Pages

Saturday, February 21, 2009

Without a clue

DC recently hosted a guest article by Bill Lobdell, one-time religion reporter for the LA Times:

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/02/guest-post-by-william-lobdell-without.html

No doubt John Loftus views this as a big catch for DC. And I’ll admit that if you go fishing in the toxic waste dump of atheism, sooner or later you’re bound to reel in giant mutant frog or salamander–of the two-headed variety.

Let’s evaluate some of Lobdell’s statements:

“When I wrote an essay for the Los Angeles Times in 2007 about how I lost my faith reporting on religion in America, I prepared for an avalanche of criticism. I was sure I’d be branded a tool of Satan or worse. But here’s what I didn’t expect. The vast majority of them—I’m talking 99 percent—were supportive in their own way.”

I don’t know why that’s supposed to come as such a big surprise. The LA Times is a liberal paper to begin with. And newspapers tend to self-select for like-minded readers. Would it comes as a great surprise to discover a strong correlation between the political views of Rush Limbaugh and the political views of his radio audience?

“But most readers simply thanked me for honestly expressing my doubts about faith and revealing how tortured and helpless I felt as I lost my once-firm grip on Christianity.”

His “once-firm grip?” I think it’s safe to say that religion reporters for national newspapers are pretty wishy-washy to begin with. They are chosen for their ecumenical tolerance. Their high comfort level with religious pluralism. It’s not as if the LA Times would ever hire Albert Mohler to do the religion beat.

“Several e-mails came from pastors who no longer believed in God but felt they couldn’t tell a soul.”

Imagine making faith in God a job requirement for Christian ministry! How unfair can you get!

“Another arrived from deep inside the Vatican. All said they felt like outcasts with no place to turn.”

Hopefully he didn’t sign his name “Benedict XVI.”

“It reminded me of Mother Teresa, one of the most revered religious persons of our time. She symbolized for millions the beauty of Christian devotion, sacrifice, holiness and works. But she suffered excruciating doubt. Recently published letters in Come By My Light reveal that she felt absent from God for the last 50 years of her life.”

As a Protestant, I can’t say that Mother Teresa was ever my role model. Try again.

“Several recent studies have shown that there’s little difference in the moral behavior of evangelical Christians and atheists.”

That’s a very dubious statistic, but let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that it’s true. If so, what does that comparison mean, exactly?

Is Lobdell claiming that evangelicals behave like atheists–or that atheists behave like evangelicals?

For example, is he claiming that evangelicals behave as badly as atheists? How would that commend secular ethics?

Moreover, don’t atheists like Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins claim a strong correlation between religious belief and outward behavior? Don’t they claim that observant Christians are dangerous to the common good precisely because they put their fanatical faith into practice? So if Lobdell is right, then they are wrong.

“So it’s time for religious doubt to come out of the closet and be dealt openly and thoughtfully.”

I wonder if he feels the same way about scientists who privately question Darwinism. Is it time for them to publicly voice their doubts–without fear of reprisal?

“If Christianity is true, its teachers can dispel just about any doubt.”

What a ludicrous statement–as if Christian teachers have Svengali-like powers over their listeners.

“I have a different theory. I think there are so many closet doubters because people sense there’s no God who personally intervenes in their lives.”

That may be true. Many professing believers entertain false expectations. That sort of faith is easily falsified by rude experience.

“Optimistic Christians ask me if the outpouring of concern, love and support after my original essay was published restored my faith in religion. It didn’t. But it did give me a new appreciation of humanity. Most of us are doubters to one degree or another.”

If doubt is such a virtue, why doesn’t it cut both ways? He talks about his “20-year journey from evangelical Christian to reluctant atheist.” But why couldn’t “honest doubt” chart a 20-year journey from reluctant atheist to evangelical Christian?

Lobdell is very lopsided in his appeal to honest doubt. What about doubting atheism? There are, in fact, many people who started where he ended and ended where he started. Doubt is a two-way street.

“And there’s comfort in knowing you’re not alone.”

Like a crowded cemetery. Rows upon rows of tombstones. Very comforting.

4 comments:

  1. The most dishonest part of the guest article is the typical and subtle bait and switch, adding up to the implication that to doubt is to be an atheist.

    It's not the case now, nor has it ever been. Atheists and theists alike can experience doubt in their convictions or beliefs. A theist becomes an atheist when they switch from doubting to an inner and outer conviction that God does not exist. A theist who experiences doubts, even grave doubts, is not an atheist - not when they still, in the face of their doubts, make a conscious decision to trust and place faith in God, or continue to seek to know both God and God's will.

    This, I think, is one area where Christian ministry could use some improvement. We should be reaching out to honest doubters, making it clear that it's understandable to be confused or uncertain - the human condition is one of weakness, and help is needed (both by ourselves and others) to maintain a right faith and a proper perspective.

    As for the rest of the article - I recall it when it was originally published, and thought it was ridiculous. Oh boy, there are professing believers who are embarrassments to their faith? What a shock. Have any of these people ever read the Bible, Old or New Testament? It's filled to the brim with examples of believers, even normally praiseworthy believers, who not only fall but at times fall hard and in a despicable fashion. The idea that someone could lose their faith in Christianity on accounts of realizing that not every pastor or priest is a paragon of virtue speaks to a tremendous naivete.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Don't emerg***s make a virtue out of doubt or of uncertainty, i.e., the epistemic uncertainty of postmodernism?

    And don't they put on the veneer of faux humility over their certainty that there is epistemic uncertainty to attract and evangelize atheists?

    If so, what kind of fruit do you think is being borne from this approach?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm not very familiar with that group/movement, and I certainly am not advocating making a virtue out of doubt. That seems to me to imply that people who have a strong faith in God should be viewed as excessive or making a mistake (They're not doubting enough!) or that atheists like the one the OP refers to should be glorified (Look at all that doubt! So moving!). Both tacts strike me as gravely mistaken, and I'm absolutely not suggestion a unitarian-like scheme where nominal christians and committed atheists can all join hands and feel some lame sense of fellowship every Sunday.

    Doubt is instead something to work through, an unfortunate but understandable state. Not viewed as an insurmountable obstacle, or worse, something that disqualifies a person from being Christian. Especially in a modern age of so much religious malaise in the west, I think the attitude should be to approach people with doubts and say, 'You can learn about God and come closer to Christ even in your state of doubt. You need to apply effort, you need to learn, concentrate, think, and pray.' Doubt as defeatable, rather than as a defeater.

    Hopefully that makes more sense.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "As a Protestant, I can't say that Mother Teresa was ever my role model."

    I don't think anyone would ever guess that, anyhow. I'd suggest Torquemada if his escapades were for the right doctrines. No, Steve, I find your adoration of John Calvin completely telling (and appropriate) given the fact that he was an unrepentant murderer and torturer (http://www.biblestudying.net/johncalvin.html).


    But I suppose your black little heart knew that already, didn't it?

    ;-)

    ReplyDelete