For years, I have wished that I had kept a journal about my time practicing Christianity and the subsequent transition to atheism. Very little documentation of my experience exists, so I was happy to come across an old document from 2003 entitled "Blind Faith." Based on the date and content, I know I wrote it when I was calling myself an agnostic. I also know that I still had residual faith and theistic belief. Below is a window into that time. I'm posting it as-is; errors, misunderstandings, misused words and phrases, etc. I enjoyed it. Perhaps someone else will too.
--
Blind Faith, 8 August 2003
When you get down to it, being a Christian hinges on faith, and not proof. This makes the Bible, and other such evidence useless for such to anyone other than Christians. With prerequisite faith, the Bible can greatly improve and enforce your devotion. But what does the Bible do for a non-Christian?
In my experience, it is difficult to draw faith from the Bible without any to start with. It's filled with contradictory text from chapter one! You may continue reading it to find that it is difficult to understand and often requires "reading between the lines". In some parts, you must be aware of the social values of the time period or the history of the region in order to make sense of it. Some Christians even claim that God's help is required to achieve comprehension, and that you should ask him for help before reading it. Insert faith here.
It's so simple; just have faith. I've heard that so many times and it's just not true. Faith only comes easily when you can test it, or when you are blissfully ignorant. Christianity doesn't lend itself to testing, unless of course you already have faith. That leaves ignorance and who wants to intentionally base their beliefs on that? So, how do you get proof? From what I understand, God isn't going to drop a rock on your head or send an angel just to prove himself. He won't make you believe because that would infringe on your free will to make your own choice. What value would your relationship with God have if you couldn't deny his existence? With undeniable proof, your freedom of an unbiased choice is lost.
It seems that God shows himself in many ways to those that already have faith in him. So for the non-Christian to have something to have faith in, he must first achieve it without reason. Does that even make sense? Those that need proof are denied it because of their lack of faith, and those already believe are have their faith reinforced with regularity. To get proof I need faith, and to get faith I need proof. That's circular logic if I've ever seen it. I will say that this is counter-intuitive method certainly stresses a "quality, not quantity" approach to building a following.
So how do so many overcome the obstacle of no proof and have faith anyway? I often wonder how many do it out of ignorance. I did it for a while before waking up. I considered myself to be a Christian until I was around twenty years old. I never really did anything to act like a Christian, but had you asked me if I were a Christian, I would have replied "yes" without hesitation. I was raised in a Christian environment and most everyone that I had contact with were Christians. I believe that during this experience as a child, a time when you believe most whatever you are told, you store it as fact in your mind. It's a default belief that has no basis in reason and you retain it through later life. By the time you reach and age when you want to make your own decisions based on the facts at hand, your religious preference is already "burned-in" to your brain. So, instead of taking Christianity as my religion based on what I saw of it, and what proof I had of it to consider, I was convinced through my environment to be a Christian without ever realizing why. I have no doubt that all religions benefit from this same influence.
Finally I began to question why I put my faith in God and the Bible and I realized that it was all based on what other people believed. My decision had been made for me and I didn't like it. I only wanted to do it if it made sense to me. I felt that in order to make my own decision that I would have to step back and get answers for myself. How many Christians never stumble upon this realization and go on believing because they have always done so? To me, that lacks value and I have a difficult time respecting it. I would prefer an atheist that took the time to consider the evidence over a Christian who was so without any consideration at all.
I don't believe that environmentally-influenced faith is meaningful. How can any choice without consideration have value? This is not to say that consideration equates value. Many Christians credit all things to God, good and bad. While this works well for the faithful, it doesn't do much to help obtain faith. I can easily ask God for sunny weather so that I can enjoy the outdoors. If I get sunny weather, was it sent by God? If it rains, did God know better and sacrifice my sunny weather for a greater cause? This method over time could convince anyone that God is real based on crediting him with all things. But this also works for a rabbit's foot or a four-leafed clover. I just don't believe that this bulds authentic faith since it is based on the assumption of God's existence.
[This document is incomplete]
Read more...
