Below is an excerpt from a book called "The Reason for God" by Timothy Keller, a Christian apologist. As I have said before (here), I am a Christian, I do not force my beliefs on those who are not Christian, and will always listen to the arguments posed to me by those who do not believe what I do, with an open mind. Tim Keller, is to me, a role model in this regard. I found this piece titled A Second Look at Doubt very thought provoking, as I often engage in religious discussions with those close to me who are irreligious.
So give it a read, or don't - if it is just going to rile you up (You can just look at the pretty picture)...
A Second Look at Doubt
I want to make a proposal that I have seen bear much fruit
in the lives of young New Yorkers over the years. I recommend that each side
look at doubt in a radically new way.
Let’s begin with believers. A faith without some doubts is
like a human body without any antibodies in it. People who blithely go through
life too busy or indifferent to ask hard questions about why they believe as
they do will find themselves defenseless against either the experience of
tragedy or the probing questions of a smart skeptic. A person’s faith can
collapse almost overnight if she has failed over the years to listen patiently
to her own doubts, which should only be discarded after long reflection.
Believers should acknowledge and wrestle with doubts—not only
their own but their friends’ and neighbors’. It is no longer sufficient to hold
beliefs just because you inherited them. Only if you struggle long and hard
with objections to your faith will you be able to provide grounds for your
beliefs to skeptics, including yourself, that are plausible rather than
ridiculous or offensive. And, just as important for our current situation, such
a process will lead you, even after you come to a position of strong faith, to respect
and understand those who doubt.
But even as believers should learn to look for reasons
behind their faith, skeptics must learn to look for a type of faith hidden within
their reasoning. All doubts, however skeptical and cynical they may seem, are
really a set of alternate beliefs. You cannot doubt Belief A except from a
position of faith in Belief B. For example, if you doubt Christianity because
“There can’t be just one true religion,” you must recognize that this statement
is itself an act of faith. No one can prove it empirically, and it is not a universal
truth that everyone accepts. If you went to the Middle East and said, “There
can’t be just one true religion,” nearly everyone would say, “Why not?” The
reason you doubt Christianity’s Belief A is because you hold unprovable Belief
B. Every doubt, therefore, is based on a leap of faith.
Some people say, “I don’t believe in Christianity because I can’t
accept the existence of moral absolutes. Everyone should determine moral truth
for him- or herself.” Is that a statement they can prove to someone who doesn't share it? No, it is a leap of faith, a deep belief that individual rights
operate not only in the political sphere but also in the moral. There is no
empirical proof for such a position. So the doubt (of moral absolutes) is a
leap.
Some will respond to all this, “My doubts are not based on a
leap of faith. I have no beliefs about God one way or another. I simply feel no
need for God and I am not interested in thinking about it.” But hidden beneath
this feeling is the very modern American belief that the existence of God is a
matter of indifference unless it intersects with my emotional needs. The
speaker is betting his or her life that no God exists who would hold you accountable
for your beliefs and behavior if you didn't feel the need for him. That may be
true or it may not be true, but, again, it is quite a leap of faith.
The only way to doubt Christianity rightly and fairly is to discern
the alternate belief under each of your doubts and then to ask yourself what
reasons you have for believing it. How do you know your belief is true? It
would be inconsistent to require more justification for Christian belief than
you do for your own, but that is frequently what happens. In fairness you must
doubt your doubts. My thesis is that if you come to recognize the beliefs on
which your doubts about Christianity are based, and if you seek as much proof
for those beliefs as you seek from Christians for theirs—you will discover that
your doubts are not as solid as they first appeared.
I commend two processes to my readers. I urge skeptics to wrestle
with the unexamined “blind faith” on which skepticism is based, and to see how
hard it is to justify those beliefs to those who do not share them. I also urge
believers to wrestle with their personal and culture’s objections to the faith.
At the end of each process, even if you remain the skeptic or believer you have
been, you will hold your own position with both greater clarity and greater
humility. Then there will be an understanding, sympathy, and respect for the
other side that did not exist before. Believers and nonbelievers will rise to
the level of disagreement rather than simply denouncing one another. This
happens when each side has learned to represent the other’s argument in its
strongest and most positive form. Only then is it safe and fair to disagree
with it. That achieves civility in a pluralistic society, which is no small
thing.
