by Tommy Karlas
For most of my life I thought that everyone, including myself, formed their beliefs purely on an intellectual basis. That we all kind of empirically went through the evidence and based our conclusions and beliefs (or disbeliefs) on what we discovered. But psychology and sociology have come to show us what Aristotle said over 2300 years ago; everyone’s beliefs are influenced by three factors…pathos (personal/emotional), ethos (cultural/societal), and logos (intellectual/logic). So intellectual reasons are only part of what shapes our belief systems. Each factor may have more of an impact than others, depending on the person, but everyone is influenced by all three.
The intellectual factor is obviously based on evidence, logic, and reason. This is more of a scientific, or empirical, element in what effects our beliefs. The personal/emotional factor is based on our own personal desires, fears, and past experiences. And the societal factor is based on what is common in our specific culture or what those around us believe. We may be more inclined to believe something because someone we respect, or look up to, believes it (or not believe it because someone we don't like does). Or because it may be a common accepted belief in our specific time or culture. So as much as we would think we are completely objective when deciding what we believe, we are not. Whether it’s political, religious, or whatever, we are all bias to a certain extent. But by coming to understand this about ourselves and recognizing our own biases, we can learn how to rise above them to an extent and ignore irrelevant influences.
So an example of a personal factor would be Freud’s argument that belief in God is just wishful thinking that comes from the human need for an eternal father figure. But the Christian could just as easily say that the unbeliever doesn’t believe because he doesn’t want to be held accountable for anything. As many 18th Century philosophers have said in one way or another…if there is no god, then anything goes; Everything is permissible. Another personal component of why someone understandably might not believe in God is because they’ve had an extraordinary amount of suffering in there life. Or it could also be that their only exposure to Christianity has been with self-righteous, judgmental, hateful people. But to the former, there are just as many extraordinary sufferers whose suffering only reenforces their faith. And to the latter, you can’t judge any philosophy by it’s abuse.
An example of a societal factor would be when someone says we only have a certain religious belief because we were raised that way or because of our geographical location. In other words, if you were born in the Middle East, you are most likely going to be a Muslim. Or if you were born in India, you’re probably a Hindu. And there is some truth to that. But someone could say an unbeliever only has a pluralistic, secular take on spirituality because they live in a individualistic, democratic, western culture. It’s also interesting to note that although 88% of people in India are Hindu, 89% of people in the Middle East are Muslims, and so on…there is a prevalent percentage of Christians in all countries (something exclusive to Christianity) and Christianity is the only religion that grows mainly through conversion, as opposed to just being automatically passed down.
Regardless, none of this speaks to whether any one religion, or belief, is true or not. As far as Christianity goes, there is really only one question you have to ask: Is Jesus really who He said He is? In other words, did He really rise from the dead? It’s no small, or easy, question. Someone may immediately write it off because of negative experiences they’ve had with Christians. Or because they have certain problems with the Bible. But sometimes those quick defeater beliefs keep us from objectively considering Christianity, and giving it the consideration, in my opinion, it warrants.
Just a small example of what I mean is some people say they could never believe in the Bible because it talks about slavery without condemning it. But slavery in Biblical times is much different from the 17th and 18th century slavery we immediately think of because 1) slavery in ancient times was universal and part of the conquest ethic everywhere; it had no defenders because it had no critics. And 2) slaves had rights back then; It was more like indentured servitude. They could have a family or often buy out their contracts or have slaves of their own. That in no way makes slavery right, but it does contextualize the Bible’s words in its own ancient time. Plus it was very much largely Christian groups like the Quakers and William Wilberforce who led the abolishment of slavery.
I’m not saying this to prove Christianity true, but only to show we should at least be willing to question our premise sometimes because it’s possible it may just be a straw-man argument for other hesitations we really have. And unfortunately, many people who don’t believe in Christianity have inaccurate ideas about what Christianity is. So although Christians should never force their beliefs on anyone, it never hurts to at least make clear to someone what they’re rejecting (and, of course, only if it’s something they want to look at). And I would never suggest someone should believe in Jesus Christ because it makes them feel better or because so many people do. But that we believe only because we think it’s true. Because we’ve looked at the evidence (not proof) of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. Because we’ve seen the impoverishment of our own souls and therefore see the need for His sacrifice. We may never be able to get all the way to proof (as with many things we believe), but faith can pick up where reason leaves off.
