Why I Identify as Agnostic

Growing up in the Christian faith I’ve always felt conflicted, as so many do.  Trying to wrap my head around a faith and a God that felt detached from the real, everyday world we live in.  Trying to hang on to my salvation while wondering if I ever really had it.  Wondering if I had enough “faith” to be saved.  Feeling as though I was unworthy - guilty for being human and born in the free world.  Never penitent enough.  Never worshipful enough of a God I’ve never met.  Trying to reconcile all the questions swirling in the back of my mind.  

Finally, I’ve reached a point this last decade or so where I’m comfortable with no longer labeling myself as a Christian, because I suppose I’m not.  I fall firmly into the camp of religious agnosticism.  I still lapse into some of the old habits.  I still have doubts one way or another.  But as a human being with a functional mind capable of critical thinking, I can’t keep running in these faulty logic loops.  

What follows is an unprompted, partial list of my mind’s objections to continuing a life of (Christian) religious faith.  It’s not meant as an attack on anyone, just an explanation of how I’ve arrived here.  Identifying as agnostic means admitting you don’t know some things.  I think there are a lot of religious people who need to admit the same thing and reconcile their subconscious doubts with their public personas.  It’s OK to admit we don’t have all the answers.  

So here we go.  A few reasons why I’m agnostic:

1. The central principle of Christian Redemption makes no sense to me.
   
   “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”  Sounds nice, and yes that does initially sound like a good deal:  just come to Jesus and be forgiven of all sins.  But what about the flip side?  What happens to those who don’t believe in Jesus as their Lord and Savior?  Condemned to hell, many Christians will tell you.  So now salvation isn’t based on how you treat people, but on religious nepotism.  I find that patently unfair.  What about children born in places with no access to biblical teachings?  What if you’re born into a society where you’ve been conditioned to believe in another religion?  Or what if you’re living somewhere where Christian belief is punishable by death?  Should we really believe that a child need risk death, imprisonment or becoming an outcast in order to find salvation, when it’s so much easier for us lucky Westerners with religious freedom?  Should such people be condemned to hell if they aren’t “brave enough” to martyr themselves?  I should hope not.  Such a double-standard is barbaric.
   
   And what of the free-thinkers who merely seek evidence?  Those who believe in studying different religions, philosophies and metaphysical possibilities in the name of self-growth.  Are they too condemned to hell?  Ridiculous, in my mind.  Like so many other questions of faith, I find this Christian dogma incompatible with my life’s experience and reasoning (to be fair, not all Christians believe in such a fire and brimstone interpretation of judgment and the afterlife).  
   
   I saw a church sign a few years back with a weekly message written using the familiar changeable letter sign.  It read (I may be paraphrasing slightly), “When it comes to salvation, it’s not what you know but who you know that counts.”  Obviously, the sign was meant to bring people to Jesus since he’s the one you “need to know” (*wink wink*).  Well, the sign had the opposite effect on me.  It encapsulated my main objection with Christian redemption: that the difference between salvation and damnation could be decided by whether you’re friends with the right person at work.    
   
   
2. I find no evidence for the historical accuracy of the Bible.
   
   Back in college when I was still firmly a Christian but struggling with long-standing questions of logic in my head, I read Lee Strobel’s “The Case for Christ”, an apologetic book that claims to make the logical fact-based case for Christ’s existence based on evidence gathered by the author (a self-proclaimed former atheist and skeptic).  Reading this book was supposed to help me bolster my faith.  It had the opposite effect.  Strobel never really investigated as a skeptic, as almost everyone he interviewed was a Christian scholar, and he took all of them at their word with only softball cross-examination.  Much of his case seems to rely on proving that the Bible is an actual historical document (such as Homer’s The Odyssey, etc.), but he never does anything to prove the actual accuracy of what was written (he glosses over the fact that the gospels were written decades later after being handed down through oral storytelling), and gives short shrift to the well-reasoned theory that at least one if not two of the four gospels were adapted from the other two, as opposed to being their own eyewitness accounts.  The fact that certain books were left on the cutting room floor when it was decided what would or would not constitute the Bible is casually dismissed with circular arguments.  Strobel never actually questions anything or interviews any actual skeptics.  The entire thing reeks of desperately trying to justify a foregone conclusion, as opposed to objective investigative journalism (and remember I was a Christian at the time).  I could go on and on, but suffice it to say that other much better read and respected people have already written thorough rebuttals.  (You can find one here:  http://infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel-rev.html)
    
   
3. The Bible is riddled with inescapable contradictions.
   
   I’m not going to attempt to list them.  There are tons of resources on the internet. Such as:  
   
   http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#contradictions
   
   http://www.answering-christianity.com/101_bible_contradictions.htm
   
   And for those who may argue that these sources are taking quotes out of context, I’d argue that firstly, it’s hard to take a lot of this out of context, and secondly, when I read through the entire Bible it was impossible for my mind to find congruence between many specific quotes or core concepts.  I think this is something many Christians struggle with.  But like I used to do, they fear losing faith and accept the weak rationalizations given by apologetic authors, preachers, Sunday-school teachers and family.
    
   
4. It makes no sense that salvation should be based on following a faith that many are never exposed to (through no fault of their own).
   
   I touched on this in my first point, so I’ll only elaborate a bit here.  If salvation through Jesus is so important, why hasn’t everyone in the world been exposed to the good word?  There are 1.7 billion Muslims in the world.  There are over 1 billion Hindus.  Are they all going to hell?  How is that fair?  If it’s so important to God, then why doesn’t he come down and give the whole world a message?  He certainly had no problem performing miracles in the past, we’re told.  So why not now?  
   
   One explanation/rationalization I’ve heard is that people who haven’t had a chance to hear the good news still have a chance to make it to heaven.  But if that’s the case, why even bother proselytizing to anyone?  Why do they get to face judgement based solely on their actions rather than their beliefs, while the rest of us must pass the faith test?  And what exactly will they be judged on?  No one ever has a good answer for any of that, of course.  And why should they?  It’s ridiculous.  As many people point out, we're all atheists with regards to every religion but our own.
   
   
5. The Bible condones or condemns activities or “lifestyles” in complete contradiction to what I believe based on reason and evidence.
   
   I’ll start with the obvious one:  homosexuality.  Growing up as a Gen-X Christian in a rather conservative area, like so many I bought into the party line that “homosexuality is a sin.”  I agreed (absentmindedly) that gays probably shouldn’t be allowed to marry or adopt.  But as I grew older, like so many others I softened my stance.  Meeting actual gay people (they exist!) helped changed my mind.  Reading about the ever-growing catalog of studies showing that homosexuality is normal, and that gays make fine parents helped, as well.  And of course, learning to think for myself and asking objective logical questions ultimately brought me around to the viewpoint of full equality advocacy.  It took me much longer to get there than I would care to admit.  But I can say with 100%  certainty that I know in both my mind and my heart that we shouldn’t treat gay people any differently than straight people.  So how do I reconcile this with current conservative Christian Dogma (based on selected Bible verses) that still clings with all its might to the assertion that homosexuality is unnatural, “sinful”, and completely undesirable? (While ignoring any similar judgments relative to their own lifestyles, of course.)  The short answer is:  I don’t.  It’s further evidence that the Bible (especially the Old Testament) is a poor moral compass.  
   
   Another obvious example is slavery.  We all know that slavery is abhorrent.  Yet the Bible pretty much condones it.  Sure, there is one (ONE!) verse in the New Testament where a brief mention is made about punishment for slaveholders, but that’s it.  There are countless other Bible verses where slavery is not only treated as normal, but not necessarily evil (Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:2-6, Exodus 21:7-11, Exodus 21:20-21,...).  Why is it that a book with around 700,000 words (and countless, pointless laws on what to eat, what to wear, how to worship in the temple...) can't spare one paragraph to specifically outlaw slavery?
    
   And finally, just to add another one to the list:  genocide.  Old Testament God loves to kill, either directly or through the hands of his chosen people.  When remembering the story of Noah, the first thing that usually comes to mind is the Ark filled with two of every kind of animal to continue each species (a rather ridiculous story, when you think about it).  But of course, the reason for the Ark is the fact that God supposedly flooded the Earth, killing not only all of the animals but all people except for Noah’s family.  Seems rather arbitrarily cruel.  In 2nd Chronicles chapter 13, God delivers Israel into the hands of Judah to be routed by them to the tune of half a million casualties (it is unclear if “casualties” in the biblical sense refers to only deaths or dead and wounded, but either way that sounds horrific, especially considering the state of medicine in the ancient world). 
   
   And let’s not forget the story of the Jews in Egypt and Pharaoh.  Of course I don’t condone slavery and the Jews deserved their freedom, but God’s instrument of justice seems like terrorism.  “At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well.”  Killing children to compensate for the sins of their parents is something we all recognize as barbaric.  But like the other examples, most Christians don’t give it much thought other than to rationalize it by saying, “well, it’s OK because God did it and God is righteous and just.”  Sure.  The fact is, if the God of Abraham was a human being living today who had committed such atrocities, we would be demanding he be tried and/or executed for war crimes.  This isn’t a God I can believe in without the most strenuous mental gymnastics.
    
   
6. Near Death Experiences generally contradict much of what is taught by many (fire and brimstone) Christians and theologies.   

About 9 years ago I started reading about Near Death Experiences (NDEs), as I’ve always been curious about what’s really on the other side.  Of course, there is no solid verifiable evidence for what happens after we leave this mortal coil.  However, many doctors and researchers have been working to catalog the experiences of NDE survivors (through first-hand interviews), in order to find patterns that may or may not indicate the existence of life after death.  What they’ve found is very intriguing, to say the least.  NDEs as reported by their experiencers often have many traits in common, including passing through a tunnel (and/or moving toward a light), a holographic/ultra-sensory “life review” (what many refer to as “my life passing before my eyes”), meeting deceased relatives or friends, and sometimes being given a choice to cross over some type of barrier (point of no return) or return to one’s body.  Many NDE survivors report that the experience was “more real than real”, extrasensory, or much more vivid than any dream.  Although not all NDEs contain all of the same elements, on the whole the consistencies are hard to ignore.  To be fair, there are also many people who report seeing and hearing nothing at all during NDEs (in one particular thread on reddit regarding the subject, several people reported just such an experience, which they described very consistently as “perfect sleep without dreaming”).

What else do these survivors experience?  Almost all of them report that the NDE (in particular the “life review”) is an incredibly non-judgmental experience, and that they are embraced by a warm, loving feeling.  Most return with a sense that God (or whatever being or beings is/are in charge) is a rather non-religious, non-dogmatic, non-judgmental force, as opposed to the God of Judgment that so many fire-and-brimstone religious advocates would have us believe.  If there is an afterlife and some form of God, the construct reported by so many NDE survivors seems like a much more logical (and fair) reality.

As an aside, I highly recommend the book Life After Life by Raymond Moody (he coined the term “Near Death Experience”) among other books regarding NDEs.  Even if you don’t believe in such things, it makes for a quick and thought-provoking read.

7. Many self-proclaimed Christians act in a vile, judgmental manner, completely at odds with the message that Jesus supposedly professed.
   
   This point is more of a reinforcement of my agnosticism rather than a basis, as I know human beings don't speak for God, but I'll mention it nonetheless.  And I’m not talking about the extreme cases:  the Westboro Baptist Church and the like.  No, but there are still so many examples of absolutely batshit crazy judgment and talking down to "unbelievers".  How many times have I read accounts by wait staff who say Sunday afternoons are the worst shifts because the church crowd are the worst tippers?  And leaving a bible tract with the tip (or much worst - in place of a tip), that’s just insulting.  I wonder if they’d appreciate me coming to their place of work and leaving a track on their desk every week inviting them to ask for forgiveness from Joseph Smith or the Spaghetti Monster.
   
   Unfortunately, I spend too much of my spare time at lunch reading the comments sections of news articles (yeah, I know - I need to waste less time with that).  The level of hypocritical judgment by many right wing/Christian people is absurd.  An online army of Kim Davises prowls, waiting to pounce on anyone who doesn’t display the correct puritanical behavior.  “Gays should fix themselves (it’s easy!)  and come to God.  Women on birth control?  Horrible…  Save it for marriage.  Oh, but don’t mind my and my 8 divorces!”
    
   
8. I have never felt the presence of God, or felt that any of my prayers have been answered (positively or negatively).
   
   This one is self-explanatory.  Through all the countless prayers and church services, I have yet to have a revelatory experience of any kind.  I’ve tried talking to God, over and over.  It’s always a one-way conversation.  And no, I’ve never expected to hear from God directly, like a voice in my head such as when speaking to Old Testament prophets.  But something - anything.  A vague feeling that I was heard.  A subtle sign.  
   
   I’ve heard from others who said they felt God’s presence indirectly, or God/Jesus talked to them in a dream (a Sunday school teacher of mine recounted a story of how he, as an unbeliever, came to Jesus after he was visited by him in a dream).  If these stories are genuine (and to be fair, I have no reason to feel that the people telling them were being untruthful in any way), then one must ask:  why does God talk to only a few?  Have I not been penitent enough?  (I’ve tried).  I couldn’t begin to count the number of times that I’ve prayed the sinner’s prayer in one form or another (I still do, from time to time - old habits die hard).
   
   One other thing on this subject:  I’ve heard over and over that God doesn’t always answer your prayers the way you want (“sometimes the answer is ‘no’”).  Well, I would be happy to hear a “no” every once in awhile.  But there is a big difference between being told “no” and not receiving an answer.  If you sit across from me at a table and ask me a direct question, and I just stare blankly at you, that’s not an answer.  That’s me ignoring you.  Like so many others, I still feel like I’m being ignored.
    
   
9. American Christians have a twisted, bizarre, creepy  phobia about sex.
   
   This point isn’t directed at all American Christians, but quite a few (and like item 7, it reinforces but doesn't form the basis for my agnosticism).  I’m not going to get into detail on this one because frankly, this blog post is winding on longer than I thought and I’m sure you’re sick of my diatribe (if you’re still reading at this point, I appreciate it).  I’ll just say that the perfect summation of this point for me is the fact that “Purity Balls” actually happen in this country, and they look totally creepy:
   
   (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2586036/You-married-Lord-daddy-boyfriend-Purity-Balls-girls-gift-virginity-fathers-marriage-sweep-America.html)

10. We ask our children to take it all “on faith.”
    
    “Don’t talk to strangers.”  “Don’t take their word for it.”  “Question everything.”  These are a few helpful phrases many parents may teach their kids as guidelines.  No one wants his or her  kids to be taken advantage of, nor does anyone want his kids to blindly accept conclusions without first applying critical thinking.  Except when it comes to religion.  In this one area (and only this one) we teach our children the exact opposite.  They are indoctrinated from a young age to accept a religious faith blindly and without question.  We tell them to research or create evidence to support hypotheses in science class, but then pressure them to believe a nonsensical contradictory collection of books of magic and unbelievable tales written thousands of years ago with no tangible evidence for its veracity.  
    
    Why do we make such a glaring exception for religious faith?  Sure, we always tell them they should question their beliefs and come to their own conclusions, but that’s just a ruse.  The actual intent (conscious or otherwise) is to get them to ask only the right questions - the ones that we already have canned answers/rationalizations for.  And if they don’t choose to accept those flimsy explanations, well, a not-so-subtle undercurrent of swarmy judgement and social ostracism may be waiting for them on the other side.
    
    

There it is.  End of essay.  When I die, I may not know much but hopefully I’ll be willing to admit that I didn’t know it all (maybe barely anything).  None of us know for sure what’s on the other side.  To those who would say otherwise, I say, “Quit acting like you do.  Quit acting like you have a direct line to God’s will.”

At the risk of sounding preachy and judgmental (I never said I wasn’t a hypocrite), I’ll end with a quote by Clarence Darrow which sums up quite nicely what I am too clumsy with words to succinctly express:

“I do not consider it an insult, but rather a compliment to be called an agnostic. I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure — that is all that agnosticism means.”