Sunday, April 15, 2012

Doubting Thomas, another explanation

Today at Mass (rather yesterday, as I post this), the Gospel reading was the account of the apostle Thomas, who famously didn't believe in his fellow apostles' account that the Lord had indeed risen, as He said.  Father B discussed how similar Thomas and atheists are, because both of them demand physical proof.

As I reflected both on Father's homily and the Gospel a few thoughts came to me. 

1)  Father opined that Jesus appeared to Thomas because it was in His plan to have Thomas as an apostle, and it was necessary for the Divinely Ordained Church.  While certainly true, there is something else at play, the real difference between atheists and Thomas.  Thomas was called to be an apostle.  He spent countless hours with his companions on the road, and with the Lord.  These men were his close friends, and he acted just like the other apostles did when they disbelieved in the Resurrection when the women told them.  Yet his disbelief wasn't one of the will, but of the intellect.  He WANTED to believe, as is evidenced in his return to the upper room with the rest of the apostles. 

This is purely speculation on my part, but it makes sense (at least to me).  Why was Thomas NOT with the apostles on the day following the Sabbath?  Why should he have been?  After all, their hope was lost, their leader, Who inspired them and motivated them, was crucified, and laid in a sealed tomb.  The joyride was over, the hope was gone.  The apostles, Scripture says, locked the door out of fear of the Jews...Thomas chose not to show up because he saw no point now.  And yet...

What does Thomas do after he hears his brethren tell of the Resurrection?  He doesn't believe...but he joins them the next week.  Why, if he didn't believe, would he join them?  I think it highly likely that Thomas knew that IF Jesus was alive, and IF He were to appear again, it would be to the apostles in that room, just like before.  He chose to be there so he COULD believe.  His heart was open, his hope was rekindled.  Jesus acted on that and chose to reveal Himself to a willing person.

When I think of Thomas reaction to seeing Jesus, I don't just picture a muted, humble "My Lord and My God."  I picture a man kneeling, with tears of joy flowing down his cheeks, mumbling through his profound amazement, joy, and relief.  I picture a man unable to stand, and barely able to speak.  I picture a man, once broken and lost, now strengthened and emboldened.

2)  Thomas' doubt is no different than the rest of the apostles.  As we learned on Easter Sunday, the women who witnessed the empty tomb ran and told the apostles...who didn't believe them.  So, Peter and John ran to the tomb.  It is said John believed, but Peter was still unsure...until Jesus appeared to him.  Mary Magdelene didn't believe until Jesus appeared to her.  The rest of the apostles didn't believe until He appeared to them.  It appears that the apostles were likewise willing and wanted to believe: why else would they follow the instructions given to them by the women?

3)  The difference between St. Thomas and atheists like Richard Dawkins who demand physical, tangible proof is that St. Thomas WANTED to believe, and atheists don't.  To be an atheist is to decide that God doesn't exist, and therefore close your mind to the possibility that He does.  When you read accounts of atheists who become Christians (or simply theists), there is a universal step in all their accounts: they open their minds to God's existence, and show some desire to know Him...and He reveals Himself to them.

I suppose one could argue that such an attitude (wanting to believe) is biased towards belief, and so when something "unexplainable" happens, the decision to believe isn't based on evidence or fact, but rather on emotion.  But if one is to argue that, one must also accept that the decision NOT to believe when faced with the "unexplainable" is likewise based on a pre-concieved bias towards un-belief.  Thus, all the "evidence" against God isn't evidence at all, but rationalized reasons to support one's determined will not to believe.