Doctrine of Election

This is a concise reason that demonstrates some of the internalist logic and linguistic/metaphysical dissonance I found during my christian days. It’s not conclusive evidence per se, but just an oddity of religious dogma. Anyone who doesn’t accept election as a valid dogma won’t have a problem with this, but I think their exegesis is a bit faulty.

Subjectivity of the “Spirit”

Reason number 5 for my wandering has to do with the doctrine of the “Holy Spirit,” or Pneumatology for you theologians. If there is one thing that would cause a serious 180 degree turn around in my thinking now, it’s this. Thoughts, theories, dogmas, doctrines, uses and abuses about the HS have wreaked havoc on any intelligent form of christianity. The plethora of views and the myriads of claimed experiences are enough to make you think you’ve been “slain in the spirit” and fall down on the ground rolling with “holy laughter” only to get up and “speak in tongues” as you cry out to the Lord in gratitude! Habish-kalacka-gustica-nishtera-blah-blah-blah!! Thank you JESUS!

Internalist Logic

This is not a post about formal logic. It’s about a tendency that is common in Christian circles, but not necessarily universal nor without exception or contrast. As I said in my original Reasons for Wandering post, these are all to some degree informal and existential as well as purely rational.

There are two doctrines in Protestant Christianity that are extremely important and helped to shape Protestantism in various ways. These two are Sola Scriptura and an attending principle that says “Scripture interprets Scripture.” The result of these two teachings seems to be a sort of anti-realism based upon the statements and interpretations of a book. The result of saying that only the Bible is truth and that it interprets itself is a tightly closed circle that ends up creating its own reality through which the world is seen. It becomes unassailable and impenetrable. Presuppositional apologetics even went a theoretical step further in propounding the Bible’s “self-authenticating” nature, which has become their foundational axiom in a sort of Plantingian “properly basic” sort of way.

Apostasy or Interim?

The move to hold theistic beliefs in suspense, let alone to take the step of actual disbelief, is a difficult one in our current culture. There’s no popular support groups or counselling meetings for those who decide to take such a step. It’s different than leaving a cult, when none of your family members are also cult members. In those situations, the entire support network is trying to remove you from a “belief circle” and transfer you into a whole new “belief circle” with an associated social network. However, when your entire existing social and epistemic network is theistic, it can be difficult because the move of disbelief essentially means a move into isolation or dissociation. For some who may not have many social connections or collateral, it may not be too difficult. But for those who are integrally connected, this is tough.

Objectivity & Universality

There’s some very interesting discussion going on right now at www.philaletheia.thetruthtree.com over Euthyphro’s Dilemma. Here is a summary taken from the post:

Socrates asks Euthyphro: “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” In monotheistic terms, this is usually transformed into: “Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it’s commanded by God?”.

It’s brought up the issue of objectivity in moral philosophy. You’ll just have to read the post and comments to get the whole story, and it’s definitely worth it. But one thing has become clearly important and worth posting about, the definition of objectivity.

Theistic Agnosticism

As a first step towards a brief bio, let me explain my conception of theistic agnosticism. I use the term agnostic in the old meaning of “without knowledge.” At this point in my life I don’t know conclusively that there is a God, or what this god is, or what s/he is like, or how many there are or aren’t. So as I said, in some sense I don’t have conclusive knowledge. I don’t like the “new” meaning of agnosticism as “non-knowable.” I’m not claiming that nothing is categorically knowable by virtue of our very cognitive faculties concerning metaphysical substantivity (wow, that sounded convoluted, my apologies).

Linguistic/Metaphysical Dissonance

There’s a ton that could be said in this section, and a lot of it will of necessity overlap with other sections. As a result, this will be short. Briefly, theology is for the most part the exercise of metaphysics carried out within certain boundaries or upon certain presuppositions. In recent days the emphasis on hermeneutics has played a major role on the realm of epistemology, especially in religious epistemology. One of the troubling things for me has been the seemingly narrow focus of traditional Protestant theology. It attempts to make certain assertions of reality that end up being nothing more than textual interpretations.

Silence of God

As I work through the Reasons for Wandering, I’m not going to go through them in any specific kind of order. There isn’t an inherent hierarchy to the list. The topic of god’s silence is an old and oft stated one. But I have some thoughts and experiences with it.

The full title is “Silence of God In a Causal World.” Leaving aside some debates about chaos theories, let’s walk into a room where three persons are sitting around a table with a bunch of books and a blackboard. On the board are a bunch of mathematical equations and some bible verse references. The three men are from obviously different locales and eras. The first is Sir Isaac Newton.

Ethical Dissonance

The following explications of the 10 reasons for wandering are more like memoirs than hard logical reasonings. While I do hope to engage in dialogue concerning the validity of any reasoning used in the posts, my wanderings are not purely reason based. I don’t think that all of our reasonings are ever purely rational or logical. I am an emotive, historical being with a matrix of epistemological, aesthetic and ethical inheritance. I know I operate out of that, and even rejection of it is delineated by the contours of it.

Ethical dissonance is probably the most difficult and personal issue for me. I’ve heard many times before the debates and discussions concerning the topic, but it still hits me at an existentially deep place. I don’t understand how there can be such a history of difference between the way that christianity has behaved and the teachings of its founder. The most common explanation I’ve heard is that those who behaved in such a way were not acting in accordance with the teachings of Jesus. One apologist has said that the actions of say the Crusades were not the logical outworkings of the teachings of Jesus whereas something like the Holocaust were the logical outworkings of atheism or social Darwinism. If there are other approaches I’d love to hear and discuss them. However, I have a few problems with any such, or similar, approach.

Reasons for Wandering

Maybe at some point I’ll post a bio, but for now I need anonymity. This is however a first step towards a generic bio. The following list are 10 reasons that have participated in my wandering from “the fold.” The fold I grew up in is American Protestant Evangelical Christianity. These reasons will therefore be more applicable to this strain of Christianity than something like Catholicism. However, I think some of them are general enough to engage Christianity in a more ecumenical fashion. I will be posting on these points individually and will make them available for comment, critique and honest inquiry.