Guest Post by Merle Hertzler
Where do you go from here? Perhaps you have been learning new and different viewpoints on the Internet. Perhaps the religion you inherited does not have the attraction it once had. You have found too many problems with it. Now what?
Many people find challenges to their faith interesting. They enjoy the debate. And for the first time they read that the case for their faith is not as clear cut as they had heard. There are strong and interesting arguments for other views.
Perhaps you also have found these challenges interesting, but you do not wish to continue. For many, the thought of reconsidering religion will be unacceptable. These people find comfort in their traditional beliefs, and they will not want to leave the comfort of those beliefs. A brief excursion into skepticism on the Internet (here, for instance) might be interesting to them, but they will return to safety when the challenges become troubling. It is too painful for them to think of changing their minds about religion. These people leave the debate if their side is not clearly winning. When it had appeared their side was winning, they had no problem continuing. But if the facts appear to lead away from the religion they always knew, the thought of considering that they might be wrong about religion is too painful to continue.
If this describes you, I can feel your pain. I have been there. I had once been able to go just so far in examining my faith, while always retreating back to safety when the going got rough. I understand the desire to stick with one’s current faith, regardless of what one learns. But is this the best way to live life?
If you cherish traditional beliefs, but your life is not closely sheltered from all outside sources, you will continually find challenges to your beliefs in areas such as biology, history, physics, ethics, and psychology. And you will find many sincere people who believe quite differently from you. It will be hard for you to force yourself to believe that all these people differ because they are evil, and that everything skeptics say is wrong.
If you retreat from the facts, you will face a constant struggle to avoid those facts. New observations will always come, and many new thoughts will cause dissonance with the thoughts that are already in your mind. Such cognitive dissonance can be quite uncomfortable. It is like living in an environment where folks are constantly shouting and arguing, except in this case the arguing occurs strictly within your own mind. One set of thoughts shouts at the other set of thoughts. Is that what you want to happen in your mind? If you refuse admittance to doubts and other competing thoughts, you will find yourself constantly needing to internally outshout those competing thoughts. You must decide if that is best for you.
By contrast, you could choose to freely explore beyond the box in which you now find yourself.
Some people will want to stop here, because their entire social structure is based on their existing religion. It is unbearable to think about the loss of social support that would occur if you were to change your mind about religion. It is one thing to tell a friend that you now like baseball better than basketball. It is quite another thing to say that your views are now more atheist than Baptist. Many friends will change their entire view of you if you say that.
Once more, I understand. I too was once bound by the need to conform in my beliefs–or at least in my actions–to the approved doctrines of the church. Once more I would ask, is this the way you want to live? Do you want to shut your mind to new knowledge in order to maintain friendships with people who oppose new knowledge?
And besides, if your friends are true friends, will they not love you even if you change your beliefs? If their love for you depends upon your theological persuasion, perhaps they are not the best of friends to begin with.
You will only go through life once. If you choose to live your life as though you believe a creed that you no longer believe, what kind of life is that? What value is a life if you can never share what is going on inside? What good is a life if you must pretend to be something you are not? You decide. Do you think that, years down the road, you will be glad that you lived in fear of what others might say and thus closed your mind to new ideas? If you decide to close your mind to skeptical ideas–or at least make it appear that your mind is closed–will you be able to hold your head high and walk forward with dignity?
Just in Case?
Some of my readers might see the value of moving on in their beliefs, but the fear of hell will stop them in their tracks. They might now see that their faith is implausible, but what if it is true? Will they be tormented in hell forever if they confess unbelief? Fearing hell, many will choose what they consider to be the safe path. They will stick with the faith as best they can even though they sincerely doubt it. They will try to believe just in case belief is necessary to escape hell.
If you are going to follow your existing faith just in case, should you not also follow other faiths just in case? Should you now become a Catholic, Mormon, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist, just in case they might be right? That would be impossible, for the faiths contradict each other. So which will you choose? The one you inherited? Suppose you had grown up in another faith. Would you now be choosing that faith just in case it might be right? If your choice is based only on the ideas you inherited, how can that choice be valid?
If you follow a faith without truly believing it, are you not being dishonest? If you confess to believe things you really don’t believe, will God honor that? If God honors such dishonesty, what kind of a being is he? How could you trust a God who honors dishonesty? If God honors dishonesty, he might be lying to you. If God honors dishonesty, would he not also be capable of turning his back on you and damning you, even if he had promised otherwise? So I don’t find much hope in dishonestly following a belief you don’t really think is true. Why dishonestly “believe” in case a God who honors dishonesty might approve?
If you honor God “just in case”–dishonestly claiming to believe–which God will you choose? Will you honor the God who favors dishonest support of Protestantism? Or will you honor the God who favors dishonest support of Catholicism, Islam, or some other way? So many Gods! Which will you choose?
May I suggest one more God? Suppose a God exists who honors honesty and integrity. If such a God exists, then he will be glad that you honestly admitted your unbelief. He would want intellectual honesty. And if such a God loved honestly, he could be depended on to keep his word. So if I must pick a God to serve (just in case one exists) then I would pick this God. And I would honestly admit my unbelief of certain religious dogmas. If a God who loved honesty existed, he would love my honesty. That seems like the best approach to me.
And so, if you find that neither the fear of a new viewpoint, nor the fear of the loss of friends, nor the fear of God’s condemnation for disbelief should stop your intellectual journey, why not lay aside those fears? Why not boldly go where you have never gone before, enjoying the path of discovery? Why not follow the facts wherever they lead, regardless of whether they lead away from or back to your original faith? Why not pursue truth?
As for me, I have found hope in secular humanism. Your explorations may lead you elsewhere. The important thing is not where the facts lead, but whether you are willing to accept and follow reality. Can you commit to the facts, regardless of where they lead?
The Mind Set Free
There is no experience quite like setting the mind free. Robert Green Ingersoll describes that experience:
When I became convinced that the Universe is natural — that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell, the dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts, and bars, and manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world — not even in infinite space. I was free — free to think, to express my thoughts — free to live to my own ideal — free to live for myself and those I loved — free to use all my faculties, all my senses — free to spread imagination’s wings — free to investigate, to guess and dream and hope — free to judge and determine for myself — free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the “inspired” books that savages have produced, and all the barbarous legends of the past — free from popes and priests — free from all the “called” and “set apart” — free from sanctified mistakes and holy lies — free from the fear of eternal pain — free from the winged monsters of the night — free from devils, ghosts and gods. For the first time I was free. There were no prohibited places in all the realms of thought — no air, no space, where fancy could not spread her painted wings — no chains for my limbs — no lashes for my back — no fires for my flesh — no master’s frown or threat — no following another’s steps — no need to bow, or cringe, or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free. I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously, faced all worlds. Source: Why I Am Agnostic – Robert Green Ingersoll
Doesn’t that sound refreshing? I think you can experience what Ingersoll experienced. But only you can decide if this is the path for you.
Bruce Gerencser writes of moving beyond the box of his original faith:
I do remember coming to a place where I felt completely free. I felt “born again.” I thought, I am a “born again” atheist. I no longer felt any pull to return to the box…People in the atheist box, the box I now call home told me that things would be better with time. They encouraged me to read and study. They told me “go where the data, the evidence leads you.” …That’s the greatest wonder of all . . . I now have the ability to freely choose the box(es) I want to be in. Source: What I Found when I Left the Box by Bruce Gerencser
Rob Berry described the result of his deconversion so well:
I felt a bit like a child, as though I was rediscovering the world. In particular, I remember a monthlong period in which I became flat-out fascinated with trees– there was something beautiful about the way they branched out, cutting a tangled silhouette against the sky. I also became enthralled with sunsets, and to this day I still love watching sunsets. Everything seemed fresh and new. It was as if in my enthusiasm for the supernatural, I had overlooked all the beauty the natural world has to offer. Now I was playing catch-up, discovering all the neat stuff I’d missed. I also read dozens of science books during this time– I decided it was time to find out how the universe really works, as I didn’t want to ever be fooled again. Source: Cited at Into the Clear Air, I can no longer find the original source.
Do you want to stand up and face the world without fear? Do you want to move beyond the box you find yourself in? Do you want this joy of discovery? It is your life. You must decide.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.
Bruce, being an atheist isn’t logical. You would have to be God’s equal to even know if He existed. He could be cloaked, hiding right next to you. Agnosticism is logically defendable.
Evidently, you don’t know much about atheism, agnosticism, and the connection between atheism and agnosticism. That’s why many atheists are agnostic atheists (and I am).
I have no need to be equal to God (I assume you mean the Christian deity) because said God does not exist. I see no evidence for his existence. I am confident that the God of the Bible does not exist. Thus I am an atheist.
Is it possible that an unknown god may reveal itself to us someday? Sure, but unlikely. That’s why I am an agnostic on this question. It is improbable, say .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent that a deity of some sort exists, but since it has made no effort to reveal itself to us, nor does it involve itself in our daily lives, I am an atheist.
It’s all about probabilities. If you have empirical, persuasive evidence for the existence of your peculiar God please provide it. Be aware, I have heard every possible argument for the existence of the Bible God. You have one chance to wow me. 🙂
If I cannot know whether God exists, then it cannot matter to me whether or not he exists.
David, there is only one requirement for atheism: Lack of belief in gods.
Speaking specifically of inductive logic, which deals in experiences and probability, it is eminently logical not to believe in a god that can’t be detected.
“ Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith:
Agnosticism is not an independent position or a middle way between theism and atheism, because it classifies according to different criteria. Theism and atheism separate those who believe in a god from those who do not. Agnosticism separates those who believe that reason cannot penetrate the supernatural realm from those who defend the capability of reason to affirm or deny the truth of theistic belief.
The self-proclaimed agnostic must still designate whether he does or does not believe in a god—and, in so doing, he commits himself to theism or he commits himself to atheism. But he does commit himself. Agnosticism is not the escape clause that it is commonly thought to be.”
Merle, this post did more to wake me than my cup of coffee.
Reading Rob Berry’s fascination with trees got me to thinking about this: Religious people often cite the beauty of nature as one of their reasons for believing in God. But I am struck by how profoundly anti-nature they can be.
I hope in life to have my beliefs challenged. I think it’s healthy to examine my beliefs, look at evidence, and reassess. Where I am right now may – probably will – be different from where I will be in 5 years. Hopefully, I retain compassion, critical thinking skills, and common sense, as well as willingness to shift based on evidence, throughout my remaining days. I am not arrogant enough to think that I am “there” yet, “there” being the place where I am in possession of all truth and knowledge; I will never be “there”, but it sure is interesting making the journey!
Again, a brilliantly written article.
I have to say, Bruce, you are an anomaly for me. I love the way you write, I love the fact that you have no “holy cows” in your writing, yet you remain respectful of other people’s views and beliefs.
Having said this, the anomaly is that I still believe in the Bible and the God of that Bible as He chooses to reveal himself. I believe that He sent His Son as part of a cosmic plan and that Son manifested Himself in the form of Jesus of Nazareth (as reported in the gospel writings).
I know you don’t care about my beliefs (and neither should you) but I just want to affirm you and your beliefs. You have read and studied and researched and prayed and have found God wanting. This does NOT make you evil or wicked or sinful or whatever term is currently being used for “bad”.
You are on a journey and that journey is leading you away from the path of the church (whatever flavour that may be). This too, is not “bad” it just is.
I would like to believe, no, actually I do believe that if God were to pitch up and reveal Himself to you in an acceptable manner for you, that you would not spit in His face, but you would possibly explain, “Oh there you are, where have you been for the last 50 years?”
From what I’ve read of you and your life, I believe you are a “good” man who loves his wife, children and grandchildren and wants the best for them. 44 years of marriage is exceptional and way better than millions of professing Christians.
My prayer for you (selfishly) would be that God keeps you around for a few more years to call into question the beliefs of the unthinking. I think you are doing a great work in the big scheme of things and applaud you.
Not that you need my approval, but I would encourage you to keep doing the great work that you are doing.
Peter, I think you have me (Merle) confused with Bruce. I wrote the post that you are responding to.
You ask what would happen if God would pitch in and reveal himself in an acceptable manner. I cannot answer for Bruce, but as for myself, yes, if the creator of the universe were to, say, take up an Internet account and start a blog, I would certainly be there to read his posts and interact with him. The Internet is available. Where is he?
However, if all you can offer is a relationship with a spirit that you claim to be inside you, who conveniently tells you what you expect, while at the same time others claim to be hearing from the same spirit who says the opposite of what you hear, I’m not impressed. That’s not evidence.
Hi Merle
You are correct on a number of fronts, the most obvious one being my attributing your article to Bruce. The article was indeed well written (by you) but that doesn’t in any way detract what I said about Bruce or his writings.
As far as physical evidence for the existence of a Spirit is concerned – that is way above my paygrade to try and explain, justify or even understand. Belief in anything is (regardless of the source) merely a convincing of the physical mind of the existence of an imaginary thing to explain certain outcomes – Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Stork with the kids, the Big Bang, Evolution, Creation. Even death is such a thing, what Bruse would call a “myth”.
Do we stop existing when we stop functioning physically? This “myth” we call death but some would call it “crossing over”. Again, above my paygrade to offer an opinion.
I can offer you no “evidence” of why I believe what I do, and nor should I have to. I believe it and live my life according to those beliefs. Those who believe death to be one thing live their life in response to that belief (try, at all costs to avoid it) but others (Muslim fundamentalist martyrs come to mind) live their life differently in response to what they believe death to be.
Jesus, in whatever light He is cast (Myth, Saviour, Politician, Imagination, Random character in a history book) said something which I believe to be very true in every aspect of life. He said that the truth will set you free and I think that freedom is from the belief of the un-truth. If you’ve seen the Movie “Men in Black”. Tommy Lee’s character said a similar thing when recruiting Will Smith’s character. He said pretty much that everyone believes something wholeheartedly, until they don’t. This revelatory moment is when the “truth” is revealed, through discovery or knowledge sharing or observation but at that moment all previous belief about that issue changes and a new belief is born. One of the reasons why the Movie, “The Matrix’ was so successful – it challenged our belief about our perceived reality.
I could ramble on for days but don’t want to get “preachy” ‘coz then Bruce will nuke me from this site so let me conclude and say that everything we believe is shaped by the constraints of our present reality. Your belief is constrained by the need for proof of existence, mine is not. Does that make you more or less enlightened than me? Nope, just with a different set of constraints that form the framework for your belief.
“Do we stop existing when we stop functioni.ng physically?” Yes, of course. I am meat which oxygenated blood keeps alive. Without the oxygen, then I am just meat. And meat eventually spoils. See https://mindsetfree.blog/dare-to-question/is-there-life-after-death/
“Your belief is constrained by the need for proof of existence, mine is not.” My belief requires evidence, not proof.
What is a belief like that has no evidence? Does that mean you just make things up and declare that you believe them?
Hi Merle,
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
You believe you are just meat which oxygenated blood keeps alive, that belief is constrained by the lack of evidence to the contrary. Just because you haven’t found the evidence yet, doesn’t mean it’s not there. We all make up things to explain what we don’t understand.
You believe that when you click a piece of plastic on another piece of plastic at the precise time that an image of an arrow aligns with some writing on an image of some writing in front of you that something will happen. I’m taking a shot in the dark here (because I don’t know your profession) but I’m going to venture that you actually have little idea how that all works.
Saying that was possible in 1946 when Ralph Benjamin invented the trackball pointing device would have seemed, let’s say “odd”. None-the-less, here we are in 2022 and we can actually touch the image with our finger and it responds – yet still without knowing how that happens.
My point is and remains; You, we, everyone of rational or irrational mind believes what we have decided to believe, based on what we have made up to make sense of what we don’t understand.
Am I correct in believing God exists and is who He says He is despite Him not conforming to your constraints of evidence? Maybe, maybe not.
Are you correct in believing He doesn’t and isn’t because He doesn’t conform to your constraints of evidence? Maybe, maybe not.
I believe because that fits my made-up image and you believe because that fits your made-up image.
Darkness doesn’t exist – it’s just the shortage of light. I may be wrong but I have not become aware of a “Darkness generator” anywhere. The absence or shortage of light provides plenty evidence for the non-existence of light but only if you believe there is no light will you fumble in the dark. Those who believe that light exists will look for a method of generating that light – even if it’s our own version of light and way inferior to other sources of light. (I’m not even going to go into the realm of visible and invisible light because that will detract from my point)
Please don’t construe this post in any way as me trying to convince you that I’m right for believing that God is who He says He is or that you are wrong for believing He isn’t. You believe according to what you’ve made up and I believe according to what I’ve made up. Me believing He is, doesn’t make it so and you believing He isn’t, doesn’t make it so – but in our minds it does because we made it up to help us cope with what we don’t understand.
I’d love to hear you views on this, please.