worship. Christians, and the rest of the human race, will be better for it.


Can a Christian be considered a true Christian if he/she posses some doubt in the biblical accounts of God?


Yes, more important that the basic human need for certainty, is the basic human state of uncertainty. Wavering from belief to uncertainty is a dichotomy inherent in faith.

[minbo]

Isn’t it surprising that the oldest Christian denomination, the Roman Catholic Church, is actually progressive when it comes to understanding the role between Science and Religion! It took them hundreds of years of course (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church), but at least they came around.

Why can’t Christians just get along….. ;)

"Oldest" Christian denomination is a tough title to claim. Both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic church came about after in 1054 after the Nicene Creed was adopted by the entity now known as the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox church rejecting the 1054 Nicene Creed (as opposed to the "original Nicene Creed" of 325).

"Non-Chalcedonian" denominations - such as the Assyrian, Syriac, and Nestorian denominations - having branched off after rejecting the Chalcedonian Creed issued Council of Chalcedon in 451, are some 603 years older than the Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox branching.

[lycheng]

I think Christians are at a moment in time where they have the ability to open themselves up to the viewpoints of all the Christian churches, from Roman Catholic to Protestant. I've experienced my wide share of these churches and can tell you that neither has the whole truth and many have false interpretations of the bible. It is possible to integrate the various truths that each church does have, and at the same time, leave behind the falsities. My advice to any Christian is to expand your views by "church hopping". Of course the various congregational leaders are sure to react negatively towards this integrative approach, but I think this is a gateway towards enlightened and compassionate Chistian worship. Christians, and the rest of the human race, will be better for it.

Very well put, Howstrange. The Fundamentalists always find ways to corrupt the fundamental goodness of any religion.

Yes, more important that the basic human need for certainty, is the basic human state of uncertainty. Wavering from belief to uncertainty is a dichotomy inherent in faith.

Yes. Recognizing the "wavering from belief" is much more compassionate, dare I say "Jesus like", than constantly insisting on religious purity.

[jook]

In the Religious Pluralism thread, I posed the following question to Christians:
Jook, the person who started the thread said:

After reading his response, I realized I probably should have phrased the question this way:
This is a question about basic Christian tenants, not about what a Christian thinks a non-believer believes would happen to them after death. In other words, does Christianity demand 100% certainty on all questions of a spiritual nature?


Well, some things are certain and some things aren't. Are you 100% certain that if you don't eat or drink, that you will die from hunger or thirst? Some things in life are non-negotiable. If non-negotiables may exist in the physical realm, might they not also exist in the spiritual? I'd like to hear your thoughts on this matter.


Some Christians would say yes, Christianity demands 100% certainty not just that God exists, but the Bible is the word of God. They draw their strength from this certainty and call it faith. As they live in a mostly secular world, they see their beliefs being challenged every day. Annoyed and angered by this, they might develop a mindset that the root of all the problems in the world is a lack of faith in God, with God being a Christian God.


Christianity does state certain things which do not leave an awful lot of wriggle room. But Christians did not make this stuff up themselves. "I am the Way the Truth and the Light. No one comes to the Father except through me" was said by Jesus, not Christians.

Do you acknowledge that there are problems in the world? What is the Humanist's explanation for the problematic world?


You don’t have to be a Christian to believe a lack of awareness of things outside of themselves will lead to problems in the long run. I believe it, and I’m a Humanist who thinks God probably doesn’t exist.


Given that you acknowledge the limitation of knowledge and subjectivity, and use it as a basis for skepticism about religious claims that God exists, how much more does that apply to "Humanism"? At least, Christianity makes the claim of an objective reality (independent of human subjectivity and imperfect knowledge) as the basis for its authoritativeness.


But the similarity stops there. While the demands of certainty probably drive some to form absolute conclusions about the world, I, on the other hand, am quite comfortable with the limitations of knowledge and acknowledging the subjectivity of religion.

Can a true Christian say, God probably exists according to the Bible, but I really don’t know? Or is spiritual certainty at the heart of Christianity?

I don't know if you're married or not, but would you say that love is subjective? Let's say you're married. If someone asked your wife "does love and loyalty exist between you and your spouse?" and she replied "probably...i really don't know given the limitations of knowledge and acknowledging the subjectivity of love" and couched the issue of love, which is the foundation of your marriage, in terms of probabilities, how will that sit with you?

[Vetrean]

You're missing the point, which, as far as I can see, is 'Can a person still count as a 'true' Christian if he admits to a possibility of being wrong about God?'

[lycheng]

Well, some things are certain and some things aren't. Are you 100% certain that if you don't eat or drink, that you will die from hunger or thirst? Some things in life are non-negotiable. If non-negotiables may exist in the physical realm, might they not also exist in the spiritual? I'd like to hear your thoughts on this matter.
I’m 100% certain that if you don’t eat or drink you’ll die. Human beings are living things, and therefore, based on the principle that life needs to consume energy in order to sustain itself, yes I’m 100% certain that humans need to drink and eat.

Having said that, do I believe all life forms in the universe need energy to sustain itself? I think chances are yes, but I’m not 100%. That’s because our understanding of life so far is only based on life on Earth. Who knows what we might find as we learn more about the universe.

What I’m getting at is, I believe we acquire knowledge about nature in an incremental fashion. If nature is one big jigsaw puzzle, then science offers a method to find pieces of the puzzle and put them together. As each piece of the puzzle falls into place, we might begin to see the whole picture.

If we were actually assembling a jigsaw puzzle, we would already know what the final picture looks like based on the box cover. Stepping back into our analogy, do scientists have the advantage of knowing what the puzzle actually looks like?

The answer is no, scientists really don’t have that special “God” perspective. All they have are guesses – educated guesses based established rules of evidence gathering – also known as the Scientific Method.

The way I see it, scientists go about their business of assembling this puzzle blindfolded. Every time they find a piece of the puzzle, they connect it with the rest of the puzzle, and for a brief moment, they are allowed to peek outside their blindfold.

But alas, the blindfold must come back on. Scientists are mortal beings after all. But Scientists don’t give up, they keep searching for that next puzzle piece.
Christianity does state certain things which do not leave an awful lot of wriggle room. But Christians did not make this stuff up themselves. "I am the Way the Truth and the Light. No one comes to the Father except through me" was said by Jesus, not Christians.

Do you acknowledge that there are problems in the world? What is the Humanist's explanation for the problematic world?
This is still open to debate, isn’t it? I mean, just read the Integral Theory section (http://www.thefighting44s.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=55) of this forum.
Given that you acknowledge the limitation of knowledge and subjectivity, and use it as a basis for skepticism about religious claims that God exists, how much more does that apply to "Humanism"? At least, Christianity makes the claim of an objective reality (independent of human subjectivity and imperfect knowledge) as the basis for its authoritativeness.
Some Christians believe Christianity makes the claim of knowledge acquisition independent of human subjectivity. Furthermore, some Christians don’t think the Bible sums up all there is to know about the origins of the universe. Read the posts on Catholicism in this thread. Clearly, the Pope has accepted some limitations on the Bible, as far as the origins of the universe are concerned.
I don't know if you're married or not, but would you say that love is subjective? Let's say you're married. If someone asked your wife "does love and loyalty exist between you and your spouse?" and she replied "probably...i really don't know given the limitations of knowledge and acknowledging the subjectivity of love" and couched the issue of love, which is the foundation of your marriage, in terms of probabilities, how will that sit with you?
I guess you’ve never been married, have you? :p Couples fall in and out of love all the time. And yet, people still choose to get married. This is one of the biggest mysteries in the universe, actually!

You're missing the point, which, as far as I can see, is 'Can a person still count as a 'true' Christian if he admits to a possibility of being wrong about God?'

I'm still waiting on that question too.

[CJF]

Death is scary. It'd be comforting to know that there is something after your life.

That's why people grasp to religion.

[SamuraiJack]

Exactly. Religion plays on the greatest fear - death.

Once you're brave enough to face the possibility of disappearing into nothingness, you're able to break free of the shackles of religion. You don't need that "safety net" anymore.

Has anyone thought what it might be like to live in "heaven"? With all the "true" Christians - ie. Bush, Cheney, Columbus, etc.... and let's say everyone is cleansed and perfectly good - does that mean that you lose a part of yourself in the process - does that mean you are a different person altogether?

Has anyone ever thought about what happened to all our Asian ancestors? Did they all go to hell? Is that fair?

I take comfort in knowing that I will share the same fate as the majority of people throughout history. I feel better knowing I save 2 hours of my life a week more than the average Christian. I can be more productive to society taking a dump for two hours than someone going to church.

[Vetrean]

I don't think the fear of disappearing into nothing is what scares people so much as the threat of hell. I wouldn't mind there being nothing. That's really actually sort of an ultimate comfort, once you think about it. I don't see why sharing the same fate as everyone else is by itself is a good thing, though.

And I don't see why you're arbitrarily sticking Bush and Cheney into the category of "true" Christians. -.-

[nskripchun]

Calling Bush & Cheney "true Christians" is about as accurate as labeling Osama Bin Laden or Muqtada al-Sadr as "true Muslims". Or labelling Seung-Hui Cho, Kenneth Eng, and Amy Tan as "true Asians". It's a gross simplification to say that just because somebody claims to represent a large and diverse group of people that they are the "true" representatives.

As for the fear of death being the sole motivator for religious / spiritual beliefs, I agree that for some people that's factor. However, I believe that most people have stronger reasons for their beliefs than just being afraid to die.

My short list of motivations (purely constructed from my own experiences and conversations I've had with other people):

-Answers to the "big questions" (meaning of life, humanity's place in the world, etc., etc.)
-A desire and/or a need fulfill a sense of purpose
-A desire and/or a need to feel at peace with one's self / others / the world
-A desire and/or a need for a moral framework (what's good? what's bad? why?)
-A desire and/or a need to belong to "something bigger" (church / temple / shrine / synagogue / mosque / cultural group / ethnic group)

Anybody else have thoughts about people's motivations for religious beliefs? First person to misquote Karl Marx's "opiate of the masses" gets -100 points for originality. ;)

[jook]

I don't think the fear of disappearing into nothing is what scares people so much as the threat of hell. I wouldn't mind there being nothing. That's really actually sort of an ultimate comfort, once you think about it. I don't see why sharing the same fate as everyone else is by itself is a good thing, though.

And I don't see why you're arbitrarily sticking Bush and Cheney into the category of "true" Christians. -.-

I understand that the concept of Hell is what repels most people from Christianity. I believe there is a great misunderstanding about Hell both within the Church and without. The traditional imagery of Hell, the Miltonian picture of fire and brimstone, is as fallacious as that of the violin playing cherubs of Heaven. It is a result of the failure to understand Biblical symbology and the fact that Christ himself was subjected to hell after the crucifixion.

Simply put, hell is "eternal death" or "separation from God". In that sense, atheists definition of their own fate after physical death is in agreement. If you believe that after physical death, you simply "disappear into nothing", well then that's what will happen. You get what you believe.

On the other hand, Heaven is a New Earth, New Universe and humanity restored to the original plan that God had intended before the Fall. It's not clouds or violin playing babies. Christ's resurrection from death is the linchpin of the Christian faith and the basis of the Christian hope.

The bible promise of redemption, hope, and eternal life does is indeed a source of comfort to many. But that does not invalidate Christianity. The cynical notion that "religion plays upon people's fear of death" and the implication that therefore "religion is somehow invalid" is extremely faulty reasoning. Christianity is invalid if and only if Christ never rose from the dead. If you want to know the truth about Christianity then you must investigate the resurrection. If you are a serious, openminded seeker of truth, and are the sort who requires evidence, second opinions, as so forth, the body of evidence (scientific, anthropological, historical) (http://leestrobel.com) is out there.

It's up to you.

[Synthetic]

"Simply put, hell is "eternal death" or "separation from God". In that sense, atheists definition of their own fate after physical death is in agreement. If you believe that after physical death, you simply "disappear into nothing", well then that's what will happen. You get what you believe."

Well put. That's what I believe too. If you don't believe there is an afterlife, then there won't be. If you do, then there will be.

People have this notion of Hell being firely and heaven being up in the sky...so they view the two as either punishment or reward.

But in reality, if you find happiness in simply dying with nothing more, then you'll get that.

If you feel there's more to life than just what's here on earth, then you'll get that.

God(s) doesn't care. It's completely up to you.

[Chook]

The Jewish faith from which Christianity derives does in fact encourage it's followers to question the faith that they are taught. Throughout the entire Old Testament you will find examples of characters arguing, questioning and doubting God. I don't think that it is inherently against christian beliefs to have doubts and misgivings. The point of any spiritual endeavour is to wrestle with the questions of existence and purpose - how can you do this if you don't challenge relgious doctrines?