Sincerity is not enough: the problem with the problem of sincere disbelief

Apr 2, 2017 by

by Michael Jensen, ABC News:

Michael Collett’s thoughtful article “God and the problem of sincere disbelief” must have touched a nerve.

Within an hour of it being published on Wednesday, I received a flurry of emails from believing Christians asking me what I thought.

Collett and I share in common our religious upbringing. He tells the bitter-sweet tale of his coming to non-belief without rancour. He says that he made an extensive investigation of the evidence and decided that it was not for him.

First, he says: “Being a Christian means having particular views about history and science.” Christianity either stands or falls on the truth claims it makes.

Second, he says: “It always seemed unconscionable to me that someone could be denied salvation not because of a moral failing, but because they simply disagreed about the evidence for God.”

For Collett, it isn’t the truth claims that are “the problem”. Rather, he finds it “unconscionable” that a person could be judged for simply and honestly coming up with a different view of things that happened in the 1st century AD.

And that’s the central point that Collett makes in his article: that for him, a big problem for belief in the Christian God is the existence of people who sincerely do not believe in the Christian God.

As he says:

“Could God really deny salvation to someone just because they’re unconvinced by the historical basis for the resurrection?”

If Christianity claims that such sincere, ‘simple’ disbelief is enough to get you judged by God, then Christianity is itself making a morally questionable claim (says Collett). In his view, his not believing is honest, even morally virtuous. How could he be condemned for it?

It’s an argument for unbelief on the basis of the existence of sincere unbelief.

Read here

 

Related Posts

Tags

Share This