Non-religious objectivity?

I was asked to comment on an email forwarded by a church member who was having an on-line discussion with others about Christianity. The email was challenging the person about their Christian beliefs and at one point said: '... you say you've questioned and tested your faith. Fair enough. But I think you've done it in context. I'm sure your family and the people around you have always encouraged you (implicitly if not explicitly) to share their belief'.

The allegation being that your Christian belief is essentially the product of peer pressure and subtle indoctrination by those around you. The thing that struck me about this was the emailer's incredible lack of self-awareness. Firstly, there lies behind such words the unspoken presupposition that non-religious viewpoints are more objective than religious ones. You see this on the media all the time (e.g. any Radio 5-Live discussion on religion), so those who don't profess religious faith are assumed to have a position of objectivity that allows them to 'stand over' religions and make judgements about them. But of course there is nothing objective about a non-religious standpoint - it's just another standpoint. To say there is no God is just as much a truth claim as to say there is a God. To embrace no religion is still to embrace a set of values - the values and beliefs of people who are not (person for person) academically or morally superior to anyone else.

The emailer implies that self-examination by Christians of their faith is flawed due to their 'context'. Again, making the assumption that non-religious people make their judgements in some 'context free' zone - as if there is anyone who can look at life/faith etc outside 'a context'. Yes, you may believe Christianity in the first place because you were brought up to believe it. But you are just as able to evaluate Christianity now as those brought up not to believe - the bias goes ways. The problem is with those who point to the 'context' of others but seem oblivious to their own.

Now some will say, “but I was brought up to make up my own mind on these matters, no-one 'indoctrinated’ me to believe anything”. Well actually they did! If you are brought up to believe that it's ok to believe what you want to about God (even whether He even exists) then you are essentially being brought up to believe that God isn't that important. God, you are being ‘indoctrinated’, is not actually a matter of any great significance. After all it can have no great consequences what your views of Him is. If you are brought up getting the message that God is optional then 'surprise surprise’ you will probably grow up to have a blasé approach to religious matters. Yours is the 'context' (the indoctrination) of religious indifference. Do you see the blindness people have to their own context and influences.

But if God exists then He is massively important to our understanding of life and the future. It would be unthinkable that an issue of such magnitude could be a matter of indifference. No wonder Christian parents are concerned to educate their children about it. Imagine, for example, saying that we should leave children to make up their own minds about racism - that children should be left to decide for themselves whether some races are inferior or not. Our emailer would be horrified by the suggestion (I hope) because he recognises that what we think about other people has consequences so serious that it would be negligent not to give direction to our children in this area. So it is with God because what we think about Him has huge consequences.