I know I've already commented on this, but I have another question that's come out of our discussion here and I thought this was the best place to ask it.
Was there a point at which you consciously rejected the eye-witness testimonies of Christ's resurrection as presented in the gospels? Did you doubt the historical accuracy of these writings? What shifted in your thinking and worldview before this conscious rejection? What have you decided to believe about why these authors said what they did about Jesus?
Thanks for taking the time to consider these questions. I'm genuinely interested.
Thanks for the questions, Jason.
Yes.
Did I have doubt? Yes, as anyone should who reads the accounts given in the gospels. They make claims which go against the laws of physics, so a high level of scrutiny is required, IMO. As to the historical accuracy, I think there is scholarly evidence for the many of the authors and dates which is certainly important for those who believe in the teaching. However, that doesn't excuse the problem of faulty eye-witness testimony. I could send you a certified letter about an alien I just saw, and even though we'd have great evidence for the author of the later and the time it was written, that would not prove the existence of aliens just based on my testimony.
I tried to outline all of that in the post here. It started, I think, as I began to think differently and more critically on things such as the nature of money, the nature of government, etc, then religion fell under the same scrutiny and my belief systems needed better epistemological support. I started to see aspects of the Bible and my religion which did not fit my understanding of morality (via the NAP, peaceful parenting, etc). Mostly, I started learning about how the brain works and about psychology to realize much of the beliefs within religion are based on human nature, not necessarily on actual events. The big question which really spun me around (and was hammered home even more having a Pakistani team member as part of my company) was the idea that your place of birth determines your religion more than anything else. If you were born somewhere else, you'd (most likely) be a different religion. Also, monotheists are already 99.99% atheist in that they reject thousands of other gods which many others believe in. Why can they be so sure they are right when the others are using the same psychology to claim to have truth also?
I think it's possible they were deceived or confused, much like many other claims other religions make via eye witness testimony about supernatural events. Is it possible those events did actually take place exactly as claimed? Yes, it certainly is! Would I need more evidence than I currently have to believe it? Currently, yes, I would. Many other aspects of the Bible (the nature of endless suffering in hell, etc) I now think are not even internally consistent with the original translation of the text. I could go into more detail about the problems with how the scriptures were formed or the inconsistencies I see with the morality of the God of the bible over time, etc, but those arguments won't be very useful for someone who believes. I know this, because that was me not too long ago. I had justifications for every argument. As I learned more about the process, I realized what my brain was doing and how well known these psychological processes are. I had to move on in order to be internally consistent.