Religious Critic?

“Critic of Faith”? – well, yes and no….

By Stephen L. Gibson

May 7^th, 2006

Okay, I genuinely thought the article was about podcasting, and the free exchange of ideas - NOT about my criticisms of religion (apart from the many other issues we address). So first and foremost, let me say that Truth-Driven Thinking is not intentionally focused on religion, though that is perhaps the impression left by the recent article, “Bloggers Preach Back: Local media-company owner has joined Internet-based religious critics,” by Chris Meehan. While it is true that I may be guiding dialogue in that direction because of a willingness to share my personal struggles in pursuit of more convincing arguments and “truth”, the concept of setting aside our egos in pursuit of how the world really works is what is important. That is my goal in evolving into the best and fullest human being I can become. It is therefore important to note that self-affirming bias, ego, and prejudice are not just things that happen with regard to religion. They happen in obesity research, lotteries, issues of race and gender preference, and most other facets of life.

In fact in my book, Truth-Driven Thinking, I intentionally and totally ignored religious issues. The book is about human, emotion-driven tendencies and how they can cause harm (including my own). In my new podcast work, I will continue to have guests who talk about non-religious issues regarding science, reason and evidence – particularly where they might contradict conventional wisdom. It really is about asking the questions and encouraging an understanding that we don’t have nearly the quality or quantity of answers in life that we think we do.

What I’m coming to find, however, is that nowhere are those tendencies more confusingly present than in religion. And the scope of the hurt, pain, and devastating actions taken in the name of religion can be tragic, particularly if based upon poor evidence that they are true.

How many times must it be said though? I will keep saying it. I don’t have the answers. I don’t pretend that I ever will have the answers, and in fact nobody can ever be certain that they have found truth. We simply cannot. The bible may be literally true and perfect in every word, or it may be of mythological origin and be a giant self-delusion of mankind. It may be somewhere in between. The same can be said for the other major religions. I just don’t know what is true.

Even among the most religious people I know, love and support have been abundant as they try to guide me through this struggle for better understanding. But to those who criticize me for asking the tough questions in a public forum, and allowing others to share with me or learn from my questions, I say shame on you – for several reasons:

1. Things get better in the world because we publicly engage in these deliberations. If all dialogue remained private, and ideas and information were hoarded, global progress would be slowed. American culture and principals are founded by and upon the notion that free inquiry and free speech are brilliant methods for divining greater good for all citizens. We are the product of the Reformation, the Magna Carta, and we are the pioneers of civil rights. The forces behind these movements insisted upon asking questions.

2. I have never intentionally bashed religion. Anyone who knows me will tell you I am not mean spirited. They would describe me as loving, compassionate and kind. That is who I am – which is one reason I so enjoy Bishop John Shelby Spong’s view of Christianity, wherein love is a way to know God, while God cannot be defined. My inquiry remains intellectually honest and sincere. I am simply asking questions.

3. It is okay to draw tentative conclusions based on what we know today, but we simply must remain open to new knowledge. I can say that based upon this average citizens view of the case for and against literal biblical interpretation, I am unconvinced. I can say that I am an agnostic (believe supernatural things are unknowable in this life) and an atheist (I am not therefore accepting the model of a traditional, theistic god). However we also have to remain open to new information and leave “truth” (as estimated by science and reason) as the highest goal. My views may change and take me back to belief in traditional religion. I must remain open to that.

4. Any attempts to discourage intellectually honest questioning and debate, where legitimate cause exists to do so, are counter to what is good for humanity and progress, and often a sign of extreme insecurity and emotion-driven thinking. I genuinely believe that taking action based upon potentially untrue concepts can be quite hurtful. If Allah is not real, then flying airplanes into buildings for him is a problem. If he is real, than they may be right to do so. (By the way, that example is easy, but when it is our sacred cow being politely questioned out of a sincere desire to better the world, somehow that can often become completely off limits.)

5. Some say I have made “truth” into a religion. I disagree, but when I think about it, what would be so bad about that? Is there a higher virtue than truth? Even if it is unattainable, isn’t it a worthwhile endeavor to hold truth as the ultimate standard? And even if truth is not the highest virtue, perhaps second to a declared system of beliefs based upon faith, than surely one shouldn’t feel threatened by open and honest inquiry.

6. If your beliefs cannot withstand scrutiny, and you find yourself enraged at legitimate questions being asked about the most unprovable, disagreed-upon notions humans have ever discussed, don’t you have to look inside yourself and ask why? The people I know who seem most confident in their faith, seem to me to react to my honest inquiries in this area, with the least amount of emotion or angst.

The final criticism I wish to counter is the one that says it is terrible of me to profit of such discussions. In fact, I have not profited a penny off the religious elements of my work, or any elements of my work for that matter. I have invested a great deal in my efforts to share. But to the point, once again there is great historical tradition behind turning passion and dialogue from avocation into vocation – particularly where you believe it to be in the interest of humanity to do so. From great speakers, authors, and academics, to pastors and statesman, compensation for being part of the process of deliberation is hardly shameful. In fact, since I’ve not profited a penny yet, I would encourage you to visit my web site and make a donation today.

In summary, the article was mostly accurate and fair. I don't fault Chris Meehan at all. But out of context it implies that my Truth-Driven Thinking work is about religion. While some of the time that certainly is true, it is far too narrow a statement and misses the larger points about how we subordinate truth to emotion-driven thinking in virtually all aspects of life.

(If relevant to understanding where I am on religion, you can also read my 2006 document to friends and family "Coming Out in the Interest of Authenticity").