Why I'm Not a Christian; or Faith, Rationality, and their Intersection

[da]

dpolicar recently wanted to say he respects religious people who value rational thought and intelligence (as opposed to the religious for whom rationality is irrelevant). My initial reaction was honestly more guarded and negative than it should've been, since I generally just agree with that sentiment.

But I needed to rail against hypocrites who claim to be rational but don't question the irrational aspects of their faiths. This is certainly self-serving, because lots of sorts of religious irrationality is, I think, bad for this world. I don't believe in heaven, so behaving irrationally in this world to preserve one's place in the afterlife is an argument that doesn't hold any truck with me. Further, I think I can state that I will actively work against irrational religious behaviour that damages our world for the sake of the Hereafter.

If you like, such are dead-end memes that should doom their carriers. I hope they can do so without bringing down the rest of human civilization. Looking at certain aspects of the US right now, I can't help but feeling doubtful.

So: here are a few religious beliefs which I think Christians cannot hold and still be considered rational:

• creationism- is an easy one; specifically, any timeline that says evolution is impossible
  
• transubstantiation (see my comment below)
  
• inerrancy of the Bible regarding such topics as slavery, subservience of women
  

...and possibly the most frustrating for me personally:

• Christian behaviour that completely discounts the Sermon on the Mount, in favour of relying on considering oneself "saved" through ones faith. In my view, Christianity carries much more responsibility than going to church, tithing, and possibly convincing others to consider themselves "saved"; the most rational part of Jesus' message is his instructions for how to live in this world as a necessary precondition for salvation. Any Christian who is not a peacemaker, who doesn't thirst for justice, who doesn't work toward being a light for the world, who doesn't actively love their enemies, who doesn't acutely listen for the will of God in his or her life... is missing the point. And missing what I think Jesus was mostly calling for his followers to do.
  

My faith does not have any creedal statements, but it comes out of a Christian tradition, and much of the tradition of early Christians does resonate strongly with me- which is possibly why I'm most irritated by irrational Christian behaviours.

But, you're saying, faith is by nature irrational. How can you be rational and have faith?

I've seen a lot of the powerful good that faith can do- faith in God can overcome certain failure (as one takes single steps forward, each on faith, and relying on God to know where the path will go); faith can crystallize thought around an intracable problem so that the solution becomes blindingly obvious; it can be the only thing a person has left to go on, and that can be enough.

I don't think faith in God requires one to toss away rationality. I believe God wants us to live love, in this world. Maybe that's heaven. The clearest explanations I've read for how faith can and should work, have come out of a Christian tradition.

However, since I fundimentally have no faith in Heaven, I don't see much point in calling myself Christian. I can follow the examples patterned in the Bible; I can call myself a Friend of the Truth; but that's about as far as you'll find me going. And I think that's OK.

Comments

[dr-tectonic.livejournal.com]

*Ahem*

I believe the correct word here would be, "Amen". And perhaps, "brother".

[da-lj.livejournal.com]

*grin*

Somewhere I read an article or story called "Old memes for New" that would've been helpful for this discussion, but I have no idea where it was. Perhaps I'll remember and write a new post on that aspect. It's mostly about unsustainable human behaviours, and the stupid beliefs that underlie them.

Heck, it might've been Bruce Sterling, in Cryptonomicon. Everything else is in there...

[arcticturtle.livejournal.com]

I've been stewing on all this myself lately.

But, you're saying, faith is by nature irrational
I disagree like crazy with that sentiment (I know it isn't yours). I can't figure out how there can be so little respect for... well, for TRUTH, among the followers of a Guy who said, "I am the way, and the TRUTH, and the life...". And who carry a book of Proverbs that is verse after verse after verse in praise of Wisdom.

To me, "faith" doesn't mean believing in something without your mind; it means staying loyal (faithful, as in a marriage) to the truth that you have found (with your mind). Even when you don't feel like it anymore, even when it's not exciting or cool, even when you realize that there are implications that aren't comfortable, even when you realize that those pretty words in the Sermon on the Mount are supposed to have a place in your life everyday.

Please assist me in popularizing my two-line evolution parable.

"The house is held together by nails," they said. "This proves that there is no Carpenter."
"That's not true!" cried the Carpenterists. "There are no nails!"

And I'll also point you at my divinely revealed truth opinion on Bible/sexism/etc.

Having said all that in pseudo-agreement, I ought to point out a disagreement I think important: that I don't think Jesus's apostles - the ones who remembered and recorded that pretty Sermon - decided to BS us on the resurrection thing. Though I do agree that the now(irrelevant)/afterlife(everything) view isn't what Jesus was actually teaching - rather, something way more mystical, the Kingdom of Heaven you both dwell in now and yet aspire to hereafter...

[melted-snowball.livejournal.com]

I think that this is actually a place where the mystic whose tradition D. and I follow (George Fox) has had a quite strong influence on us both.

Fox argued that the Second Coming had, in a sense, already happened, in the form of the Inward Christ, and that it was our job to focus on this Kingdom of Heaven. That point of view has influenced liberal Friends a lot, though there is a lot of disagreement about what exactly resurrection would mean.

[arcticturtle.livejournal.com]

That's probably one of the (probably multiple) ways in which the Kingdom of Heaven ideas are true. It's interestingly pretty closely related to something Tony Campolo preached in Dayton last month - about the Body of the resurrected Christ not as a pretty label for the church, but meaning Jesus' very concrete intention to work love here and now through the legs and arms and hands that we are supposed to be.

(How tragic, to be a mystic saddled with such a non-exotic, unmystical-sounding name!)

[melted-snowball.livejournal.com]

Yes, but there's a big plus: he wrote in modern English, as have the vast majority of other Quaker authors. His language is still a pain at times, but at least I don't have to read Latin to be able to understand it...

hrm...

[da-lj.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm glad you came to stew in my backyard, then. :) Hi. :)

I appreciated your post on Paul/sexism/slavery you pointed to. I didn't do a particularly good job of spelling out what I meant about inerrency, as thomb and I just discussed. I expect you and I probably have pretty similar views there, as did he and I.

Regarding faith and inherent irrationality:

I disagree like crazy with that sentiment (I know it isn't yours).

hrm, well I'm not certain it isn't. *grin*

There's the side of the word that means "accepting fundimental truths without external verification." And there's also the side that means "a collection of these truths" or a synonym for a religion itself.

Both of these can involve irrationality. And that's not *entirely* a bad thing, if you know what I mean.

I have faith that God is Love. I have no external verification of that- without coming back to the belief that God is Love.

When I decided, about 10 years ago, that I was theistic and not agnostic, it was because I have faith that God exists. Can't say why. Just do.

Part of my particular faith is testing one's beliefs against what else one knows to be true... the quote from Fox goes something like, "The Bible says this, the Apostles say that, but what can you say?". However, I accept that many, many religious beliefs are taken on... faith.

Ultimately, taken on faith in God, and faith that the belief has been correctly passed from God.

That latter part is the one that I have more problems with; as thomb and I discussed...

The further away we get from things I can test in my heart and know to be true, the more difficulty I have with items of faith.

I probably should say- I have absolutely nothing against those who do believe in an afterlife, however- I often wish I did!

[thomb.livejournal.com]

So as I said in that other thread, I'm on your side about three of those four points. As for transubstantiation, it might be bad Christianity, but if your not a Christian, then it's a little weird to say so.

Just as I can't take sides in the Theravada/Mahayana divide, or the orthodox/reform Jewish divide, it seems weird for a non-Christian try and take sides about something which is essentially entirely internal to the religion. If you aren't a Christian, then why take sides about that issue?

[melted-snowball.livejournal.com]

(Of course, I don't speak for my beloved, and I don't know if he'll respond himself. It's just that in this area, even though I don't think we agree fully, I still feel that I can say what I have to say as well.)

One tension is that since we liberal Friends fall in a weird relationship with Christianity, we sort of wind up with some of your controversies on our plate regardless of whether we want them, though I wouldn't say that the meaning of the Eucharist falls in that range.

On the other hand, I'd really like to push this in a completely different direction, if you're willing.

When you take Communion, what do you experience? What is the meaning of this sacrament in your life? (And yes, I'm genuinely curious. I've been disappointed by the answers I get to this question, typically.)

[thomb.livejournal.com]

I think it's a little weird, from my perspective, to focus on "what do I experience". The answer is, well, different things at different times. My heart will be strangely warmed, or the fellowship of the event will be paramount. Or sometimes there might be no particular "feeling" associated. But it isn't about getting some feeling or special spiritual oomph; those are only the icing on the cake. Heck, take Thanksgiving (which is, after all, what "Eucharist" means). Such a meal has a million meanings, all balled up together, and it's weirdly reductionistic to ask "so what exactly do you get out of that holiday meal?"

The Eucharist is spiritual nourishment; it's food for the soul. It's Christ giving himself for me in a tangible form, not contingent on my imagining. It's a renewal of my baptism, at which I claim and am claimed by Christ. It's effects (like those of food) are not just confined to the moment of eating.

[melted-snowball.livejournal.com]

I think it's a little weird, from my perspective, to focus on "what do I experience".

Well, that's the reason why I expanded the question to what its meaning in your life was. On the other hand, asking someone "why do you really love Thanksgiving" is a perfectly reasonable question, no?

Typically, when I've asked this question, I've gotten variations on "it's just what I do", or "I don't know", which are quite disappointing. Thank you for not doing so.

[da-lj.livejournal.com]

Sorry, juggling projects a bit today so time is short, but I'll add a bit here quickly.

Upon reflection, I've struck transubstantation from the list of things that I think are irreconcilably irrational. I didn't mean to offend anybody's faith by writing it.

The point was to get at substantial issues that I think rational people should be able to agree to a common foundation on, and I don't see that kind of issue here.

Like d, I'm also curious about what the experience of communion actually means, though.

...and now it's back to work for me!