Separating ‘Does God Exist?’ from ‘Is the Yahweh of the Bible That God?’

When I have theological debates and discussions with people, the actual arguments tend to nearly always get all mixed together. If I express a disbelief in the literal truth of the 66 books collated into the Bible and the theology that comes from it (Original Sin, Jesus as source of salvation, etc), I’m far too often dragged into a discussion about the existance of God in the abstract.

I understand why. It makes sense that, if you believe, your faith in Biblical-based theology derives from and is directly tied to your belief that God exists at all.

However, if you actually start from “scratch” and no belief (not that I started there, but if you start there with your debate), and argue “up” to a conclusion that “God Exists”, you aren’t really nearly as close to the Triune God of the Bible and modern Christianity as you might think.

Those basic arguments about whether God exists usually come down to things like “there must be a designer”, “the Prime Mover”, etc. However, if you just start by accepting all of those, all you get to is a 14 billion year old universe with something/someone kicking it off and inserting a blueprint.

That version of God is what people like Einstein, Hawking and Thomas Jefferson meant when they talked about “God” (as revealed by lots of statements beyond the quick soundbite quotes tossed out in these discussions).

Believing in that version of God doesn’t really make much of a difference from not believing in ANY god, however because it doesn’t give you a personal God who is involved in and interested in the daily activities of human beings.

I’m perfectly OK with that definition at this point, and waver between that view and one that there is no God. However, that’s never been the question I’ve struggled with. It’s always the leap from THAT version of God to the one portrayed in the Bible that’s difficult for me to believe.

Separating those issues is important to actually working through issues related to faith and something I’ve begun to insist on in these conversations.

Thomas and Pascal’s Wager

2 elements have found themselves popping up in nearly my entire experience with Christianity: the disciple/apostle Thomas and Pascal’s Wager. And, from conversations with others both who believe and those who are unsure, whether they name these 2 elements or not, they are prominant, nonetheless.

From my earliest days in the church, I felt like Thomas was the 1 of Jesus’ 12 disciples that I most identified with. He questions some of the more cryptic statements of Jesus and is noted for being the only one who insisted on proof of Jesus’ resurrection before being willing to believe it.

While I’ve felt that kinship with Thomas for as long as I can remember (and still do today), I also learned quite early on that expressing empathy for Thomas’ point of view wasn’t particularly acceptable in nearly every variant of Christianity or Christian community I was ever involved with.

Rethinking Thomas

What made that expression of empathy with Thomas so unacceptable was the nearly universal interpretation of Jesus’ response to Thomas’ insistence on evidence. According to the King James Version of John 20:29:

John 20:29 – Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Every sermon I have ever heard and every Bible study guide and nearly every Christian I have ever heard talk about Thomas focuses on the last portion of that verse. Of course, I understand why. That the 10 others believed without needing to have seen is nobler than to require evidence. This approach to the text is nearly always coupled with Paul’s statement to the Hebrew church in Hebrews 11:1

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Putting those 2 together makes for a fairly tidy sermon on how great it is to believe without the requirement of evidence.

What always stuck out to me though is what wasn’t said in that verse. There is absolutely no hint of condemnation in Jesus’ words to Thomas. He doesn’t say that by insisting on proof, Thomas shows that he actually doesn’t believe or that Thomas’ doubt (which is ingrained in western culture in multiple cliches) invalidates his belief.

That always pointed out (for me) that questioning was a valid path, if less noble or desireable than the one espoused from the pulpit. The questioning was always there for me and is a deep part of my arc through faith and disbelief through every step.

Pascal’s Wager

The other element that has been a part of my entire journey is Pascal’s Wager. While you may not know it by name, you have undoubtedly heard it invoked in spirit if not literal recitation:

even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should “wager” as though God exists, because so living has potentially everything to gain, and certainly nothing to lose

I’m certain you’ve heard it because it is nearly universally invoked as the final argument in debates about the existance of God by those on the faith side of the debate. It has been stated to me so many times that in many ways, it would not be an overstatement to say that Pascal’s Wager was the foundation of what faith I did have in the past.

When my questions didn’t find adequate answers, those I asked them of would invoke Pascal and I’d sit back finding the argument hard to refute.

What happens when an argument is so often had, however, is that Pascal becomes internalized and can actually lead away from any one particular variant of Christianity and away from Christianity in general.

If we’re to place bets and live out Pascal’s Wager, then the fact that there are many traditions about God/gods on this planet, and given that the vast majority of them focus on ethical living, charity and kindness far more than on any sort of specific set of steps necessary to get it “right”.

Thus, living out the wager makes the most sense when you apply the lessons of ethics, charity and kindness in your life than if you worry about which version of God is right.

Neither of these 2 are the be all and end all of my journey, but really have been regular elements that inform much of what else I have to say about faith.

Introduction

I guess the place to start is in introducing myself. As far as you and I are concerned, my name is Jacob Meijer. I’m using that as a pen name to give myself the freedom to actually write honestly and explore the issues in my deconversion without worrying about those around me who would be affected.

I am 33, married and live in Minneapolis, MN. Those 33 years have been wrapped around an arc of experience with Christianity, the current description of which is most accurately described as my “deconversion” from that faith.

I describe my experience as an arc for many reasons. The most prominant is that, while many Christian conversion stories contain a defining moment of being “reborn”, mine contained many attempts at such moments over many years as I struggled to find the same level of certainty and stability about the conversion that I heard from so many others.

Similarly, while I can frame how my deconversion started and the elements involved in it, I still have difficulty even placing things into a decent chronology, much less pinpointing a moment at which I de-converted. But, I think part of my growing understanding is of how rarely such definitive moments actually happen in either direction, for anyone, despite all of the rhetoric and posturing.

I created this blog as a record of my experience in that arc and the ways that the struggle with my deconversion and how it affects family, friends and work as well today.

I am a strong believer in open dialogue (and hope that my exploration of my issues here will lead to exactly that with the important people in my life in time) and free speech. However, I also insist that debate and dialogue take place in an atmosphere of respect for others. I will be fairly strict in dealing with comments that do not stick to a respectful tone.

Attacks on people will not be tolerated. Challenges to ideas and conclusions are deeply encouraged as is the sharing of personal stories and experiences.

So, welcome and I hope that this proves productive for me as well as all of you who choose to join me.