I had to a while back. I decided to look at what I actually beleived as a result of what I have been told/taught. Is it true? It's a hard process to go through, it messes with your mind. Of course it will cause Ones paradigm is very difficult to shift when's it's challenged.
The fear of change is very powerful. It brings a whole new reality to you.
Good for you, Bill! It is indeed a hard process. It does indeed mess with your mind. But when you emerge from the swamp, you have a set of beliefs in which you
really believe, not merely pretend to believe, and that will sustain you in times of crisis. When I lost my first wife to breast cancer, we were delighted to find that the belief systems we had put in place long
before her illness did indeed sustain us throughout the seven years she lived (and afterward, in my case). Everyone, from close family members to her doctors, was amazed at her ability to face this difficult situation head-on - and it was because she didn't have to frantically invent a belief system on the fly after learning she didn't have long to live (or discover to her dismay that a "pretend" belief system she had never really thought about collapsed like a house of cards in the face of death). I am secure in the handful of things that I strongly believe - some of which would be unaffected even if Christianity were conclusively proven to be a fraud - but I will continue to challenge my belief system until the day I depart this life. (For example, I am thoroughly convinced we live in a designed universe and of the survival of consciousness after bodily death, neither of which hinges on Christianity being true.)
In your fourth paragraph you say that we cannot know which paradigm is correct while on this side of the grave. Are you saying that we cannot know which religion is true or that each person believes his own religion of choice is the true one?
I find Christianity to be different from every other religion.
I'm saying both. The Great Divide, as I see it, is between those who believe in some higher reality and those who don't - materialistic atheists being "those who don't." (Atheists would quickly point out that some of them do believe in a higher reality, just not a God - which is why this sort of atheist tends to be more kindly disposed toward a religion like Buddhism than toward Christianity.) I have a very intelligent, educated friend who believes we are virtual creatures existing within a cosmic software program created by what he calls the Source. He thus is on the same side of the Great Divide as me, whereas Dawkins isn't. Can I actually say I
know he is wrong? No, I don't think so. Can I actually say I
know a Buddhist - or, for that matter, an atheist - is wrong? No, I don't think so.
When we say we "know" Christianity is true, we either mean we are "firmly convinced" it is or that we have had an experience of God that constitutes direct knowledge (the born-again experience, the baptism of the Spirit, a startling answer to prayer, or whatever). But this latter sense of "knowing" is exactly what my antagonist on the IANDS board was claiming: She
knew the Ultimate Truth because she had experienced it during her NDE, whereas I had not. Never mind that I had had some fairly startling Christian experiences and some other quite weird anomalous experiences of my own. Never mind that other NDE experiencers did not believe the same things she did. Never mind any of it - because she
knew and we didn't. As I kept pointing out, her "knowledge" was valid only for her; it carried no weight whatsoever for anyone else, and there was no way of determining whether it corresponded to reality.
I never say I "know" Christianity is true. On the basis of a great deal of life experience, observation and study, I am "firmly convinced" that Christianity is the best explanation of reality I am going to find. My "life experience" includes, as I have suggested, some anomalous experiences that I would consider "direct knowledge" of the spiritual realm as well as some Christian experiences that I would consider "direct knowledge" of God. I also rely to a considerable degree on intuition, which the sages of all religions have taught is the most reliable way to grasp the divine (in a Christian context, intuition might be viewed as the "still small voice" of the Spirit). With all of this, however, I do not "know" Christianity is true in the same way I know my Ford is sitting in my garage. I cannot demonstrate to you or even to myself that my claims about Christianity correspond to reality in the same way I can demonstrate my claim about my Ford corresponds to reality. I recognize there is at least
some possibility Christianity is not true at all, or not true in the way I now understand it. I can live with this element of ambiguity and uncertainty.
I agree Christianity is different from every other religion in the sense of God reaching down to humans as opposed to humans trying to reach up to God. It is, we believe, a revelation by God to us. It is also different from every other religion in recognizing that we are fallen creatures living in a fallen creation. This is, to me, one of the most convincing things about Christianity - it is counterintuitive (not what we would expect if humans were inventing a self-congratulatory religion) and does the best job of any religion I have found in explaining how the world in which I live actually works (i.e., not very well, because we are fallen creatures in a fallen creation). Nevertheless, is it
possible it is false, in whole or in part? Certainly. Is it
possible I am misunderstanding or misinterpreting my own experiences? Of course. Do I
know it is true in the same way I know my Ford is in my garage? No, I don't. Thus, I limit my claim to being "firmly convinced" rather than "knowing." If someone here insists he "knows" - OK, fine, but bear in mind you're going to have a difficult time engaging in a rational discussion with someone else who insists he "knows" something entirely different from you.
