Yielding to Doubt

Great post by Kevin Parry of Memoirs of an ex-Christian:

Excerpt:

I recently received an email from a Christian struggling with uncertainty, and his anguish was something that I could completely relate to. But what struck me most about his email is that his doubt in God was followed by a form of self-abasement. The question “Does God really exist?” was followed by “What is wrong with me?” The feeling of guilt that accompanies doubt is, I believe, a result of two general Christian beliefs: the first, that doubt is undesirable; the second, that God is perfect, and thus cannot be blamed for an undesirable situation. In other words, doubt is a problem; and if we doubt, we are to blame.

As a doubting Christian, I also believed there was something seriously wrong with me when I tried in vain to get some sense of God. But the one thing that I slowly realised is that the problem didn't lie with me at all, but with Christianity (or with God, if he exists). I couldn't for the life of me understand why a loving God would hide himself from me, and cause me so much anguish through the doubt I was experiencing. One day I came to the conclusion that a hidden God is no different to a God who doesn't exist. If there is no difference, I reasoned, then why waste energy and time – and experience so much anguish – believing in him.

When I finally gave up Christianity, doubt no longer remained an issue. No longer did I have to expend so much mental energy trying to believe in invisible demons, virgin births, parting seas, and people rising from the dead – things that seem so contradictory, incredible, and counter to everyday experience and common sense. I felt a strange sense of relief when I finally changed to a worldview that seemed more consistent with what I plainly observed in the world around me.

I now view doubt as an opportunity for change, no longer as a threat. Questioning my own beliefs has lead to growth as it has enabled me to discover problems in my thinking. In the words of Dan Barker in Losing Faith in Faith, I conquered doubt by totally yielding to it, and I think – for me at least – I am better for it.

The Documentary Hypothesis vs. Orthodox Tradition

New blog Three Jews, Four Opinions is starting what promises to be an interesting project.

I am formally launching the Torah Min Hashamayim / Documentary Hypothesis Project. In a very long-term ongoing series of blog posts, I will comprehensively examine and analyze, in detail, the arguments for and against both Torah Min Hashamayim [Torah from Heaven] and the Documentary Hypothesis. I have been meaning to do this for myself for a long time, and this blog will provide a good opportunity to do so.

As I argued in a comment to a previous post, attacking this problem formally is a little silly, considering the intellectual bankruptcy of the TMH position. It's a little like opening up a serious project to examine evolution vs. young-Earth creationism. If people were going to be convinced by the preponderance of evidence, they wouldn't believe in TMH to begin with.

But it should be fun and informative reading.

Previously: Who Wrote the Bible?

Link Roundup

• Hilzoy has a roundup of the praise Republicans are giving Jesse Helms juxtaposed with the horrible things Mr. Helms said and did during his political life.
• Ancient Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection -- does the 3 day resurrection story predate Jesus?
• The Atheist Jew (who pointed me to the previous story) wonders if the legend of Moses was a re-imagining of Hammurabi.
• Ben Avuyah is back!
• I explain to Mark why liberals sometimes feel the need to qualify their patriotic sentiments. Via dbackdad, one liberal explains why he's not patriotic.
  
• XGH quotes a Rabbi who speaks the truth without realizing it. The Rabbi argues that academic Bible study is only a "problem" for those with more chochma (intelligence/wisdom) than yiras shamayim (fear/awe of Heaven.) Uh, yeah.

Obama to One-Up Bush on Faith-Based Initiatives

Well, that's disappointing. Obama:

Well, I still believe it’s a good idea to have a partnership between the White House and grassroots groups, both faith-based and secular. But it has to be a real partnership – not a photo-op. That’s what it will be when I’m President. I’ll establish a new Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. The new name will reflect a new commitment. This Council will not just be another name on the White House organization chart – it will be a critical part of my administration.

Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don’t believe this partnership will endanger that idea – so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them – or against the people you hire – on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we’ll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work.

So you're going to give a bunch of federal tax dollars to churches, temples, and mosques if they promise to use it for secular (i.e. actual) charity? Are you going to stop them from taking the money they previously spent on secular charity and redirecting it towards proselytizing? Are you going to police them carefully so they don't proselytize while spending federal dollars on secular charity? Are you going to have constant audits to make sure that dollars aren't directed at some religions more than others? Do Scientology and Falun Gong get to play, or does a group have to be at least as established as, say, the Mormons?

Ugh.

What am I Allowed to Believe?

That's the question that many Orthodox Jews have to ask themselves. Take this post, titled Should I Argue Against Evolution or for a G-d Directed Evolution?

I have a work associate who seems interested in Torah, but he likes to challenge me about contradictions between Torah and science and other things. He recently asked me about the Torahs views on Evolution.

On the one hand, I could say that that I don’t believe in evolution and there are many holes in evolution theory and that scientists are biased against a belief in G-d. On the other hand, many secular Jews accept the scientific consensus that evolution did take place, and I could make the case that a G-d directed evolution would not necessarily contradict the Torah.

My Rav holds that you don’t have to take a 6,000 year creation literally.

What approach makes more sense when dealing with non observant Jews?

Wikipedia's page on intellectual dishonesty should redirect to that post.

The poster isn't interested in what's true, but in what he is allowed to believe ("My Rav holds that you don’t have to take a 6,000 year creation literally") and what beliefs would be useful ("What approach makes more sense when dealing with non observant Jews?")

Commenter Michoel worries that the poster is not being careful enough:

Jack wrote that his Rav holds that one may believe in a universe which is more than 6,000 years. Somehow you took that to mean that one can believe in Evolution. That is an enormous leap.

Heaven forbid we come to the erroneous conclusion that one "can" believe in evolution. A rabbi must give us explicit permission!

Bob Miller spells out a method for coming to a belief that is consistent with the Torah:

Step 1 is to understand the Torah’s account of creation and subsequent history in light of the entire Mesorah, including the opinions of Chazal, Rishonim, Acharonim, etc. With a comprehensive inside view on all levels (”Pardes”) one can begin to see which of today’s physical/biological theories may be consistent with a Torah view and which may not.

To be fair, a few commenters did jump in to point out that there is, in fact, overwhelming evidence of evolution. I just think it's crazy that people care more about what they are allowed to believe than what's true.