The spectrum of belief

Following up on my recent post about identifying our debate opponents — I’ve been giving some thought to how we define a religious person, and what versions of religion we spend our time refuting.

I recently had a few Christian friends tell me openly (as we were talking together in a group) that they have no reason at all to believe that Christian theology is true. One of them expressed a vague sentiment that something worth calling God probably exists, but wouldn’t go so far as to argue with a non-Christian monotheist to convince them to become Christian. One of them told me that they had thought about what denomination of Christianity they most agreed with, but had never previously considered why they believed Christianity more than any other religion. They are interested in and curious about my atheism, and have never tried to make me a believer. And these are people who are very active in their churches, who have traveled abroad on mission trips, who organize Bible study groups, whose wardrobes consist mainly of free youth group or church camp T-shirts. They are not casually committed to Christianity. They consider themselves True Christians.

(Sidenote: There are obviously people who are much less committed to the trappings of religion who also hold similarly tepid beliefs about actual doctrinal claims, and would still call themselves “Christians.” My point is to illustrate that even among people very enthusiastic about their religion, there is one extreme at which they do not claim to have any reason to believe in it.)

On the other end of the spectrum, you have the public voices for Christianity, the people writing books on apologetics, the people with TV and radio programs proclaiming the gospel, the people in charge of churches and church networks. These people are sure that Jesus is the son of God. They are sure that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. They are sure that everyone ought to believe in and base their lives upon the teachings of Christianity. They claim to have evidence for each of these beliefs (though, to be fair, that “evidence” is usually just a restatement of one of the other beliefs). They also believe that holding these beliefs with certainty is what defines True Christianity. Naturally, in their minds they are the epitome of True Christians.

It’s my guess that similar statements could be made about other religions, but my experience with this phenomenon is primarily due to Christians. (In my personal experience, self-identified Jews who don’t think there’s any reason to believe the claims of Judaism are more willing to say they are “not really Jewish” or “culturally Jewish but not at all religious.”  And I haven’t had these kind of in-depth conversations with enough Muslims to make generalizations. So, I don’t know.) At any rate, there is this spectrum, where at one end people hold beliefs and make no claims whatsoever to substantiate them, and on the other end people hold beliefs because they think they are obviously true and will eagerly attempt to demonstrate their truth to others. In between, you have people who think there are inklings and hints and suggestions of truth, to varying degrees.

I raise this issue because I think it is natural to respond to each end of the spectrum in a very different way. I would argue with the “it’s obviously true” group by pointing out scriptural contradictions, both internal and with the outside world. I would point to things like the colossal failure of faith healing, and to other unfulfilled promises supposedly made by holy beings. I would point to the utter lack of historical evidence, and I would challenge them to provide reliable historical evidence for the events they claim actually happened. My aim is to get them to acknowledge that their factual claims don’t reflect actual facts.

This approach obviously does not work for people who don’t claim the Bible is literally true and who don’t think there is any historical evidence backing up any of their beliefs. When I talk to people on this end of the spectrum, I often find myself pointing out the apparent teachings of their religion and how they don’t actually seem to believe in or follow them. In many cases, it almost sounds as if I am arguing for them to be more fundamentalist, to move towards the other end of the spectrum! What I am really aiming for, though, is for them to see the huge disconnect between the actual doctrine of the religion they claim to follow, and their personal moral intuition which they act on most of the time. I am trying to say: if, deep down, you don’t really think these factual claims reflect actual facts, why do you feel like you are a part of this religion in the first place? (You may have also heard this sentiment expressed as, “Put up or shut up.”)

In the blogging world, these opposite approaches get muddled together. One post might focus on one end of the spectrum, and the next might focus on the other. When you argue against the literalist approach, liberal religious people will respond by saying that no True Believer would actually take every ancient and mistranslated detail seriously. The same will happen when you argue against the liberal approach; again people decide you are misrepresenting the ideas of True Believers. This is, as I was saying in my earlier post, one of the hazards of debating with groups that have thousands of different sects.

So my message is really twofold. One part is advice to atheists who argue with believers, both on the internet and in real life. Know where on the spectrum your conversation is taking place, and make it clear whose claims you are addressing. Don’t overgeneralize. Asserting that you have won more ground than you actually did will just make your real victories look less legitimate.

The second part is to believers. When we argue against both extremes of the spectrum, we are not being incoherent in our message. We are not telling fundamentalists that they should reject their scriptures, and also telling liberals that they should become fundamentalists. Please understand that, no matter which version of being a True Believer you think is compelling, no matter where on this spectrum you fall — we are arguing that you should get off the spectrum altogether.