In my last post, I revealed that I am no longer a Christian. I explained that my faith had been slowly dying over many years and, despite my sincerest efforts to resurrect its validity, it could no longer serve as a means of understanding the world around me. I intended my post to be an honest declaration more than anything else, the first tentative steps into a new world lined with the uncertainty of reactions from both friend and foe alike. My intent was not to expound on the reasons for my apostasy or dwell on the minutiae of every single argument used to justify my decision any more than was necessary to simply make this announcement. After all, few people quote Kierkegaard at their Baptism. Still, this rather modest confession was an apparent affront to one reader who seemed to take issue with my decision. He deduced that my deconversion could not have come from a sincere attempt to find truth, but (rather ironically) from intellectual apathy to the point where I had simply discarded my faith arbitrarily at the discretion of my whims. Initially I was taken aback by such a condemnation. After all, to disagree with the conclusions someone has drawn on a particular issue is one thing, but to question his sincerity of discerning truth is another matter altogether. To attack a man's ideas is to challenge his intellect, but to attack his sincerity is to question his character. It is not the sort of indictment anyone should level against another without first understanding both the nature of the person they are attacking and their own motivations for doing so.
And now to address my assailant directly:
To the former, you have no knowledge. You don't know anything about me other than what you have read in one blog post. As for the latter, I have my suspicions. Only someone who is emotionally invested in a particular issue has any reason to stray from the matter at hand into the realm of personal attacks. When someone becomes emotionally invested in a position, no amount of empirical evidence or rational arguments to the contrary can ever dissuade them from their original stance. By attacking my character, you revealed the most obvious flaw in the arguments you believe give credibility to your position. You revealed a bias. And no truth, no matter how obvious, can ever penetrate the roadblocks erected to "block the path of inquiry".
In the next few posts, I will respond to each charge my accuser has leveled against me. His words will be highlighted in red while mine shall remain in black. At the end of my rebuttal, you can judge for yourself whether or not I have made my case regarding God's existence. Perhaps I shall convince you of my position, perhaps not. But as for the other pronouncement against me, that I am somehow insincere in my desire to know truth, I welcome any challenge without hesitation. All of my careful deliberations and words of reflection amount to nothing if my character does not stand. Though I may one day succumb to timidity and pass through the quiet doors of deference in all else, in the face of this challenge I will relent to no man.
No comments:
Post a Comment