Is Christianity True? Here’s Why I Now Think So.

Since my EWTN interview I’ve had a lot of emails/comments come in asking about my conversion. Most were very gracious and curious and wanted to hear more, even (and especially) from people who are not Christian; not even religious, for that matter. Of course, a few comments (as to be expected) were exceedingly critical and involved quivering rants. Either way, I figured a post was in order with a few responses.

Why The Abandonment of Atheism?

Q. Will: “You said philosophy originally brought you in and then back out of atheism. What specifically did you find problematic?”

A. We need to start by defining atheism. Many people use the term ambiguously and often do so to avoid having to account for their worldview. I was never much interested in those sorts of games. I just wanted to know what was true. This caused me to explore philosophical naturalism. In this connection, you could say my rejection of atheism was predominantly a rejection of philosophical naturalism, which is (in my estimation) the most intellectually robust form of atheism; to put it simply: that only physical things exist. It is also the position most atheistic philosophers ascribe to. Materialism frequently comes along with it.

Specifically, problems of ontology (the study of being), consciousness, and morality caused me to increasingly doubt metaphysical naturalism, question its explanatory adequacy, and then reject it absolutely. Contingency was a big factor, and seeing how naturalism ultimately leads someone to deny the principle of sufficient reason (naturalists tend to rely on “brute facts” – whether physical “simples”, laws of nature, etc – where explanations peter out and things exist merely inexplicably) seemed to undercut any basis for rational, logical thought; also, science and philosophy. On top of that, arguments for the existence of God (such as I’ve developed in my series on natural theology) made the brute fact approach increasingly unsatisfying, but also question-begging. After all, if answers can be reasonably given in terms of ultimate explanation, it seems arbitrary to posit that some thing (or things) exist inexplicably unless someone can first show the arguments from natural theology don’t succeed, which I don’t think anybody has successfully done.

The problem of the categorical gap with respect to consciousness was also a considerable factor in my abandonment of atheism. On naturalism, the assumption is whatever exists is, at bottom, fundamentally disparate, unconscious, undirected, unintentional, etc (fermions and bosons, say). Yet somehow, these fundamental, physical particulars cobbled together to form something which is the complete qualitative opposite of everything just described? Specifically, consciousness, which is inherently unified, directed, intentional, self-aware, etc. The problem, as I eluded to in the video, is not one of quantity, but quality. To re-iterate the analogy: It doesn’t matter how many white Lego blocks you have; nor the amount of time one spends configuring them. You’ll never cross the “qualitative abyss” of transforming white blocks into a purple tower. I saw this to be strongly analogous to the hard problem of consciousness, and proposed naturalistic solutions, whether “emergentist theories,” “supervenience theories”, etc, could just as well be replaced with “theories of voodoo” and be just as explanatorily helpful. They don’t really explain anything so much as confound the mystery. However, if the ultimate foundation of reality is not a physical simple, but an “eternal act of understanding – understanding itself” (namely God) consciousness is still, in many ways, a mystery, but no longer a logical impossibility. The proper qualitative categories are there from the very beginning. I’m condensing the issue, of course. But this is merely a brief account of philosophical questions/objections that caused me to reconsider theism as a better, more robust explanation of human experience. (There are other, powerful arguments for the immateriality of the mind, as well. Like this one.)

Lastly, the moral law. We all note that some things are objectively good (compassion, empathy, etc), whereas other things (murder, rape, etc) are objectively wrong. We also experience the pangs of conscience. Specifically, the moral obligation to do good and avoid evil. Furthermore, once a person sees there is no good reason to deny moral experience as objective, the question becomes one of searching for a proper ontological foundation to explain it. God offers a sound foundation to moral experience, whereas a cloud of fundamental particles, clearly, does not. Again, I’m simplifying the issue, but that’s the general thrust.

…

Are The Gospels “Biased?”

Q. Tiffany: “I recently discovered your podcast through watching your interview on EWTN. Excellent testimony! I’m a former atheist working towards becoming Catholic in RCIA. I was heavily influenced by the New Atheism movement, and particularly Dawkins’ God Delusion, so I appreciated your podcast about that.

You mentioned in your interview that there came a point where you had to research church history. I’m still struggling with accepting Jesus as the son of God, and I think that the answer lies within church history. What historical sources would you recommend to learn about Jesus, other than the bible? What is the closest to an unbiased source that you have found?

I haven’t had a chance to listen to all of your podcasts, so forgive me if you’ve addressed this already. If not, it might be a great topic for one.”

A: God bless! Now, onto your question : )

It’s a common confusion to dismiss the gospels because of (quote-unquote) Christian bias. The question to ask isn’t whether the gospels are biased, but are the gospels reliable? (Also, we need to ask, why did these people become Christian in the first place, especially somebody like St. Paul?) Every piece of ancient history is biased to some extent. Because of this, historians aren’t overmuch concerned about Christian bias, per se. Rather, historians look for other criteria to judge the reliability of ancient documents (including the New Testament), such as date of recording in relation to the event(s), number of manuscript copies, independent attestation, admission of embarrassing details, un-designed coincidences, etc. And in these respects, the New Testament is by far the most reliable collection of documents we have from antiquity.

It’s also important to remember what the Bible is. The Bible is not a “book” that some person who happened to be a Christian wrote. Rather, the Bible – and specifically the New Testament – is a collection of documents that have come down from 1^st century Judea, written by multiple people, and that was later collected by the Church and declared cannon. The reason the Bible features the documents it does, is because these were, by default, considered to be the most reliable accounts, based on the traditions and evidence. So, we shouldn’t be surprised that The Bible contains the most relevant and reliable details concerning the life of Christ: that is, after all, why The New Testament is what it is.

That said, there is still substantial evidence which corroborates much of the New Testament account that is either by pagan/Jewish writers (Josephus, for example), other Christian writers, or simply discoveries of archaeology. It’s debatable whether these accounts alone are enough to make the essential case for, say, Christ’s divinity, but with just a little supplementation from the New Testament, this supportive evidence is quite strong and certainly not contradictory.

For anybody interested in Gospel reliability, I’d recommend the following.

Beginner: The Case for Jesus by Dr. Brant Pitre

Advanced: The Resurrection of the Son of God by Dr. N.T. Wright

Also, my podcast with Dr. Tim McGrew on this very subject.

And speaking of Dawkins, here’s my review of his recent book Outgrowing God.

…

You beweev in meerkuls, LOooOoL?!

Q. Concerned Youtube User: “A Grown man who believes the Nile turned to blood. Sad.”

A. As snobbish as these remarks are, they hardly amount to a serious objection. Christianity, I boldly admit, is a religion of miracles. That is, in fact, and in large consideration, why I became Christian.

For example: If God wanted to reveal himself, it’s hard to see how a miracle would be efficacious (let alone possible) if there were not first the background of stable, regular laws of nature; specifically, tendencies of how various natures operate. How else would a miracle (such as the resurrection) stand out? In this capacity, it seems any claims of revelation, especially so bold as Christ’s, would have to be backed by some sort of divine endorsement, in order to be rationally adhered to. And that is precisely what we get with the Resurrection.

If the objection is that miracles don’t occur, that is surely question begging. If God exists and is responsible for everything else that exists (including their natures), then God can easily work a miracle if and when He so chooses, by either adding, or subtracting, to the natures of what he creates. Miracles are only impossible if God doesn’t exist. But God does exist. Therefore, miracles are possible, and there is considerable evidence of their ongoing occurrence (Marian apparitions, Eucharistic miracles, etc), available to any sincere, open-minded person to investigate.

…

From Eastern Spirituality to Christianity

Q. Sean: “Thanks for sharing this! What are some of the best resources you would recommend to someone who has lost their Christian faith and now seems to be in a similar place to where you were – searching Buddhism and mindfulness for a sense of purpose?”

A. It’s hard to answer your question directly without context. People lose faith for different reasons. Some because of the scandal of religious people. Others because of their own sinfulness/pride. On the other hand, people often dismiss the religion of their youth because they found it intellectually unsatisfying; a position I can strongly empathize with.

To the first point, scandal offers no surprise within Christianity. Sinfulness has infected the Church since the very beginning. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t seek justice and reformation within the Church, but it does mean we shouldn’t abandon Jesus for the sins of Judas, to use a cliché. As a Catholic, I am deeply embarrassed and appalled by the behavior of certain priests and Bishops and pray for their souls daily. But I would never consider leaving Catholicism, or not becoming Catholic, because of the behavior of certain people within the Church, especially since a central teaching of Christianity is we’re all sinners in need of God’s mercy and forgiveness. Plus, all the greatest Saints worked to reform the Church from within, because where else could you possibly go? When you love something, you stand by it, even when its sick.

To the second point, we all need to spend time introspecting and praying and being radically honest with ourselves. Are we following God’s will, or our own? I find too many people adjust their religious beliefs according to their politics, whereas things should be the other way around. People want a religion that assumes their preferences, which is why eastern spirituality is so attractive right now – people can find belief systems that require them to change nothing about what they believe or how they behave. This is not the case with Catholicism. To become Catholic is to accept the magisterial authority of the Church, including the essential teachings on faith and morals. It’s often that second part that people really struggle with. I struggled with it myself but can say this. Changing my life to adhere with Church teaching was the best thing I’ve ever done. And God gave me the grace to do it. (From an intellectual standpoint, the Catholic Church also advocates traditional natural law, which I find to be the most philosophically robust system of ethics, the consequences of which inevitably lead to positions held by the Church on everything from sexual ethics, abortion, etc.)

To the final point, let’s get back to square one. Study the philosophical arguments for God. Natural theology alone can narrow the religious hunt to the great monotheistic traditions. Conceptions of the divine in most Eastern spiritual traditions (particularly pantheism) are ruled out by serious, hard thinking. This, of course, doesn’t mean there is nothing true or useful in Buddhism (certainly, there is) only that Buddhism itself (and yes, I understand Buddhism is quite diverse) cannot be true. Plus, meditation is elevated in the Christian tradition, and pointed toward our ultimate and proper end: God himself.

Furthermore, once you have a philosophical conception of God that is radically transcendent, omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, absolutely simple and non-composite, as well as wholly good and unconditionally loving (which philosophy can give you!) the Christian account becomes eerily conspicuous. In other words, doctrines such as the incarnation and atonement seem like just the sort of thing an all-powerful, all-loving God would do to redeem us: to show how much he loves us, and how he is not only not indifferent to our suffering, but willing to enter into the very depths of godforsaken-ness and bear the most horrific evils upon himself. I mean, wow and yikes. The whole account is extremely befitting – many liken the Christian narrative to a crime scene, where all the background evidence points to a particular scene, and only one possible suspect (in this case, Christ) could accommodate the data. In other words, it’s not just the evidence directly for Christ that’s compelling, but also all the evidence that precedes him,  philosophically.

From there, a study of Church history reveals how the earliest Christians celebrated mass, believed in the real presence of the Eucharist, accepted apostolic and papal authority, etc. (Four Witnesses by Rob Bennet is a good starting read.) In other words, the Catholic Church traces to the very beginning. Unfortunately, I’ve come to know many people who abandon Christianity because of a fundamentalist/literalist commitment to Scripture (young earth creationism, etc). But Catholics aren’t committed to this, and rightfully so. Fundamentalism is not traditionalism, as can be confirmed by reading people like St. Augustine, who argued, for example, Genesis to be offering a hierarchical/spiritual account of reality, rather than a temporal/scientific one. I mean, duh. But I get it. People who are brought up with these beliefs recognize (correctly) a deep conflict between the religious and scientific worldview. But this conflict needn’t exist and for Catholics it doesn’t exist. So, I’d encourage anybody who’s struggling with these positions to consider the rich, intellectual tradition of Catholicism before abandoning Christianity entirely.