A communication from Kyle (a skeptic who used to debate against Christianity) made me ponder this question:

Is it possible to believe in Christianity and to be intellectually honest (in so doing)?

There is a sense in which I am sympathetic to Kyle’s questions below (possibly because of my atheist-skeptic past).

I’m interested in your thoughts… How would you address his questions/ comments? (I’m speaking particularly to Christians, but I am open to comment from others as well).

In the text below, Kyle's questions and comments are in green. My responses are in black.

Kyle => For some skeptics, to attempt to believe in Christianity would be intellectually dishonest, since they are not able to see evidence for it being true.

I am puzzled then about why it is that for many very intelligent Theists, it is NOT intellectually dishonest (given the evidence – such as the Big Bang, the Fine-Tuning of the Universe, the evidence from Infinity, the evidence from Entropy) to conclude that Theism is correct... (Unless we are to assume that ALL Theist-Christians are by definition intellectually dishonest, which I presume we are all mature enough to not assume.)

In making these statements, I assume that both Theists and Atheists (those of both camps who have diligently researched the evidence) have the SAME evidence...

I recognize that this may not be true.

In fact there are significant examples of Atheist intellectuals who moved away from Atheism as they examined the evidence for the existence of God (e.g., C.S. Lewis, and more recently Prof. Anthony Flew who was considered by many to be the leading atheist intellectual in the world for many years)…

--

I am a wholly convinced Theist. As I sincerely examine my thoughts, my mind and my conscience, I do not find myself to be intellectually dishonest.

After all, it is not in my best interests to lie to myself. And I hope you realize that I have nothing to gain by lying to you (when I say that I do not see intellectual dishonesty within myself when I conclude that there IS a God).

Kyle => In your view, does the Christian God value proper belief more than character (such as intellectual integrity)?

This is a good question.

I would say that proper belief is consistent with intellectual integrity. If I may make a few clarifying comments in this context (see below)…

Christian "faith" is not primarily "belief"; it is "trust". It is willingness to take a risk in a relationship. It is willingness to take a risk in "trusting" what the Christian God has said.

Just like a relationship with a woman you are dating. If you are willing to take a risk, in trusting the woman, this is a possible basis for relationship.

We all know people who have been "bitten" through past bad-relationships, who lose their ability (or their willingness) to trust another person in relationship... and you may know how wearying that is, to be in a relationship with a person who is not willing to take a risk and trust you (and so you have to always keep proving yourself to her)...

I think there is something of this in the Christian relationship with God.

And, Christian “faith” is “trust” that then grows as we continue in relationship with the Christian God… “trust” which grows with continued experience with God, with continued experience with his “trustworthiness”

… just as in human relationships…

It is not unreasonable to believe that there is a God. In other words, given the evidence of the universe, it is not unreasonable to suspect that there is a Mind behind the Universe... It is not unreasonable to seriously consider Theism as a reasonable hypothesis to explain the evidence of the universe.

So, I think first there has to be a willingness on our part, to consider the possibility that there is indeed a Mind behind the Universe.

Proposition #1a: We first have to be willing to accept the proposition that there is a God (a Mind behind this universe).

This does not mean that we switch off our brains. It just means that we are willing to accept the proposition (if at first, provisionally, or tentatively).

I find that it truly does NOT take switching off of our brains to accept this proposition, that there is a Mind behind our Universe (see points below).

I truly intellectually think that there is evidence that points to (or at worst, is consistent with) there being a Mind behind the Universe:

• big bang origin of all matter-energy,
• the enormous depth of the Anthropic coincidences,
• the fact that the Anthropic coincidences have had predictive power,
• non-observer-survival-centric Anthropic coincidences,
• the Aesthetic coincidences,
• the “beauty” of the mathematical equations that govern our universe,
• the fact that this mathematical “beauty” has had predictive power,
• the “beauty” of astronomy and the night sky,
• the “beauty” of the microscopic world,
• the “beauty” that we observe present through our whole universe from very large scales down to very small scales,
• other forms of non-sexual beauty,
• overdesign of human brains for mere-survival,
• design of human brain for science and knowledge about the universe,
• design of human brain for knowledge about galaxies 14 billion light years away (information which could in no way improve our survival-chances),
• design of human brain for aesthetic non-sexual expression,
• design of human brain for mathematics,
• design of human brain for appreciation of non-sexual beauty,
• design of human brain for mystical relationship with God,
• design of humans with a moral-requirement for God,
• design of human brain for philosophy and theology about God,
• most of these being substantial overdesign if viewed from a pure survival viewpoint,
• the amazing understandability of the universe,
• the design of the human brain to be able to take advantage of this amazing understandability of the universe,
• the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences,
• the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the biological sciences,
• the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in describing our universe,
• the indications that belief in God, and in particular, the Christian God lead to increased sanity, peace of mind, improved relationships, joy in individual lives and societies,
• the effectiveness of committed relationship with Christ to radically transform criminals and reduce criminal recidivism -- its almost as if humans were designed to have relationship with God,
• the effectiveness of committed relationship with God to radically transform drug addicts and reduce such addictions -- its almost as if humans were designed to have relationship with God,
• the moral effectiveness of Christianity and Christians in many third-world cultures who reduced temple prostitution of little girls, burning of widows, killing of children and infants, maiming of children for purposes of begging, for helping the poor, the widow, the orphan, the lepers who are rejected by the rest of their societies,
• and so on…

Thinking through some of these areas that I have mentioned above, I found (over a period of time) the atheist explanations I was presented with (for so much of what is “real” in our universe) to be shallow and trite and almost solipsistically reductionistic… and I found atheist explanations for most things that are meaningful and beautiful in life to be near-solipsistic in nature…

… to the extent that I finally concluded that I was not able to intellectually be an atheist…

Proposition #1b: We have to be willing (at least tentatively) to accept the proposition that the Christian God exists.

E.g., given the amount of care taken to design our universe (assuming some of the points I made above, depth of Anthropic coincidences, Aesthetic coincidences, care taken in design of humans for beauty, science, math, relationship with God etc) it is not unreasonable to accept the proposition that the Mind behind the universe is one who cares, who is personally involved with the universe, and who would be interested in being involved with human beings etc.

Proposition #2: We have to be willing (at least tentatively) to accept the statement of the Christian God that he will reveal himself to those who seek him with sincerity, humility and perseverance.

Consistent with the comments above (presented with proposition #1b).

Our Response: Seek God with perseverance.

Action based on the propositions: Then, we act on these propositions, by seeking God with sincerity, humility and perseverance… And he says that he WILL reveal himself to us.

And this is what happened in my life (and in the lives of many Christians I have met and otherwise come across).

Kyle => Would the Christian God be pleased with a person who attempts to force himself to believe the "right things" (according to your view) when his mind and conscience tell him it isn't true?

I believe the Christian God would be pleased with a person who was willing to accept propositions #1a, #1b and #2 above, and act on them.

I see NO compelling reason why those propositions should be rejected summarily and out of hand.

Your biggest problem with Christianity …

Kyle, from your previous communications, it appears to me that your biggest problem with Christianity is the fact that you believe there to be errors in the Bible (please correct me if I am wrong).

As you know, there are many Christians who believe that the Bible (in the original Greek/Hebrew) manuscripts are without error, though today’s copies can have minor errors. Such Christians are often referred to as “inerrantists”.

Inerrantists would believe that any perceived error in the Bible is due to misunderstanding of the cultural idiom of the day (differences in language, thought-forms, ways of thinking etc).

And I find that the perceived errors are often due to such misunderstanding of cultural idioms and thought-forms.

Inerrantists would believe (by “faith” or “trust” in the Christian God) that if there are any remaining alleged errors, they will one day be shown to be due to misunderstanding of cultural idioms or thought-forms.

Yes, you could view that as a bit of a step of faith. Some are able to take that step, due to other reasons that substantiate their Christianity, reasons that could be intellectual and/or experiential.

Your communications suggest that you are not inclined to take that step of faith.

In that case, assuming that your intention is NOT to willfully and summarily reject Christianity, but to give it a chance… then listen to this second option (errantist).

Note: I personally am an Inerrantist (as defined above). However I know committed Christians who subscribe to the alternative presented below, and so I present it to you as well.

First, note that Inerrancy is a secondary hypothesis; i.e., Christian faith does NOT have to depend on there being NO errors in the Bible.

An Errantist position: In one variant of an errantist position, the Bible is a collection of writings by people who TRULY interacted with the Christian God. These people wrote down accounts of their dealings with the Christian God (who truly exists, and who truly deals with people). And some of these people wrote down accounts of their dealings with Jesus Christ when he was on earth.

So while the essence of the writings (of the dealings of God with humans) would be true, there could be minor errors, because these were written by human beings…

Also, in a situation like this, there would be some things in the Bible that are a reflection of the cultural mindset of the people who wrote of their dealings with God (and Jesus) etc… and even if we our sensibilities are offended by some of these cultural doings, that does not make the core reality of the Christian God and his dealings with humans (salvation etc) any less true. And similarly, if we found some errors by the writers, that does not make the core reality of the Christian God and his dealings with humans (salvation etc) any less true.

So, again, in a situation like this, you would take the Bible at face value, accept its propositions as far as the Christian God is concerned and test these propositions out in your life (“taste and see that the LORD is good”).

And as far as I can tell, both MC and FS (who you know) fall into this camp. Neither of them is an inerrantist. Both appear to be Christians, FS by mystical means, and MC via a combination of intellectual and experiential means.

And I accept them both as my brothers in Christ, just as I do any inerrantist.

Theism is NOT unreasonable, and it is intellectually consistent with the Evidence in our Universe.

I don’t find the propositions presented above (and acting on them) to be unreasonable.

If you are struggling with the question of inerrancy … you don’t have to be an inerrantist to commit your life to Christ.

I invite you to seek the Christian God with humility, sincerity and perseverance.

I invite you to commit your life to Christ.

All humans are inclined towards things that are displeasing to God. This is called sin. (Romans 3:23).

The consequence of these things we do (sin), is separation from God, both now, and for eternity. (Romans 6:23).

Jesus died on the cross to demonstrate his love and his commitment to us (to enable forgiveness for our sins), so that whoever believes in him (and commits their lives to him) will not spiritually die, but will have eternal life (John 3:16).

Jesus stands at the door of your heart and knocks. If you open the door and let him in, he will enter and become your friend for life (Revelation 3:20).

If you would like to be saved, and have an eternal relationship with God, please pray to ask him into your heart: "Dear God, I have sinned against you. I ask for your forgiveness. Please come into my life and be the boss in my life. Accept me now into your family. Be my friend now and for evermore, and take me to heaven to be with you when I die. Help me now, to live a life that is pleasing in your sight. In Jesus name I pray. Amen".