The previous title of this blog was "Religion is Bullshit".
I lost my Christian faith about 5 years ago.
All the reasons for it disappearing - like reason itself for example - had always been around in my thinking. But about 5 years ago my actual Christian faith disappeared entirely.
By which I mean my own social and personal identification as a "Christian" and also my subscribing to the beliefs and tenets of the basic Christian faith. All of this totally disappeared.
I always liked and still do like the person and writings of Simone Weil.
I also have been greatly inspired by the person and music of Sinead O'Connor.
I am very inspired also by the person and writings of Desmond Tutu.
I am very inspired by the person and writings of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
These people are some reasons why - notwithstanding the title of this blog - I maintain an interest in Christianity of some kind.
I wouldn't say that I am a Christian again.
Even if Christianity were true - the essentials of which basically being that even if God existed and even if eternal life existed in some way - I don't think that it matters.
Agonizing over such questions is not productive or necessary.
I have spoken in another blog of "Doughnut Christianity." A Christianity that wants to be a force for good.
If the belief in God and Eternal Life help people and do not cause any evil then there is no harm in them. Why should there be a need to insist on these beliefs?
According to Karen Armstrong, insistence on believing in correct doctrine is not really what religion is about.
I think that what matters is HUMANITY, COMPASSION and LOVE and FORGIVENESS.
As Julian of Norwich said "Love Was His Meaning."
There are also MORAL, CULTURAL and HISTORICAL reasons not to abandon Christianity entirely.
For example the verse "In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek" is important to me as an impetus for humanity.
...............
If there is such a thing as Pascal's Wager where you bet on Christianity being true, I would reject that.
I think it is vital for the progress of religion that the idea of Hell or eternal suffering is unequivocally and totally rejected. This belief was a part of why Pascal's Wager emerged.
I would rather insist on something that could be called "Sofa's Rest" where the essential questions of conventional Christian belief - if we reduce them to the two essentials of God and Eternal Life - are rested, put on hold or bracketed.
An effect of this would be to reduce the anguish involved in feeling that we have to commit to belief in them. Also, it is important to do this since belief should never be compulsory, coerced or compelled. Also, as Donald Cupitt has stressed our faith should be a rational one as far as possible.
........
If we do believe in these two things it should never be to the detriment of compassion.
And neither should it be to the detriment or compromise of reason, as far as this is possible.
Something like this is what I would see as Sofa's Rest. Far less dramatic and stressful than Pascal's Wager.
I would further reject the kind of idea seen in Kierkegaard and elsewhere that for faith to be genuine there has to be a "Leap of Faith" into the irrational. The kind of belief that faith must be a risk-taking enterprise and based on an irrational and uncompromising leap into the irrational. I would like to give that kind of thinking a rest too!
Why should anyone have to embrace the irrational?
.......
I lost my Christian faith about 5 years ago.
All the reasons for it disappearing - like reason itself for example - had always been around in my thinking. But about 5 years ago my actual Christian faith disappeared entirely.
By which I mean my own social and personal identification as a "Christian" and also my subscribing to the beliefs and tenets of the basic Christian faith. All of this totally disappeared.
I always liked and still do like the person and writings of Simone Weil.
I also have been greatly inspired by the person and music of Sinead O'Connor.
I am very inspired also by the person and writings of Desmond Tutu.
I am very inspired by the person and writings of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
These people are some reasons why - notwithstanding the title of this blog - I maintain an interest in Christianity of some kind.
I wouldn't say that I am a Christian again.
Even if Christianity were true - the essentials of which basically being that even if God existed and even if eternal life existed in some way - I don't think that it matters.
Agonizing over such questions is not productive or necessary.
I have spoken in another blog of "Doughnut Christianity." A Christianity that wants to be a force for good.
If the belief in God and Eternal Life help people and do not cause any evil then there is no harm in them. Why should there be a need to insist on these beliefs?
According to Karen Armstrong, insistence on believing in correct doctrine is not really what religion is about.
I think that what matters is HUMANITY, COMPASSION and LOVE and FORGIVENESS.
As Julian of Norwich said "Love Was His Meaning."
There are also MORAL, CULTURAL and HISTORICAL reasons not to abandon Christianity entirely.
For example the verse "In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek" is important to me as an impetus for humanity.
...............
If there is such a thing as Pascal's Wager where you bet on Christianity being true, I would reject that.
I think it is vital for the progress of religion that the idea of Hell or eternal suffering is unequivocally and totally rejected. This belief was a part of why Pascal's Wager emerged.
I would rather insist on something that could be called "Sofa's Rest" where the essential questions of conventional Christian belief - if we reduce them to the two essentials of God and Eternal Life - are rested, put on hold or bracketed.
An effect of this would be to reduce the anguish involved in feeling that we have to commit to belief in them. Also, it is important to do this since belief should never be compulsory, coerced or compelled. Also, as Donald Cupitt has stressed our faith should be a rational one as far as possible.
........
If we do believe in these two things it should never be to the detriment of compassion.
And neither should it be to the detriment or compromise of reason, as far as this is possible.
Something like this is what I would see as Sofa's Rest. Far less dramatic and stressful than Pascal's Wager.
I would further reject the kind of idea seen in Kierkegaard and elsewhere that for faith to be genuine there has to be a "Leap of Faith" into the irrational. The kind of belief that faith must be a risk-taking enterprise and based on an irrational and uncompromising leap into the irrational. I would like to give that kind of thinking a rest too!
Why should anyone have to embrace the irrational?
.......