Tom Cocklereece writes a blog called: Simple Discipleship Weblog -- Helping Churches Make Disciple-Making Disciples. He posted an entry by a guest writer called:
Why Don’t Smart People Get Jesus? By Guest Writer: Rachel Fox
I was quickly reading through the article, thinking about how choices in fonts can really impact the joy of reading, when a few sentences just jumped out at me. Sometimes a quote is so honest that it hurts to read.
So, why don’t smart people get Jesus?
*Spoiler Alert*
"So, why don’t smart people get Jesus?
Simply because they lack a child-like faith. Instead of beginning with the foundation, they attempt to begin by building the high walls of theology and education."
How does one "begin with the foundation?"
"We should reason according to the beliefs we already have, according to our simple faith. We should learn about Christian theology and other theologies with the understanding that what we already believe is totally true."
It's rare that I get an example of "How to not think about things and other self-delusions" in such succinct and coherent language. It is simply amazing to me that a person could actually write those sentences and not realize that they are promoting Anti-Thinking as a virtue.
Want to know an exact formula for propagating dogmatic belief through the ages? Encourage children to "learn about other theologies with the understanding that what we already believe is totally true."
At an absolutely fundamental level, that approach is an intellectually dishonest way of operating.
{ 11 comments }
It reminds me of a conversation I had many years ago with a few friends. There was also a young man I didn't know, and I was later told he was a committed Catholic.
The discussion was about animal social behaviour, and how it was often very similar to human behaviour.
Someone – So, what really sets humans apart from animals?
Me – I think the main difference is the ability to ask "why?" and "how?"
This, of course, quickly led to religious debate (as 'easy' answers to unexplained natural phenomenons). After a while, the Catholic asked me, with a smile:
Catholic – So, according to you, what really sets believers apart from unbelievers?
Me – I think believers stop asking when given answers by an authority. Nonbelievers don't take premade answers for granted, and this lead them to more hows and whys.
Catholic – I believe you're right. But to avoid unending discussions, we must stop asking at some point, and the sooner the better. He who always asks is only an unproductive fool.
This left me stunned and speechless.
Jaume, that is rather surprising that someone would actually not only think that, but come out and say it. I've heard and read people say that religious questions "just don't interest them", which I think can be a valid (although disappointing) response. But to come out and say you have to stop asking questions, stop asking how and why, is sad.
As for the Rachel Fox article in the OP, can that be anything other than trying to dupe the masses? I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but can anyone honestly think that you shouldn't "reason out" (her words) what you believe to see if it makes sense? I agree that it's encouraging anti-thinking.
Maybe (hopefully!) some people at least think such a lack of critical thinking only applies to religion, and not to other topics in their daily lives. For what other thing, besides maybe Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, would you say to be child-like (or childish perhaps more appropriately) and not bother to examine something before you accept it as true?
I can't believe you wrote this last paragraph. What about astrology, racial suprematism, haunted houses, and an host of pseudosciences so big I won't even bother to list some?
Point taken, but what I was getting at though is that I don't think anyone would openly profess to having a child-like belief in astrology, ghosts, homeopathic medicine, etc. People would go ahead and not examine the claims of these and other areas, but I don't think they would proudly say "I believe in ghosts like a child does", or "I believe in astrology like a child does", as religious believers sometimes do about their religion.
This is not the first I've heard about child-like faith in God (likely since the Bible itself says as much), but I'm surprised to see an article that explicitly encourages people not to reason out their religion. Often they'll use the euphemism like "you just gotta have faith", but not then come out and openly explain that this means you shouldn't think about it. I don't think people say not to examine the claims of pseudosciences, etc.; people just accept false claims or don't bother to check it out. It seems to me that only with religion would you brag that you do so and encourage others to do the same.
Ah, OK, and sorry for misreading you. I remember reading something, a couple years back, on a group of New Age spiritualists who urged people to abandon traditional religion, and, as I remember it, 'embrace child-like faith in Nature'. Although this was probably more poetic license than a requirement for strict adhesion to an unquestionable dogma.
Oh, btw, your 'service minimum in French Hell' comment almost made me wet my pants.
No problem at all, I should have been clearer. That's interesting about the New Age spiritualists. Maybe they were trying to use a tactic from the Bible to convert people. I know some people who were raised as Christians who don't believe in the Christian God anymore, but who still feel there's "something out there." This might appeal to them maybe, which I think is a shame.
I'm glad you liked the service minimum joke! I follow France and the French news pretty closely, so when I read your joke (which made me laugh!) the debate over service minimum came to mind.
You are clearly taking Rachel's comments out of context. We indeed challenge people to reason out their relationship and faith in Jesus Christ. Many atheists begin with a presupposition that God does not exist which requires empiracle faith. Many Christians would argue that atheists are impressed with their own reasoning that God does not exist and refuse to admit that theirs is as much of a belief system as Christianity or a religion of the world–in fact atheism may require more faith with less empiracle evidence. Authentic Christianity is open to reasoning, debate, discussion, interpretation, and challenge. Any leader, religious or not, who has an answer for everything or is unwilling to discusspoints of belief is not someone to be followed in any arena of life or learning. (continued)
Rachel's primary point is that many people have "out-thought themselves" and consider themselves to be wise in their own eyes. They are so impressed with themselves an their opinions that they cannot see the more simple things of faith. The Christian faith is simple in it's complexity–simplexity I suppose. Some people try to begin with the complex aspects of Christianity and stumble. Many Christians begin with an epiphany experience of Jesus Christ, learn the simpler things of the Christian faith , and then move on to the more complex. An analogy: the root is a salvation experience with Christ, the tree trunk is the simple doctrines of faith, and the detailed branches and leaves are the complex things of the faith. (end)
Hey Tom! Thanks for stopping by my website. First things first, real quick, you ever have a chance to respond to my comment that I left on your blog post:
You (Dr. Tom) wrote: “I love the freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or freedom from religion–if that is your choice. These are God-given rights for all of humanity.”
To which I responded: All right, I’ll bite. Which God gave us these rights? When did He tell us that we have them? If you think it’s from the Bible, I challenge you to quote a Bible verse that you think supports any ONE of the following:
1. freedom of thought
2. freedom of speech
3. freedom of religion
4. freedom from religion
Looking forward to your response. I'll let you post your reply here since you closed future comments on your page.
Second, you talk in vague generalities. Give me specifics — is the virgin birth of Jesus a simple aspect of Christianity? When your Authentic Christianity is challenged by, "Why do you think that?", what is your response?
Do you start out believing that what you already believe is true, therefore, Jesus was born of a virgin? Or is there some kind of reasoning going on there that I'm missing?
I'm flexible and genuinely curious, so if you think that the virgin birth is a bad example, I'll let you decide on any SPECIFIC aspect of Christian faith that you think is simple yet carefully reasoned out — not believed for terrible reasons (like we should believe what we already believe).
Second, you talk in vague generalities. Give me specifics — is the virgin birth of Jesus a simple aspect of Christianity? When your Authentic Christianity is challenged by, "Why do you think that Jesus was born of a virgin?", what is your response?
Do you start out believing that what you already believe is true, therefore, Jesus was born of a virgin? Or is there some kind of reasoning going on there that I'm missing?
I'm flexible and genuinely curious, so if you think that the virgin birth is a bad example, I'll let you decide on any SPECIFIC aspect of Christian faith that you think is simple yet carefully reasoned out — not believed for terrible reasons (like we should believe what we already believe).
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }