Loading...When the new blog site launched a week ago I decided to start off with five of my favorite posts from each of the first five years of the blog. And then someone asked me: why just the first five? Why not the more recent four? And I replied: I don’t know – I didn’t think about it! But now I have and have decided: why not?
So here is number six of five favorite posts, this one from 2017. It’s more of a personal topic, but it’s one that I know a lot of you can resonate with: the struggle involved in moving from being a person of faith to becoming an agnostic.
******************************
I started feeling the tug toward agnosticism sometime during my Ph.D. program. I remember clearly a particular moment, and it was, somewhat ironically, while I was serving as the pastor of the Princeton Baptist Church.
Even though I was incredibly busy at the time (I was taking a full load of graduate seminars, preparing to take my PhD exams, serving as a Teaching Assistant for a class taught by Bruce Metzger, AND serving as the pastor of the church) I enjoyed the ministry very much. Well, parts of the ministry. I have never enjoyed transition rituals very much: baptisms, weddings, funerals, and the like. And of course, pastoring a church involves doing such things. And I wasn’t thrilled with visiting the sick – I was a bit out of my depth on that one. But I did very much enjoy interactions with the people I worked within the church, and I especially liked preaching nearly every week.
I remember thinking at the time, though, that being actively engaged in the church was “saving my faith.” I had the strong sense that if I didn’t have to stand in front of a congregation every week to direct worship, say prayers, preach sermons, and so on, that I would probably be moving away from my faith. With people depending on me and looking up to me, I really couldn’t afford to think seriously about whether I still believed all this or not. I had to believe it. It wasn’t that I was being hypocritical. It’s that I knew I was putting off some serious thinking about issues that were central to my life and being.
When I stopped pastoring the church (it was only a one year gig), my mind was freed up to think deeper and deeper about my faith, and I started wondering if I could keep on believing.
One of the major issues for me will be the topic of later posts: I was wondering – the most basic question of all — whether I could really believe there was any kind of God who was active in the world or not.
As I began to wonder, I felt the pull of certain forces …
It’s easy to see the rest of this post! Join the blog. It’s easy and cheap, and every penny you pay goes to charity. No downside!
One other reason for holding on to your faith might have been that your readers, who trust your insights on the biblical topics that you present to us, would be influenced by your decision on whether or not to believe. But I understand you probably came to your conclusion before you became a renowned author.
As a reader, and for a long time, I honestly can’t imagine why that would make any difference to me.
I don’t know if Dr Ehrman’s decision was made more difficult or not bc of his influence on others, but his books have certainly influenced me. It’s not that they influenced me to go from being a “good” Christian to what I am today, it’s more that I had a lot of questions and hang ups about Christianity and when I read his books it was like a light was turned on.
So what happened socially?
Not a whole lot, actually. Still have some of the same friends….
Leaving Christianity and the ministry were the hardest things I ever did in my life. My life, my very being was so intertwined with God, the church, the ministry. I lost all sense of self. I spent 25 years pastoring churches. I was 50 years old when I deconverted. Now what? The journey away from faith was slow — at time halting —painful, and filled with loss. Yes, I feel free, but I have a deep sense of what I lost. All my social connections and all my colleagues in the ministry were lost. I even lost Evangelical family members. They loved Jesus more than they did me (and my wife). Fortunately, my lover has been with me every step of the way — or in the same zip code, anyway.??
Bruce
https://brucegerencser.net
For me, it was just the natural thing to be agnostic, even before I knew there was such a word. My parents were lukewarm in terms of belief. My Dad was down to earth and pragmatic, my mom had a strong interest in science, and both of them were quite skeptical and quick to question things that didn’t make sense to them. So when I was a kid I never took the stuff I was told in parochial school very seriously. Science was a lot more interesting and appealing than bible stories. There was never a time when those stories didn’t seem “off” and unconvincing. Evolution made sense to me and and the bible stories seemed like comic book stuff. Science had substance to it. I shudder to think what I might have gone through and what my life might have been like if my parents had been deeply religious! Why was I in parochial school? Partly to appease a devout grandparent, and partly because the parochial school was a more sheltered environment than the public school system.
Many of my family members are active Christians, and I decided 20 years ago not to continue living as one born again. It has caused untold uncomfortable conversations with my mom specifically, but many other former friends in Christ. All said, I continue my path towards understanding and kindness, evidence and sobriety, morality and levity. I am new to this community, but I am blessed to find people who ponder the same unanswerable questions, search for the same unfindable answers. Thank you for your willingness to share what you have learned, Bart, and encouraging me (us) to not take your word but to do our own research. Peace.
I may have asked this before, but did the matter of *evidence*, either positive or negative, enter into your considerations? I.e., what’s the evidence for the existence of the supernatural order of things Christianity is based on? What’s the evidence against it? Did the incoherence of Scripture play at least a secondary role?
Absolutely. I’m an evidence guy. But there’s no “proof” the way there is for mathematics, or even for science. There are issues for which one has to weigh probabilities though.
I don’t think a negative can be proven anyway. Well, in Mathematics it might be possible. In the Social aspect most of my family basically rejected me afterwards. Same with the Amish (or just from leaving the order) –called shunning. I know a few x-Amish who are terribly scarred by that shunning.
I didn’t find becoming an agnostic was as hard as you did. In my early 20’s I was a church-going believer simply because it never occurred to me not to be. Then an Air Force chaplain one day gave “4 reasons why we know Jesus was the son of God.” None of the reasons was convincing, and for the first time I began to wonder. I vacillated for years, one day I was a believer, the next day I was not. Then I began to see that my reasons for belief were emotional; there was not a shred of objective evidence. Now I find that the pleasures of finding out what the world is really like greatly outweighs any satisfaction of believing.
The Meaning of Faith
11 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Your story resonates very much with me. I always had problems getting the conviction that many believers seem to get. Faith and belief, although used interchangeably, have separate meaning. Faith, deals with trusting in something. We get on planes to travel and trust to get there. We send our children to school and trust they will come home safe. We have medical surgery and trust the doctors don’t mess up, and so on. Trust, some have said, is at times more powerful than love. So faith in a sense, deals with trusting most things we go through in life. Belief, on the other hand, deals with accepting statement/something to be true/exists. In this view, ideologies play a big role. Whether it is philosophers, scientist, religion, psychologists, scholars and lay people, our opinions are shaped on theory/thesis of those who propose a compelling argument. At times, it may be speculative, but then who knows for sure when dealing with complex subjects and beliefs, such as the universe and our existence. So we are left to ponder what makes more sense……
….. Some will believe without evidence others will believe only through our reasoning and evidence. I think, we have over all the other animals species, the faculty of reason. We can engage in deep thinking and sort to reasonable/plausible, probabilities of what may have occurred/happened. It does not make it true. I find many great thinkers today, will say it is a difficult task to know with certainty. It it was easy, there would not be an ocean of books on the subject. Sean Carroll, once quipped in a talk, if he lived 500 years ago he would be theist, but not today. Like with many of us , we are entitled to change our minds whenever we feel a void within our reasoning. Believing in a supernatural being, greater than us, takes belief to another level. I haven’t found how many worldwide, get there. Bart, my question is this. Having originally started out believing, do you think the subject of authority and moral/ethical views, stem from a rich history of tradition and beliefs (God), that have permeated throughout time and given us a dialogue in which to live by universally or that our reasoning is our own evolution?
Sorry — I don’t understand the question. (I think there may be a grammatical problem?)
Sorry, too much thinking. What I am trying to ask is this. If the Judeo- Christian view was accepted today as an ideology, universally, would it’s tenets/ethical teachings, not help us become better people, and
act more readily in helping those who need it most,collectively, than left to our own resolve/reasoning? I hope you can understand my point.
Here’s what I would like to see a discussion of: Coping strategies for theological fence sitters.
Every so often you mention that so-and-so is a scholar of Christianity and yet remains an active church member. There are, I have heard, lots of such people. I would dearly love to know how they do it. In particular–to focus the discussion–if they could please just share what they do during the recitation of the Creed, when the only part I can honestly confess to believing is that ,”Jesus Christ was crucified, died, and was buried.”
Is there a non hypocritical option beyond mumbling, crossing your fingers, remaining silent, etc.? I should mention that I have no problem with suspension of disbelief for my favorite part of the service, singing the hymns–with all their lovely declarations of heartfelt theological foolishness. But, standing there and overtly declaring, “I BELIEVE … “, is just too much. I’ve considered ducking the issue by attending a non-confessional church. However, in my experience, they tend to be intolerably politically conservative, plus they lean towards that just god-awful, sappy modern church music thereby defeating the whole purpose for me.
Oh yes, absolutely non-hypocritical options. I’ve had several of my scholar friends post on the issue on the blog: Jeffrey Siker I think, e.g., Just do a word search for his name.
One non-hypocritical option is to simply lie.
“Hypocrisy is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another or the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform. In moral psychology, it is the failure to follow one’s own expressed moral rules and principles.”
Oh, you must not claim to never lie or imagine you are superior to those who do lie or criticize liars for lying.
This should be easy for a humble christian to do.
And you must behave as though you do believe, which should be easy. Just don’t scoff at others who do believe. The credo does not assert easily falsifiable facts. I disagree with you in that I don’t think Christ was buried. Romans would not allow the crucified to be buried. The crucified were left as public reminders of what happens to those who rebel.
Say you believe when you don’t believe. How dare anyone ask you to profess your belief in such a highly charged environment? Act as an audience member at a performance of “Peter Pan” and clap to bring Tinkerbell back to health when you don’t believe in fairies.
Hypocrite | Definition of Hypocrite by Merriam-Webster
http://www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › hypocrite
1.
2.
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion.
Thanks for the suggestion, but in a Venn diagram of their meanings, “hypocrite” and “liar” overlap enough to be equally repulsive to me. Similarly, stuck in a tomb after crucifixion is close enough to being buried that even if it didn’t happen, there’s nothing preposterous about the possibility that it COULD have happened.
It’s a brutally hard band-aid to tear off, but sometimes that’s what we have to do. I hope that, like myself, you’ve been able to maintain the relationships that were most important to you before your change of outlook.
A very moving post (and I was moved too by Bruce’s comment). I have drifted between belief and agnosticism all my life and probably find religion something of a comfort blanket. I suppose I’m one of those who buys into the ‘logic’ of Pascal’s wager, and hedges my bets (or at least sits on the fence). Thanks, Dr Ehrman
Did you ever consider progressive/liberal non-literal Christian denominations before leaving the faith? If not, why was it an all or nothing proposition?
Yup, I was in one for years! Well, two. (And I *started* in one!)
Isn’t belief an elusive thing, flitting through our experiences and thoughts? It colors some thoughts as true and we use those thoughts to guide our way through the light and dark times of our lives. I’ve been blessed to not suffer many dark times and I’ve forgotten how faith and belief are so important to some.
Thank you, Bart, for clarifying the difference between agnostic (I have no idea how to approach and test knowledge of God and Holy mysteries) and atheist (I practice no worship of any supernatural entities). Both of these facts inform my life.
I believe that I do not trust authority to simply decide and assert truths. I believe my faith is weak and uncertain and depends upon evidence to support my beliefs.
It was easy for me: I cannot remember a time when I wasn’t agnostic. My parents disliked organised religion, although both had (and in mum’s case, still has at age 97) a spiritual dimension to their make-up but it definitely was not Christian, at least in the conventional sense. However, they didn’t stop me from attending whichever church my friends at the time went to: usually the one with the best youth club! So I went to CofE; Methodist; United Reformed; Roman Catholic and, on one occasion, Pentecostalist (never again). Even in my teens I was interested in why the dogma was so different at each – not just the rituals – and that really confirmed my scepticism. I don’t share my parents antipathy to the church and will happily go along occasionally, except to those hellfire and damnation type services, for which I retain an intense dislike.
I can imagine to a degree what it must be like to wrench oneself away from adherence to a specific set of beliefs because I did that with politics when I rejected my father’s party allegiance as a 20 year old.
I was brought up with a literal view of the Bible, but have gradually pulled away from the
literalism (which somehow varies depending on the individual literalist).
A few years ago, maybe in my 50’s, I decided to read the Bible again, from an objective point of view.
I was immediately appalled by the relentless violence (in the first few chapters) ordered by God or at God’s own hands.
Though still somewhat involved with churches and trying to honor Jesus’ teachings I can no longer recite the creeds.
I just finished your Heaven & Hell book, and really like your style of writing.
And pleased that the last lines of your book seemed to confirm my evolved belief that “Eternal Life” is how we live on in the lives of the people that we impacted in life, good or bad.
Hello Dr. Ehrman,
I am you number one fan. After reading many of your works over the years, I have decided to honor “Facts over Faith.” I often write articles based on what I have learned over the years concerning the Abrahamic Religions and their origins. I know you are a very busy author, professor and humanitarian. So I turn to you.
I was writing about how the Ancient Hebrew people evolved, from being, Polytheistic to, Henotheistic to ultimately becoming Monotheistic. I was researching and can across research from Dr. Greg Herrick.
Dr. Greg Herrick, of the Dallas Theological Seminary, outlines the numerous gods of the Hebrew faiths easily found in the Canaanite Pantheon and the modern day Bible.
From further research, I surmised the Ancient Hebrew were at one time a sect of the “Phoenician-Canaanites.”
Question – Do you think this hypothesis is correct? I know that the Canaanites had the same gods’, they were in the Levant prior to the Hebrew people.
It’s a very long and complicated story. My view is that htere was not a straightforward movement from one view to another, but different views all held at the same time (though of course they didn’t all come into existence at the same time). But certainly there were Israelities who were polytheist, others who were henotheists. Monotheism is a later development, to be sure; and it’s hard to find a *lot* of it in the Hebrew Bible, surprisingly enough — though certainly in passages of 2 Isaiah, e.g., But most Israelites seem to have thought there were other gods; they just were not as great as Yahweh and were not to be worshiped.
Dr. Ehrman — I think LHJ was actually asking whether you agreed with his hypothesis that the ancient Israelites actually arose from among the Canaanites, given the shared gods (particularly “El”), etc., rather than asking about the evolution of Israelite beliefs from polytheism to monotheism. I would also be interested in your answer to that first question. I first encountered that theory from Israel Finkelstein’s book, “The Bible Unearthed,” in which he discussed the archaeological evidence that the Exodus never really happened, and stated his belief that the Israelites, instead of conquering Canaan from the outside, actually were there to begin with. His book claimed that archaeologists can even identify the strata at various dig sites where pig bones are no longer found, that mark the early transition from Canaanite to Israelite. Do you have an opinion on that theory, and/or has it withstood the test of time (Finkelstein’s subject book was published in 2001)?
PS — Thanks so much for the blog. I was a member for a couple of years, but lapsed in 2019, and just rejoined, and the site is better than ever.
Ah, thanks. Yes, I absolutely think Israelite emerged out of the broader Canaanite population. I don’t have an opinion on this particular theorem, but the book (that F. did with Silverman) is completely first-rate, and I trust them.
Going from believing in God to being an agnostic/atheist once seemed impossible for me. In my teens I believed that following God was the most important thing in life. And I believed that God was my best friend. But as I became more aware of the extreme suffering in the world, I could no longer think that was in any way a good thing or that it was compatible with the Christian God. I was no longer able to believe in God, even tho I knew that was a very unpopular position.
Your autobiography will be your best book and the one most helpful to others.
Giving up the social part was the most difficult change for me. I found that my church group really did not want much to do with someone who asked a lot of questions. I am surprised that your social situation did not change much.
Thanks, Dr. Ehrman, for sharing your journey of spirituality. The only Christian denomination I ever knew was the Church of Christ, a very fundamentalist sect. I was a missionary and pastor for years. I slowly moved from fundamentalist to evangelical to liberal Christian to agnostic over the years. I now attend a Unitarian-Universalist congregation. I do not consider myself a Christian. My spirituality is wanting to and trying to live by our higher human values of love, justice, compassion, tolerance, kindness, forgiveness. I feel freer, more responsible for my own life. Love of neighbor is still the greatest value to live by. And is taught by most religions and by agnostics and atheists as well. Leon Clymore 11/4/2020
I come here now, not as an agnostic, but as a believer who does not use the Bible as the reason for my belief. I know that there are errors and corruptions through the years. I also believe there are true things in it. When I parse it down, ensuring that I permit the necessary truths to rise to the surface when I can hold them, I leave the rest to my library of sticky-notes.
Possibly, my less-trained abilities to research scripture has found a home in permitting myself to see how words can be malleable, mistranslated, and construed to me something than that which was intended. Many times, I use the Old Testament to restrain some interpretations found in the New.
Over the past few years, my faith has grown – not dwindled. For me, God proves His existence through the things He has done and is doing in my life. My faith is not an exercise in physics or math formulae.
Note: fortunately, although the pastor of my church sees me as a bit of a wild card, he still permits me to lead a small group that views scripture with an more analytical perspective.
I apply this schema: I do not *believe* in a theistic model of gods or god(atheist). Therefore I don’t know *god* but I also do not *know* gods or a god do not exist(agnostic).
As a Catholic I broke with the faith in my teens in the 1960s driven partly by my romantic attachment to heroes like Galileo and other enlightenment heroes.
Doubts about god’s non-existence dogged me into my twenties; like Stephen Daedalus after that fire and brimstone sermon in ‘Portrait of the Artist’ I could still back away from the ledge of atheism and retreat to a mealy-mouth version of agnosticism or to a cold embrace of Pascal’s wager. These equivocations disgusted me and found they no longer comforted me. Time did the rest.
I think much of my early interest in Church history stems from a desire *to be sure* about my non-belief. Theodicy, ultimately drove me to reject theism, quite independent of my need to understand how our civilization became ensnared in this theist delusion.
I find my need for clarity about this met with your work on how Jesus became god but also your work debating Mythicists. I would hate to trade one delusion for another!