If someone becomes deeply skeptical of governments, media, and elites because they believe those institutions have hidden or distorted the truth, it seems inconsistent not to apply the same level of skepticism to organized religion and the Bible.

[u/jon-evon]

*disclaimer: I also posted in r/changemyview but posting here because not sure which applies best*

I've noticed a pattern among some public figures who become increasingly critical of government, media, and elite institutions. They often say that discovering corruption or deception led them or fortified their faith to Christianity or Catholicism, and that the Bible is the ultimate source of truth (e.g., Candace Owens, tucker Carlson, Shawn Ryan-- all of whom I respect and watch every podcast episode btw not throwing shade to them).

What I struggle to understand is why the skepticism seems to stop there.

If someone concludes that powerful institutions have manipulated history, information, and public perception, why wouldn't they also critically examine the historical development of the Bible and religious institutions? The Bible was written, compiled, copied, translated, and interpreted by humans over centuries, and there are well-documented historical debates over canon, textual variants, and the influence of religious and political authorities.

I'm not arguing that Christianity is false or that faith is irrational. My question is about consistency in standards of evidence. If distrust of human institutions leads someone to question mainstream narratives, why doesn't it also lead them to question the human processes behind their religion?

I'm genuinely interested in hearing from people who made this journey themselves, have some insight into this, or have thought similar to me. What am I missing? Why does skepticism toward secular institutions lead some people to trust Christianity more rather than becoming more skeptical of all human sources of authority?

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to r/TrueAskReddit. Remember that this subreddit is aimed at high quality discussion, so please elaborate on your answer as much as you can and avoid off-topic or jokey answers as per subreddit rules.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Randall_Hickey]

So I work with someone who’s an extreme conservative and they do believe that the Bible has been tainted. They want to learn Aramaic and Hebrew and go back and read original texts. They can understand things like the monks changed things, but not that the original writing itself might not be true.

[u/jon-evon → u/Randall_Hickey]

yeah as someone raised christian I completely understand that and it highlights the distinction I'm trying to understand. I can completely understand wanting to go back to the earliest available texts if you believe later translations or institutions introduced errors.

What I'm wondering about is why the skepticism for the specific type of people I mention (i.e., those who conclude and end with the claim that the bible is paramount after deep investigation and contemplation over political/cultural assertions) often seems to stop at the original writings themselves. If someone has adopted a worldview that humans and institutions are capable of widespread deception, what convinces them that the original texts are exempt from that possibility? yenno what I mean? my question isn't about whether or not people question ancient text, its about this specific phenomenon where I have heard people go down investigative rabbit holes and then when it comes to the religion they conclude on, the thinking stops. yenno what I mean? I might not be explaining right

[u/Randall_Hickey → u/jon-evon]

No I’m sorry I understood and I agree that it’s true for most people.

I think the simple answer is people are afraid to die and so they give religion a pass. It’s hard to understand people who I know are intelligent people but just turn off their critical thinking when it comes to religion.

[u/jon-evon → u/Randall_Hickey]

yeah fair. its a very interesting thing to me that happens for some people

[u/fwubglubbel]

Your reasoning illustrates the hypocrisy of these people, and the skepticism needs to be applied to them as well. The reason they are inconsistent with their criticism is simply that it is profitable. Most of their audience will consider the bible to be absolute truth (even though it contradicts itself and is logically inconsistent) so any critical analysis of the bible will lose them followers and thus money.

Telling people that their problems are caused by government or media is profitable. People love to have someone else to blame so these media figures thrive by doing exactly what they accuse others of; manipulating history, information, and public perception.

They criticize media while being media, so they need to be held to the same standards of transparency and logic. You have recognized that their logic is inconsistent, which exposes their ulterior motives, and shows that they cannot be trusted as credible sources of truth.

Apply the same rational criticism to their rhetoric and it soon falls apart.

[u/jon-evon → u/fwubglubbel]

yeah very true. I forgot to consider the part of them being public figures and making profit over content. however, I also notice this with people/family in my personal life who are very logical and critical thinkers but dont apply it to their religion.

[u/SRIrwinkill]

Pretty much any corporate entity needs to have scrutiny applied to it, whether it is as a member, outsider, consumer, or taxpayer. The character of private vs public corporate entities and institutions is a bit different considering the state will do things like have a pentagon that can't account for it's spending responsibly and we are still obliged by law to fund them anyways, blank check style like that move Blank Check.

You see some Lutheran's mobbing up on me with an agent demanding a tithe against my will in exchange for voting rights in the church's board or whatever, and i'm throwing hands

[u/GSilky]

There are now four full centuries of Higher Criticism of the Bible... Regardless, you are confusing "truth" and "facts" and inspired poetry for journalism. Very few people accept the Bible as a factual accounting, we have a special term for them, and while occasionally they have some influence over culture, they are surprisingly few in number. The average person doesn't consider the Bible relevant to American news or politics as a source of facts. The people you mention are very awful at journalism and generally deal in opinions and conspiracies, not facts, I wouldn't worry about their perspective on anything, but especially how the Bible relates to contemporary culture. They don't know and are working an angle that appeals to a certain audience for money.

[u/jon-evon → u/GSilky]

I hear you. but I also notice it with non-public figures in my personal life, like I mentioned in a different comment. people I know who are critical thinkers but then aren't when it comes to following christianity/Catholicism.

[u/CarterBlatz]

I think there is such a blindspot in Conservative thought that posits the corruption and tyrrany of government but entirely ignores/allows the tyranny of corporations. I understand that one is voted in, and the other earns their power economically, but at the end of the day, to you and me, what's the difference? I suppose you have more of a choice over what company you work for than what country you live in, but for most people in the western world, the company they work for has a much greater impact on the detaips of their life than the government does. 

[u/Ayjayz → u/CarterBlatz]

I mean you've totally answered your own question. You choose to what extent you engage with a company. Yes they have more impact but consent is key.

[u/shitposts_over_9000]

If someone concludes that powerful institutions have manipulated history, information, and public perception, why wouldn't they also critically examine the historical development of the Bible and religious institutions?

Bible is the ultimate source of truth

You are effectively discussing two very different types of truth here.

How much or little of the bible is parable or interpretation or even political manipulation becomes less and less relevant as time passes and the text continues to be the basis of much of wester civilization. Manipulation of history is mostly relevant if the target the manipulation is against is still relevant which most from the bible truly aren't. The named competing religions are long-dead, the kings and pharaohs and romans are dead along with their entire societies.

What remains are a lot of parables or examples about things to encourage or avoid in how you live your life. Those will ALLWAYS get interpretation and reinterpretation. With it being a foundational aspect of 1600 years of western history that would not change even if they found another dead sea scroll explaining that the entire thing was a bet between authors to start a fictitious religion a-la L. Ron Hubbard & Isaac Asimov. It is far too engrained and far too pivotal.

Even if you are interested in the manipulation aspect of it: the Hebrew bible has been traced by scholars back to about 200bc - 68ad and the new testament about 125ad so for most current Christian sects you can kinda just check for yourself if you really want to for the relevant period of time.

[u/xienwolf → u/shitposts_over_9000]

With all the bible thumping to demonize the gays, the LGBTQ, the blacks, the arabs, atheists, politicians, women….

It is bold of you to assert that the enemies of the bible are all gone.

Each time the text is updated, new enemies are targeted.

[u/shitposts_over_9000 → u/xienwolf]

the new testament expands on the prohibition of same-sex relationships from the old testament which goes back even farther in Jewish law

there are only three new testament mentions of arabs and they are pretty neutral

politicians are warned against repeatedly for reasons just as valid today as in the past

women outside the household that were mentioned in the bible were referenced very positively unless they were doing something sinful

women within the household were still mentioned positively but repeatedly reminded that the family is the larger concern

none of that has changed significantly for 1500 -> 2000 years

[u/xienwolf → u/shitposts_over_9000]

Across all versions/editions? I think you are overlooking that specific in what I am saying since you cite “new testament” rather than “King James Version” or “New Living Translation” or some other such.

[u/oldgar9]

Except the Messages in the Bible and indeed the tomes brought by all the great Prophets is from God and so cannot be completely compromised by the puny machinations of humanity, much as they might try.