What Would It Take?

I loooooove to stir the Twitter pot. It almost always leads to interesting feedback. The other night I tweeted:

To my non-Christian homies out there, what would it take for you to believe in Christ as Christianity portrays him?

I got a bunch of answers including

  • the ridiculous (but funny):


    • sushiday @spiritualtramp The knowledge that vampires exist and that Christian faith is the only protection against them. ;)

  • to the obvious (but true):

    • egtalbot @spiritualtramp it would take the same thing that makes you believe in him – faith.

  • to the telling (and most intriguing):

    • Gundampilotspaz @spiritualtramp I’d believe if there was proof. Tangible or Mathematical proof. But even so, I wouldn’t submit to it.

I also got some non answers like:
ons @spiritualtramp the broad spiritual generalities of christianity are ok, but the specifics just don’t ring true for me at all

To me the non-answers said a lot. I wonder for those people if there is no level of proof they would accept. I can certainly understand that. The claims that Christianity makes are certainly hard to deal with.

In this time of Easter, perhaps one of the most conflicted holidays (an odd mix or pagan, commercial, and Christian imagery surpassing even Christmas in my opinion) and for some reason the most under celebrated (again compared to Christmas) when Christ should be at the forefront of believers minds I think this is a good question to be asking.

If you’re a non-believer what would it take for you to believe in the resurrected Christ? And if you had that assurance what would you do with it?

  • My answer is similar to sid's. Let me put it this way: I would have to physically see it for myself. But if I did, from that alone I would still not believe that Jesus actually rose from the dead. I would sooner believe he wasn't dead before. If it were shown that he was in fact dead, I'd sooner attribute his return it to some unknown occurrence than to a Christian response. People's hearts can stop and start again. "But after three days?" you say. Still wouldn't attribute it to God. I don't see it as being impossible, especially compared to having to throw God in there.
    The reason I'm so hard on God here is that I can't see God in this argument as anything more than an explanation, a God of the gaps. He's certainly not in place as anything more; I don't see any other reason to put the Christian God into this than that it appears to be the best way to make things "fit." In reality, introducing God makes things terribly complicated, because then God has to be explained. To me, a "God of the gaps" argument is a terrible argument, simply on the face of it. Anyone who thinks it offers a simple explanation simply doesn't get the extent of what they're claiming.
    This is, of course, all assuming that the argument is that Christ was literally resurrected, and assuming that we're treating the resurrection in a rather cold sense. If it was meant in a different sense (which I don't see why it couldn't be, and historically speaking it has been), that would change everything. However, it would also remove (or at least no longer force forward) the claim of factuality; resurrection as a concept could be uplifting, but that "belief" is very different from belief in a historical event.
    As I said before, I don't think it would change my attitude much. Besides the non-belief in certain dogmas, I don't live a terribly un-Christian life by many standards (not that there's even a clear set of standards). I agree with many of the non-factual points that many Christian groups make for any number of reasons. My reasoning for some of them would simply have to shift.
    As with sid, I'll answer that other question you threw in.
    "What sort of things do you believe in that can't be backed up by science?"
    When I say I believe something, I mean it in a very technical sense. I distinguish belief as something completely different from truth. I place belief onto a range by its relationship to truth as such. Science offers a consistent method of proof backed up by the senses. That's strong. But metaphysical truths (truths about "the truth," about what exists, it's essential nature, and such) are on a level far beyond that of science. At a metaphysical level, belief would have to "match up" with truth; no induction, no maybes, no room for error. Logic seems like it could do this, but I don't really think it does at this point in my life. I think logic is contingent on human thought; even if it appears universal, that could be due to our own nature and not the nature of metaphysical things as such.
    In other words: I believe in science and logic alright, but to a degree, however strong that degree may be. God exists (that is, if it exists) on a level completely beyond those realms. So my other types of belief - rational, empirical, emotional, even personal revelation - don't apply, and so aren't sufficient. No go for God.
  • Nobilis
    If I were to have some experience that made me suddenly believe that Christ died for my sins and was resurrected as an eternal divine being (I have no idea what that would be), it would not make me a "Christian" because if Christ exists, I'm pretty sure he's damned disappointed with the mess people have made in his name.
  • Mer
    ... see, if I were to believe in the risen christ means I think there's weight to jewish messianic prophesies. That's a tall order, because I find the jewish monotheism just as mythological as any of the polytheistic mythologies, except with way more legalism. The Tetragrammaton is right up there with Zeus and Ahura Mazda and Isis to me.
    Nevertheless.
    Jesus and Jehova aren't my problem, it's the bible. If I'm going to meet them on the road one day, it's not going to be mediated through the book. I sat down and read through the canonical gospels recently, just to make sure, and I really have to tell you, those 4 books aren't the best PR in the world for your team. Jesus came off sometimes like a fully enlightened being, but more often sounds like a raving madman.
    The Muslims are right, you are all of you The People Of The Book. I can't accept it as divine or divinely inspired.
    The books don't work, any history you can show me is profane, so all that's left is direct revelation. I wouldn't believe in Jesus, I would have Gnostic knowlege of him and his divinity. That's not christianity, that's something else.
  • My answer closely mirrors Allison Day's: I would require testable/repeatable evidence. If people were to regularly die and return to life in controlled environment (to rule out tricks), I would likely accept that resurrections can happen. It would take more, though not much more, evidence that this was the case for Jesus, and a lot more to convince me these resurrections are acts of God. In such a scenario, they could be a heretofore rarely seen natural occurrence.
    Another route for me would be rational argument. I accept logic even if it's not backed up by evidence.
    Since my answer was similar, I'll answer one of the questions you posed to Allison Day.
    "What sort of things do you believe in that can't be backed up by science?"
    Things that can be backed up by logic. Also, many, many mundane things. I don't need evidence to believe that my coworker had Starbucks for breakfast when they tell me they did. This gets to Sagan's balance.
    I'm sure my mind is also littered with unfounded beliefs I am unaware of, especially about myself (e.g. "I look good in Lederhosen" probably is false). The goal of the skeptic is to recognize these when they occur, eliminate them if possible, if not, at the very least don't make decisions/act on them (why I don't wear Lederhosen).
  • Exactly. I don't believe in the supernatural - ghosts, vampires... nope.
    Of course, I'm not going to be ridiculous about it. There are things that I believe in that philosophers attempt to explain that cannot be explained by science... yet. For example, the human "soul" - what is it that makes us conscious beings capable of thought, emotions, and all else that we do? What makes us different from computers? We don't have a scientific answer to this yet, but I'm of the belief that someday we will.
    So the way I see it, everything that I believe in either is or someday will be proven by science. You're free to challenge that belief if you'd like, and come up with something that I might believe in that isn't provable. I'm always open to challenges to my beliefs.
    Regardless, you should be very proud - you made me step back for a moment and really look at the things I believe in, and ask myself why I believe in them. That's not something that happens very often, so thank you for that.
  • Scott
    @ DKT - Amen brother. I know that just trying to live like him is enough... too much really. I don't think we're called to do any more than that actually.
  • Scott
    @ Mer - Yeah I know I'm packing a lot into one question. I'm certainly not asking anyone to participate in my religion. I'm not sure that Christ came to Earth to start a religion. In fact I'm almost certain he didn't (depending of course on how one defines that word).
    So you're saying that if you did believe in a risen Christ there would be a lot more needing to be done before you would follow him?
  • Scott
    @ Allison - "It's the scientist in me... she stubbornly refuses to let me believe in things like that which cannot be backed up by science."
    Things like what? Supernatural things? Wouldn't something supernatural by its very definition be impossible to back up scientifically? What sort of things do you believe in that can't be backed up by science? Is there anything?
  • Scott
    @ Snurp - Well I was basically leaving both the means of convincing and the sort of belief in your court.
    I shall try to clarify. Most of Christianity (that I am aware of) agrees that Christ rose from the grave in a very real bodily form. The purpose behind that was to show God/Christ's power over sin and death (the result of sin). So what would it take for you to assent to the fact of a literal resurrection of Christ from the dead?
    If you came to believe this reality as a reality, what would it take for you to come to this and how would it change how you saw the world/Christianity?
    And I agree I don't know of anyone who was convinced by argument alone. I'm just curious as to what it would take to convince you.
  • Scott
    @ Nobilis - Fair enough. I think a lot of people would fall in your camp. So I'm guessing there's nothing short of a dramatic personality shift that would convince you?
  • DKT

    This is why I have a hard time with "Evangelicalism" in Christianity. Most people who live in the same country I do know the story of Christ - his birth, death, and his resurrection. I've yet to be convinced that this contemporary Christian culture of apologetics and Christian media has done more than preach to the choir, or made a believer out of anyone.


    I don't know that there's more I can do than try to live like Christ (which, admittedly, I do poorly in suburbia).

  • Mer
    You're putting an awful lot in one question there, which I think you realize, but most people don't when they ask something like it. Simply by believing in the major intangibles you believe in doesn't mean i wish to participate in your religion.
    I'm an atheist. Show me Jehovah. Show me Jesus of Nazareth. Show me the Christ.
    Ok. I see it, I believe now. That still doesn't make me a christian, because there's a whole other half to it. You don't need to show me the bible, I already have several, but you do have to make me believe that it's divine and correct somehow. I need to know if the gospels are accurate, and by how much. I need a good freaking reason to accept anything Paul says. I need to know why the book is what it is. I need evidence that it's not just an artifact of various priesthoods consolidating their power. Give me *something because the bible is very tangible and wide open to criticism. Show me how the bible actually applies.
    Otherwise, it's just me, Jesus and Jehovah, and we'll be left to make our own conclusions.
  • Okay, yes, so my answer was a little flippant. But I'd also say it's along the same lines as Gundampilotspaz's answer - I'd need reproducible, testable, indisputable proof. It's the scientist in me... she stubbornly refuses to let me believe in things like that which cannot be backed up by science.

  • "If you're a non-believer what would it take for you to believe in the resurrected Christ?"


    What's the resurrected Christ? I'm not talking about the definition of resurrection and Christ. Is there a certain way in which one is supposed to believe in the resurrection? Is there a specific version of Christianity that is aware of that? Which one? What do you mean by "believe" anyway? A literal event, or a symbolic one? Belief as assenting to facts, or a state of being persuaded? Or something else? There are so many vastly different ways of asking this single question, which represent such fiercely different understandings of Christ and Christianity, that, without making their sense explicit, I think it's impossible to give a simple answer to that.


    "And if you had that assurance what would you do with it?"


    Again, this requires a clarification of "assurance." Assured how? Through argument, through feeling, through direct experience, through what I observe in the world around me? They all change the results.


    That being said, as regards Jesus himself I don't think I'd change much, really. Without believing in the resurrection, I support a lot of the things I think Jesus did and thought. I don't evaluate him on the grounds of religious truths, so his status as regards resurrection doesn't really affect my opinion of it. It might simplify things in my head, but I think what I feel towards him would largely be the same.


    One thing I wouldn't do is start debating about the truth of the resurrection. I'm not sure anyone was ever convinced in such matters by an argument alone, and a change in my state wouldn't change that.

  • Nobilis

    When I was sixteen, I had a direct, personal experience of a divine presence. I was in a particularly depressed mood about humanity in general, and this presence gave me a clear message that while Mankind was entirely capable of causing itself all kinds of pain and trauma, that we had a future and we would not destroy ourselves utterly.


    As I get older, I find two thoughts emerging from that route. One, that at sixteen I was prone to all kinds of strange delusional thoughts, and two, that Mankind is indeed quite resilient and adaptable. So I'm fairly sure that this vision was at once both false and true.


    At this point in my life, if Christ himself were to meet me on the road and have me put my finger in the wound in his side, I'd be fairly certain that I was having some kind of hallucinatory episode.

  • Mer

    You're putting an awful lot in one question there, which I think you realize, but most people don't when they ask something like it. Simply by believing in the major intangibles you believe in doesn't mean i wish to participate in your religion.


    I'm an atheist. Show me Jehovah. Show me Jesus of Nazareth. Show me the Christ.


    Ok. I see it, I believe now. That still doesn't make me a christian, because there's a whole other half to it. You don't need to show me the bible, I already have several, but you do have to make me believe that it's divine and correct somehow. I need to know if the gospels are accurate, and by how much. I need a good freaking reason to accept anything Paul says. I need to know why the book is what it is. I need evidence that it's not just an artifact of various priesthoods consolidating their power. Give me *something because the bible is very tangible and wide open to criticism. Show me how the bible actually applies.


    Otherwise, it's just me, Jesus and Jehovah, and we'll be left to make our own conclusions.

  • Nobilis

    If I were to have some experience that made me suddenly believe that Christ died for my sins and was resurrected as an eternal divine being (I have no idea what that would be), it would not make me a "Christian" because if Christ exists, I'm pretty sure he's damned disappointed with the mess people have made in his name.

  • Okay, yes, so my answer was a little flippant. But I'd also say it's along the same lines as Gundampilotspaz's answer - I'd need reproducible, testable, indisputable proof. It's the scientist in me... she stubbornly refuses to let me believe in things like that which cannot be backed up by science.

blog comments powered by Disqus
«
»