CHRISTIANITY AND INQUISITION
In my article on how I quit the Christian faith and faith in gods generally, I highlighted the fact that Christians systematically stopped inquiry among believers. Believers hold that credulity is a virtue, that it is better to not know certain things if they will lead you to a "shipwreck" of your faith. Many people whom I have brought this point up against have denied that Christianity is like this, and I have even heard a number of Christian defenders say that science and inquiry have helped to strengthen their faith. In all fairness, this is probably true for a lot of Christians, especially in the Western and European worlds. But in my experience here in Nigeria, I have not yet found this to be the mainstream position.
For example, while a Christian, I was hugely influenced for a period of roughly three years by the teachings of a certain pastor (name withheld). I found him to be a very intelligent teacher and expositor of the Bible, and I learnt a lot of things from him while also refining my understanding of many Christian subjects. However, I realised that it became attitudinal for him to disparage inquiry about certain subjects. For example, in one of his sermons, he remarked that it was mischievous to ask what would happen to people who did not hear the gospel before they died, such as those who lived in sub-Saharan Africa at the time when Jesus was alive. As a matter of fact, he calls such inquiry "needless curiosity." He further suggests that it would be much better for one to be an ignorant Christian than a knowledgeable atheist or agnostic.
Initially, I did not have an issue with this. In fact, I remember sharing the same idea with a lady who was my "disciple" at the time. But later, I began to think about this statement, especially in light of the scientific understanding I had been acquiring steadily over the few months leading up to my deconversion. Why would you not want people to be curious about, let alone know, the truth on anything at all? Why would you suggest that it would be better to be an ignorant Christian than a knowledgeable atheist or agnostic?
This is not an idea that was unique to him alone. Recently, I had a discussion with another pastor I know (again, name withheld). I told her I had left the faith. She asked me why I did, and I gave her some of the reasons. She initially tried to undermine my Christian faith—the "maybe you were never a true Christian" accusation. But something else struck me in our conversation. I'll leave an excerpt of the conversation here. It's edited for easy readability, (The chat happened on WhatsApp.) but no insertions have been done with this excerpt.
HER: Not just that... I think... you were around many word people but the word had not settled in your heart. I think you kept holding contrary opinions about the faith for a long time and your curiosity got the best of you.
ME: "Curiosity got the best of you"? How does that happen? Is it a vice to be curious?
HER: I mentioned before...endless research... I am sooooo like that...researching everything. I did that with my Christianity for a while. I played research...wanted information on things..as questions...
ME: Okay. So... Is that a bad thing?
HER: Not really. It's a bad thing when we don't know when to stop.
ME: When do we stop?
HER: When there are red flags flying... And we can hear the alarms ringing in our brain..but a quest that leads to nowhere beckons on us.
ME: Red flags like what?
HER: Sir..the idea is not whether we read similar things or not...you are still being inquisitive. You are still in an endless search..still trying to dig up.
ME: I know. I just wanted to know why you stopped researching. What you found, or didn't find, that made you think you needed to stop at that point.
HER: I wish you carried this trait to be an archaeologist, not a believer. A believer doesn't go on an endless search...he's been found.
ME: Are you saying a believer should not be inquisitive?
HER: Not at all.
ME: That's kind of what you said here though. "Endless search". Same thing Pastor calls "needless curiosity".
HER: He should be inquisitive about what has been found not what is lost.
ME: Why should he not want to know what is lost, whatever that means? What's the problem with knowing?
HER: A man who is not lost doesn't go around looking for what is lost
ME: Why not? You're saying Christians should not be inquisitive. That's really what you're saying.
HER: You just called it... What is lost! You have chosen to read what I never said
ME: You said, and I quote: A man who is not lost doesn't go around looking for what is lost. What does this statement mean ma? This is another way of saying "he should NOT be inquisitive about what is lost".
HER: There's something I'm noticing while chatting with you... You have chosen to see things in a certain way. Look at what i said here. Like me...i ask a lot of questions..and would never every tell people to not ask questions...
This is an attitude I have seen among many Christians. I cannot recall the number of times I have been told "too much science made you an atheist" having told people what led me to leave the faith. And I have not even done "too much science" yet!
The conclusion I came to when I noticed this attitude is this: if you are trying to stop your group members from learning or inquiring about certain things, especially things that offer a contrary view to your in-group beliefs, it is most probably because you have something to hide. You have an uncomfortable truth you do not want your group members to know. You have a vested interest to protect which knowledge threatens. You have a lie or half-truth to guard. Summarily speaking, you are a cult!
Any group that stops an honest inquiry from its members is a cult. And this is what Christianity promotes, at least within the group I was in.
Perhaps I ended up in the wrong group, as I have been told by some Christian readers of my blog. But is this idea unique to just my group? Does Christianity have concepts that tacitly forbid looking outside its coffers for knowledge? What does the Bible itself say about this issue?
In Genesis 2, God told Adam not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Think about this for a minute. God told mankind not to eat from a tree of knowledge. It does not matter what kind of knowledge it is for now; the point is that there was at least something God did not want man to know. Perhaps this was for a good reason best known to God; perhaps it would have been to man's disadvantage to have had this knowledge. But still, the notion that there was something ordained by God that man was not supposed to know calls for some thought.
Furthermore, in chapter 3, the serpent convinced the woman to partake of the fruit of the forbidden tree, noting that it would make them know good and evil, being like God. Christians would argue that this was to their disadvantage; but the point, again, is that the serpent encouraged knowledge.
But the most curious verse in this passage for me is the statement God made after the man and woman had eaten the fruit of the forbidden tree:
Then the LORD God said, Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever" — Genesis 3:22 ESV
The serpent had told the couple that the tree would impart knowledge to them. God himself admitted that this happened. God himself admitted that he had tried to stop them from acquiring a kind of knowledge that would have made them like him—ignoring the fact that Genesis 1 already claimed that they were created "after his likeness."
The events recorded in Genesis 1–3 are considered fundamental to the Christian faith by virtually all Christians I know. The fall of man necessitated the vicarious work of Jesus. Yet, Christians hardly speak about the fact that it happened partly because God was trying to hide something from man in the first place. Christians have different ways of interpreting these texts, but this is a point that is hardly brought up in everyday dialogue. Why would God create a form of knowledge that mankind was not supposed to have? What is it about the knowledge of good and evil that made God not want man to have it? What is it about knowledge—any kind of knowledge at all—that makes faith afraid of it?
This should call for some reflection among any Christian who may not have given it good thought.
For example, while a Christian, I was hugely influenced for a period of roughly three years by the teachings of a certain pastor (name withheld). I found him to be a very intelligent teacher and expositor of the Bible, and I learnt a lot of things from him while also refining my understanding of many Christian subjects. However, I realised that it became attitudinal for him to disparage inquiry about certain subjects. For example, in one of his sermons, he remarked that it was mischievous to ask what would happen to people who did not hear the gospel before they died, such as those who lived in sub-Saharan Africa at the time when Jesus was alive. As a matter of fact, he calls such inquiry "needless curiosity." He further suggests that it would be much better for one to be an ignorant Christian than a knowledgeable atheist or agnostic.
Initially, I did not have an issue with this. In fact, I remember sharing the same idea with a lady who was my "disciple" at the time. But later, I began to think about this statement, especially in light of the scientific understanding I had been acquiring steadily over the few months leading up to my deconversion. Why would you not want people to be curious about, let alone know, the truth on anything at all? Why would you suggest that it would be better to be an ignorant Christian than a knowledgeable atheist or agnostic?
This is not an idea that was unique to him alone. Recently, I had a discussion with another pastor I know (again, name withheld). I told her I had left the faith. She asked me why I did, and I gave her some of the reasons. She initially tried to undermine my Christian faith—the "maybe you were never a true Christian" accusation. But something else struck me in our conversation. I'll leave an excerpt of the conversation here. It's edited for easy readability, (The chat happened on WhatsApp.) but no insertions have been done with this excerpt.
HER: Not just that... I think... you were around many word people but the word had not settled in your heart. I think you kept holding contrary opinions about the faith for a long time and your curiosity got the best of you.
ME: "Curiosity got the best of you"? How does that happen? Is it a vice to be curious?
HER: I mentioned before...endless research... I am sooooo like that...researching everything. I did that with my Christianity for a while. I played research...wanted information on things..as questions...
ME: Okay. So... Is that a bad thing?
HER: Not really. It's a bad thing when we don't know when to stop.
ME: When do we stop?
HER: When there are red flags flying... And we can hear the alarms ringing in our brain..but a quest that leads to nowhere beckons on us.
ME: Red flags like what?
HER: Sir..the idea is not whether we read similar things or not...you are still being inquisitive. You are still in an endless search..still trying to dig up.
ME: I know. I just wanted to know why you stopped researching. What you found, or didn't find, that made you think you needed to stop at that point.
HER: I wish you carried this trait to be an archaeologist, not a believer. A believer doesn't go on an endless search...he's been found.
ME: Are you saying a believer should not be inquisitive?
HER: Not at all.
ME: That's kind of what you said here though. "Endless search". Same thing Pastor calls "needless curiosity".
HER: He should be inquisitive about what has been found not what is lost.
ME: Why should he not want to know what is lost, whatever that means? What's the problem with knowing?
HER: A man who is not lost doesn't go around looking for what is lost
ME: Why not? You're saying Christians should not be inquisitive. That's really what you're saying.
HER: You just called it... What is lost! You have chosen to read what I never said
ME: You said, and I quote: A man who is not lost doesn't go around looking for what is lost. What does this statement mean ma? This is another way of saying "he should NOT be inquisitive about what is lost".
HER: There's something I'm noticing while chatting with you... You have chosen to see things in a certain way. Look at what i said here. Like me...i ask a lot of questions..and would never every tell people to not ask questions...
This is an attitude I have seen among many Christians. I cannot recall the number of times I have been told "too much science made you an atheist" having told people what led me to leave the faith. And I have not even done "too much science" yet!
The conclusion I came to when I noticed this attitude is this: if you are trying to stop your group members from learning or inquiring about certain things, especially things that offer a contrary view to your in-group beliefs, it is most probably because you have something to hide. You have an uncomfortable truth you do not want your group members to know. You have a vested interest to protect which knowledge threatens. You have a lie or half-truth to guard. Summarily speaking, you are a cult!
Any group that stops an honest inquiry from its members is a cult. And this is what Christianity promotes, at least within the group I was in.
Perhaps I ended up in the wrong group, as I have been told by some Christian readers of my blog. But is this idea unique to just my group? Does Christianity have concepts that tacitly forbid looking outside its coffers for knowledge? What does the Bible itself say about this issue?
In Genesis 2, God told Adam not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Think about this for a minute. God told mankind not to eat from a tree of knowledge. It does not matter what kind of knowledge it is for now; the point is that there was at least something God did not want man to know. Perhaps this was for a good reason best known to God; perhaps it would have been to man's disadvantage to have had this knowledge. But still, the notion that there was something ordained by God that man was not supposed to know calls for some thought.
Furthermore, in chapter 3, the serpent convinced the woman to partake of the fruit of the forbidden tree, noting that it would make them know good and evil, being like God. Christians would argue that this was to their disadvantage; but the point, again, is that the serpent encouraged knowledge.
But the most curious verse in this passage for me is the statement God made after the man and woman had eaten the fruit of the forbidden tree:
Then the LORD God said, Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever" — Genesis 3:22 ESV
The serpent had told the couple that the tree would impart knowledge to them. God himself admitted that this happened. God himself admitted that he had tried to stop them from acquiring a kind of knowledge that would have made them like him—ignoring the fact that Genesis 1 already claimed that they were created "after his likeness."
The events recorded in Genesis 1–3 are considered fundamental to the Christian faith by virtually all Christians I know. The fall of man necessitated the vicarious work of Jesus. Yet, Christians hardly speak about the fact that it happened partly because God was trying to hide something from man in the first place. Christians have different ways of interpreting these texts, but this is a point that is hardly brought up in everyday dialogue. Why would God create a form of knowledge that mankind was not supposed to have? What is it about the knowledge of good and evil that made God not want man to have it? What is it about knowledge—any kind of knowledge at all—that makes faith afraid of it?
This should call for some reflection among any Christian who may not have given it good thought.
Great work!
ReplyDeleteThank you.
DeleteI had a similar conversation with an apologist I'd meet at church camp. Said apologist was influential in my deconversion when he made the colossal mistake of saying that God forsaw what would happen when Adam and Eve ate the fruit but he let all that evil and suffering and hell happen because it was part of his plan to "give all the glory to his name". The sheer narcissism of that idea remained at the back of my mind for the next 2-3 years before I began deconversion.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, we'd exchanged contacts so he was usually following my WhatsApp Statuses. We got into a couple of debates about my reasons for leaving. Though I did try to make the debate civil, his sheer bias kept him pulling excuse after excuse to justify all sorts of nonsense. We just had to agree to disagree before I would've lost my temper
Indeed. Sometimes the back-and-forth gets tiring because you have to repeat the same things over and over again. Some of the defenses set up for the rationality and morality of traditional theistic belief are indefensible.
Delete