I recently received a thoughtful, polite email from a Christian man named Levi. My response follows.
I’ve spent more time than I probably should admit reading through your blog to get a feel for how the project actually works on its own terms. One thing I keep circling back to is how your evidentiary standards function in practice, not just in principle.
You’re clear (and consistent) that extraordinary claims require strong justification. That’s a fair standard to set. But what I’m still trying to square away is how admissible justification seems to be doing a fair bit of work before the argument even starts. Historical inference, testimony, and philosophical reasoning are perfectly serviceable when reconstructing Roman governance, Jewish sectarianism, or early Christian belief formation. But when those same tools start pointing toward metaphysical conclusions you’ve already set aside, they seem to downgrade into just “mere claims.”
The Bible is a book of claims. Evangelicals quoting Bible verses at me seem to not understand this fact. If they want me to believe, Evangelicals are going to have to do much better than giving proof-texts from an errant, fallible, contradictory ancient religious text. Why should any of us consider the Bible authoritative?
It’s not that I need overwhelming evidence as much as I need sufficient evidence; evidence that I find compelling. Such evidence has not been forthcoming. All I get are the same, worn-out, weak philosophical and theological arguments. After hearing these lame arguments thousands of times, I hope you will forgive for not being open to such arguments today.
Now, that asymmetry doesn’t automatically make your conclusions wrong, but it does make your method interesting. Skepticism usually presents itself as provisional, meaning it can and does change sometime in the future. In the archive, your skepticism often reads as settled. The questions repeat, but the answers never seem particularly at risk of changing.
I am an agnostic atheist, so the God question is an open possibility for me. An unlikely possibility, but possible; as in me winning the mega-millions lottery. Possible, but unlikely. I am more settled in my opinion of Christianity. I have weighed Christianity in the balance and found it wanting. Christianity is a text-based religion; a dead religion with no new revelation forthcoming. Thus, I am confident that my studies have led me to the proper conclusion: Christianity is a mythic blood cult that worships a dead man named Jesus.
It wouldn’t make much sense to just ask you to reopen Christianity, suddenly grant the Bible authority, or give miracles a hall pass. But it does seem reasonable to ask whether your framework itself ever becomes an object of skepticism, or whether it functions as the final court of appeal, immune to the standards it applies everywhere else. I think that question alone would provide readers with more information about how you see your own project.
My framework is certainly open to challenge, yet few Christians bother to contest it these days. Instead, they bitch, whine, and complain about my comment rules; as if I am infringing on their right to shit on my doorstep. I have worked very hard to make this blog a community. I learned early on that I had to regulate Evangelical commenters lest they fill the comment section with preaching, Bible verses, and personal attacks. That said, EVERY commenter is given at least one opportunity to say whatever it is they think the Lord has laid upon their heart. Future participation depends on them playing well with others. Sadly, many Evangelicals are toddlers, unable to pay nice on the Internet.
I ask this question because, even though I’ve perused around 100 or so of your articles (I even went back to your first article, a letter to the editor of a newspaper posted in 2006), I still could not find an article that addresses this question directly. Perhaps it is buried somewhere in here, but I could not located it, even with the help of the handy search bar. If it’s necessary, you could use my message as a new article to answer the question once and for all on your blog.
I haven’t directly answered this question before, so I appreciate being able to answer it, If you still have questions, please let me know, and I will do my best to answer them.
If the answer is simply “yes, my framework is settled,” that’s fine. But then your blog reads less like an open inquiry and more like a ongoing explanation of why inquiry, at least on certain questions, is no longer necessary.
This blog is primarily a place for me to tell my story. As such, it is personal and conversational. I invite people into my story, and traffic numbers and emails suggest that many people find this approach helpful.
I am ALWAYS open to questions. My answers might not sit well with others, but I try to be open and honest in my responses. I plan to start a new series titled, “The Bible Says What?” This series will flesh out some of the objections I have to some of the things found in the Bible.
That, in and of itself, is still an interesting project. I’m just not sure it’s the one the blog advertises.
This iteration of this blog was started in 2014. Have my views changed over the past twelve years? Sure. Long-term readers know how my writing has evolved over the years. HaveI left my core mission? I don’t think so, but I will leave this for others to decide.
Thanks for the questions, Levi. I appreciate your thoughtfulness.
Saved by Reason,
Bruce Gerencser, 69, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 48 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen 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.
Want to Respond to Bruce? Fire Away! If You Are a First Time Commenter, Please Read the Comment Policy Located at the Top of the Page.