The Bible’s Irrational Condemnation of Rational Doubt

If your degree of confidence in a claim is 62%, your degree of doubt will be 38%, its complement. Rational minds weigh the balance of confirming and disconfirming evidence and position their degree of confidence at that level of evidence.

This is the source of the predictive success of rational minds in every domain of life. For all things inductively assessed, the degree of belief for a rational mind can never legitimately reach absolute certainty, but only asymptotically approximate absolute certainty or absolute disbelief.

It follows from this that doubt is in no way intrinsically illogical, evil, or non-virtuous. Doubt is an epistemic virtue whenever it maps to the degree of uncertainty that follows from the evidence.

Here are a few examples:

  1. Medical Diagnosis: A doctor has reviewed test results and symptoms and estimates a 70% probability that a patient has Condition A. Given the 30% chance it could be another condition, the doctor orders additional tests before confirming a diagnosis.
  2. Jury Decision-Making: A juror hears strong evidence for a defendant’s guilt but also sees some inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. They assign an 80% probability to guilt but maintain a 20% doubt, leading them to ask for further deliberation before reaching a verdict.
  3. Stock Market Predictions: An investor analyzes market trends and determines there is a 65% chance that a stock will rise in value. Acknowledging the 35% chance of decline, they diversify their investments to manage risk.
  4. Weather Forecasting: A meteorologist predicts an 85% chance of rain based on satellite imagery and historical patterns but still acknowledges a 15% chance of dry weather, advising people to carry umbrellas just in case.
  5. Scientific Theories: A physicist evaluates an emerging theory in quantum mechanics. Given current experimental results, they assign a 90% probability that the theory is correct but recognize a 10% uncertainty that future discoveries might refine or overturn it.
  6. Historical Analysis: A historian examines multiple sources and concludes that there is a 75% chance that a specific battle occurred on a particular date. The remaining 25% uncertainty leads them to consider alternative interpretations.

This is not how the Bible treats doubt. The Bible makes it clear that doubt reflects instability and double-mindedness. The following verses are from the first chapter of James:

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.
8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

There is no admonition to map one’s degree of confidence in actually receiving wisdom to the degree that God has come through in the past. Bible believers are told not to have doubt. And the reason is not specific to asking for wisdom. The reason is universal; as universal as the waves of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. The one who doubts is unstable in all this ways. Any degree of doubt reflect a weak mind, according to the Bible, and is enough to be denied wisdom.

This is not the only Biblical context in which doubt is shown to be unacceptable. The following is from Chapter 21 of Matthew:

21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.
22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

Any veteran Christian will have experienced asking for something in full confidence they will receive what they ask for…only to not be given what they asked for. This is not a trivial incoherency between biblical promises and reality. However, we want to here focus on the Bible’s incoherent disparagement of rational doubt.

Christians who claim that the Bible allows for rational doubt must twist or hide these verses that transparently condemn doubt. A doubting human is unstable in all his ways.

The following is a logical formulation of the primary argument:

Syllogistic Form:

P1: Rational minds proportion their degree of belief to the weight of the available evidence.
P2: Doubt is the complement of belief and represents the remaining epistemic uncertainty.
P3: Rational minds necessarily experience doubt when the evidence does not reach 100% certainty.
P4: The Bible explicitly condemns doubt, treating it as instability and double-mindedness.
P5: If rational doubt is condemned, then the Bible condemns rational evaluation of evidence.
C: Therefore, the Bible condemns rational evaluation of evidence.

Symbolic Logic Form:

Let:

  • B(x) = x proportionally adjusts belief to evidence
  • D(x) = x experiences doubt in proportion to uncertainty
  • R(x) = x is rational
  • C(y, z) = y condemns z
  • BIBLE = Biblical doctrine

Formalized argument:

  1. \forall x (R(x) \rightarrow (B(x) \land D(x)))
    (All rational minds proportion belief to evidence and experience doubt accordingly.)
  2. \forall x (D(x) \rightarrow \neg B(x))
    (Doubt is the complement of belief.)
  3. \forall x (R(x) \rightarrow D(x))
    (Rationality entails doubt when certainty is not absolute.)
  4. \forall x (BIBLE \rightarrow C(BIBLE, D(x)))
    (The Bible condemns doubt.)
  5. \forall x (C(BIBLE, D(x)) \rightarrow C(BIBLE, R(x)))
    (If the Bible condemns doubt, then it condemns rationality.)
  6. \therefore C(BIBLE, R(x))
    (The Bible condemns rationality.)

Conclusion:

The Bible is irrational. Doubt is rational in every case in which the evidence is not absolute, and the evidence is never absolute for claims that require the inductive exploration of claims outside our minds. Any source that condemns doubt as a product of an unstable mind is itself irrational. The Bible is irrational.

Supplemental Chart

Theistic arguments against the essay above:

Objection 1: The Bible Condemns Unjustified Doubt, Not Rational Inquiry

Argument:
The Bible does not condemn all forms of doubt but only doubt that stems from a lack of trust in God. Rational inquiry, including doubt based on evidence, is not inherently condemned. For instance, Thomas doubted Jesus’ resurrection, and Jesus provided evidence rather than rebuking him harshly (John 20:24-29).

Response:

  • The general biblical stance on doubt is overwhelmingly negative. James 1:6-8 does not specify “unjustified doubt”; it states that any wavering makes a person unstable in all ways. Other biblical authors may have beel less dogmatic than James, but if you want to say the Bible is the word of God, you’ll need to accept Jame’s universal condemnation of doubt.
  • The contrast between rational minds (who necessarily doubt when evidence is incomplete) and biblical faith (which discourages doubt) is unavoidable. Faith demands unwavering confidence, which is incompatible with rational epistemology. One only needs to read the binary disposition toward redemptive beliefs in the third chapter of John to realize that doubt cannot exist in a “proper” conversion, much less be considered epistemically virtuous.

Objection 2: Rational Minds Can Hold Strong Faith While Accepting Some Uncertainty

Argument:
Many theistic philosophers, such as Alvin Plantinga, argue that belief in God is “properly basic,” meaning it does not require empirical evidence. A rational mind can accept religious belief as a foundational assumption, just as one assumes the reliability of logic or the external world.

Response:

  • The distinction between “properly basic beliefs” and empirical evidence does not resolve the contradiction. If rational minds proportion belief to evidence (P1 of the syllogism), then faith, by definition, requires an arbitrary exception to that rule.
  • Unlike assumptions such as logical axioms, belief in God makes empirical claims (e.g., divine interventions, answered prayers), which should be subject to the same scrutiny as any other inductive claim.
  • A properly basic belief should not lead to contradictions with observable reality, yet religious claims (such as guaranteed answered prayers in Matthew 21:22) demonstrably fail in real-world testing.

Objection 3: The Bible Encourages Seeking Evidence (Acts 17:11, 1 Thessalonians 5:21)

Argument:
Some biblical verses, such as Acts 17:11 (“examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so”) and 1 Thessalonians 5:21 (“test everything; hold fast to what is good”), support critical evaluation of beliefs. This shows that rational analysis is not condemned.

Response:

  • These verses only encourage examination within a predefined framework (i.e., testing whether claims align with Scripture). They do not advocate for open-ended skepticism or doubt proportional to evidence. Additionally, there is no mention of the tools of rationality that would guide rational belief in those few contexts in which Christians are told to test their beliefs. (See Considerations #07.)
  • Testing within a closed system (e.g., confirming biblical consistency) is not the same as rational inquiry that allows for falsification. (View the article on unfalsifiability.)
  • The primary biblical stance remains that faith should be unwavering. Any testing that results in continued doubt contradicts James 1:6-8 and Matthew 21:21-22. Biblical passages that conflicts with these verses cannot be used to counter the clear admonitions against doubt they contain.

Objection 4: Rationality is Limited, and Divine Truth Transcends It

Argument:
Rationality is a human construct, and divine truth surpasses human logic. If God exists, His ways would not necessarily conform to our limited epistemic methods. Faith is necessary because God’s knowledge is beyond human comprehension.

Response:

  • This is the argument of all religions Christians consider false.
  • This argument concedes that religious belief is not based on rational principles but on the separate and inferior epistemic framework of faith.
  • If a belief system requires abandoning rational consistency, then it cannot be defended using logic—this is an implicit admission that it fails by rational standards.
  • Moreover, invoking divine transcendence as a justification for faith does not provide a method for distinguishing true religious claims from false ones. This justifiably demotes faith an unreliable epistemic tool.

Objection 5: The Success of Rational Minds Does Not Disprove Faith

Argument:
Rationality may be effective in practical domains (e.g., science, medicine, law), but this does not mean faith in God is irrational. Faith concerns spiritual truths that operate in a different domain than empirical inquiry.

Response:

  • If faith claims never need to align with empirical evidence, then they cannot be assessed as true or false, making them indistinguishable from arbitrary beliefs.
  • However, many religious claims are empirical (e.g., miracles, divine intervention, prophecy fulfillment). These should be evaluated with the same scrutiny as other factual claims.
  • The essay’s argument does not require faith to be empirically disproven, only that it is epistemically inconsistent with rational standards. If religious belief discourages proportional doubt, it remains in conflict with rational inquiry.

Objection 6: Faith and Rationality Can Coexist as Separate Modes of Knowing

Argument:
Some theologians argue that faith and reason serve different purposes. Rationality helps us navigate the world, while faith connects us to spiritual truths that are not accessible through reason alone.

Response:

  • If faith operates outside of reason, then it cannot claim rational justification. This is functionally equivalent to admitting that religious belief is non-rational.
  • Claiming that faith is a “separate way of knowing” does not explain how it provides knowledge rather than mere belief. Without a mechanism for verification, faith remains indistinguishable from superstition.
  • There appears no way to establish that faith is produces superior results within whatever domains it is said to operate. If an apologists would like to step up with a rigorous way to test the epistemic superiority of faith in particular domains, Free of Faith would like to hear from you.

Objection 7: Miracles and Personal Experience Provide Non-Rational Justification for Faith

Argument:
Many believers claim personal religious experiences as evidence. Reports of miracles, answered prayers, and deep spiritual transformations indicate that faith is justified beyond purely rational means.

Response:

  • Personal experience is unreliable as an epistemic method. People from all religions report miracles and divine interventions, often in ways that contradict each other. However, if there are Christian apologists who have the faith to move mountains in a God who responded to Elijah’s request for fire from Heaven, Free of Faith would like to hear from you.
  • Human cognitive biases (e.g., confirmation bias, pattern recognition, placebo effects) can explain many religious experiences without invoking the supernatural. However, statistical data such as COVID-19 mortality/morbidity rates among Christians and non-Christians could serve as legitimiate evidence in favor of miracles. Free of Faith always welcomes verifiable statistical evidence.

Conclusion:

Each theistic objection either misinterprets the essay’s argument or concedes that faith operates outside rational epistemology. The core issue remains: If rational minds proportion belief to evidence, and the Bible discourages doubt, then biblical faith is fundamentally at odds with rational evaluation.

2 responses to “The Bible’s Irrational Condemnation of Rational Doubt”

  1. John Campbell Avatar
    John Campbell

    Interesting post! An exciting part about these types of thoughts is examining what the Bible is *really* saying about something. It makes up a huge part of my walk with God. Even going further and examining what individual words or concepts really mean have overturned a lot of unexamined beliefs.

    Doubt and wavering are two different things.  James’ writings encourage seeking wisdom, the ability to examine thoughts and exercise good judgement.  This wisdom then comes from God.  The argument falsely conflates doubt with actual wavering, mental instability and double mindedness, the active and irrational responding to a shift in doubt level. If my faith is shaken and I renounce it that same hour without further examination, then it is that very wavering that is James’ problem not the doubt that preceded it. If we succumbed to every doubt we had then we would constantly and wildly change religious beliefs and swing across political spectrums.

    Matthew 21 is something that does need to be read within the Christian paradigm; that there is a God and he has a kingdom that we can be co-heirs of.  Jesus here isn’t admonishing doubt but praising faithfulness and those ready to inherit God’s will, therefore what we truly want and pray for will be aligned with God’s will and come to pass.  Veteran christians pray confidently all the time and don’t get what they want. If God bent to our every whim then he isn’t God, much less a god with a will.

    Reply
    1. Phil Stilwell Avatar
      Phil Stilwell

      Thanks for your thoughtful reply, John. I appreciate your engagement with the text and your distinction between doubt and wavering. This opens the door to a more rigorous semantic analysis—one that I believe could clarify the matter significantly.

      Let me invite you to deepen that distinction by addressing it in terms of biblical Greek, where we can inspect whether the semantics align with your proposed bifurcation.

      ◉ Request for Semantic Clarification

      Could you help clarify the linguistic and conceptual distinction between doubt and wavering by addressing the following?

      1. Greek Terms Used
        In James 1:6, the Greek word translated as “wavering” or “doubting” is διακρινόμενος (diakrinomenos), a participial form of διακρίνω (diakrinō). This verb can mean to differentiate, to judge, to hesitate, or to dispute. The sense of “wavering” here seems to stem from a mental vacillation or inner conflict. In Matthew 21:21, the verb διακριθῇτε (diakrithēte)—the aorist passive subjunctive of the same root—is used again for “doubt,” yet translated differently. Could you show how these uses differ in connotation? Does the text itself distinguish between epistemic doubt (degree-of-confidence uncertainty) and instability or impulsive fluctuation (wavering)?
      2. Distinction Clarified by Usage
        If your interpretation is correct—that doubt is permitted but wavering is condemned—could you identify Greek words that cleanly map to each concept?

        For example:

        • What term would describe a careful, rational doubt (e.g., that of Thomas in John 20)?
        • What term would describe impulsive instability (e.g., Peter walking on water then sinking)?

      — Examples to Classify

      Could you now take the next step and classify some specific cases of doubt and wavering into categories of “sinful” or “not sinful” from within a Christian theological framework?

      Here are a few candidate examples for your consideration:

      • Example A: Rational doubt A woman prays to be healed but remains uncertain because no healing has occurred. She begins researching whether prayers have statistically verifiable effects and continues praying while grappling with uncertainty.
      • Example B: Emotional wavering A man hears his favorite pastor commit a doctrinal error and immediately declares all of Christianity to be false without reflection.
      • Example C: Honest intellectual doubt A university student studies ancient history and begins doubting the resurrection due to historiographic standards, but he continues to engage with Christian thought and attends Bible study.
      • Example D: Crisis-induced wavering A parent loses a child and renounces faith angrily, only to return to belief weeks later after emotional processing.
      • Example E: Healthy skepticism A missionary hears contradictory testimonies about a miracle and suspends judgment until further investigation can be made.

      Would you consider some of these doubt and others wavering? Which, if any, would you consider to be spiritually dangerous?

      ➘ Critically, can a person who hears the Gospel harbor any degree of doubt in the Gospel and still be redeemed?

      If diakrinō covers the semantic range of both evaluative discernment and hesitancy, then its blanket condemnation—as in James 1—remains problematic. Especially when James uses the same word that in other places is praised for good judgment (e.g., diakrisis in Heb. 5:14).

      So I’d like to hear how you parse this tension:

      • Is diakrinō ever virtuous?
      • Does James condemn all forms of internal hesitation, or only reactive impulsivity?

      ◉ I’d also appreciate it if you could weigh in on a foundational epistemic point:

      Would you agree that rational doubt is always an intrinsic element in the mental disposition of anyone who is making an inductive assessment?

      That is, if someone is proportioning belief to non-absolute evidence (as in medicine, forensics, historical analysis, meteorology, etc.), then they are necessarily harboring some measure of rational doubt—the complement of their degree of belief.

      — For instance:

      • If I assess that there’s a 70% chance that a diagnosis is correct, it necessarily follows that I doubt it at the 30% level.
      • If I am 80% sure that an ancient manuscript is authentic, I rationally entertain 20% doubt.

      ➘ Would you agree that this kind of doubt is a necessary feature of inductive reasoning?
      ➘ Would you also agree that the evaluation of various proposed Gods is an inductive process?

      If so, then the challenge returns: can you reconcile the Bible’s condemnation of doubt (e.g., James 1:6–8, Matthew 21:21) with the reality that rational agents must doubt when certainty is not epistemically justified?

      If you disagree, and hold that inductive reasoning can be carried out without doubt, I’d be curious to hear how you understand such reasoning processes—especially in fields like science, medicine, or law where decisions are always probabilistic.

      Your thoughts here would go a long way toward clarifying whether the Bible is condemning irrational instability or the unavoidable mechanics of rational inquiry.

      I look forward to your clarification. A rigorous distinction would certainly help us avoid straw-manning the text, but it must be grounded in consistent lexical and contextual analysis. Thanks again for engaging so thoughtfully. Once I have your definitions in hand, I can better address your proposed non-trivial distinction between doubt and wavering.

      Reply

Leave a comment

Recent posts

  • ✓ Plantinga’s Abandonment of Credence

    Alvin Plantinga’s “Warrant” isn’t an epistemic upgrade; it’s a design for inaccuracy. My formal proof demonstrates that maximizing the binary status of “knowledge” forces a cognitive system to be less accurate than one simply tracking evidence. We must eliminate “knowledge” as a rigorous concept, replacing it with credencing—the honest pursuit…

  • ✓ The Great Gaslighting Grift

    This article critiques the stark gap between the New Testament’s unequivocal promises of answered prayer and their empirical failure. It examines the theological “bait-and-switch” where bold pulpit guarantees of supernatural intervention are neutralized by “creative hermeneutics” in small groups, transforming literal promises into unfalsifiable, psychological coping mechanisms through evasive logic…

  • ✓ Theology’s Floating Fortress

    This article characterizes theology as a “floating fortress”—internally coherent but isolated from empirical reality. It details how specific theological claims regarding prayer, miracles, and scientific facts fail verification tests. The argument posits that theology survives only through evasion tactics like redefinition and metaphor, functioning as a self-contained simulation rather than…

  • ✓ Parsimony and Christianity

    This post applies parsimony (Occam’s Razor) to evaluate Christian Theism. It contrasts naturalism’s high “inductive density” with the precarious “stack of unverified assumptions” required for Christian belief, such as a disembodied mind and omni-attributes. It argues that ad hoc explanations for divine hiddenness further erode the probability of theistic claims,…

  • ✓ Grounding Ways of Knowing

    Modern apologists argue that religious belief is a rational map of evidence, likening it to scientific frameworks. However, a deeper analysis reveals a stark contrast. While science adapts to reality through empirical testing and falsifiability, theology insulates belief from contradictory evidence. The theological system absorbs anomalies instead of yielding to…

  • ✓ Childlike Faith

    This post critiques the concept of “childlike faith” in religion, arguing that it promotes an uncritical acceptance of beliefs without evidence. It highlights that while children naturally trust authority figures, this lack of skepticism can lead to false beliefs. The author emphasizes the importance of cognitive maturity and predictive power…

  • ✓ The Amalekite Infants

    This analysis examines the agonizing moral conflict presented by the explicit biblical command to slaughter Amalekite infants in 1 Samuel 15:3. Written from a skeptical, moral non-realist perspective, it rigorously deconstructs the various apologetic strategies employed to defend this divine directive as “good.” The post critiques common evasions, such as…

  • ✓ The Evidence-Mapping Illusion

    Modern Christian apologetics claims faith is based on evidence, but this is contradicted by practices within the faith. Children are encouraged to accept beliefs uncritically, while adults seeking evidence face discouragement. The community rewards conformity over inquiry, using moral obligations to stifle skepticism. Thus, the belief system prioritizes preservation over…

  • ✓ The Divine Judgment Evasion

    In the realm of Christian apologetics, few topics generate as much palpable discomfort as the Old Testament narratives depicting divinely ordered genocide. While many believers prefer to gloss over these passages, serious apologists feel compelled to defend them. They must reconcile a God described as “perfect love” with a deity…

  • ✓ Answered Prayers?

    This post examines various conditions Christians often attach to prayer promises, transforming them into unfalsifiable claims. It highlights how these ‘failsafe’ mechanisms protect the belief system from scrutiny, allowing believers to reinterpret prayer outcomes either as successes or failures based on internal states or hidden conditions. This results in a…

  • ✓ Categorical Labels Rarely Reflect Rationality

    In public discourse, labels such as “atheist,” “agnostic,” and “Christian” often oversimplify complex beliefs, leading to misunderstandings. These tags are low-resolution summaries that hinder rational discussions. Genuine inquiry requires moving beyond labels to assess individual credences and evidence. Understanding belief as a gradient reflects the nuances of thought, promoting clarity…

  • ✓ Why an Intelligible Universe?

    The featured argument, often employed in Christian apologetics, asserts that the universe’s intelligibility implies a divine mind. However, a meticulous examination reveals logical flaws, such as equivocation on “intelligible,” unsubstantiated jumps from observations to conclusions about authorship, and the failure to consider alternative explanations. Ultimately, while the universe exhibits structure…

  • ✓ How Myths Emerge

    The piece discusses how historical figures like Jesus and Alexander the Great undergo “legendary inflation,” where narratives evolve into more than mere history, shaped by cultural needs and societal functions. As communities invest meaning in these figures, their stories absorb mythical elements and motifs over time. This phenomenon illustrates how…

  • ✓ Mythical Husk over the Jesus Seed

    This post argues against extreme views in debates about the historical Jesus, emphasizing the distinction between the theological narrative shaped by scriptural interpretation and the existence of a human core. It maintains that while the Gospels serve theological purposes, they do not negate the likelihood of a historical figure, supported…

  • ✓ The Semantic Creep of Faith

    Hebrews 11:1 is often misquoted as a clear definition of faith, but its Greek origins reveal ambiguity. Different interpretations exist, leading to confusion in Christian discourse. Faith is described both as assurance and as evidence, contributing to semantic sloppiness. Consequently, discussions about faith lack clarity and rigor, oscillating between certitude…

  • ✓ AI for Christian Apologists

    This post emphasizes the importance of using AI as a tool for Christian apologetics rather than a replacement for personal discernment. It addresses common concerns among Christians about AI, advocating for its responsible application in improving reasoning, clarity, and theological accuracy. The article outlines various use cases for AI, such…

  1. J's avatar
  2. Phil Stilwell's avatar
  3. J's avatar
  4. J's avatar

    Alright, thanks for the insights. While I’ve read works on ethics and ethical theories (including some of Immanuel Kant’s more…

  5. Phil Stilwell's avatar
  6. J's avatar

    Hi Phil: Apologies if this isn’t really related to skepticism, but I was wondering: What are your thoughts on the…

  7. J's avatar
  8. Phil Stilwell's avatar
  9. Phil Stilwell's avatar
  10. J. GonzalezRamos's avatar

Phil Stilwell

A Deep Dive into Common Faith-Based Concepts & Claims

Free of Faith