I DOUBT - The Nature of Doubt

By Andrew Corbett

I DOUBT. (Part 1) The Nature of Doubt

The fact that we all doubt to some extent suggests that each of us shares in the universal human craving to not be deceived and that we all intuitively want to know the truth. Even when it comes to Biblical spirituality, rather than seeing doubt as spiritually negative, it can actually be a positive. After all, appropriate doubt can protect us from injury and even galvanise our worthy convictions.

Doubt is not incompatible with Christianity. Scripture encourages us to doubt, especially dubious claims. We are not to be nîave 'children' in our thinking (1Cor. 14:20). Neither are to simply accept any claim blindly - rather we are test all things.

but test everything; hold fast what is good.
First Thessalonians 5:21

¶ My dear friends, don't believe everything you hear. Carefully weigh and examine what people tell you. Not everyone who talks about God comes from God. There are a lot of lying preachers loose in the world.
First John 4:1

The main reason that doubt is compatible with Christianity is that it is grounded in reasons for believing. Thus, sceptics doubt because they won't believe an unverified claim. In this sense, all Christians should be genuine sceptics! All too often Christians believe things too easily. The best reason to believe any claim is because it is true! Naturally, the opposite is equally true - any claim that is demonstrably false should not be believed. This then might lead to the question: How can we test whether a claim is true or not?

Down through the ages, philosophers have studied the nature of truth (this branch of Philosophy is calledEpistemology).  Certain tests were progressively developed to discern the difference between the truth from the false. For any claim to be reasonably considered as true, it needs to pass these tests-

• Does it comport (agree) with reality?
  For example, the claim, "There was a time when lions and tigers were herbivores." This claim does not comport with reality because the digestive system of lions and tigers can not sufficiently process a vegetation-only diet.
• Is it testable?
  For example, the claim, "There was a time when lions and tigers were herbivores." This claim can be tested by seeing whether the fossil remains of lions and tigers from this particular era provide any evidence for them being herbivores.
• Is there consistent evidence supporting it?
  For example, the claim, "Anyone could win a Gold Medal in the Olympic 100 metres Men's sprint if they work hard enough." The consistent evidence demonstrates that there is usually only one winner of the Olympic Gold in the Men's 100 metres sprint (with often as many 7 other finalists and thousands who tried to qualify for it - despite their incredible hard work.
• Could this claim be proven false? ("Falsifiability")
  For example, the claim, "There is a pink porcelain tea-cup and saucer orbiting Mars which disappears every time someone looks at it." This claim can not be tested and therefore cannot be proven false. With no supporting evidence for the claim, and no way to test it to prove it to be either true or false, a claim like this deserves our doubt.

There is a difference between a sceptic who exercises doubt until there is sufficient evidence to believe, and a cynic who refuses to believe despite reasonable evidence to adequately appease their doubts.

When it comes to beliefs, most people have not really taken the time to consider precisely what they believe or more importantly why they believe what they believe. The art of thinking is probably more scientific than most people realise. It's a shame that Philosophy is not generally taught in Primary/Elementary Schools so that students are helped to gain basic thinking skills. Instead, we have the vast majority of the population holding a belief because -

• It's a popular view to hold (truth, however is not subject to a vote or democratic testing)
• Some high-profile / intelligent person holds it (This is known as the "Professor's Ploy")
• It is morally convenient for them (Moral truth is usually unpalatable to those who live immorally!)
• They harbour some hurt which has shaped how they believe (Perhaps a priest sexually abused them and therefore they are now an atheist.)
• They had a very subjective experience (such as a dream

None of these 'reasons' are particularly good reasons for believing a claim. Often what most people consider to be a 'reason' for their belief is little more than an opinion, or even, an assertion. Other beliefs fall into the category of a priori beliefs. These are beliefs which are assumed to be true before any evidence has been considered. Arguably, Darwinian Evolution falls into this category (Darwinian Evolution may be true, or it may be false, but it is fair to say that many people believe it to be true for some of the reasons given above and especially in an a priori fashion).

The Bible welcomes the investigation of its claims. He is famously known as "Doubting" Thomas. He wasn't present when the resurrected Christ appeared to several of His apostolic colleagues. And when told about the post-crucifixion/resurrection appearance of Christ, he refused to believe it unless his demands for appropriate evidence were satisfied. Eight days later, Christ appeared to His disciples again - including Thomas. Jesus invited Thomas to fulfil his demands for evidence. Thomas's doubts were then allayed. Jesus never condemned Thomas for requiring evidence. Neither did the author penning the sacred inspired account.

Some well-meaning Christians claim that faith in God is not a matter of having sufficient evidence to do so. It seems that they have accepted the false notion that a belief is based on either faith orreason. Biblical faith is not unreasonable faith - on the contrary, it is faith which results from trustworthy evidence. Jesus' rebuke of Thomas was not brought about because of his demand for evidence, but that he actually did have sufficient evidence (the eye-witness testimony of at least seven reliable, credible, and trustworthy men). The prominent atheist of the first half of the twentieth century, Bertrand Russell, once famously said in response to a question about dying and discovering that he was wrong about there being no God, and then what would say to God- "You didn't give me enough evidence!" But, it will be shown over this series, no one can right state this. The Apostle John winds up his Gospel by saying the accounts that he recorded as an eye-witness, were written as evidence so that people would believe and thereby willingly receive the forgiveness and eternal life which God offers.

There are many examples of modern "Thomas's". Like him, they doubted. Like him, they required adequate evidence before they would believe in God, the Bible, and Christianity.  People like, Josh McDowell who was an aggressive atheist. He was then challenged to rebut the central claim of Christianity: the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He initially believed that this would be an easy conquest. But as he investigated the evidence for the resurrection of Christ he eventually conceded that it was indeed true. He became a Christian and wrote several books giving hundreds of reasons to believe in the God of the Bible.

If you are struggling with doubt - put your doubts to the test! Even a simple prayer, "God, if you are real, please reveal Yourself to me. Amen."

Next: "I DOUBT." (Part 2), I Doubt God.

© January 5th 2014, Andrew Corbett, Legana, Tasmania, Australia

Roman Catholicism Compared With Biblical Christianity, Part 1

By Andrew Corbett, Part 1

Any discussion about religious wars, clergy violations, or child abuse, and it won't be long before the The Roman Catholic Church unfortuntely features. But I want to have a different discussion. And unlike most of the 'discussions' of this nature, I'm not on a mission to attack, ridicule, or mock anyone. Rather, I want to look at what the Roman Catholic Church officially teaches and asserts and compare it with the Bible's teaching.

I've been a denominational minister for over two decades, so I know that it is possible to be a part of an organisation with which you disagree on some points.  I understand that this is certainly the case with the Roman Catholic Church as there are many priests who do agree with all that their Church asserts. For the purposes of this discussion, I have chosen to take the official Catholic positions on the matters I am comparing with the Biblical data. It is my hope that my Roman Catholic audience will acknowledge that I have represented their views fairly - but it is also my hope that I can appropriately demonstrate how these core views compare with the Biblical prescriptions.

AUTHORITY

The foundational difference between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism is Authority. Roman Catholics regard a particular tradition (those decisions and decrees made by Church Councils and the College of Cardinals) as having (at least) equal authority to that of Scripture. Since Christ gave the "keys" of 'the Kingdom' to the Apostle Peter, who Catholics assert was the first Pope, it stands to reason that these 'keys' are a metaphor for the authority of Christ. Catholic scholar, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus, Ph.D., states-

In one sense, to establish that Christ empowered the popes of the Roman Catholic Church to act as his vicars is sufficient to establish everything else about Christianity, including the foundation of the Church. It is far easier for most of us to perceive the necessity of a Church, however, than to perceive the precise structure or exercise of authority within that Church. Therefore it is expedient to consider precisely how authority is exercised within the Catholic Church, especially with reference to the primacy of the popes. In this way, we will find the surest means to learn all the truths, which God would teach to men.

The traditional assertion of Catholics in this matter is that each pope has the totality and supremacy of the power Christ left on earth for the building up of the kingdom of God. The pope is said to have the plenitudo potestatis, or fullness of power. His authority, direct from Christ after the manner of a vicar, extends equally directly to each man, woman and child committed to his care, namely all men.
THE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE, catholicculture.org

Romans Catholics believe that it was the foundation of authority invested in the first "vicar" (substitute for Christ) that forms the entire basis for the existence of the Roman Catholic Church and every doctrine it espouses. In response to Protestant objections that Scripture is the highest authority, Catholics are quick to point out that it was the original Bishops of the Church who officially sanctioned the Canon of Scripture, thus making them a higher authority than the Bible. But this is actually a non-sequitur. Upon what does the Roman Catholic Church base its foundational teaching (the supreme authority of the Pope)? They cite Matthew 16:18-19 ("And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.") as the documented source of their foundational teaching. But in order to do this, the authority of this Scripture must have precedence. Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church's claim is actually negated by the source of its claim!

[Continue with the full article]