Saturday, September 7, 2024

Personal Religion: should one just "take it all on Faith"?

I am usually given a non-answer when I ask a question that rubs-up uncomfortably against someone’s religious beliefs. For example, I may say “how can the Bible be the Word of God when it contains errors?” God is perfect, right? Then comes back the perturbed answer, “I just take it all on faith,” as though that answered the question.

Here is one of those questions: Was Mark (or God?) in error when he wrote that Abiathar was priest on the occasion that David entered the Temple and ate the bread from the altar (Mark 2:24-26)? Actually, Ahimelech (2nd Sam 8:17) was priest at the time that David ate the holy bread from the altar (1 Sam 21:1-6; cf. 2nd Sam 15:35).1 The discrepancy is not really a problem, however, unless you have the mistaken idea that the Bible sprang immediately from the mind of God, and was wholly and perfectly received through inspiration into the minds of its writers (something like osmosis). Bringing the Bible into print in the language of readers is a much sweatier, human process.2

            Taking matters on faith is not something that people do in virtually any other area of life. For example, in buying a house or a car, people count-up the cost, carefully read the contract, have the house checked that all is in stated condition and in working order, and have the car checked by a mechanic, if it is a used car. The rule in life for virtually all is “trust but verify.” People trust but verify because they believe the old adage caveat emptor (“buyer beware”). Particularly in everyday activities people are led by that adage. They diligently make shopping lists, and follow them, so that they will not give-in to urges and purchase things they do not need, cannot afford, or pay-for. They shop the sales offers and compare the costs of the same item in several different stores in order to pay less for an item. People as a general rule “take with a grain, or two, of salt” political promises made during an election year, and they check the politician’s background, reputation, and public record before casting their vote.

            So, why would anyone take personal religion on faith, without critically examining the beliefs? Surely, one’s religion is as important as buying a house? What happened to the old adage caveat emptor where religion is concerned? Why should religious faith take less critical thought than hanging pictures on a wall?

            Socrates, according to his student Plato, spent his life examining his own life and the lives of others (he was something of a gadfly on the citizens of Athens). Socrates once said (just before he was condemned to death on the charges of impiety and corrupting the youth of the city by means of his persistent questions) that “the unexamined life is not worth living.”3 If one is going to shape one’s life by religious beliefs, those beliefs should be critically examined and probed. How, for example, can anyone claim that the Bible is the Word of God, when text critics decide its content, and translators bring the Bible into your language in their words? Questions about one’s personal religious faith deserve a more thoughtful answer than—I just take it all on faith.

Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University

1Matt 12:4 and Luke 6:4 eliminate the name of the priest; one possible reason for their omission of the priest’s name is that they recognized Mark’s error.

2Hedrick, “Inspired Writings”: http://blog.charleshedrick.com/search?q=inspired+writings

Hedrick, “The Bible’s Story: A Brief Summary”: http://blog.charleshedrick.com/2023/10/the-bibles-story-brief-summary.html

3Plato, The Apology, 38a.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

I submit that “I just take it all on faith” is code-speak.
It’s often another way of saying (more candidly), “What I believe about the Bible is taken from what I see other people in my group believe.”
In many cases what the group believes about the Bible boils down to a mystical view of it, and mysticism is notoriously difficult to capture in rational explanatory discourse.
So, I while agree that “I just take it all on faith” is an intellectually lazy position to take, when we decode it we find that for most people it is an honest laziness.

Charles Hedrick said...

Good morning, Anonymous, and thanks for your comment.
Your last statement is a bit vague to me: "honest laziness." I don't think you intend to say by that expression that a person who uses such code-speak just doesn't care enough to probe further. Can you say a bit more; what about such a person's laziness is honest?
Thanks,
Charlie

Anonymous said...

Hi Charlie. It's me, Bill Y. I must have somehow neglected to identify myself, sorry.
Fair question on "honest laziness," probably not the best expression. By it I mean: it does not occur to such people that any further probing into biblical errors is necessary. That’s laziness. But inasmuch as they see no need for it, they are not *consciously* dodging critical reflection. That’s honest.
Does that help?

Charles Hedrick said...

Hi Bill, I thank you again for your thoughtful post. To which I would say you are correct. Such a person you describe would be "honest," but somewhat naive and perhaps a little gullible. But a person who sees and acknowledges problems or difficulties with aspects of whatever he or she confesses in religious faith but does not probe further is consciously dodging critical reflection. And their statement "I just take it all on faith" must be regarded as--what?

Anonymous said...

Hi Charlie,

You wrote, "So, why would anyone take personal religion on faith, without critically examining the beliefs?" The average person, I think, derives God from the existence of creation - someone must have done the creating and must have left some personal imprint of him/herself on the creation. But the creator has done one horrible job; living entities survive by destroying other living entities. By any rational measure the creator God cannot be worthy of the title God. The rational search for a worthy God can only end in frustration. That opens the door to the cult leader phenomenon, where God is defined by the reasons why such a person appeals to the follower, the reasons, no doubt, being supported by emotions that are beyond rational control. The life of Jesus is one way to untie the bonds of this dilemma. He defined essential life as giving good gifts and transforming evil with love.

Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.

Charles Hedrick said...

Hi Gene,
I must agree with you that the creator God could have done a better job in the creation. We live in a disease ridden universe where our faulty genes determine our longevity or not. There appears to be no watch care over our lives. We are born into a briar patch and left to do the best we can. Strangely true human beings (not all homo sapiens are human beings) are born with an innate sense of care and concern for others and for the universe, which has been left to find its own sense of direction. Alas, the arc of the universe does not bend toward justice, and we are left to find our own way. One could do worse than heeding the words of Jesus.
Charlie (sorry to be so negative)

Anonymous said...

Hi Charlie,
Thank you for those challenging reflections. I see that you dare to differ with Martin Luther King, Jr's more hopeful interpretation of the nature of the arc of the universe. Speaking metaphorically, of course, I'm hoping that Jesus is holding down the far end of the arc.

Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.

Charles Hedrick said...

Good morning Gene,
King's statement is a faith statement, and in the end is tantamount to saying that everything works out in the end: God will right all wrongs and render justice to all. And I have found the universe to be a regularly operated place but completely insentient. One hopes along with you that there will be a reckoning in the eschaton, but that does not do us much good now. And we are forced by struggle to bend the arc of the moral universe to what we conceive as justice
Thanks for dialogue.
Charlie