For me, I’d already absorbed all the right arguments against my religion, as well as several years’ worth of assiduously devouring the counterarguments (which were weak, but good enough to push back my doubts each time). What pushed me over the edge, the bit of this that I reinvented for myself, was:
“What would I think about these arguments if I hadn’t already committed myself to faith?”
Once I asked myself those words, it was clear where I was headed. I’ve done my best to remember them since.
Why would this question be relevant? Let’s say that the answer is “I would think that the arguments in favour of religion are stupid”. What is that supposed to prove?
I used to believe, as do many Christians, that an open-hearted truthseeker will become convinced of the existence of the true God once they are exposed. To say otherwise makes missionary work seem rather manipulative (albeit still important for saving souls). More importantly, the principle is well attested in Christian thought and in the New Testament (Jesus with Nicodemus, Paul with the Athenians, etc).
There are and have been world religions that don’t evangelize because they don’t have the same assumption, but Christianity in particular is greatly wounded if that assumption proves false.
Oh, so then the question should be “What would I think about these arguments if I hadn’t already committed myself to faith and I were an open-hearted truthseeker?”. Your claim is that: 1) such a person should consider arguments for the Christian faith to be good, on balance (otherwise “Christianity is greatly wounded”), and 2) such a person often would not consider arguments for the Christian faith to be good.
Why do you believe (2)? That is, how can you know what a sincere seeker is going to think of any particular argument? Or, even worse, about all the arguments so that they can decide which theory is more probable on the balance?
I met unbelievers who found some arguments convincing and others who found them unconvincing, but there is no way for me to know if any of them were open-hearted truthseekers. If doctrine (1) is true, it’s just not an empirically verifiable doctrine, since there is no observation by means of which you could determine even your own sincerity, much less that of others.
For me, I’d already absorbed all the right arguments against my religion, as well as several years’ worth of assiduously devouring the counterarguments (which were weak, but good enough to push back my doubts each time). What pushed me over the edge, the bit of this that I reinvented for myself, was:
“What would I think about these arguments if I hadn’t already committed myself to faith?”
Once I asked myself those words, it was clear where I was headed. I’ve done my best to remember them since.
Why would this question be relevant? Let’s say that the answer is “I would think that the arguments in favour of religion are stupid”. What is that supposed to prove?
I used to believe, as do many Christians, that an open-hearted truthseeker will become convinced of the existence of the true God once they are exposed. To say otherwise makes missionary work seem rather manipulative (albeit still important for saving souls). More importantly, the principle is well attested in Christian thought and in the New Testament (Jesus with Nicodemus, Paul with the Athenians, etc).
There are and have been world religions that don’t evangelize because they don’t have the same assumption, but Christianity in particular is greatly wounded if that assumption proves false.
Oh, so then the question should be “What would I think about these arguments if I hadn’t already committed myself to faith and I were an open-hearted truthseeker?”. Your claim is that:
1) such a person should consider arguments for the Christian faith to be good, on balance (otherwise “Christianity is greatly wounded”), and
2) such a person often would not consider arguments for the Christian faith to be good.
Why do you believe (2)? That is, how can you know what a sincere seeker is going to think of any particular argument? Or, even worse, about all the arguments so that they can decide which theory is more probable on the balance?
I met unbelievers who found some arguments convincing and others who found them unconvincing, but there is no way for me to know if any of them were open-hearted truthseekers. If doctrine (1) is true, it’s just not an empirically verifiable doctrine, since there is no observation by means of which you could determine even your own sincerity, much less that of others.
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/is-gods-existence-evident-to-every-sincere-seeker