Doubting Thomas Sunday
Post-Dispatch scribbler Kevin Horrigan wrote Sunday, 4/19, about William Lobdell, a former religion reporter for the Los Angeles Times. Lobdell, recently bought out by the paper, is making the rounds these days hawking his book, “Losing My Religion” (Collins, $24.99). Seems he found out about one too many perverted priests and chucked in the whole thing, not just Christianity but God as well.
Don’t think I’ll be buying the book. If someone doesn’t settle into some serious questioning about faith and the existence of evil, by, say, the fifth grade, then he’s not been paying attention in history class.
While Lobdell is leaving his faith behind, England’s well-known A. N. Wilson is rediscovering his.
Wilson’s return, in part, is due to his weariness with the easy mocking and sneering that is so much a part of contemporary Britain. Watch this recent Susan Boyle youtube clip – if you haven’t already — a telling example.)
Wilson says,
For much of my life, I, too, have been one of those who did not believe. It was in my young manhood that I began to wonder how much of the Easter story I accepted, and in my 30s I lost any religious belief whatsoever.
Like many people who lost faith, I felt anger with myself for having been ‘conned’ by such a story. I began to rail against Christianity, and wrote a book, entitled Jesus, which endeavoured to establish that he had been no more than a messianic prophet who had well and truly failed, and died.
Why did I, along with so many others, become so dismissive of Christianity?
Like most educated people in Britain and Northern Europe (I was born in 1950), I have grown up in a culture that is overwhelmingly secular and anti-religious. The universities, broadcasters and media generally are not merely non-religious, they are positively anti.
To my shame, I believe it was this that made me lose faith and heart in my youth. It felt so uncool to be religious. With the mentality of a child in the playground, I felt at some visceral level that being religious was unsexy, like having spots or wearing specs…..
So, Lobdell is a doubter.
A. N. Wilson is a former doubter.
At church on Sunday, we heard about the first doubter, Thomas. This familiar reading is from the holy Gospel according to John, 20:19-31:
Christ has risen from the dead and then…..
19
11 12 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.”
20
When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. 13 The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord.
21
14 (Jesus) said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.”
22
15 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit.
23
16 Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”
24
Thomas, called Didymus, one of the Twelve, was not with them when Jesus came.
25
So the other disciples said to him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands and put my finger into the nailmarks and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”
26
Now a week later his disciples were again inside and Thomas was with them. Jesus came, although the doors were locked, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.”
27
Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands, and bring your hand and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believe.”
28
17 Thomas answered and said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
29
18 Jesus said to him, “Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.”
30
19 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of (his) disciples that are not written in this book.
31
But these are written that you may (come to) believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through this belief you may have life in his name.
Lord, we believe; help our unbelief.
Sherry Tyree, 66, a graduate of John Burroughs School and Washington University, is a founding member (1984) and Vice President of Women for Faith & Family, a national Catholic women's organization that supports and defends traditional church teachings. Sherry is married to Dr. Donald A. Tyree, professor emeritus, School of Business, St. Louis University. 
Ms. Tyree,
Thanks for sharing the story, however briefly, of former Doubters A.N. Wilson and Thomas the Disciple. Thomas, at least according to the story, had the benefit of some evidence. Some Believers tell me that to have such evidence somehow diminishes the value of “faith”, and that by having evidence, or even “proof”, somehow “forces” one to believe in “God”.
This is nonsense, of course. Thomas had evidence, and is revered. Judas had evidence, and is reviled. These two show us that “choice” is still possible even when strong evidence is present.
I’m also unconvinced that it is better to Believe than to Know, and so much better, that to Believe will get you into “Heaven” and to Know won’t. This is another prosaic trick of Believers to elevate and justify their position despite their complete lack of genuine evidence. It’s all they can ever offer, since without evidence it is impossible to Know. There is, however, an abundance of evidence that “God” is merely imaginary; an artifact of human intellect. Therefore, I Know that “God” is imaginary, and contrary to unsubstantiated Belief, it is stronger because it is rational. The path to Believing begins with a choice to ignore and misinterpret evidence.
Personally, I think A.N. Wilson is “uncool” because he seems to ground his life on a perceived approval of others, not because he incorporates or rejects evidence. (Actually, now that he is older, perhaps he desires perception as a “maverick”? Maybe for him, that’s the new “cool”?)
Here we go again, this is a joyous and wonderful event in the lives of all Catholics. Now please those who rather hate instead of embrace the news move on to an article that needs attention. I pretty sure that you can find something constructive to say to the teenage violence (pizza robbery or the stabbing at the local school) those are issues you can make a difference. The faith of the Roman Catholics is very strong and living in our souls. We believe in our faith and we are not conformed to a PC world. So if you don’t like the faith and don’t agree please feel free to find a religion that fits your life style.
In other words it’s a free world find God in any way you want but do not throw the 1st stone at those who believe in the Holy Trinity, Ok done with my rant here!
Welcome and bless you our new Bishop, May God bless your years here in the wonderful city of Saint Louis.
sorry got linked to the wrong site
I am on vacation. Checking this blog, I cannot believe no protestant has commented on this posting. All of the disciples were beneficiaries of knowing Jesus first hand. It is the process of doubting and seeing doubts to be false that one comes to know. Do we really think that Jesus directive to Peter to “Feed my sheep.” means feeding them dogma? As in the laboratory of physical relationships we come to know science, so in the laboratory of spiritual relationships we come to know each other. Why is this so hard to understand?
Well, here comes an evangelical, orthodox Protestant Christian. It is sad that Lobdell chucked his faith due to an anamoly transpiring over 2,000 years and perhaps billions of Christians.
What Kevin Horrigan didn’t bring to light in his article is that homosexual men entered and invaded Catholic seminaries and the priesthood back in the 70s (perhaps the 60s) and 80s. Many of the heterosexual seminarians felt compelled to leave due to what they considered to be unhealthy environments. These aren’t typically child molesters or pedophiles. Many of the boys were teenagers. This was an egregious episode in the Church (and it can happen elsewhere, e.g., public schools, other branches of the Church, etc.)
Nevertheless, Lobdell erred in judging God by the behavior of human beings. I am surprised that as a former “evangelical,” he forgot the doctrine of the depravity of mankind and that evil can even appear as an “angel of light.”
As for pushing dogma down one’s throat, dogma is merely another word for teaching, and teaching is both basic and crucial to any philosophy, religion, etc.
Hello “davel”,
Regarding your remarks in post#4, page#1 at 11:42am April 22…
You said, “It is the process of doubting and seeing doubts to be false that one comes to know.” That seems rather incomplete because you seem to be suggesting that this is a valuable, possibly even predominant method for acquiring knowledge. You didn’t even mention the use of evidence used first to make provisional conclusions, then confirm them with additional evidence obtained through repetition and testing.
Of course, Thomas had the benefit of evidence to dispel doubt. A.N. Wilson does not, at least, not according to the autobiographical passage selected by Tyree. Do you have any evidence approaching the quality made available to “Doubting Thomas” allowing any of us NonBelievers to confirm that our “doubts” are “false”?
To be honest, you doubt that “God” is imaginary, right? Yet there is abundant evidence showing your doubt to be false… if only you would take the time to consider it.
Hello “Diogenes”,
Regarding your remarks in post#5, page#1 at 12:09pm April 22…
It is common but incorrect to lump homosexual men with the sexual perverts who molest children. You have probably been informed of this already, but still can’t get over that “dirty stuff” that gays do, and so mix them all together in your brain. If this isn’t a reminder, then you need to inform yourself, and simply reading ancient and archaic morality booklets isn’t going to help you much.
You also expressed disdain for Lobdell, who, when confronted with the depravity of the sinning priests, simply “turned his back to God”. Of course, it is possible that Lobdell already had doubts regarding the voracity of the multitude of circulating “God” stories, and the Perverted Priests debacle pushed him over the edge. And it doesn’t appear, to me, anyway, that Lobdell gave up of “God” just because some priests were engaged in sinful behavior, but rather it was the response of the entire Catholic organizational structure who, armed with “God’s” Infinite Wisdom decided that the very best response was to cover up the misdeeds and shuffle these perverts to other unsuspecting parishes, again and again and again. After first praying for forgiveness, of course!
Of course, I already know that “God” is an imaginary being, but even I know that if “God” was real, then this response would be absolutely abhorrent. I imagine that a real “God” would be so appalled that It would rain punishment upon both the offending perverts and the managers who direct them. Perhaps you can offer an explanation why “God” did not? (Mine is easy: imaginary beings do not cause real punishments.) What’s more, I know that shuffling perverted priests around is absolutely wicked even without the benefit of some imaginary “supreme being” telling me so. If you’re a Catholic Apologist, you need to know that your money and your words are supporting an organization that hides its rotten core.
The Catholic Church is supposed to be one of the Premier World Religions. So their unGodlike handling of this scandal is just more evidence that their “God” is false guide, and just a tool of their organization. Like William Lobdell, you need to wake up!
StirringThePot,
Maybe you can help me. We have units of measure for events but how do you measure endeavors? For example, if we want to test the hypothesis that a larger telescope lens will allow us to see further into the universe, we can build one and measure the light gathered to prove the hypothesis is true. But, how do you measure the corresponding hypothesis from Jesus that the truth known from the telescope experiment will set you free? What are the units of measure for freedom? Without units of measure, how can we develop models to test further hypothesis about truth and freedom?
For endeavor experiments, we can be the model. We can test truth of the hypothesis that we are the children of God by acting like atheists to see if not believing in God makes us feel more free but is “feeling free” an adequate indicator of truth? The statement “You shall know the truth and the truth will set you free.” may be true but is the reverse statement “You shall be free and your freedom will provide you with truth.” also true?
As you can see, I don’t have an answer for you, but I wish you luck in trying to find answers. In the interim, you can wish me luck in trying to master my daughter’s laptop computer.
Hello “davel”,
Thanks for the favor of your remarks in post#8, page#1 at 8:49am Apr 23.
At first, I thought you were asking questions to expand or improve your understanding. Perhaps this remains so, but you continued and supplied your own answers so I suspect that your openers were just rhetorical. Nothing wrong with that.
You realize, don’t you, that notions such as “freedom” and “love” lack form and substance necessary for empirical or quantitative measurement? (I am sure you do.) Of course, these are merely the labels for ideas that are of human invention and experience. The best we can do to measure the phenomena is by qualitative means… as you already suggested: by “feeling” them and deciding if we “have enough” or not. As you have already noticed, there is no universal empirical standard for assessing the quantity or value of the freedom an individual possesses, or one’s happiness, or one’s loyalty, credibility, trustworthiness, love, joy, etc. However, evidence can be observed and interpreted, and instances can be counted.
They aren’t simply make-believe ideas, though, and they aren’t just suppositions or explanations to fit the facts. They describe actual phenomena that are experienced, observed, and manipulated. “God”, “Jesus”, “Santa” are labels, too, only they identify fictional characters in our contemporary lexicon. The advice, activities, and expectations attributed to them may have some value which can be described or “measured”, but they aren’t phenomena that can be experienced, observed, or manipulated. Instead, they are characters who embody and espouse ideas such as “goodness”, “charity”, “sin”, and “salvation”, and are exploited by humanity on individual and collective levels.
You referred to a biblical passage, from John 8:32, where “Jesus” was talking to a mob of Jews bent on killing him. “Jesus” wasn’t talking about telescopes, or the truth that they revealed, though it’s ironic that the Catholic Church forced Galileo to renounce the actual truth that his telescope did reveal. I’m not sure why you pursue some expanded notion of “knowledge of the truth will set you free”, particularly when combined with telescopic observation… it sure didn’t work for Galileo!
Still, knowing the truth about a matter does set people who know it “free” to pursue other matters, and to accurately understand and effectively employ the matter involved. Depending on the matter, of course, gaining accurate, useful knowledge about it may be easy or difficult. Accordingly, communicating an explanation about the truth of a matter may be easy or difficult. The quality of the evidence bears upon both discovery and communication of the truth of a matter.
Regarding the reality of “God”, and all, the evidence is virtually non-existent. That’s probably why you didn’t supply any with your reply (to “Do you have any evidence [that "God" is real] approaching the quality [presumed to be available] to ‘Doubting Thomas’?” in parg#3 of my post#6, page#1 at 4:12pm Apr 22), and it’s most certainly why there are and have always been disagreements ranging from civil to lethal. Maybe you have some evidence and are keeping the “truth” to yourself? That makes me suspect you wish to manipulate me, and others, by somehow employing your secret “truthful” knowledge.
I, on the other hand, will be forthright about the truth of “God”: he’s a fictional character who, among a fanciful basket of exploits and attributions, acts as a moral authority on a variety of human issues. His existence is purely imaginary, so is incapable of actually do anything except passive inspiration; he doesn’t answer prayers, work miracles, rain fire, or pass judgment. This knowledge is powerful, and does set you free; free from those who exploit your fear of death, discomfort, and insecurity to compel you to some action of their design, and free to pursue actions that actually serve properly and rationally crafted individual and collective goals.
Ignoring the truth, especially when illuminated by abundant evidence, identifies people possessing easily satisfied thresholds of curiosity and, apparently, freedom.
Stirringthepot, good name for someone who can’t discuss or dialogue but who just foams and fumes even to the point of projecting attitudes and thoughts on others that they do not possess. It’s no fun debating with someone who makes up his own mind on what someone else has said but didn’t really say.
Shalom!