Why Are Christians Afraid To Doubt?

Isn't it remarkable that most Christians I've known would agree that the god who requires salvation by works is non-existent. This thread isn't about faith vs. works doctrines, but for the record not all "Christians" claim salvation is obtained by good works.Now back to the issue of doubt. Doubts can lead to learning, so doubt isn't an inherently bad thing. But not all doubt is good.Trusting God is more important than I can say, and doubts about His love or His ability to keep His Word are usually overcome as soon as the thought occurs, before it can even grow into actual doubt.Doubts about specific issues are different. Our understanding is imperfect, and the opinions of others aren't always helpful. Perhaps a true story will be helpful.My first serious challenge to the perfection of scripture was an apparent change in the numbers involved in the miracle of the loaves and the fishes between two of the gospels. The issue was very important to me, and it took weeks for me to resolve it. Of course it turned out that there was more than one such miracle, and the numbers actually do match.I learned my lesson. Since then I've seen many more alleged "contradictions" in scripture (antichrists have compiled dozens), but experience teaches that they're illusory. So my faith is less weak than it was prior to my initial doubt.There are many sources for thoughts in life. Some appear to be spontaneously generated, some come from the environment. The Holy Spirit has no problem suggesting thoughts; and as I understand the situation, Satan & co. can also put thoughts into our minds. We cannot always identify the source of a given thought, but we can assess its validity before pursuing it. This is true of both temptation and doubt.It can also be a mistake to assume doubts are to be immediately resolved. Sometimes doubt can form the basis of important lessons which it may take months (or longer) for us to learn.For myself, I'm very reluctant to doubt anything regarding the Bible; but should a full-blown doubt arise, I'm confident it will be part of a learning experience and I will benefit in the end. Should a doubt arise concerning God's desire or capacity to help us, I think it's prudent to make it a high priority, and patiently, prayerfully seek to resolve it.Even before I was saved, I could look at what Jesus went through and know that God has always been serious about His love for us, no matter what problems we may have understanding.

I hadn't thought of that. I find fear in general to be counter-productive, so my policy is to fear God exclusively. I doubt that this is a perfect policy; but I'm not perfect. At any rate, it is against my policy to fear doubt. {Maybe... That's actually a newer, abbreviated version of my old policy: "I only fear God and my own stupidity." If doubt = my own stupidity...}Since irrational thought isn't my strength, and most doubts I've encountered arise from rational thought, it's practical to resolve them rationally. But irrational doubts can certainly arise. I don't know how one would readily discuss them, and I wouldn't advise anyone to do so in public at any rate.There are many varieties of doubt. Some I have encountered in the past, and at least I think I know how to best deal with them. It looks like anything more I might say would be rational, and potentially subject to the same criticism.I'm half kidding there. I'll give further consideration to your question, but don't expect a response. I really don't know how to proceed.Now for why one would be actually afraid to doubt. For a Christian in this environment, there are hazards. Many here would suggest reasons to doubt that are far from valid. Taking an invalid doubt seriously, combined with a hurried attempt to resolve it alone without prayer or help from other Christians is a good recipe for failure. I hope I don't need to define failure in this context - it would only lead to arguments about specifics. At any rate, it's a proud and arrogant approach, which is cause enough for one to eschew it.

Some thoughts deserve to die. They don't merit a second of one's time.These two examples are questions I took a long, hard look at before I accepted God's salvation. You tempt me to type the gospel or my own 'testimony' in this thread; but I'll decline. Now that God has written upon my heart, there's no way to erase what I know; I could not seriously doubt if I tried.Full disclosure: What's funny is that this very type of doubt did arise, irrationally {catch that, Ringo?} in my early years as a believer. It went away after a few days without a trace, and I can't really explain it. I understand it's not uncommon.But here's something you should be able to understand. Think of respect. It isn't voluntary. In the military services, they require that 'superior' officers be respected. This is totally absurd. The most one can do is emulate respectful behaviour. One simply cannot respect a person who behaves improperly, and one has no choice but to respect a proper person. I was raised to give every stranger the benefit of the doubt, but beyond that one has no control.Now to ask a genuine Christian to doubt God's love can be compared to asking a man to respect (not pretend - actually have genuine respect for) a known coward. It just does not work. And it's not a matter of voluntary choice. Not in this context. By definition the Christian has ruled out other gods. I'm not aware of any that can really compete. I know of only one God who even claims to have sent His Son to suffer and die for me. Is it rational or irrational to conclude that He loves me more than the wanna-be's? What would be the point? I can look at this proposal and see an utter waste of time. Perhaps this proposal is an example of the type of thought that deserves to be quickly dismissed. Really, a contest to see who can say "is so" or "isn't so" the most times is something you should've outgrown if you're old enough to read and type. Or are you being home-schooled? All my abilities are God-given. I'm not sure what you're suggesting I do myself, but I'm pretty lazy so I'll let another do it unless I have a good reason.I hope I'll be able to do a better job of distinguishing between yourself and a git in the future. I nearly blew off your post as meaningless hostility. If not for that last part, I wouldn't have taken a second look. See ya 'round!

Not any more, I don't. Impatience is not something I respect, FYI.

Looks like the purely rational approach or an "overly" rational approach is being questioned. I said I'd think about it some more, and might not respond. While I don't think a purely rational approach to everything in life is best (or even practical), it is hard for me to form a good argument for the irrational off the top of my head. It's an old lesson, and I forgot how I learned it... And I have no formula for the optimal balance, and the terms are blurry in some cases. So what is this game? How many different questions can we make using the same words? Let's just add that in with the second question. It is supremely arrogant for one to consider oneself the ultimate authority on everything. Just worship yourself and be done wasting time in that case. If the wisdom of Lewis is to be tossed aside merely on the basis of "Lewis is other than oneself", than so must the 'science' of Darwin be discarded because "Darwin is other than oneself". Even the mathematics of Pythagoras go to the chopping block.I take a humbler approach. I have learned that I am not the ultimate authority on very many subjects. My own personal "pet" beliefs that I arrive at independently are not above doubt. Doubt is their default status until I have a chance to discuss them with someone who is capable of understanding and evaluating them. And rationality is only one factor in the overall validity of an idea. It is just too easy for me to overlook some detail, or fail to take all factors into consideration. If writings are available on the subject, I would consult them as well.In the end we all usually make our own decisions. We all make mistakes. A good way to minimize glaring, simple mistakes is to use the help of others. There is truth to the saying "two heads are better than one".(Many Christian doubts are due simply to insufficient knowledge of scripture, so the antidote is obvious.)Methinks the "irrational beliefs" of Ringo's post have little to do with typical Christian doubts. I would expect anyone who realized an idea to be genuinely irrational to evaluate doubt it up front. But terms can get tricky. Is love rational? Is it rational for God to love us, based on what we are. Is it rational for God not to love us based on what He has done? What was so important about "rational" again? Catch me when I think I have one. It's too late (or maybe too early) now.There are valid reasons for non-believers to doubt, who have not heard the truth; but those would be off-topic. The Christian has once answered these questions, and there is no need to doubt the answers. We may encounter doubts that appear genuine, but when we learn by experience how weak such issues always turn out to be, it increases our confidence, and gives us one more opportunity to glorify God. There's plenty of unprofitable irrationality to be gained as well. Could one not stumble in here and become convinced Shroedinger's cat doesn't exist until viewed, but an unviewed Oort Cloud does exist. Now THAT's irrational. And yes, if anyone wants a new topic we can go at it. That's worth my time just for the laughs, so Clown Corps, please call me out.

This is great. I'm breathing. Now I'm not infallible, so I recognize that there is some strange, remote possibility I could be mistaken about this fact. Just how much time should I spend doubting that I am breathing? Hmmm? What profound insight is to be gained? How will it profit me in any way to doubt that I'm breathing, just because I'm not infallible.I contend that there are dozens, nay hundreds of issues it is foolish to go about doubting. So teach me, if you can. Convince me that confidence is never warranted, or grant that some issues aren't worthy of doubt. Perhaps we can make progress from there.

What's this 'trivial' business? Breathing isn't trivial; it's essential to life. Same can be said of the gospel, because it's even more important.I don't consider it proper to doubt or not based on how important at thing is. I think doubt comes into play based on certainty and confidence issues.In some cases doubt is involuntary. Unlike respect, I've found that in some cases I can induce doubt where it has no business existing. For example, I can work up a good deal of worry about friends and family traveling in bad weather. It doesn't help matters at all, and worry is addictive.If one chooses to indulge in silly/trivial/foolish/unwarranted (pick a term; they all apply) doubt about spiritual matters, one could have problems. I plan to discuss this a little later on.But let's look at the flip side. If doubt and worry are to be based not on certainty, but on how important things are, huh? Then how are the scoffers going to cope?Eternity is a very long time, longer than I can imagine. So long that the slightest amount of comfort or discomfort you can imagine will eventually outweigh anything that can be felt in one's lifetime. If importance were the criteria for doubt, it seems they should be very concerned. Or are they afraid to doubt?

As this is in reply to my post, I think you mean me. My confidence has been shaken in the past, and it could happen again. Given time, I expect it shall. Unless you refer to my confidence in the Lord.And in answering I have the unexpected opportunity to discuss something I mentioned earlier. I have had access to a handful of English language interpretations, and so far I have found the 'King James' Bible superior to the others.A 'pet' idea of mine is that God may have inspired this translation just as He inspired the original authors. Or the Holy Spirit may have supervised the process to ensure accuracy. As it is my own idea, it is subject to considerable doubt. In fact only this week I came upon a new passage that gives me a fresh reason to doubt this little idea.But I find that when any other 'version' is used, I always have to look things up in the Bible I trust; so it would just be altogether impractical for me to use any other. I'd doubt everything.Based on very good references, I did try one of the newer translations. But even with my poor memory it didn't take more than a couple of weeks to encounter some text that was just flat wrong.One can make do with such a book, and it's probably better for those who only understand the deteriorated English of today. The Lord is aware of how things are, and no sheep will be lost over this matter. I would very much like to see a trustworthy Bible printed in contemporary English, but if it exists I am not aware of it.Now I'm guessing there's a thread where you're thinking to dispute any answer I would have given?

An artificial distinction. The only thing preventing a "disinterested observer" from verifying most of these things is the lack of such an entity. Even so, truth is truth. Those who diligently seek it will find it; and those who don't will not.People dissociate objectivity, logic, and rational thought from emotions (thanks largely to Spock and Data, IMO). But they have a logic of their own. Is the loyalty of a dog not something that can be rationally, logically, objectively observed? Or did people just decide to arbitrarily make it up?Likewise trust isn't without basis. Just think of anyone you trust or distrust and ask yourself whether or not you have a reason. How is 'religion' anything other than trusting God (or for some, priests and other delegates)?Edited by CTD, : spelling correction

So make up your mind. Pick an accusation and stick with it. Am I trivializing the important issues, or trivializing doubt? You don't appear to be coping so well. I was hoping it wasn't the case when I wrote Hint: you can scroll up the page and see what you already wrote. There's a scroll bar on the right-hand side of most browsers, and if you have a wheel on your mouse it may also do the trick.Now if I can overcome my doubts about the value of continuing... Wrong-o, Ringo! In Christianity God's love is certain, and I've already explained that. And what's this "blind acceptance" nonsense? Nobody blindly accepts nothin'! That's the stupidest myth anyone ever tried to perpetuate. In fact, I'd have a hard time believing people commonly accept anything they have less than 50% confidence in. It's practically impossible to do so. One who tries it on important matters might not be around very long.Ironically, the much-vaunted term "science", if subbed in for "Christianity" almost salvages your paragraph.Then you ask why I pair doubt and worry? Doubt is the prerequisite for worry, in case you never noticed. You also may or may not have noticed that I don't think worrying is very good. Since silly doubt can lead to silly worry... ah, what's the use! I've surely lost you by now.

Sorry it took me so long to get around to this. This topic's sailing right along and it isn't easy to keep up.Short answer to Question 1 : It's proper to acknowledge our Creator as our rightful owner.Longer answer: God knows more and is perfect. We know less and are imperfect. It's not hard to predict His decisions will be superior. God also cares for us very much & we have the parent-child analogy right handy.Between a cooperative, trusting child and a stubborn, disobedient child, which has better prospects of amounting to anything? Now consider just where we are in this analogy. Are we even a two-year-olds?Question 2. Sharing thoughts is good, if the people are reliable. Trustworthy information and good suggestions are surely to be desired. Can't say I'd commit too quickly to 'sharing wills'. If that were easy to do, I expect governments would be better than any I've encountered. And don't you become partly responsible for the whole group in that case? Not something to do lightly, and not with anyone who you do not trust. Never permanently except in marriage, but I don't think that's what you're talking about. The old issue if self-reliance. We all struggle with this. "God helps those who help themselves", etc. I'm not sure I have the best answer, but I'll try.The first key is for a Christian to realize that even when we "feel" self-reliant, we are not. Every breath we take, and even each second of time itself is provided by God.Decisions are what this is about. Not cut & dried sin or obey decisions. It's the tough calls when we seem to have no guidance. The first step is naturally to pray for guidance. And we must be alert. It may come from scripture, from a trustworthy friend, or any number of places. Perhaps the answer will be reveled while watching children play, or fools arguing.Still no luck? Might be time to evaluate the situation a little more. Does your heart say one thing, but reason another. An older, wiser friend once told me to follow the heart in such situations. The heart is smarter, and reason will catch up later. This has proven to be true in my experience.(He's one of the most intellectual persons I've ever known - go figure!)It's also probably about time to set a deadline. There is another possibility a lot of Christians overlook: God may be testing our decision-making skills, or for some other reason He may want us to decide on our own. Would it be like Him to fail to have a contingency plan? So set a deadline, and when the time comes make a call. Indecision = paralysis.I think such cases mess with Satan's head. It's a lot harder for him to predict what we'll do and be prepared. Just another of my 'pet' ideas.I hope my opinion is sound and helpful.P.S. I forgot to mention: avoid a binary mindset. There aren't always two options; sometimes 3 or more!

Sure there's a difference. Philosophy has defined the two as distinct. But this is artifice in the sense that the core part of us which actually makes decisions isn't a philosopher. It only knows a confidence/doubt ratio about a given piece of information. We're conditioned to believe "subjective" information is inherently "less reliable". If we succumb to this conditioning, it skews the ratio.If the drug is chemo, I'll pass. Your question needs work. I don't know these people, and I don't know to whom they pray. I don't know the drug or the illness. I don't know of any drug company that gives a hoot about anything other than overcharging... and hey! If I'm gonna go the faith-healing route, what do I need a drug for? See that: just another excuse to overcharge! Are you agreeing that the "disinterested observer" is not available, as I said?And for the record, 'religious beliefs' are seldom, if ever based solely one one's private thoughts. A flawed example. The "subjective truth" wasn't truth at all. Nice try at conditioning, though. You'll find I'm not such an easy target. History has trumped your "objective truth" as well. People have survived falls from greater heights than cliffs. A couple have even done so without functioning parachutes.Actually what you give is an example of someone being mistaken about an "objective" thing. There is nothing "subjective" in the example whatsoever. Are you suggesting "objectivity, logic, and rational thought" have no place in a discussion of doubts? Or maybe "emotions" is the problem. Please don't say the "dog" threw you; people like dogs. I trust you'll have no problem explaining this great difference, in that case. Actually I don't have much faith in your ability to do so. Hey! Maybe they are different! Okay, I'm kidding.

Aha! Keyboard's working again! I was muted for a while there. Anyone thankful for that situation should give credit where it is due: Microsoft. A fight between 16,332 Amazon women from Jupiter armed with pitchforks, and 11,880 Andromedans armed with machetes is an interstellar battle.I can also create definitions of things that don't exist.There is some basis for every belief. It may not be valid, as in the case of an hallucination; but there is always some basis.The closest thing I know of to truly blind faith is the statement "There is no god." Even that has a weak, fragile basis of sorts at this time. (Clue: try circular reasoning, or just accept the common brainwashing hype which employs it.) No. I do not. Many people do not. I suppose some do. I haven't taken a poll. I may be atypical.For me, my aversion to unpleasant answers is weaker than than my aversion to making bad choices based upon incomplete information.I may have an idea what your getting at. Would it be best for Christians to grab hold of any doubt they can - even one based on a misrepresentation of scripture - just so they can abandon their faith and join the ranks of the scoffers? Are you that desperate for fellowship?

Umm... Well, if it is indeed so, I'd say the atheistic indoctrination policies have a long way to go before they can claim success.I predict the movement will increasingly try to separate children from parents and pursue every means available to fragment families.I'm not sure where this leads, but it'll take work to keep it on topic.Maybe "children tend not to doubt their parents" is what you're getting at?Might as well get after this one too Makes sense. Maybe in some religions; not for the Christian. We have a report of God's demonstrations, and we have present day experience as well. Isaiah 53 begins with "Who hath believed our report?" The question is as important as it ever was.I'll abbreviate this, as I expect some will find it unpleasant. I was once in Ohio and pretty hungry. My own money had run out, but I had some money which wasn't my own available to borrow. I prayed about the matter and ordered a pizza, intending to borrow & repay after I got home. Pizza arrived late - ontime guarantee - free pizza.You have the option of calling this a coincidence. You have the option of considering it a lie. I was there. I do not. I've ordered many a pizza, and only twice have I got a free meal due to an ontime guarantee. Statistically it's less than 1%.Why should God care about such an apparently trivial thing? Why ask why? I'm convinced He does. Some Christians observe more events of this nature, and some observe less. It may be that some encounter more; or it may be that some are more observant.Now are we somehow mistaken if we fail to doubt our observations? Surely the observations of others should then be subject to a greater degree of doubt. Or is it a mistake to consider even a "micromiracle" as evidence of God's love and care?On the other hand, we have examples like Exodus 16. About 6 weeks after departing from Egypt THROUGH the Red Sea, the Isrealites were full of doubt. If one is determined enough, one can doubt just about anything. I don't know what the limit is, and I guess that's one question I'm content to leave unanswered.For those who really enjoy doubting God, that story should make your day, right?

Like when I said "Maybe 'children tend not to doubt their parents' is what you're getting at?"Of course you can't simply reply "yes." You have to call my view "a rather naieve statement", while saying the same thing in a lot more words. Am I supposed to be impressed, or confused?