The End of Christianity Read Free Page B

justified standard for evaluating one's own religious faith. At that point, Christians can no longer continually punt to faith when critically evaluating the grounds for their own particular Christian sect, since that is not how they critically evaluate the many other religions they reject. They don't let other religions get away with that, so they can't let themselves get away with it, either. What we're left with is an agreed-upon standardized test in assessing the grounds for any religion based in reason and evidence. At that point, the debate can really begin. Prior to this, there wasn't a debate at all but rather two opposing sides talking past one another. Afterward, believers should welcome the skeptic's point of view and even seek us out.
    From then on, there can be no more quoting the Bible as a final authority without examining the reasons and the evidence for doing so all over again. No more repeatedly using what I call the “Omniscience Escape Clause,” which is invoked whenever there is an intractable difficulty, such as that found in passages like Isaiah 55:8: “‘My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the Lord.” Why? Because we must be able to understand enough of God's ways to know that he exists, that he knows what he's doing, and that his ways are good. Most importantly, the problem of who has the burden of proof will have been resolved as well. For then it's agreed that the person with the burden of proof is the one making an extraordinary claim about supernatural beings and forces. All these things are good, and I welcome them if this argument achieves nothing else.
    I would proceed to argue from here that Christians who bite this bullet are not actually testing their religion fairly. The impact of the OTF disallows a person from assuming faith in the religion under scrutiny. Having faith in a religion while assessing it will unfairly exempt that religion from an objective critical evaluation. Believers cannot claim to critically evaluate their own faith in a fair manner if when doing so they have their thumbs on the weight scales.
    I would further argue that Christians are just fooling themselves when faced with the facts apart from their faith. Fooling themselves? Could that be? Yep. This is exactly what cognitive dissonance theory predicts. According to conclusive scientific studies in this area of research, we believe what we prefer to be true. Once our minds are made up, it is very hard to change them. 4 We seek to justify our decisions, especially the costly ones in terms of commitment, money, effort, time, and inconvenience. Almost shockingly, these studies have shown us that reading information that goes against our point of view can actually make us convinced we are right. We will even take the lack of evidence as evidence for what we believe. Social psychologists Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson document these types of things in their book Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts. They tell us: “Most people, when directly confronted with proof that they are wrong, do not change their point of view or course of action but justify it even more tenaciously.” 5
    This is backed up by the conclusion derived from a series of studies in 2005 and 2006 by researchers at the University of Michigan:
    Facts don't necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite…when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts…were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger. 6
    Christian, the mental pain you may feel as you read this book is called cognitive dissonance. To reduce it you must make a choice, and cognitive dissonance theory predicts you will