Pursuing Daisy Garfield

Robin Fields sat in a tree and pondered an old conundrum, namely, the strange doctrine that we are saved or damned not by what we do but by what we believe.

It just doesn't seem fair, he thought. You can more or less control what you do but not what you believe, especially if the evidence is ambiguous or partial. Ambiguous evidence points in opposite directions, and no one knows for sure which direction is right. You just do the best you can.

The problem, as the young man understood it, is that the stakes are too high. It is incumbent on God, if there is a God and if s/he is good, to provide clear evidence so people can make a reasonable choice concerning what to believe. To posit the Bible as the Inerrant Word of God, as circular an argument as you can find, is hardly sufficient and can, in fact, issue in unbelief. Take eternal damnation as an example: That notion is reason enough to throw the whole thing out. Condemnation to an eternal state of suffering simply because you 'choose' a conclusion that turns out to be wrong is unjust, pure and simple, and the attempt to persuade yourself otherwise is an exercise in bad faith.