Intellectual doubt Archives

Tag Archive for: Intellectual doubt

The Need for Cognitive Closure in Dealing with Doubts

Over the years in my work as a public apologist, I have spoken with many dozens of ex-Christians who have renounced their faith and become atheists, as well as numerous individuals who still consider themselves believers but nonetheless are struggling seriously with intellectual doubts concerning the veracity of the Christian faith. In addition, I have watched literally hundreds of YouTube videos wherein a testimony is given of one’s journey out of the Christian faith towards atheism. Through listening to countless people in this situation, I have come to realize how difficult it is for believers to express to members of their church or Christian community that they are struggling with doubts (presumably because to express that one struggles with doubt carries a negative stigma in many churches today).

Struggling with Doubt?

God has therefore placed a burden on my heart for Christians who wrestle with doubts, and I have for several years offered a free service for Christians who wrestle with intellectual doubts. There is a form on my website people can fill out and I endeavor to set up a meeting (normally online) with them to discuss their doubts in confidence.

One of the things I try to do when counseling someone who is walking through doubt is to help them to develop a protocol for managing doubt in an intellectually responsible way and to make them aware of intellectual pitfalls that can ensnare the unwary. In this and future articles, I want to unpack some of those common pitfalls.

Needing Closure?

There is a phenomenon in psychology, which can be an impediment to sound critical thinking. That is, the need for cognitive closure. Wikipedia defines it this way:

Closure or need for closure (NFC) (used interchangeably with need for cognitive closure (NFCC)) are social psychological terms that describe an individual’s desire for a firm answer to a question and an aversion toward ambiguity. The term “need” denotes a motivated tendency to seek out information.

Different people have varying levels of tolerance for mystery and ambiguity. Individuals with a high need for cognitive closure are more prone to walk away from the Christian faith than individuals with a lower need. For some people, in order to be content within one’s worldview, satisfactory answers must exist to all possible questions and objections that might be raised against it.

It is important, however, that we do not become too fixated on the objections to Christianity that we miss the forest for the trees, losing sight of the avalanche of positive confirmatory evidence that cumulatively demonstrates that Christianity is true. Because we have such robust reasons to think Christianity is true, we can justifiably say,

“I don’t know why God permits so much suffering in the world. But I have enough reasons to believe in the God of the Bible and that He is good that I am willing to trust that there is some morally sufficient explanation for why there is so much suffering, even if I do not yet know what that explanation is.”

Does the problem of evil, by itself, discredit Christianity?

Indeed, the argument from evil, especially natural evil, has been wielded as a cumulative counter-case that competes with the case offered in confirmation of Christianity. An important point to bear in mind when dealing with this subject, however, is that successive pieces of evidence are dependent rather than independent. To see this, suppose that we were to make a long list of specific cases of human and animal suffering for which we do not see any obvious purpose. Let us call them E1, E2, …, En. If we were to take one of them (say, E1) and ask how it affects the probabilities of theism (T) and atheism (~T), then we might say P(E1|~T)/P(E1|T) = k, where k >>1. For the sake of argument, let us suppose that k = 100. That is to say, the probability of E1 is 100 times greater given the falsehood of theism than given its being true. In order to make the cumulative case, we need to bring in additional pieces of evidence. But do they have the same epistemic force as the first one did? This is not at all clear. After all, if God were to have, however unexpectedly, some morally sufficient reason for permitting E1, then it is quite reasonable to expect that God might well have a similar reason for permitting E2, and so forth. The pieces of evidence are all fundamentally similar, all being instances of the suffering of conscious beings. But if God has a morally sufficient reason for one, that same justification may well also explain a host of other similar cases. Now contrast this to the cumulative case for the truth of theism and indeed Christianity. Not only is it extensive, but it is also varied in kind. It is therefore much more difficult to conceive of there being a single alternative explanation for a widely varied evidence that would all be expected if the hypothesis in question were true. It is for this reason that I submit that counter-evidence such as the problem of evil be considered not in isolation but within the broader context of the overall evidence taken as a whole.

What about Evidence Doesn’t Seem to Fit?

Scientific theories often have evidence both supporting and conflicting with it. But anomalous data should not automatically overhaul a well-supported theory, even if a satisfactory explanation of the anomalous data has not yet been proposed. Likewise, I would argue, the strength and varied nature of the positive evidence for Christianity should cause us to expect that explanations of the anomalous data, for which we do not yet have a satisfactory account within the framework of the Christian worldview, in fact exists — even though we do not yet know what that explanation is.

The English rhetorician, logician, economist, academic, and theologian Richard Whately (1787-1863) put it this way:

“Similar to this case is that which may be called the Fallacy of objections; i.e. showing that there are objections against some plan, theory, or system, and thence inferring that it should be rejected; when that which ought to have been proved is, that there are more, or stronger objections, against the receiving than the rejecting of it. This is the main, and almost universal Fallacy of anti-christians; and is that of which a young Christian should be first and principally warned. They find numerous ‘objections’ against various parts of Scripture; to some of which no satisfactory answer can be given; and the incautious hearer is apt, while his attention is fixed on these, to forget that there are infinitely more, and stronger objections against the supposition, that the Christian Religion is of human origin; and that where we cannot answer all objections, we are bound, in reason and in candour, to adopt the hypothesis which labours under the least.

That the case is as I have stated, I am authorized to assume, from this circumstance,—that no complete and consistent account has ever been given of the manner in which the Christian Religion, supposing it a human contrivance, could have arisen and prevailed as it did. And yet this may obviously be demanded with the utmost fairness of those who deny its divine origin. The Religion exists; that is the phenomenon. Those who will not allow it to have come from God, are bound to solve the phenomenon on some other hypothesis less open to objections. They are not, indeed, called on to prove that it actually did arise in this or that way; but to suggest (consistently with acknowledged facts) some probable way in which it may have arisen, reconcilable with all the circumstances of the case. That infidels have never done this, though they have had 1800 years to try, amounts to a confession, that no such hypothesis can be devised, which will not be open to greater objections than lie against Christianity.” [i]

Indeed, there is no shame for a Christian in having unanswered questions. The question is not “are there questions about Christianity for which there are no satisfactory answers?” Rather, the question is, “are there more numerous and more substantive objections to believing the gospel or to disbelieving the gospel?” Every worldview has its share of unanswered questions. Rejecting Christianity because there are unanswered questions in favor of an alternative worldview that raises even more numerous and more substantive unanswered questions does not resolve the problem.

Every worldview has its share of unanswered questions.

That’s a Good Question!

I recently received an email from someone who was struggling with doubt over the question of why God creates people whom He knows for sure will choose to reject Him and will therefore end up estranged from God’s favorable presence in the hereafter. This is a very good question, and I do not believe anyone really knows the answer since we lack complete information about the relationship between divine sovereignty, divine foreknowledge, and human free will, etc. If Christianity is true, however, we would not be expected to have answers to most questions like this. So, the fact that we do not, in fact, have answers to such questions does not, I would argue, really count as a serious blow against Christianity.

Note that saying we wouldn’t be expected to have answers is quite different from saying that the questions are unanswerable. That is why many Christians get drawn into a speculative response (i.e. “perhaps it is because…”). There is nothing wrong with such responses per se. But precisely because we do not know, we should not get too invested in such speculations. Nor should we treat their failure as signifying something grave.

“Help My Kid is Deconstructing!” [CE Podcast]

Difficult questions about God’s sovereignty and salvation program must always be accompanied by a consideration of the plausibility that there is some answer to those questions that has not been disclosed to us, is beyond our finite ability to comprehend, or simply has not occurred to us. In other words, is it a problem that overhauls the vast confirmatory evidence for Christianity and thereby warrants rejection of the Christian faith, or is it a question with which we can live contentedly in the absence of an answer? An unanswered question is not the same thing as an epistemic warrant for rejection of Christianity.

The atheist so frequently assumes the high ground when it comes to epistemic humility. When pressed on where the Universe or life came from the atheist typically responds “I don’t know.” They are content with not knowing. Why, then, should the same luxury not be extended to the Christian when it comes to why God has done things this or that way? We need to be willing to accept an element of mystery when it comes to divine action. Unlike God, we do not have the box top, as it were, of the jig saw, which reveals how all of the pieces are meant to fit together.

Therefore, we just ought to trust God that he knows what He is doing. As the Proverb states, “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths” (Proverbs 3:5-6).

Footnotes:

[i] Richard Whately, Elements of Logic, 9th ed. (London: Longmans, Green, Reader, & Dyer, 1870), pp. 144-45.

Why Your Kids May Become Atheists No Matter What You Do (and Why That Shouldn’t Discourage You)

Apologetics for Parents

By Natasha Crain

My 5-year-old and I were playing the game Connect Four the other day and, for the first time ever, she was in a position to beat me. I absolutely won’t let my kids win a game for the sake of winning, but when I see that they’ve gotten into a position to win on their own, I’m willing to point it out (yes, I am that generous).

All my daughter had to do was put her checker in a specific spot and it would guarantee a win on her next turn.

I excitedly explained, “You’re going to win! You did it on your own! I didn’t let you win at all! Look. If you play right here, you are going to win on your next turn no matter where I play next.”

She looked at it a minute and realized I was right. A guaranteed win if she played where I showed her.

Then she played somewhere else.

I was flabbergasted that my little girl, who has long been desperate to beat me at Connect Four, didn’t take the guaranteed road to victory. I literally couldn’t understand it.

I blurted out, “What are you doing?! You FINALLY could have really beaten mommy! WHY didn’t you play where I showed you?”

She shrugged, then replied, “Because I wanted to play over here.”

Reminder: Our Kids Aren’t Purely Rational Creatures

My daughter’s response was positively maddening because it was so illogical. Why give up the win just because you “want” to play somewhere else? It didn’t make sense.

But it made me reflect on the fact that humans are not purely rational creatures. There are all kinds of reasons why we make the decisions we make, and that includes the decisions we make about our spiritual life.

This is precisely why, no matter what we do, our kids may become atheists.

If you’ve been reading my blog for a while, you know I’m passionate about equipping Christian parents with an understanding of secular challenges and helping them address these with their kids. I strongly believe that if we aren’t intentional in how we disciple kids today, we are failing them in the most important area of their lives. So does it sound contradictory that I’m now saying no matter what we do, our kids may become atheists?

It shouldn’t.

It’s simply an acknowledgment that even when we line up the checkers of truth and point clearly to how our kids can “win” spiritually, they may choose to do something else.

Dr. Gary Habermas has offered a framework that further illuminates this reality. He suggests there are three kinds of spiritual doubt that people deal with in determining their faith:

Intellectual doubt is doubt about the facts of Christianity. It’s when you question the information you have and/or are presented with new information that makes you question it. The intellectual challenges to faith are everywhere today, having been brought to the public’s attention by vocal atheists like Richard Dawkins.
Emotional doubt is doubt created by subjective feelings that aren’t necessarily tied to the facts. For example, your child may understand 1 million important facts about the truth of Christianity, but after he or she loses a friend to a terrible disease, none of those facts may matter. The looming emotional question of why God could allow such a thing may be beyond the reach of all the intellectual reasoning in the world (at least for a period of time).
Volitional doubt is choosing to doubt even when one doesn’t have apparently reasonable cause to do so. It’s analogous to my daughter choosing to play in the wrong place just because that’s what she wanted to do. Pride is a significant factor here.

Research shows that the exodus of youth from Christianity today is primarily due to intellectual barriers to faith (see David Kinnaman’s You Lost Me, for example). Kids are leaving home unprepared with basic facts and information about why there is good reason to believe Christianity is true and are subsequently losing their faith when they are presented with compelling information that challenges what they previously believed.

There is no excuse for Christian parents allowing their kids to leave home subject to so many intellectual doubts.

First Peter 3:15 tells us that we should all be prepared to give a reason for the hope we have. Not just people who happen to have a Master’s degree in Theology or Apologetics. Not just people who happen to have some time and energy left over after taking their kids to their 13^th extra-curricular activity for the week. All of us.

My book, Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side: 40 Conversations to Help Them Build a Lasting Faith, is written explicitly for that purpose: to give parents the critical information they need to equip their kids with so their kids can encounter intellectual challenges with confidence.

Does that mean our kids won’t become atheists, as long as we give them enough information? Of course not. Remember, there are still emotional and volitional doubts that are part of the picture (as well as intellectual doubts that some will continue to have). We can help them build a lasting faith, but ultimately their faith is not in our control.

That said, we should never be discouraged away from putting all we can into our kids’ spiritual development. Here’s why.

(The following is an excerpt from the final paragraphs of my book.)

The time and consideration we give to our kids’ faith development is an investment, not a purchase.

With a purchase, a person gives with the expectation of a certain and specific return.

With an investment, a person makes contributions, knowing that there is also a risk of that investment not resulting in the desired outcome.

Make no mistake: It’s an investment of our training efforts that God has asked us to make with our kids (Deuteronomy 6:6-7). There are no guaranteed outcomes, as with a purchase. For a long time, I didn’t fully grasp that difference. I envisioned certain outcomes for my children based on the effort I was putting into their spiritual development. When they didn’t live up to my expectations, it resulted in my frustration and even anger. It made me not want to do anything more because it didn’t seem worth it.

Then I realized one day that I was pursuing results as if I could purchase those outcomes with the currency of my efforts. I was immediately convicted of the error in that thinking and realized I needed to become an investor. I felt liberated—newly free to do the job God has given me without the burden and illusion of control.

So go be an investor. Put in all you’ve got. Then pray that God will take that and make it grow, all for His glory.