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

[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...