Sincerity is not enough: the problem with the problem of sincere disbelief
Posted
Michael Collett's thoughtful article "God and the problem of sincere disbelief" must have touched a nerve.
Within an hour of it being published on Wednesday, I received a flurry of emails from believing Christians asking me what I thought.
Collett and I share in common our religious upbringing. He tells the bitter-sweet tale of his coming to non-belief without rancour. He says that he made an extensive investigation of the evidence and decided that it was not for him.
First, he says: "Being a Christian means having particular views about history and science." Christianity either stands or falls on the truth claims it makes.
Second, he says: "It always seemed unconscionable to me that someone could be denied salvation not because of a moral failing, but because they simply disagreed about the evidence for God."
For Collett, it isn't the truth claims that are "the problem". Rather, he finds it "unconscionable" that a person could be judged for simply and honestly coming up with a different view of things that happened in the 1st century AD.
And that's the central point that Collett makes in his article: that for him, a big problem for belief in the Christian God is the existence of people who sincerely do not believe in the Christian God.
As he says:
"Could God really deny salvation to someone just because they're unconvinced by the historical basis for the resurrection?"
If Christianity claims that such sincere, 'simple' disbelief is enough to get you judged by God, then Christianity is itself making a morally questionable claim (says Collett). In his view, his not believing is honest, even morally virtuous. How could he be condemned for it?
It's an argument for unbelief on the basis of the existence of sincere unbelief.
I hope I've put Collett's case, or rather told his story, in such a way as he would recognise it. What is refreshing is the way in which he can say that rational truth claims are part of what believing means. Belief, or 'faith', isn't some post-rational or a-rational or irrational thing. It involves evidence.
If the evidence is not good, then don't believe. In fact, it would be morally wrong to believe what you should know isn't true, wouldn't it? It certainly seems that Collett believes that Christians who believe as they do are participating in something "unconscionable".
Which is where I want to question how Collett gives his own (un)belief a moral free-pass because it is sincerely won.
Sincere and honest inquiry can, we agree, lead to outright error. You can be sincerely wrong. But your sincere beliefs can also be morally problematic — even evil.
The great German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche came to believe, from his intellectually rigorous and sincere inquiry, that showing pity for the weak in society was immoral. That it showed sympathy for the weak was one of his great complaints against Christianity, in fact.
Is Nietzsche to be excused?
Ultimately, if sincerity of heart is the yardstick by which a belief is to be measured, than we make ourselves our own judges. But that doesn't leave us much room for critiquing beliefs that other people hold — even when they are very damaging. It also poses the nagging question: by what standards do I judge myself?
We are left floating in impenetrable bubbles of our subjectivity.
Suppose there is a God...
But there's another thing, too. Suppose that there is indeed a creator God, who made all things, and who made human beings in his image. Suppose that this God is not simply a force, but is in some way personal and relational, such that it might be said that he loves human creatures, and showers them with all the blessings of human life.
You may not be convinced such a God exists, but many, many people are. It's not an outlandish idea, even if you yourself don't believe it.
If such a God did exist, then it would not be unreasonable that he would demand of his beloved creatures not only that they believe in him in the sense of "believe that he exists", but believe in him in the sense of "worship wholeheartedly".
Believing in God in that fuller sense (which is what is actually meant by "believe" in the verses from John's gospel that Collett cites) would indeed be something that human beings ought to do. Indeed, to not believe in him would be disastrous, since he is the source of all life, love, and hope.
But if he doesn't exist, then not believing in him makes not a bit of difference — in which case, the atheist or agnostic has no grounds for a protest against God for demanding that we believe in him and worship him.
Which is where I want to suggest: isn't Collett's protest really not an argument against the existence of God, but a protest against the God that exists? Isn't there a tacit acknowledgement that God exists in this "problem"?
How I came to Christianity
So to return to Collett's question, "Could God really deny salvation to someone just because they're unconvinced by the historical basis for the resurrection?"
Well, he doesn't. Collett's description of Christianity is faulty. The Bible does not in fact claim that people are to be judged by God for simple intellectual disagreements over historical events.
A pure, completely honest, utterly sincere quest for the truth is not something that the God of the Bible would punish. But the universal human problem is far deeper than that.
My own story, as I said, is not that different from Collett's. I came from a Christian family, but had to take a long hard look at Christian faith as history, philosophy, and science for myself. A second-hand faith is no faith at all. I too met bright, good and sincere people who were non-believers at university. Some of the best people I know don't believe in God.
However, as a historian, I could not persuade myself that Jesus' bones lie somewhere in an unmarked grave in Palestine. And as a human being, I could not deny that sense that I owed my creator my very life. Nor could I fail to be moved by the beauty of the story of the Jesus of Nazareth, who died to reconcile us to God.
I might be wrong. I know I've looked sincerely; but I know that the human heart plays tricks on us, and that I could be kidding myself. But if that's so, I'd rather be convinced to change my mind than left in my sincere mistake. Sincerity is not enough.
Dr Michael Jensen is the Rector of St Mark's Darling Point and is the author of My God, My God – Is it Possible to Believe Anymore?. Follow him on Twitter: @mpjensen.
Topics: christianity
