Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Table of Contents
Introduction
1 A Summary of My Case Against Christianity
Page
5
6
23
32
37
40
43
45
48
56
58
63
64
65
67
70
72
75
77
79
82
84
86
102
104
106
108
114
117
120
124
127
129
131
134
136
138
139
142
149
151
157
166
Introduction.
This book is a companion volume to my book, Why I Became an Atheist: A
Former Preacher Rejects Christianity. This one is intended to answer some leftover
questions from that other book. Here you will find some more personal
reflections on my journey from preacher/apologist to atheist, along with some
more arguments, just as the subtitle suggests. I just want to further complete my
story and add to my arguments by filling in some more of the details. There are
some sections in this book that didnt make it into that other book. There are also
a few Blog posts included in this book from www.debunkingchristianity.
blogspot.com (Debunking Christianity, or DC), which have been edited and
revised somewhat.
Ive grouped several sections together in Part 1 as Personal Reflections, and
other sections in Part 2 as Additional Arguments. I make no pretension to have
each section successively flow from one to the other. Nor do I think Ive said all
that needs to be said. [Youll have to forgive any typos since I didnt have a
proofreader, and Im not good at it myself].
If youve purchased my other book and liked it, then upon buying this one
youre probably a fan of what I write. Thank you very much! I hope I dont
disappoint you in this one.
Perhaps there might even be a few of my fans who have the financial means
to step up to a big challenge. Let me preface this challenge by reminding you of
two facts. Fact One: Every year a lot of money is spent on lawyers costs to build
up the wall of the separation between church and state, something which is very
much needed given the many attempts to breech that wall by believers. Fact Two:
Christian benefactors have helped to change the religious landscape of America,
in part, by buying copies of Josh McDowells Evidences books and giving them to
Christian campus ministries to hand out to students for free. While I know we
need the litigation to defend our rights as non-believers, if youre a fan of my
previous book and have the financial means, please consider buying up copies of
that book (or others that you like) and handing them out to secular campus
groups so they can give them away to students for free. Or, you can donate
money for this express purpose to them, or to me. I think this strategy is
something that secular people with financial means can do that might be more
effective in changing the religious landscape in America than what litigation can
do, although we need the litigation. In any case, it would be money well spent,
with long term benefits.
You could also donate money to me personally so I can continue buying
books and continue my studies unhindered from having to get a second job,
given these hard financial times. I have a lot more to say! You can help me say it.
John W. Loftus
September 2008
There are probably many Christian professors who have had some serious
doubts about the Christian faith, like Drs. Ruth A. Tucker, James F. Sennett and
Terence Penelhum. In her book Walking Away from Faith: Unraveling the Mystery of
Belief and Unbelief, Ruth A. Tucker shares her own doubt and how she overcomes
it, hoping to challenge unbelievers to reconsider what they are missing. But in
one place in her book as she was contemplating her own doubt, she candidly
confesses what sometimes crosses her mind. As a seminary professor she wrote,
There are moments when I doubt all. It is then that I sometimes ask myself as
Im looking out my office window, What on earth am I doing here? Theyd fire
me if they only knew.[1]
My friend James F. Sennett, a former student of Dr. Strauss, is another one
who has seriously struggled with his faith, as seen in his, as yet, unpublished
book, This Much I Know: A Postmodern Apologetic. He confesses to have had a faith
crisis in it, and wrote his book as a first person apologetic, to answer his own
faith crisis. In chapter one, called The Reluctant Disciple: Anatomy of a Faith
Crisis, he wrote, I am the one who struggles with God. I am the Reluctant
Disciple. Once I had no doubt that God was there, but I resented him for it;
now I desperately want him to be there, and am terrified that he might not be.
Prompted by a study of the mind/brain problem, he wrote, Sometimes I
believed. Sometimes I didnt. And it seemed to me that the latter condition was
definitely on the ascendancy.
Christian philosopher Terence Penelhum has also expressed his doubts in A
Belated Return, in Philosophers Who Believe, ed. Kelly James Clark (Downers
Grove: IVP, 1993). He says there are serious inner clashes between the
philosophical and religious strands in my psyche. They derive from the fact that I
find myself an unrepentantly philosophical being, which puts me at a mental
distance from most of my fellow Christians. I have become aware of the
multiplicity of religious and secular worldviews, each supported by reasons,
each felt and experienced, many institutionally developed and expressed, and
each having resources for fending off and explaining away the claims of the
other. I have found it easy, professionally, to assume the stance of each and all of
them for pedagogical purposes. And I think it a mark of human enlightenment to
be able to enter imaginatively into these alternative visions, since each of them is
a vision that is lived by rational beings.
Penelhum continues, As a philosopher, I find that my intense awareness of
the multiplicity of rational alternatives makes me feel deep alienation from
fellow Christians who appear to be blessed with certainty, and with a correlative
perception of the obvious falsity of such alternatives. To be frank, I do not feel
their certainty to be a blessing: better, surely, I cannot help telling myself, to be a
Socrates tentative than a pig without questions. (p. 234).
Penelhum has serious problems with some theological options, which
seem to me totally closed, and the consideration of them to invite justified
ridicule from the most sympathetic enquirers. Here he mentions the historical
Fall of Adam and Eve, and a physical ascension into heaven. He says, we know
too much to continue to encase our Christian teachings in antiquated
cosmologies in the way such options require. (p. 235).
With me I just stopped struggling. It required too much intellectual
gerrymandering to believe. There were just too many individual problems that I
had to balance, like spinning several plates up on several sticks, in order to keep
my faith. At some point they just all came crashing down.
Let me begin by talking about control biases. They do just what they
indicate; they control how one views the evidence. Everyone has them, especially
when it comes to metaphysical belief systems where there isnt a mutually
agreed upon scientific test to decide between alternatives. Many times we dont
even know we have them, but they color how we see the world. They can also be
called assumptions, presuppositions and/or control beliefs, depending on the
context. As Alfred North Whitehead wrote, Some assumptions appear so
obvious that people do not know that they are assuming because no other way of
putting things has ever occurred to them. They form the basis for the way we
See things.
Having the right control biases are essential to grasping the truth about our
existence in the universe. Psychologist Valerie Tarico explains that it doesnt
take very many false assumptions to send us on a long goose chase. To illustrate
this she tells us about the mental world of a paranoid schizophrenic. To such a
person the perceived persecution by others sounds real. You can sit, as a
psychiatrist, with a diagnostic manual next to you, and think: as bizarre as it
sounds, the CIA really is bugging this guy. The arguments are tight, the logic
persuasive, the evidence organized into neat files. All that is needed to build
such an impressive house of illusion is a clear, well-organized mind and a few
false assumptions. Paranoid individuals can be very credible. [2]
Since having them dont by themselves tell me what to accept about the
specific evidence for Christian miracle claims, I also need to examine that
evidence, although time wont permit me here. But I do so in my previous
book.[3] I consider them as the historical claims they are. I examine them by
looking at the internal evidence found within the Biblical texts themselves. I
consider what these texts actually say and scrutinize their internal consistency.
Wherever relevant, I also consider whether the Old Testament actually predicts
some of these events. Then I examine these claims by looking at the external
evidence. I consider any independent confirmation of these events outside of the
texts. Lastly I subject these claims to the canons of reason using the control biases
I will briefly argue for here. I conclude from all of this that the Christian faith is a
delusion and should be rejected. Then I describe why I am an atheist and what it
means to live life without God. I present a whole case, a comprehensive case, a
complete case, from start to finish, as a former insider to the Christian faith.
I argue that I think skepticism about religion in general, and Christianity in
particular, is the default position. Anyone who investigates religion in general, or
Christianity in specific, must begin with skepticism. Anyone who subsequently
moves off the default position of skepticism has the burden of proof, since doing
so is making a positive knowledge claim, and in the case of Christianity a very
large knowledge claim that cannot be reasonably defended with the available
evidence. This best expresses my set of control beliefs from which I derive two
others:
1) There is a strong probability that every event has a natural cause; and,
2) The scientific method is the best (and probably the only) reliable guide we
have for gaining the truth.
Since I need sufficient reasons and sufficient evidence for what I believe, I
have an anti-dogma, and an anti-superstitious bias. No inspired book will tell
me what I should accept. My first question will always be Why should I accept
what this writer said? That doesnt mean in the end I might not conclude there
is a supernatural realm, only that I start out with these assumptions. Christians
will bristle at these control biases of mine and cry foul. They will argue that if I
start out with a predisposition against the supernatural bias it predisposes me to
reject their religious faith, and they are right. It does. They claim that with a
supernatural bias I will be more likely to accept the Christian faith, and that too
is correct, although there are still other supernatural worldview contenders.
Nonetheless, since this is crucial, let me offer several reasons that I think are
undeniable for adopting a skeptical rather than believing set of control biases in
the first place.
In every case when it comes to the following reasons for adopting my control
biases the Christian response is pretty much the same. Christians must
continually retreat to the position that what they believe is possible, or that
what they believe is not impossible. However, the more that Christians must
constantly retreat to what is "possible" rather than to what is probable in order
to defend their faith, the more their faith is on shaky ground. For this is a tacit
admission that instead of the evidence supporting what they believe, they are
actually trying to explain the evidence away.
1) Sociological Reasons. The sociological facts are that particular religions
dominate in separate distinguishable geographical locations around the globe.
John Hick: it is evident that in some ninety-nine percent of the cases the religion
which an individual professes and to which he or she adheres depends upon the
accidents of birth. Someone born to Buddhist parents in Thailand is very likely to
be a Buddhist, someone born to Muslim parents in Saudi Arabia to be a Muslim,
someone born to Christian parents in Mexico to be a Christian, and so on. [4]
The best explanation for why this is so is that people overwhelmingly believe
based upon when and where we were born.
Since there are no mutually agreed upon scientific tests to determine which
religion to adopt, or none at all, social cultural and political forces will
overwhelmingly determine what people believe.
Because of this sociological data I have proposed something I call the
outsider test for faith. Test your religious beliefs as if you were an outsider, just
like you test the beliefs of other religions and reject them. Test them with a
measure of skepticism. If you dont do this, then you must justify why you
approach other religions than your own with such a double standard. The
Outsider Test is no different than the prince in the Cinderella story who must
question 45,000 people to see which girl lost the glass slipper at the ball last
night. They all claim to have done so. Therefore, skepticism is definitely
warranted.
William Lane Craig explains geographical religious diversity by arguing, in
his own words, it is possible that God has created a world having an optimal
balance between saved and lost and that God has so providentially ordered the
world that those who fail to hear the gospel and be saved would not have freely
10
responded affirmatively to it even if they had heard it. Craig argues that if this
scenario is even possible, it proves that it is entirely consistent to affirm that
God is all-powerful and all-loving and yet that some people never hear the
gospel and are lost. [5] Notice him retreating to what is merely possible? Hes
trying to explain the evidence of global religious diversity away. The probability
that not one of the billions of people who have not heard the gospel would
respond if they did hear the gospel can probably be calculated, if missionaries
kept records of their efforts. To claim what he does against the overwhelming
evidence of missionary efforts belies the facts. Contrary to Craig, when we look
at the billions of people who have never been given a chance to be saved
because of when and where they were born, his scenario seems extremely
implausible, to say the least.
2) Philosophical Reasons (1). Arguments for Gods existence arent
conclusive or persuasive. They dont lead exclusively to theism but at best to
deism, which I might happily concede and then argue that a distant God is not
much different than none at all. Besides, moving from deism to a full-blown
Christianity is like trying to fly a plane to the moon. And the theistic arguments
dont lead us to a particular brand of theism either, whether Judaism, Islam or
one of the many branches of Christianity.
When it comes to Gods existence our choices can be reduced to these: 1)
Either something has always existed--always, or, 2) something popped into
existence out of absolutely nothing. Either choice seems extremely unlikely--or
possibly even absurd. There is nothing in our experience that can help us grasp
these two possibilities. But one of them is correct and the other false. We either
start with the brute fact that something has always existed, or the brute fact
that something popped into existence out of nothing. A third view is that, 3) Our
existence in the universe is absurd to the core.
William Lane Craig used the word bizarre to describe this problem when
he wrote, I well recall thinking, as I began to study the Kalam Cosmological
Argument, that all of the alternatives with respect to the universe's existence
were so bizarre that the most reasonable option seemed to be that nothing
exists! [6] We must all recognize that we really dont know why something
exists rather than nothing at all. Agnosticism is the default position. Anyone
moving off the default position has the burden of proof, and I maintain that
moving from agnosticism to atheism is a much smaller step than moving to a full
blown Christianity. Since the larger the claim, the harder it is to defend,
Christianity has a huge and near impossible burden of proof.
Christians want to argue for the belief in a triune God, even though no sense
can be made of the trinity that is both orthodox and reasonable. This God was
not free with respect to deciding his own nature, even though Christians want to
think of God as a free personal agent; who as a spiritual being created matter,
even though no known "point of contact" between spirit and matter can be
found; who never began to exist as their brute fact, even though according to
Ockhams razor a simpler brute fact is to begin with the universe itself; who
never learned any new truths and cannot think, since thinking demands
weighing temporal alternatives. This God is everywhere, yet could not even
know what time it is since time is a function of placement and acceleration in the
11
universe (and if timeless, this God cannot act in time); who allows intense
suffering in this world, yet does not follow the same moral code he commands
believers to follow.
3) Philosophical Reasons (2). The Christian defender of miracles has a near
impossible double burden of proof.
As the late J.L. Mackie wrote: Where there is some plausible testimony about
the occurrence of what would appear to be a miracle, those who accept this as a
miracle have the double burden of showing both that the event took place and
that it violated the laws of nature. But it will be very hard to sustain this double
burden. For whatever tends to show that it would have been a violation of a
natural law tends for that very reason to make it most unlikely that is actually
happened. [7]
In Douglass Geivett and Gary Habermass edited book In Defense of Miracles
they labeled part 2 as The Possibility of Miracles.[8] Notice how they must
retreat to what is possible, not what is probable? Of course miracles are possible
if there is a creator God, but what we want to know is if they are probable. By
definition they are not very probable. We are asked to believe in the Christian
God because Biblical miracles supposedly took place, but by definition miracles
are very improbable. We cannot bring ourselves to believe in the God of the Bible
unless we first believe those miracles took place, but we cannot bring ourselves
to believe in those miracles because they are by definition very improbable.
John King-Farlow and William Niels Christensen argue that just because we
dont experience miracles today doesnt mean that throughout the history of
mankind God has done a plethora of them, and will do so again when the time is
right in the future. [9] They are asking us to believe against the overwhelming
present day experience of nearly all modern people that things might turn out
differently than we now experience. Is this impossible? No, not at all. But again,
its not probable.
Take for example the story that Balaams ass spoke to him. If todays
Christians lived back in that superstitious era they wouldnt believe this
happened unless there was good evidence. But because they read about it in a socalled inspired book they suspend their judgment and believe it. Back in
Balaams day they themselves would not have believed it, until Balaam made his
ass talk in their presence.
Besides, Christians operate by what Harvard trained Biblical scholar Hector
Avalos describes as selective supernaturalism. [10] They believe the Biblical
miracles because they favor them, while they are skeptical of the miracles they
dont favor in other religions. Why the double standard here? At least Im
consistent in being skeptical of them all until a supernatural explanation is
required by the evidence, and I havent seen any evidence that requires a
supernatural explanation yet.
4) Scientific Reasons (1). Science proceeds based upon methodological
naturalism. Methodological naturalism assumes that for everything we
experience there is a natural cause. Paul Kurtz defined it as well as anyone when
he wrote that it is a principle within the context of scientific inquiry; i.e., all
hypotheses and events are to be explained and tested by reference to natural
12
13
Carl Sagan, said, We can pray over the cholera victim, or we can give her 500
milligrams of tetracycline every twelve hoursthe scientific treatments are
hundreds or thousands of times more effective than the alternatives (like prayer).
Even when the alternatives seem to work, we dont actually know that they
played any role. Voltaire said: "Prayer and arsenic will kill a cow." Psychology
confirms that who we are and how we behave are determined to an
overwhelming degree before we reach the age of accountability. People are not
evil so much as much they are sick. There is no rebellion against God. If God is
omniscient then like the ultimate psychotherapist he knows why we do
everything we do. There can be no wrathful God.
6) Biblical Reasons (1). The Bible is filled with barbarisms that civilized
people reject. A female captive in war was forced to be an Israelite mans wife
(Deuteronomy 21:10-14). If a virgin who was pledged to be married was raped,
she was to be stoned along with her rapist (Deuteronomy 22:23-24), while if a
virgin who was not pledged to be married was raped, she was supposed to
marry her attacker (Deuteronomy 22:28-29), not to mention the pleasure of
dashing of children against rocks, and genocide itself (Psalm 137:9).
That God is a hateful, racist and sexist God. Christians think Militant Muslims
are wrong for wanting to kill free loving people in the world, and they are. But
the only difference between these Muslims and the Biblical God is that they
simply disagree on who should be killed. According to Sam Harris, it is only by
ignoring such barbarisms that the Good Book can be reconciled with life in the
modern world.
7) Biblical Reasons (2). The Bible is filled with superstitious beliefs modern
people reject. In the Bible we find a world where a snake and a donkey talked,
where people could live 800-900+ years old, where a woman was turned into a
pillar of salt, where a pillar of fire could lead people by night, where the sun
stopped moving across the sky or could even back up, where an ax-head could
float on water, a star can point down to a specific home, where people could
instantly speak in unlearned foreign languages, and where someones shadow or
handkerchief could heal people. It is a world where a flood can cover the whole
earth, a man can walk on water, calm a stormy sea, change water into wine, or be
swallowed by a great fish and live to tell about it. It is a world populated by
demons that can wreak havoc on earth, and also make people very sick. It is a
world of idol worship, where human and animal sacrifices pleased God. In this
world we find visions, inspired dreams, prophetic utterances, miracle workers,
magicians, diviners and sorcerers. It is a world where God lived in the sky
(heaven), and people who died went to live in the dark recesses of the earth
(Sheol).
This is a strange world when compared to our world. But Christians believe
this world was real in the past. My contention is that ancient people werent
stupid, just very superstitious. Christopher Hitchens puts it this way: One must
state it plainly. Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where
nobody had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and
fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable
demand for knowledge. [13]
14
I can propose scientific tests for what I consider superstitions. I can compare
what a meteorologist says about the weather with someone who plans to do a
rain dance, and test to see whos right more often. Thats science. The results of
reason and science have jettisoned a great many superstitions. Testing and
comparing results. Thats science. I can do the same for the superstitious practice
of blood-letting, for exorcisms, for people who claim to predict things based on
palm reading, or tea leaves, or walking under a ladder, or breaking a mirror, or
stepping on a sidewalk crack. I can even test the results of someone who gets a
shot of penicillin when sick with the person who refuses this and prays instead.
Thats science. And we modern people are indebted to science for these things.
Its what makes us different from ancient people.
Voltaire said, Every man is a creature of the age in which he lives, and few
are able to raise themselves above the ideas of the time. In the Bible there are so
many superstitious beliefs held by the Gentile nations at every period of time
that superstition reigned in those ancient days. I dont think any modern person
should be able to conclude anything other than that. The beliefs of these nations
were so prevalent that Gods people in the Bible regularly joined in the same
practices and worshipped these gods and goddesses. If these nations were so
superstitious that Israel regularly joined them in their beliefs, then it seems
reasonable to suppose the beliefs of the Israelites, and later the Christians, were
also based upon superstitions too.
We who live in the modern world of science simply dont believe in a god of
the sun, or moon, or harvest, of fertility, or rain, or the sea. We dont see omens
in an eclipse, or in flood, a storm, a snakebite, or a drought, either. Thats because
we understand nature better than they did, by using science. We dont see
sickness as demon possession, nor do educated thinking people believe in
astrology to get an insight into the future. Nor do we think we are physically any
closer to God whether were up on a mountaintop rather than down in a valley.
But every nation did in ancient days. Now its possible that ancient Jews and
Christians were different and believed because of the evidence, but how likely is
that?
8) Historical Reasons (1). If God revealed himself in history, then he chose a
poor medium (the past) and a poor era (the superstitious ancient past) to do so. If
you know that much about the craft of the historian, she is dealing with the stuff
of the past in which many frauds and forgeries have been found. This justifies a
skeptical outlook upon what has been reported to have happened. Almost
anything can be rationally denied in history, even if the event happened.
Consider the following historical questions: How were the Egyptian
pyramids made? Who made them? Why? Was Shakespeare a fictitious name for
Francis Bacon? Exactly how was the Gettysburg battle fought and won? What
was the true motivation for Lincoln to emancipate the slaves? What happened at
Custer's last stand? Who killed President John F. Kennedy? Why? Who knew
what and when during the Watergate scandal that eventually led to President
Nixon resigning? Why did America lose the war in Vietnam? Did George W.
Bush legitimately win the 2000 election? Did President Bush knowingly lead us
into a war with Iraq on false pretenses? What about some high profile criminal
cases? Is O.J. Simpson a murderer? Who killed JonBene Ramsey? Is Michael
15
Jackson a pedophile? Can we say we know the answer to any one of these
questions such that wed be willing to go to hell if we got it wrong?
Hector Avalos argues that historical studies are fraught with serious
problems. When it comes to the non-supernatural claim that Caesar was
assassinated by Brutus in Rome, in 44 A.D., he argues, We cannot verify such an
occurrence ourselves directly and so we cannot claim to know it occurred.
When it comes to whether or not King Arthur actually existed, he argues, our
contemporary textual evidenceis nearly nil. If this is the case with nonsupernatural historical investigations, then it is compounded so much more
when it comes to the so-called supernatural events in history. [14]
This is compounded much further when we consider Gotthold Lessings
ugly broad ditch: Miracles, which I see with my own eyes, and which I have
opportunity to verify for myself, are one thing; miracles, of which I know only
from history that others say they have seen them and verified them, are another.
ButI live in the 18th century, in which miracles no longer happen. The
problem is that reports of miracles are not miracles.[they] have to work
through a medium which takes away all their force. Or is it invariably the case,
that what I read in reputable historians is just as certain for me as what I myself
experience? [15]
When dealing with the problems of the historian, William Lane Craig argues
that, first, a common core of indisputable historical events exists; second, it is
possible to distinguish between history and propaganda; and third, it is possible to
criticize poor history. Craig concludes: neither the supposed problem of lack of
direct access to the past nor the supposed problem of the lack of neutrality can
prevent us from learning something from history. [16]
Notice again how Christians must argue about what is possible here? Such a
conclusion is a meager one; that knowledge of the past is possible. Even if true,
and I think it is, there is a lot of doubt for any supposed historical event,
especially momentous and miraculous ones.
9) Historical Reasons (2). The History of the Church is Strong Evidence
Against Christianity:
- The Crusades/Holy Wars. For centuries the church sanctioned the
slaughtering of infidels in the name of their God beginning in the eleventh
century against various peoples. The major goal of the first one was to recapture
Jerusalem from the Muslims. The history of the crusades and the deeds done in
the name of Jesus are atrocious.
There have been many other wars waged in the name of Jesus and the
churchtoo many to list. The Spanish Conquistadors conducted a holy war
against the inhabitants of the Americas demanding them to either acknowledge
the Church as the Ruler and Superior of the whole world, and the high priest
called Pope or else, we shall powerfully enter into your country, and shall
make war against you in all ways and manners that we can, and shall subject you
to the yoke and obedience of the Church and of their Highnesses; we shall take
you and your wives and your children, and shall make slaves of them, and as
such shall sell and dispose of them as their Highnesses may command; and we
shall take away your goods, and shall do you all the mischief and damage that
16
we can, as to vassals who do not obey, and refuse to receive their lord [17] In
2002, President George W. Bush called his anti-terrorism war as a "crusade.
- The Inquisition. The angelic doctor Thomas Aquinas argued from the Bible
that heresy was a "leavening influence" upon the minds of the weak, and as such,
heretics should be killed. Since heretical ideas could inflict the greatest possible
harm upon other human beings, it was the greatest crime of all. Heretical ideas
could send people to an eternally conscious torment in hell. So logic demands
that the church must get rid of this leavening influence. It was indeed the
greatest crime of all, given this logic. So, the rallying cry for over two centuries
beginning with the 12th century was convert or die!
- The Witch Hunts. Christian people actually believed witches flew threw the
night, met together with others, and had sex with the devil who left a mark on
them. Once accused it was extremely difficult to be declared innocent. Any
testimony from others could be discounted because she may have cast a spell on
them to say she was innocent. No evidence was needed in most cases, and in
most cases no evidence was found. Torture was all that was needed to extract the
confessions, and it was especially harsh against accused witches because it was
believed their magic could help them withstand greater pain. Once they were
forced to confess they were also tortured to find out who their accomplices were,
so others were implicated. Witch-hunters were mostly paid for their services by
confiscating the property of convicted witches, so they had a vested interest in
finding them guilty. Convicted witches were then killed by strangulation or by
being burned alive.
- Manifest Destiny. This was a phrase associated with the territorial
expansion of the United States during the 1800s. It expressed the general belief
that God had given them the divine mission to spread democracy on the North
American continent. It was supposedly both obvious ("manifest") and certain
("destiny"). As such it legitimized western expansion and the rape, pillage and
slaughter of Native Americans.
- Slavery in the American Antebellum South. Former slave Frederick
Douglass said, "I prayed for twenty years but received no answer until I prayed
with my legs." Enough said.
There is no justification for God to have allowed his followers to think they
were pleasing him by acting in these terrible waysnone! If God was perfectly
good, he would've said, "Thou shalt not engage in religiously motivated wars to
spread your faith, nor steal land, nor kill witches and heretics, nor buy, beat, or
own slaves" (KJV version!), and said it as often as he needed to do so. Then the
church couldnt justify all of this horrible violence.
My question is who's at fault here? I'll even grant that human beings are
"wicked," and that God knows this about us. If God knows this about us, then
why wasn't he crystal clear about what he wanted believers to do? God is at fault
to some degree for the misery and suffering caused by Christians who failed to
understand his directives. Add to this the poor job that the Holy Spirit has done
in the life of the church, since he's supposed to guide Christians by
"illumination," and you see one of the reasons why I reject Christianity. Not only
has God failed to communicate effectively, but the Holy Spirit has failed (and
continues to fail) to do his job.
17
Just ask Christians how they themselves would feel if they were the ones
being burned at the stake for heresy, or beaten within an inch of their lives by a
Bible quoting slave master. Surely their own arguments that these Christians of
the past merely misunderstood what God wanted them to do would fly away in
the wind with the smoke of their flesh, and with the drops of their blood.
10) Empirical Reasons. The problem of evil is as clear of an empirical
refutation of the Christian God as we get. James Sennett has said: By far the
most important objection to the faith is the so-called problem of evil the alleged
incompatibility between the existence or extent of evil in the world and the
existence of God. I tell my philosophy of religion students that, if they are
Christians and the problem of evil does not keep them up at night, then they
dont understand it.
If God is perfectly good, all knowing, and all powerful, then the issue of why
there is so much suffering in the world requires an explanation. The reason is
that a perfectly good God would be opposed to it, an all-powerful God would be
capable of eliminating it, and an all-knowing God would know what to do about
it. So, the extent of intense suffering in the world means for the theist that: either
God is not powerful enough to eliminate it, or God does not care enough to
eliminate it, or God is just not smart enough to know what to do about it. The
stubborn fact of intense suffering in the world means that something is wrong
with Gods ability, or his goodness, or his knowledge.
Christians believe God set the Israelites free from slavery, but he did nothing
for the many people who were born and died as slaves in the American South.
These theists believe God parted the Red Sea, but he did nothing about the 2004
Indonesian tsunami that killed million people. Christians believe God
provided manna from heaven, but he does nothing for the more than 40,000
people who starve every single day in the world. Those who dont die suffer
extensively from hunger pains and malnutrition all of their short lives. Christians
believe God made an axe head to float, but he allowed the Titanic to sink.
Christians believe God added 15 years to King Hezekiahs life, but he does
nothing for children who live short lives and die of leukemia. Christians believe
God restored sanity to Nebuchadnezzar but he does nothing for the many people
suffering from schizophrenia and dementia today. Christians believe Jesus
healed people, but God does nothing to stop pandemics which have destroyed
whole populations of people. There are many handicapped people, and babies
born with birth defects that God does not heal. As God idly sits by, well over 100
million people were slaughtered in the last century due to genocides, and wars.
Well over 100 million animals are slaughtered every year for American
consumption alone, while animals viciously prey on each other.
Take for example the 2004 Indonesian tsunami killed a quarter of a million
people. If God had prevented it, none of us would ever know he kept it from
happening, precisely because it didnt happen. Any person who is supposed to
be good would be morally obligated to prevent it, especially if all it took was a
snap of his fingers to do so.
Stephen Wykstra argues that its possible we cannot see a reason why an
omniscient God allows so much suffering. [18] Were told God is so omniscient
that we cant understand his purposes, and this is true, we cant begin to grasp
18
why there is so much evil in the world if God exists. But if God is as omniscient as
claimed, then he should know how to create a better world too, especially since we do have
a good idea how God couldve created differently.
There is no perfectly good, all-powerful, omniscient God of Christian
theology.
Most Christians do not believe in the God of the Bible anyway. Christians
believe in the perfect being of St. Anselm in the 11th century A.D. after centuries
of theological gerrymandering. The Bible isnt consistent in describing its God,
but one probable description is as follows: rather than creating the universe ex
nihilo, the biblical God fashioned the earth to rise out of the seas in divine
conflict with the dragon sea god, sometimes called Rahab, as in Job 26:9-12. This
God is merely the god of the gods, who like the other gods had a body that
needed to rest on the 7th day, and was found walking in the cool of the day in
the Garden of Eden. Yahweh, the god of Israel, probably emerged out of a
polytheistic amalgamation of gods known in the ancient Near East in pre-biblical
times. In the ancient Near East, all pantheons were organized as families, and
Yahweh was simply one of the members of that family. Some biblical authors
consider Yahweh, the god of Israel, as one of many gods fathered by Elyon
whose wife was Asherah, to whom was given the people and land of Israel to
rule over (Deut. 32:8). This God was responsible for doing both good and evil,
sending evil spirits to do his will, and commanding genocide. As time went on
Yahweh was believed to be the only God that existed. Still later Satan was
conceived as an evil rival in order to exonerate Yahweh from being the creator of
evil. Still later in the New Testament the God of the Bible was stripped of
physical characteristics and known as a spiritual being. As theologians reflected
on their God they came to believe he created the universe ex nihilo. Anselm
finally defined him as the greatest conceivable being. But Anslems God is at
odds with what we find in most of the Bible.
Christians claim to derive their beliefs from the Bible, which had a long
process of formation and of borrowing material from others; in which God
revealed himself through a poor medium (the past) in a poor era (the ancient
superstitious past); who condemns all of humanity for the sins of the first human
pair, who commanded genocide, witch, honor, heretic killings, and who
demanded a perfect moral life when such a life is not possible, given that we are
fleshly creatures kept from knowing Gods purported love and power by an
unreasonable epistemic distance; became incarnate in Jesus (the 2nd person of
the trinity), even though no reasonable sense can be made of a being who is both
100% God and 100% man; found it necessary to die on the cross for our sins, even
though no sense can be made of so-called atonement; who subsequently bodily
arose from the dead, even though the believer in miracles has an almost
impossible double-burden of proof here (its both improbable being a miracle
and at the same time probable); who now chooses to live embodied forever in
a human resurrected body (although there are many formidable objections to
personal identity in such a resurrected state); to return in the future, even though
the New Testament writers are clear that the end of all kingdoms and the
establishment of God's kingdom was to be in their generation; and will return
where every eye will see him, which assumes an ancient pre-scientific
19
cosmology; who sent the third person of the trinity to lead his followers into "all
truth, yet fails in every generation to do this; who will also judge us based upon
what conclusions we reach about the existence of this God, which parallels the
ancient barbaric thought police which is completely alien to democratic
societies; and who will reward the saints in heaven by taking away their free
will to do wrong, and by punishing sincere doubters to hell by leaving their free
will intact so they can continue to rebel.
What Would Convince Me Christianity is True? Lets say the Christian faith
is true. Lets say that even though Christianity must punt to mystery and retreat
into the realm of mere possibilities to explain itself that it is still true. Then what
would it take to convince me?
When it comes to sufficient reasons, I need to be able to understand more of
the mysteries of Christianity in order to believe it. If everything about
Christianity makes rational sense to an omniscient God, then God couldve
created human beings with more intelligence so that the problems of Christianity
are much more intellectually solvable than they are.
Short of God creating us with more intelligence, God couldve explained his
ways to us. He couldve written the mother of all philosophical papers by
answering such problems as, why there is something rather than nothing at
all?, why people deserve to end up in hell, and questions about the atonement,
the trinity, divine simplicity, the incarnation, the relationship of free-will and
foreknowledge, and how its possible for a spiritual being to interact with a
material world. He couldve explained why there is such suffering in this world
if he exists. He couldve explained why he remains hidden and yet condemns us
for not finding him in this life. He couldve helped us understand how its
possible to want all people to be saved and yet not help people come to a saving
knowledge.
Short of helping us to understand these mysteries, the only thing left is to
give us more evidence to believe, and less evidence to disbelieve. Let me offer
some examples of what I mean.
Present Day Evidence. God could reveal himself to us in every generation in
a myriad of ways: What better way to show us that he exists than what the book
of Acts says he did for Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus! He could become
incarnate in every generation and do miracles for all to see. If people wanted to
kill him again and he didn't need to die again, he could simply vanish before
their eyes. He could spontaneously appear and heal people, or end a famine, or
stop a war, or settle an important question like slavery. He could raise up John F.
Kennedy from the dead for all to see. He could restore an amputated limb in full
sight of an crowd of people which would include all of the best magicians along
with the Mythbusters and James Randi, who would all find fault if fault could be
found. He could do any and all of the miracles he did in the Bible from time to
time, including miraculously feeding 5000 men with their families. The list of
things God could do in each generation is endless.
Furthermore, Christians would be overwhelmingly better people by far. And
God would answer their prayers in such distinctive ways that even those who
dont believe would seek out a Christian to pray for them and their illness or
problem. We wouldnt see such religious diversity which is divided up over the
20
world into distinct geographical locations and adopted based upon when and
where we were born.
Prophetic Evidence. God couldve predicted any number of natural disasters
(if he didnt have the power to create a better world which lacked them). He
couldve predicted when Mt. St. Helens would erupt, or when the Indonesian
tsunami or hurricane Katrina would destroy so much. It would save lives and
confirm he is God. Then too, he couldve predicted the rise of the internet, or the
inventions of the incandescent light bulb, Television, or the atomic bomb, and he
could do it using non-ambiguous language that would be seen by all as a
prophetic fulfillment. God couldve predicted several things that would take
place in each generation in each region of the earth, so that each generation and
each region of the earth would have confirmation that he exists through
prophecy. God could've told people about the vastness and the complexity of the
universe before humans would have been able to confirm it. He could have
predicted the discovery of penicillin, which has saved so many lives, and if
predicted it would have speeded up its discovery.
Scientific evidence. God couldve made this universe and the creatures on
earth absolutely unexplainable by science, especially since science is the major
obstacle for many to believe. He couldve created us in a universe that couldnt
be even remotely figured out by science. That is to say, there would be no
evidence leading scientists to accept a big bang, nor would there be any evidence
for the way galaxies, solar systems, or planets themselves form naturalistically. If
God is truly omnipotent he couldve created the universe instantaneously by fiat,
and placed planets haphazardly around the sun, some revolving counterclockwise and in haphazard orbits. The galaxies themselves, if he created any in
the first place, would have no consistent pattern of formation at all. Then when it
came to creatures on earth God couldve created them without any connection
whatsoever to each other. Each species would be so distinct from each other that
no one could ever conclude natural selection was the process by which they have
arisen. There would be no hierarchy of the species in gradual increments. God
couldve created fish and mammals, but no reptiles and no amphibians. Then the
theory of evolution could never have gotten off the ground, since the gap
between fish and mammals wouldve made evolutionary conclusions extremely
improbable. There would be no rock formations that showed this evolutionary
process because it wouldnt exist in the first place. Human beings would be seen
as absolutely special and distinct from the rest of the creatures on earth such that
no scientist could ever conclude they evolved from the lower primates. There
would be no evidence of unintelligent design, since the many signs of
unintelligent design cancel out the design argument for the existence of God.
God didnt even have to create us with brains, if he created us with minds. The
existence of this kind of universe and the creatures in it could never be explained
by science apart from the existence of God.
Biblical Evidence. Someone couldve made a monument to father Abraham
that still exists and is scientifically dated to his era. There would be
overwhelming evidence for a universal flood covering "all" mountains. Noahs
ark would be found exactly where the Bible says, and it would be exactly as
described in the Bible. The location of Lots wife, who was turned into a pillar of
salt, would still be miraculously preserved and known by scientific testing to
21
have traces of human DNA in it. There would be non-controversial evidence that
the Israelites lived as slaves in Egypt for four hundred years, conclusive evidence
that they wandered in the wilderness for forty years, and convincing evidence
that they conquered the land of Canaan exactly as the Bible depicts. Plus, there
would be no Bible difficulties such that a 450 page book needed to be written
explaining them away, as Gleason Archer did.
Evidence specific to Jesus. There would be clear and specific prophecies
about the virgin birth, life, nature, mission, death, resurrection, ascension, and
return of Jesus in the Old Testament that could not be denied by even the most
hardened skeptic. As it is there is no Old Testament prophecy that is to be
considered a true prophecy that points to any of these things in any nonambiguous way. The Gospel accounts of the resurrection would all be the same,
showing no evidence of growing incrementally over the years by superstitious
people. The Gospels could've been written at about the same time months after
Jesus arose from the dead. And there would be no implausibilites in these stories
about women not telling others, or that the soldiers who supposedly guarded the
tomb knew that Jesus arose even though they were asleep (how is that really
possible?). Herod and Pilate would've converted because they concluded from
the evidence that Jesus arose from the grave. Setting aside their respective
thrones, both Herod and Pilate would've become missionaries, or declare
Christianity the new religion of their territories. Such evidence like a Turin
Shroud would be found which could be scientifically shown to be from
Jerusalem at that time containing an image that could not be explained away
except that a crucified man had come back to life.
Now, I wouldnt require all of this to believe. I cannot say how much of this I
might need to believe. But I certainly need some of it. The more evidence there is
then the more likely I would believe. But the reasons and the evidence just arent
there, period.
------------------------------Postscript:
Someone asked me: "John, you say we must follow the evidence, but haven't
you said elsewhere that even if you were to admit that Christianity was proved
to your satisfaction that you would not follow it? Could you explain how that is
following the evidence?"
Gladly. The belief system that the evidence supports is to be considered part
of the evidence itself, and as such, it should be included when examining the
whole case. If, for instance, the evidence supported accepting militant Islam,
where I am called upon to kill people who don't believe, then I must make a
choice between the evidence that led me to believe and that belief system itself.
And such a belief system, even if the evidence supported it, renders that
evidence null and void. I would have to re-evaluate the evidence and consider
whether I misjudged it, or that I'm being misled, or something else. In other
words, a rejection of such a belief system like militant Islam trumps the evidence,
for I cannot conceive of believing it unless the evidence is completely
overwhelming, and there is no such thing as overwhelming evidence when it
comes to these issues. The same thing applies to Christianity, since inside the
Bible I find such things like divinely commanded genocide, child sacrifice, and
witch killings.
22
----------------Notes:
[1] Ruth Tucker, Walking Away from Faith: Unraveling the Mystery of Belief
and Unbelief (Downers Grove: IVP), 2002, p. 133.
[2] Valerie Tarico, The Dark Side: How Evangelical Teachings Corrupt Love
and Truth (Seattle: Dea Press, 2006), pp. 221-222.
[3] John W. Loftus, Why I Became An Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects
Christianity (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2008).
[4] John Hick, An Interpretation of Religion: Human Responses to the
Transcendent (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992), p. 2.
[5] William Lane Craig, "Politically Incorrect Salvation." In Christian
Apologetics in the Post-Modern World, eds., T. P. Phillips and D. Ockholm,
(Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1995), pp. 75-97.
[6] William Lane Craig, Must the Beginning of the Universe Have a Personal
Cause?: A Rejoinder, Faith and Philosophy, Vol. 19, No. 2, April 2002).
[7] J. L. Mackie, The Miracle of Theism (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1982), pp. 18-29.
[8] Douglas Geivett and Gary Habermas, eds., In Defense of Miracles: A
Comprehensive Case for Gods Action in History (Downers Grove: InterVarsity
Press, 1997).
[9] John King-Farlow and William Niels Christensen, Faith and the Life of
Reason (Dordrecht-Holland: D. Reidel, 1972), p. 50.
[10] Hector Avalos, The End of Biblical Studies (Amherst, NY: Prometheus
Books, 2007), p. 194.
[11] Paul Kurtz, "Darwin Re-Crucified: Why Are So Many Afraid of
Naturalism?" Free Inquiry, (Spring 1998), 17.
[12] Alvin Plantinga, Methodological Naturalism? Parts 1 & 2, which can be
found at www.arn.org, and in the journal Perspectives on Science and Christian
Faith (49: 1997).
[13] Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: Why Religion Poisons
Everything, (New York: Twelve, Pub., 2007), p. 64.
[14] Hector Avalos, The End of Biblical Studies, pp. 117-120; 154-162.
[15] Gotthold Lessing, On the Proof of the Spirit and of Power, Lessings
Theological Writings, Tr. Henry Chadwick (Stanford CA.: Stanford University
Press, 1956), pp. 51-55.
[16] William Lane Craig, Apologetics: An Introduction (Chicago: Moody
Press, 1984), pp. 145-149.
[17] From the Requerimiento, 1510 CE, written by jurist Palacios Rubios, of the
Council of Castile.
[18] Stephen Wykstra, Rowes Noseeum Arguments From Evil, in The
Evidential Argument From Evil, ed. Daniel Howard-Snyder (Bloomington and
Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1996), pp. 126-150.
23
24
(monotheism vs. henotheism). But the word for God, elohim, is plural, gods.
And, in Genesis 1:26, God says: Let us make man in our image. [Christians
were able to use this to argue for the doctrine of the trinity, but as Alan Hauser
argues, the concept of the trinity could not have been in the mind of the writer
or the writers audience. And, wind, not spirit, is the best translation of ruah
in Genesis 1:2. See, The Genesis Debate, ed. Ronald Youngblood (Baker, 1990, pp.
110-129)]. In some of the Psalms we read only that he is the God of the gods
(Ps. 86:8; 95:3; 96:4,9; 135:5; 136:2; 138:1). Why didnt the text deny the existence
of any other gods at this point? Either the authors of the Psalms didnt quite get it
yet (even though what they wrote was not false), or God was still in the process
of teaching them the whole story. It certainly looks as if the Hebrews started out
believing in a plurality of gods, which was progressively brought down to the
belief in just one God.
Anyway, the difficulty arises once we see the progressive nature of Gods
revelation that other things were progressively taught to the Hebrews too. My
question is this: At what point did the Hebrews have a developed historiography
such that they could sufficiently separate the historical from the mythic? In
eastern ancient lands there was little distinction, as if it didnt matter. When do
the texts demand that they understood such a distinction? How much nonhistorical myth is in the Bible? What about Jonah? Then too, how could we have
the exact words of Job and his friends when it was poetrydo people usually
speak in poetic sentences? How would the author know what went on before
Gods throne when the accuser spoke with God about Job? Job is clearly not
apocalyptic literature, so what is it?
Consider the nature and origin of sacrifice. The pagan conception of sacrifice
was to appease the wrath of the gods by offering up something of value so that
men were spared their wrath. At times they would even offer up children on the
altar. The Hebrew conception was better since their sacrifices included
thanksgiving, and were in response to a redeemer God. But not even Abraham
was aghast that God would demand he sacrifice his son Isaac. We today would
not believe that such a demand would come from the voice of God. Then there is
Jephthahs apparent sacrifice of his daughter without a trace of condemnation or
pity.
I have seen the progressive nature of Gods teaching in the issue of slavery. In
Exodus 21:21 we read of the humane treatment demanded of a master to his
slave, but in the process God declares the slave is his property. The idea of a
person being someones property is really repulsive to us now in light of
Galatians 3:28 (along with women). But such a viewpoint took time to be
understood by the church through the centuries. Perhaps the same will be said of
womens leadership in the church. Just as Exodus 21:21 can now be said to rest
on a cultural misunderstanding by Moses, one wonders if the same could be said
of Paul when he spoke about women.
Letter Two, August 23, 1993
Dr. Warren,
Let me say how much I appreciate the time you took to respond to my letter.
Jack Cottrell, I feared, mightve condemned me. At minimum Jack might place
me on a mental blacklist. One of his former students, Blair Yager, preached at the
25
Northmen this year and he condemned preachers and teachers who questioned
the historicity of Genesis 1-11. Blair teaches at Roanoke Bible College. His topic
was: Thy Word is Truth, but in reality he preached a different sermon that
shouldve been titled: My interpretation of Gods Word is truththe tragedy is
that I dont think he knew this. Jim Strauss wouldve sent me a cryptic set of
bibliographies with little recommendation as to where I should start reading.
Rarely does Jim answer specific questions. Instead Jim sees each question as a
part of something larger that he attempts to answer. Perhaps Im wrong about
both of these men whom I respect. You however, have taken my questions
seriously and offered specific answers in a lengthy response for which I am
grateful. You are a scholars scholar. I know Ill never be completely satisfied in
the quest for intellectual curiosity (Deut. 29:29). But you have made a
contribution to my thought.
CONCERNING EVOLUTION. I gave my cousin Larry Strawser a copy of
A.E. Wilder-Smiths book, The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution and
asked him to comment on his treatment of the origins of life. Wilder-Smith
argues that life simply could not arise out of a combination of proteins plus
electricity plus water. Wilder-Smith used chemical descriptions to argue his
pointspoints which I had a difficult time following. My cousin is for me what
communication theorists call a credible witnessnot that I always believe
what he says, but that he has a Christian faith, is an associate professor of
Biochemistry, and hes no intellectual slouch. Months went by until I received a
box full of Xeroxed articles from many different science publications, and six or
seven books and Xeroxed parts of books. He had also included a 34-page letter.
Basically he said Wilder-Smiths writings are so outdated that he showed no
evidence of anything written in his field since the 40sexcept, of course, his
own literature.
After receiving this material I set out to read much of it, although I couldnt
understand some of it because it was too technical. What I could understand was
very convincing on one major issue: that the universe was approximately 12-15
billion years old and that the earth is approximately 4 billion years old. Evidence
like the Grand Canyon, and intercontinental drift, was convincing on the age of
the earth. The evidence of starlight sent 12-15 billion light-years ago was
especially convincing. Not to accept such an age for the universe is to believe that
most of the starlight in the sky was never sent by any existing starthat God
somehow sent to earth thousands of points of light that had no source because
such a source did not exist that long ago to send the light.
I began to wonder about this possibility and about how God works. Do I
experience a God who takes his time to shape history and people, or one who is
in a hurry to get things done? I serve a God in whom time is not a factor. He has
always existed and will always exist. So why should it be a theological difficulty
to accept such a vast amount of time for his creative handiwork, if evidence
points in that direction? God still assures us that he will bring history to its
rightful close in his time.
You stated in your letter that any form of progressive creationism that
required such vast amounts of time wouldbe eliminated because of the
Genesis genealogical constraints. The question might arise that if Genesis 1-3 is
mythic in form, then why is it impossible to suggest biological evolution took
26
place up to the point of Adam & Eve? What if God progressively created several
humans and then chose Adam & Eve out for a test in the Garden of Eden?
Several other questions arise about the origin of mans sin, death, and other
elements of the Fallthings I am not prepared to give up, although I am
pursuing the theological implications that might follow from such questions.
The Roman Catholic Church of Galileos day learned an important lesson
about the relationship of faith to science that caused them to lose credibility in
the eyes of many thinkers of that day. So when Darwin published his Origin of
the Species in 1859 the Catholic Church gave it considerable more thought than
did Protestants. According to John Hardon in The Catholic Catechism (Double
Day, 1975), Darwinism as such had only minimal impact on Catholic thought,
whereas it struck many believers in evangelical Protestantism like a tornado.
Catholic thinkers have come to agree that evolution of the first mans body from
lower species is compatible with the faith. (pp. 91-93). Of course they have an
open canon found in the traditions and teachings of the church that may have
helped them overcome the onslaught of the secularists. Progressive revelation
hasnt stopped in their understandingit now comes through the church.
Coupled with the present day crisis in hermeneutics over authorial intent,
Catholic theologians have a point in saying that most of what we know is already
interpreted for us as we stand in our respective traditions. An inerrant Bible
simply is not enough, as witnessed by the Jehovahs Witnesses who deny
Christs deity.
Letter Three, October 31, 1993
Thank you for your important comments on my questions. You have given
me a great deal of food for thought. Let me offer some thoughts on theses issues.
Im not a scientist, so I have to listen to what they conclude, never forgetting
the limitations of scientific methods. When I see that Christian scientists accept
the theory of evolution (i.e. progressive creation) as the method God used to
create, then as theologians our task is to see the implications for the Christian
faiththats where our expertise lies. Can they be harmonized or not? One thing
for sure is that I reject the god of the gaps epistemology. Hence, Im not
threatened if evolution were shown to be true. Just because science might be able
to explain childbirth, a thunderstorm, or the origin of the universe, that still
doesnt adversely affect the theologian who maintains that God is the one who
opens the womb, controls the weather or creates man and the universe. The
scientist AT BEST can only answer the how questions/he cannot tell us why
various phenomena ultimately occur.
Another thing for sure is that atheistic evolution cannot stand on its own. I
used to say that until evolution can stand on its own I dont need to ask God to
save the phenomena. My view was tantamount to asking reason to stand on its
own in explaining the universe (the metaphysical why question). But since I
dont require this in any other area of thought its unfair to demand scientific
reason to do so here.
Perhaps the reason you have never been bothered by the problem of Cain is
that you have never seriously entertained the supposition that God used the
process of evolution to create the universe. But once you seriously weigh such a
possibility, then you would see the difficulty. Howard Van Tills The Fourth Day
27
28
the Messiah that Matthew hasnt already told us. We today would be extremely
puzzled by Matthews interpretation of it, were it not for the prior commitment
that Matthews interpretation must be forever correct. I however, dont think it
has to be forever correct, although Matthew must be correct in the points he
makes apart from the interpretation (that Joseph took Mary and Jesus to Egypt
and that they stayed until the death of Herod), along with the point he made
based upon the interpretation (that Jesus was identified with the nation of Israel
as their ruler and shepherd, etc).
Letter Four, January 30, 1994.
Let me say that I really appreciate your friendship and willingness to
correspond with me about some very important topics. You should know that I
have been open with you about my doubts and questions because I needed to
talk this over with someone I respect (truth as a question John Castelein would
say). When I am teaching or preaching however, I stick to what I can proclaim
(truth as proclamation), and I dont purposely try to discuss things that
produce doubts in my students minds. In cases where I think Ill be
misunderstood I usually keep quiet, but I might ask certain questions without
committing myself to certain answers.
Some of the issues Ive been struggling with are not purely intellectual. Could
you tell? They are also emotional, social, and spiritual problems having to do
with the present state of the church in America and the possibility that after all
my studying I may not have a significant role in that church. Someone recently
said that all I have to do is to take another church and my doubts will be put
aside. We now attend the Pleasant Lake Baptist Church where my cousin Jeff
preaches, so Im becoming doubtful that a Christian Church will have me. What I
really want to do is to teach, and I find it strange and bewildering that some
students became professors right out of seminary without any further degrees
because of family ties and a fathers name recognition.
You reiterated the point that the problem regarding evolution is not about the
antiquity of the universe, but one of biological complexification. But Howard
Van Till in The Fourth Day merely suggests that it would be incoherent that a God
who created the universe over this length of time would turn around and create
man by fiat. If God took his time to create the universe then why wouldnt he
also create living creatures with greater complexification during the same length
of time? In other words, what reason can be given for the different ways God
created? Is this the same God? If so, then there must be a good reason why, after
taking so long to create the universe with less complexification, he took an
instant to create the apex or crowning work of creation with all of our
complexification? Why did it take God so long to create the stuff of the universe,
which is less valuable and presumably less complex to create, than it did to
create the most valuable and highly complex creature(s) to inhabit that universe?
One thing Im sure of is this universe is 12-15 billion years old. Now what
follows?
About O.T. prophecy. Dont get me wrong here. Scripture means one thing,
not two, that is, apart from double fulfillment prophecies, allegorical
interpretations, apocalyptic images and typologies. Scripture has only one
legitimate meaning in the same utterance. But what exactly does the word
29
fulfill mean in Matthew 1:23; 2:15, & 2:23? It sure seems like Midrash to me. In
one sense preachers do this all of the time in retelling some of the events of the
Bible. All I am saying is that over time our methods for discerning correctness
have changed (its an epistemological not an ontological problem). Properly
interpreted the authors didnt write anything wrong, but if we were to judge
them by our standards of hermeneutics they wouldnt measure upthat is, we
would be laughed at by our contemporaries if we employed the same methods in
scholarly studiestry it and see!
Thank you for your time and trouble. You have made a contribution in my
thought. I must confess that reason is demanding more of a magisterial role in
what I believe. Part of this can be justified due to the fact that a reasoning creator
is the basis for our confidence in our reasoning powers. Yes, sin does distort our
thinking. But since reasoning is involved in the act of interpretation, I have
become more open to denying certain standard interpretations of Biblical issues.
How do we decide when reason tells us one thing, and the way the church
interprets the Bible tells us something different? This tension will always be ours.
Letter Five, March 19, 1994.
I suppose that when we begin to merely restate our present thinking on an
issue then weve said all that we can say without further study and reflection. So
our conversation is probably at a close.
Regarding evolution. I can conceive of a viewpoint in which a creator God
factors chance into his creative handiwork resulting from prior natural laws
firmly established beforehand. Arthur Peacock claims that God has the power to
lock in the results of selected chance events whereas other results are left to
disappear before the next level of complexification. Chance is Gods radar beam
sweeping through the diverse potentialities that are invisibly present in each
configuration in the world. Chance is the way of exploring the range of potential
forms of matter. Peacock writes that the natural causal creative nexus of events
is itself Gods creative action. (See his Creation and the World of Science, Oxford,
1979).
Of course we want to affirm that Gods action can and does transcend this
nexus of events. But why is it that we must insist upon the sharp distinction
between naturalistic chance and progressive creation? That there is a distinction
must be admitted by every Christian, but what isnt so clear is the point you
seem to make that there is a very sharp distinction between these two methods of
viewing Gods creative handiwork. It is here where I find one comment of yours
puzzling indeed: In the case of originating a life form like man, no amount of
time could generate the effect because nature lacks the mechanisms for doing it.
If a result comes by creation, it is necessarily instantaneous. Apparently you
either reject or cant understand how God could use naturalistic chance for his
ends. Yes, I agree that man can only be the result of the creators handiwork
theres no question about thisbut I utterly fail to see why his creative
handiwork must be necessarily instantaneous. I totally agree that evolution
cannot stand on its own because the mathematical odds reduce it to a probability
of zero. But when I examine the signs of the universe I am led by the little
evidence available to understand how God may have created the universe
through a slow evolutionary process.
30
31
effect? Ill grant that this is the true result of his words, but I doubt that he
understood it as such. What was Matthews intention? Matthews gospel reads as
if he was making a case for Jesus as the Christ. Dunn stated in The Living Word
that Matthews use of the sayings of Jesus is similar to the way he used the O.T.
in that: the texts used were often significantly different in sense from the
original. It was evidently quite an acceptable procedure in Matthews time to
incorporate the interpretation into the saying itself by modifying the form of the
saying. (pp. 115-122). All Im saying is that today we think this way of
interpreting the O.T. is wrong.
My problem is that I earnestly desire the truth whatever the result. I do not
concern myself with the results just yet, although I know Ill have to face them
sometime. Right now I just want to make sense of it all, results be what they may.
At times when I consider the possible results they scare me, but thats only
because they are unfamiliar to me. This is natural. The real question for me right
now is the truth question. If the answers upset other cherished beliefs then Ill
have to re-examine my answers and perhaps revise them in order to maintain
those cherished beliefs. On the other hand, my answers might cause me to give
up on some of these cherished beliefstheres no way to tell at this point which
way Ill go. But as time permits I am committed to finding answers that produce
the least amount of tension among the things I believe. Its a really tough job
since I have a finite mind and am swayed by my passions and the evil one at
large.
I know that I started out writing you with questions, and that now it seems as
though Im settling on some answers that are not your answers. If that is so,
please dont be offended that Im taking off in a different path than what youd
like. We dont share the same basic assumption that the universe is
approximately 12-15 billion years old, which seems to affect the way I see God at
work in our worldagain, the issue is truth, not whether it affects my view of
God. While I dont acknowledge it, what you write does keep me from going off
too far too quickly.
I am definitely leaning to the left of evangelicalismif Im not already in the
mainstream. Anyway I do appreciate your comments because they give me hope
that someday Ill look back and be thankful. I simply cannot bring myself to
enter the ministry again when I wonder where my questions will take me and
what church might want me. My writing is on hold too while I search out a more
or less consistent view of things. Probably the best bet for me is for me to teach
several introductory classes in a secular college somewhere.
32
33
To tell you where I am, let me begin by saying that I have just finished
reading John Robinsons Honest To God, and liked it! What has happened to me
theologically? The watershed for me, and I suspect for others who have changed
their assumptions, is the factual and historical reliability of Genesis 1-11. That is
it. But before one can begin to seriously engage these chapters he or she would
first have to be convinced that all truth is Gods truth. This is something that you
taught me. Arthur Holmes book All Truth is Gods Truth is a good discussion too.
Otherwise, people who reject this basic viewpoint will simply say that the Bible
teaches something different than that--whatever that is.
The steps leading to a change in my thinking took place as I seriously looked
at Genesis chapter one. Only then was I able to re-consider chapter two, and so
on. Im sending you my research on the creation accounts. So Genesis one is the
key. If that chapter is mythical in genre, and late in origin, then what about the
stories that follow? The question I asked myself is this: Why is it that way back in
Abrams life and before, we must demand that ancient people had adopted the
kind of historiography that Judeo-Christians later adopted? Its obvious that their
notion of God evolved, so why not their notion of history? Anyway I had read
Bernard Ramms book The Christian View of Science and Scripture and knew the
options for harmonizing science and Genesis. But it was Howard Van Tills book,
The Fourth Day, which led me to see that the universe was 12-15 billion years old-it was as old as scientists say it is. From there I read Henri Blochers book, In the
Beginning and learned there were some magical statements and certainly nonhistorical items in Genesis 1-3, even on a conservative account. Blocher defends
the historicity of Adam and Eve, but upon hindsight, he does so on shaky
ground, once he admitted to the wisdom genre (as he calls it) of chapters 1-2.
In the meantime, I read Four Views on Hell, ed. William Crockett, and came
away thinking conditional immortality was the preferred option (defended by
Clark Pinnock). This is an important conclusion when it comes to rethinking my
faith--for otherwise my questions would have been hamstrung by a fear of
everlasting punishment in hell if I got it wrong. The loss of the fear of an eternal
conscious punishment allowed me to pursue my doubts. Another key
assumption is that faith has nothing to fear from the truth--so I pursued my
questions with intensity. [I have since come to deny the existence of such a hell-conditional or metaphorical. It just doesnt square with what Freud has taught us
about the depths of our subconscious motivations. Because of Freud we now
know that people do bad deeds because of faulty thinking patterns and
experiences that happened even before the age of accountability--we know this!
Prior to Freud actions were judged prima facie as indicative of peoples conscious
deliberate attempt to be bad. We also know that once we understand these
subconscious motivations and background experiences that we can find a love
for people who commit evil deeds. Since God understands all of these hidden
motives, past experiences, and faulty thinking patterns, then he completely
understands why people do what they do. Hence, in a post-Freudian world, we
can no longer talk about a wrathful vengeful God who seeks our destruction
because we disobey our parents, shoplift a tool, or tell a lie to escape a
confrontation (I use these easy examples here because examples like Jeffrey
Dahmer, Hitler, Stalin, are harder for us to comprehend--but only to us, not to
34
God, who understands all, and cannot help but love all, since religious traditions
abound in teaching us that God is love.)].
I devoured several books and commentaries on Genesis 1-11. John Gibsons
Genesis 1-11 was read too early in my development. I rejected it. But Bernard
Andersons Understanding the Old Testament hit a nerve, and for the first time I
understood a liberals view on the Old Testament. There was much there that
made me think. The Meaning of Creation by Conard Hyers is simply a superior
book--it explains many of the questions I was asking. Donald Gowans From Eden
to Babel: Gen. 1-11 is a short book but sufficiently explained to me the origin of
Cain, his wife, and the city he built. The Genesis text assumes there are other
people around, Gowan explains, because just like the four gospels, which used
separate pericopes to emphasize particular themes, the final editor of Gen. 1-11
wanted to emphasize the depth mankind had sunk in sin, so he drew upon that
story involving Cain and inserted it here for that purpose. Claus Westermanns
little Creation book summarizes his findings in excellent ways and sees Gen 1-11
as a unit describing mans sinfulness out of which the following chapters show
Gods mercy. Gordon Wenhams commentary on Genesis 1-15, even as a
conservative one, gives up interesting ground in various ways to the liberal
argument. He admitted to the presence of similar stories at least 1000 years prior
to the earliest that Genesis could be written. Now, which conservative would
argue that such stories could filter down that many years by ancient peoples
without change? Wenham emphasizes that the CONTENT of Genesis is antimythical, and I definitely agree. But this doesnt win the argument, because the
real debate concerns whether the first few chapters have the same genre as myth,
which explicitly speaks to the issue of the factual historicity of the accounts.
Westermann simply says that the stories are myths, but he continues: To
oppose myth and history in such a way that history presents what actually
happened, while myth presents fiction, is utterly unhistorical. It is much more
perceptive to see that in the early period of mankind it was not possible to speak
of what actually happened in any other way. (p. 13). I also devoured Ronald
Youngbloods The Genesis Debate but found myself agreeing with the liberal side
in every chapter. This book discusses several issues including: Was Evolution
Involved in the Process of Creation? [Notice here the perceptiveness of the
question itself--no dichotomy here!) and Were there People before Adam and
Eve?
Of course, I re-examined the doctrine of the Bible again. Clark Pinnock in The
Scripture Principle began the quest anew. I noticed in James Dunns Evidence for
Jesus (which I used for an Apologetics class) that the Gospel book of John
contains much that couldnt have come from the lips of Jesus. He showed the
difference between John and the synoptic accounts both in the style of Jesus, and
the content of his teaching. John often has Jesus in long discourses while the
synoptic gospels have him speak in epigrams, proverbs and parables. In John the
content is about himself (I ams, etc)--not the kingdom, while in the synoptic
gospels he speaks often about the kingdom and little regarding himself. In John,
as you taught me, the kingdom becomes eternal life. Dunn defends Johns
Jesus but only by admitting that it is a theological elaboration of history--that the
discourses of Jesus in Johns gospel are meditations on a typical episode or
teaching in the life of Jesus. Here he granted too much.
35
36
The hardest thing for me now is that of leaving friends and a conservative
community behind--nearly 25 years in the making! Its a wonderful but terrible
thing to grow out of a position that held you in its grip for too long.
The world-view question? That too is in a bit of flux right now. I now realize
that James Sires catalog is too simple (The Universe Next Door, IVP, 1988). There
are a great deal many more world-views than he examines. There are people
who argue that their world-view is consistent even though they hold to various
items chosen from several different world-views as presented by Sire. You can
call me a Deist if you like. I think this terms fits me best -- a view of reason in
which all things are judged by the light of natural revelation that is from God by
the mind, conscience, and religious traditions. I can be a deist that allows for
miracles, since the common denominator among deists is the belief in whats
reasonable. Although, I now feel the force of David Hume like never before. By
Sires definition I am also a theological existentialist, although I reject the idea
that meaning is created in the subjective world. For me meaning is objective. But
I do believe that the Biblical stories and events are from God as teachings to
progressively lead us to maturity in objectively seeing that God is love. At times I
am also led toward panentheism or Process Theology. Arthur Peacocke in
Theology for a Scientific Age, and Ian Barbours Religion in an Age of Science (Gifford
Lectures 89-91 Vol. 1) point me in that direction.
I am writing you because you were instrumental in my earlier years, and I
owe you an accounting of what Ive done with that which you started in me. I
dont look for an argument, or agreement. Maybe there is a comment or two you
might find the time to make. If not, thatll be okay, I suppose. One thing I dont
need to hear from you is the comment you make about people who leave
fundamentalism: He never had faith in the first place, otherwise he wouldnt
have lost it. Since you arent a Calvinist, I never quite understood that
statement--only a Calvinist could make it. Surely you cant mean to say that if I
was grounded in what I believed I wouldnt have left it? In the first place, I was
very much grounded in what I believe. But more to the point, such a statement
assumes what needs to be proven--that what I believed in 1982 was the whole
truth. Furthermore, a great many theologians much better than I have changed
their minds, including John Hick (who used to be conservative) and Clark
Pinnock, (see James Wall ed. How My Mind Has Changed, Eerdmans 1991). Most
theology students start out conservative and shift toward liberalism as they
learn. If there is something wrong with this, then it has to stand or fall on the
issue of truth.
If nothing else, here lies a test case in the mystery of conversion. What makes
someone change his or her mind? Although I have passed through a conversion,
not even I can tell you how it happens, exactly. Perhaps it happens as a result of
a crisis, plus information, minus a sense of Christian community? Im not sure
how my crisis prepared me, but I do know I was angry with God for allowing it,
and at his people for seemingly not to care.
I talked to a woman who taught at our local High School who described a
personal crisis to me and said she read anything she could to deny Christianity,
but in the end just couldnt deny it. That thought also sticks with me. Maybe I
attempted and succeeded at something she failed at--except that I still claim the
name Christian; I just deny traditional Christianity.
37
38
Since it seems clear to people who have known me that I was a strong
believer at one time, the other option is to deny that I am an honest skeptic right
now. Im in denial, one could be heard to say. It seems as though what Christians
believe takes precedence over the testimony of people, when that testimony
contradicts what they believe. Thats a little bit strange when those same
Christians will claim to believe the testimony of the early disciples to the
resurrected Jesus, even though their testimony contradicts what we know about
the regular ordered laws of nature.
I dont deny there are dishonest doubters. Some of them dont know that they
are being dishonest, but they are. They are dishonest to themselves. Perhaps
because of a horrible accident they just refuse to believe in God, even though
they know deep down inside that it wasnt Gods fault. But this isnt me.
Some others know they are being dishonest, but they profess doubt anyway.
It should be obvious that if someone is a dishonest doubter they must benefit
from doing so in some way. Lacking any benefit in professing doubt would
render such dishonest professions unnecessary. But wherever there is some
benefit for doing so, then there will be dishonest doubters. But this isnt me.
I think that a better case can be made that there are more dishonest Christian
believers in American society than there are dishonest atheists. Since there must
be some kind of benefit to claiming something that isnt so, the question is, who
stands to benefit the most by being dishonest?
Gay people need to have courage to come out of the closet because they
fear that doing so would cause them problems with the moral Christian
majority. Its much easier to come out and declare oneself a Christian, because
thats respectable in the heartland of America. Confessing Christ in our small
town cultures isnt what it used to be in the early few centuries. But doing so
today actually has many social benefits, in my opinion.
In small town cities across America, it takes more courage to declare oneself a
skeptic or an atheist than a Christian believer, I think. And consequently, since
the social benefits are clearly against minority thinking, then two things follow:
1) There are more dishonest professing Christians; and 2) Those who profess
minority thinking, such as skepticism and atheism, are more likely than not
being honest, because doing so actually denies them various social benefits. I
have personally experienced this with the business that I own. If I were truly
dishonest, I would turn around and profess Christian faith so that my business in
this small town might thrive again.
Many Christians have walked away from their faith:
www.ex-christian.net, where you will read several ex-christian testimonies
every week.
www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html, is almost encyclopedic with
regard to testimonies and websites for former Christians. Steve Locks also
maintains: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/testimonials.
Edward T. Babinski, Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former
Fundamentalists (Prometheus Books, 2003).
Dan Barker, Losing Faith In Faith: From Preacher to Atheist. (Freedom From
Religion Foundation, 1992).
39
Joe Holman, Project Bible Truth: A Minister Turns Atheist and Tells All. See
www.ministerturnsatheist.org/
Ludovic Kennedy, All in the Mind: A Farewell to God (1999).
Skipp Porteus, Jesus Doesn't Live Here Anymore: From Fundamentalist to
Freedom Writer (Prometheus Books, 1991).
Robert M. Prices story, From Fundamentalist to Humanist (1997) found here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/humanist
Michael Shermer, How We Believe (Freeman, 2000), pp, 2-15.
Scott R. Stahlecker, How To Escape Religion Guilt Free (2004).
Charles Tempelton, Farewell To God: My Reasons For Rejecting the Christian
Faith (McClelland & Stewart, 1999).
Look the following men up on the Internet and read their deconversion
stories: Farrell Till, G. Vincent Runyon, Lee Salisbury, Ray Billington, Bob Hypes,
Ransom L. Webster, Douglas Larson, Allan Nielsen, and Craig Cunningham.
All the members on my blog have been ex-Christians and/or ex-ministers,
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/ and you can read their stories
there.
For absolute must reading on the so-called unique nature of the Christian
experience, see Edward T. Babinskis essay on this at the Secular Web:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_babinski/experience, where Ed
examines Josh McDowells claims about this.
Those who have left conservative Christianity:
John Hick, in More Than One Way, eds., Okholm & Phillips (Zondervan
1995), pp. 29-59.
Marcus Borg, Meeting Jesus Again For the First Time (Harper, 1994), pp. 1 19; and The God We Never Knew (Harper, 1997), pp. 11-31.
John A.T. Robinson in Honest To God (Westminister, 1963), pp. 11-28.
James Wall, ed. How My Mind Has Changed, (Eerdmans, 1991).
Andrew Furlong, Tried for Heresy A 21st Century Journey of Faith,
[http://myhome.iolfree.ie/~andrewfurlong]
40
41
experience that the once save always saved doctrine is false, okay? You will not
convince us otherwise, so dont even try. Keep it to yourself if you believe
otherwise, okay?
Your interpretation of the Bible on this issue needs to consider the evidence of
every member at DC. Its very interesting to us that Christians will reject our
personal testimonies to the contrary and at the same time believe the personal
testimonies of ancient superstitious people in the Bible who claim to have
experienced miracles, even though their testimonies are all contrary to our
experiences in the modern world where there are no miracles happening today.
Christian, you can always investigate our claims. You can talk to people who
know us (including past preachers and teachers, parents, siblings, friends, and
people we ourselves converted to the Christian faith!); you can listen to our
sermons; and you can read our Christian writings.
So, to answer your specific question, were the team members here ever really
Christians? Well it depends on the particular perspective you want us to respond
to.
There are two perspectives to describe our lives as former Christians. On the
one hand, from our former Christian perspective, we can describe ourselves as
having been believing Christians, in that, just like other professing Christians
(the only kind we ever see) we experienced salvation, regeneration, the Holy
Spirit, and answered prayer. We believed and accepted Jesus substitutionary
death on the cross for our sins. We believed Jesus bodily arose from the dead and
would return to earth in the parousia. We repented from every known sin, again
and again. We confessed Jesus is Lord. We prayed the non-Biblical sinners
prayer (where is that in the Bible?) by inviting Jesus to come to live inside us. We
claimed to have a personal relationship with God in Jesus Christ, just like every
other Christian. Like you do now, we tried to live a spiritual life in gratitude for
Gods grace by reading the Bible and obeying what we read in it. So we
evangelized, tithed, attended worship services, Bible studies, and became leaders
in our respective churches.
Some of us were ministers, pastors, and preachers. Others were Sunday
school teachers, superintendents, elders, deacons, and/or Bible study leaders. I
taught people who are now in ministry. There are at least three men presently in
the ministry because of my influence.
For you to reject our testimony you will probably have to reject the testimony
of someone you know right now in your church whom you look up to as a
Christian who may reject Christianity in the future. The problem is that you just
may not personally know someone like that, yet. But the chances are that you
will. Then what will you think?
On the other hand, from our present skeptical perspective, the Christian faith
is false and based upon ancient superstitions. We believe we were deluded about
it. We were never true Christians in the sense that there is no truth to
Christianity. If being a Christian means that we had a personal relationship with
God-in-Jesus Christ, then we never had such a relationship, for such a
supernatural being is based upon non-historical mythology. There is no divine
forgiveness because there is no divine forgiver. There is no atonement because
Jesus did not die for the worlds sins. There is no God-man in the flesh to believe
in. Our petitionary prayers were nothing but wishful hoping. And we believe
42
this is true about any Christian who claims to be a Christian too. By this same
standard there are no Christians, either, because there is no Christ, no Messiah,
no God-in-the-flesh, no Holy Spirit regeneration, no devil and no heaven to go to
when anyone die.
43
44
stressing the need to get "back to the Bible" in everything they do. At times it
may seem they are backward because of this, and they are. But if Christians
really believed the Bible they should have the same goal, I think. The two
conservative branches of the Church of Christ really study the Bible intensely.
They really try not to cherry pick from the Bible, like others seem to do more of, I
think. The Bible is everything to them. Now I happen to think if you study the
Bible, it debunks itself! So if more ex-Christians come from the Church of Christ,
I see this as a compliment to the Church of Christ's desire to read, study and
follow the Bible as best as they can.
Whether an inordinate number of ex-Christians come from the Church of
Christ or not, their personality types may contribute to their outspokenness. It
may be because they have many fundamentalist black & white type personalities
in their churches to begin with. Fundamentalist type personalities don't like
mysteries. They want to reach clear cut answers. And they want others to believe
what they do. So some of us are naturally outspoken when we leave. And if
that's the case, you just may be hearing more from us than from others who leave
the Christian faith, that's all.
45
46
more arguments, this time defending atheism. I was still curious to see what
arguments would work and which ones wouldnt. I was also testing my own
arguments against what Christians might say in response, and I learned some
things in the process.
I had initially written my book to end a period in my life, my former Christian
life. But it seems as though it only led me into defending what I wrote against
objections.
After awhile at that Christian forum I tired of the back and forth mudslinging.
I still wanted a reasonable discussion of the ideas. At the suggestion of Ed
Babinski I started my Blog. For some reason it took off. Jeffrey Jay Lowder of the
Secular Web had just started the Secular Outpost, blog, which was a sister site to
theirs. And he linked to my Blog.
When I first started the Blog in January '06 I wanted to choose a title that best
described what I intended to accomplish that would also grab people's attention,
so I chose the present title, Debunking Christianity. It has done its work well.
When you see it listed on another blog or website it grabs your attention. It has
increased our traffic.
This title also best describes my goals. My goals are negative ones. I do not
intend to defend atheism, per se, even though I am an atheist, but to argue against
evangelical Christianity, which is the most obnoxious type of that faith held by
the majority who are so cocksure of their views. I'm merely claiming that their
type of Christianity is a delusion, something every non-Christian and liberal
Christian can agree with me about. This is my niche, and I hope I'm doing this
well. To those who disagree with these goals I respond that by having narrow
goals of this type I can better achieve them. Larger goals are harder to achieve,
because the larger the claim is the harder it is to defend. My goals allow me to
focus on one thing and to do it well. My primary goal is to knock conservative
Christians off of dead center...to make them question their beliefs. Where they
end up after this is not my immediate concern. There are other sites and other
books that can take up where I leave off. But I'm doing the hard work, not that
debunking evangelical Christianity itself is difficult, but that getting these
Christians to acknowledge that their faith is delusionary is indeed difficult. And
I've been willing to take the barbs thrown my way (not with pleasure) for this
purpose.
Then I began inviting people on DC who shared these same goals, and
developed quite a nice list of contributors, beginning with exbeliever. Some team
members merely wanted to become contributors in order to post their
deconversion stories, while others have come and gone for various reasons, and I
thank them all for their contributions.
But the title of the Blog also leads to some confusion. One such confusion is
that it sounds offensive. It sounds as if we are hostile to Christian people
themselves. It sounds like a personal attack. But we're not at all hostile to
Christian people, unless provoked, and I have been provoked quite a bit simply
because the Blog exists. We try our best to be cordial and polite, although this is
difficult to do in the midst of these types of debates, especially when dealing
with a belief system we think is akin to Holocaust deniers and Flat Earth Society
members. It's hard not to ridicule what we think has no solid evidence for it, but
we try really hard not to so.
47
The title may also lead Christians to think we are ignorant, since skeptics have
tried to debunk Christianity for millennia to no avail. Some Christians have
shown up, read one post, and blasted us without seeing the depth of our
arguments. They in turn soon realize that we do know what we're talking about.
No one can say all that he or she knows in one post. So because we leave
something out, a Christian might retort with a Bible passage as if we've never
considered that before. It doesn't take long for that Christian to see we have
considered it and rejected something about it.
The title also sounds as if we are hostile toward the Christian faith, so it
provokes hostility in return. Well, in some real sense we are a bit hostile to
Christianity. We think it causes harm in many ways, yes. But even though this is
true in varying degrees, we try to dispassionately argue against it. We are testing
our arguments against what Christians can throw at us, and we have learned a
few things in our debates. I personally love to learn from others no matter what
they believe, and I do. No one has a corner on the truth. We admit this. If we are
wrong show us. That's all we ask. Although we no more think we are wrong
then others who disagree.
As former insiders to the Christian faith we reject it with the same confidence
that Christians reject the faiths of all other religions, even other branches of
Christianity. The rejection is the easy part. We all do it. My claim is that
agnosticism is the default position when it comes to affirming what we believe,
which merely claims "I don't know". Anyone moving off the default position has
the burden of proof, for in doing so that person is making a positive knowledge
claim. When I argue for atheism I too am affirming a positive knowledge claim
that must bear its own burden of proof. But in moving from agnosticism to
atheism I am taking a very small step when compared to moving up the ladder
to a full blown evangelical Baptist Christianity (as but one denomination among
many), past pantheism, panentheism, deism, theism, Christianity, and
evangelical Christianity itself.
48
49
about, whereas Christians always seem to struggle with thoughts of hate, greed,
lust, and the like. I only have to be concerned with what I actually do, not what I
think about. I no longer have to give of my hard earned money to fund a church
building in hopes God will multiply it back to me. I dont have to worry about
what Ms. Peabody thinks if I go play pool at the bars, and I no longer have to
waste so much of my time attending church, reading the Bible, praying, and
evangelizing. I no longer have the overwhelming guilt when I failed in these
tasks, either, nor do I need to confess my failures in these tasks with tears in my
eyes to God. If someone does get in my face I dont have to be a mild mannered
man, but I can tell him to get the hell away from me, and I can say it like I mean
it. I can waste away my time watching TV without guilt if I want to. I can drive
over the speed limit if I want to without fear of God's judgment, although I
hardly do this at all. I also love the freedom to think for myself without feeling
like I must justify everything I believe in the Bible (have you recently tried to
come up with a view of hell from the Bible that passes the moral test?). And I
love the fact that my thinking is not hamstrung by fear of being cast into hell,
because I'm a freethinker. I also love being good to people just because I want to,
and not because I have to, and I am. Even as an atheist I have solid reasons to be
good without God.
I want to help people who are struggling with their Christian faith to know
there are others out there like me. As I was thinking my way out of Christianity I
did it alone with my books. I read things. Then I thought about them. And I read
some other things. But I struggled, and struggled. I only sought to talk to a very
select few people about my doubts, because most all of the people I knew were
Christians, and I didnt want to be branded as a heretic, or shunned, nor did I
want to create doubt in anyone else, since I wasnt sure what I would end up
believing at the end of the tunnel, so to speak. So my books and my Blog are to
help people discuss these things. Its to let them know there is light at the end of
the tunnel, and that others like me have come out of the tunnel and were okay.
Its okay to doubt. Youll be fine. In fact, I believe its better over here.
I believe there are inherent dangers with religious beliefs. They dont always
materialize, but they do have their impact in various ways. There are political
reasons, which I dont touch on much at all. There is a large voting block of
evangelical Christians in America that help elect our local and state and national
governmental officials. This large block of evangelical Christians also participate
in letter campaigns to change public policy in ways I dont approve of. Atheists
generally think Christian theism inhibits scientific progress, creates class
struggles, sexism, homophobia, racism, mass neurosis, intolerance and
environmental disasters. There are some dispensationalist Christians in America
who believe the Jews are somehow still in Gods plan. So they defend Israel no
matter what they do, which fans the flames of war between the militant Muslims
and the US.
Finally, listen to Robert W. Funk and Robert M. Price's motivations for
debunking Christianity. Robert W. Funk in his book, Honest to Jesus (p. 19)
wrote:
As I look around me, I am distressed by those who are enslaved by a
Christ imposed upon them by a narrow and rigid legacy. There are millions
of Americans who are the victims of a mythical Jesus conjured up by modern
50
51
52
WL: I dont really know what Christian circles you moved in but I have
never been shunned for expressing doubts and I have had my fair share.
JWL: Translated: "I move in better Christian circles than you did (a standard
type rebuttal which I have no privy information to assess its merits).
WL: Are there any inherent dangers with atheistic views? May I suggest you
ask the 30-50 million victims of Stalin and Pol Pot. Even the grossest estimates of
the infamous Spanish Inquisition pale in comparison. Now I know that you are
not a that kind of atheist and that's not what atheism is about, so Ill try refrain
from lumping you in with Stalin et al as long as you distinguish between those
with true Christian ideals and those who have hijacked a distorted view of
Christianity for their own means.
JWL: But who speaks for Christianity? Who? There are at present 45,000
different denominations. To whom do I go to for information on what a Christian
thinks and behaves and to find which political party and which social issues to
support? Hijacking? Which ones? Amish people today would say that youve
hijacked Christianity. There was a time when Christians argued from the Bible
that they could own slaves as pieces of meat, and beat them within an inch of
their lives. This would have been the overwhelming majority opinion of their
day. If you believe what you do today, you would have been the outsider in their
day. They would claim that you had hijacked Christianity.
I believe there are evil people who will use any ideology to their own sadistic
ends. They come in all shapes and sizes, all colors, and all religions, or none at
all. The question is which ones are used most by these evil people to justify their
evil actions? Does atheism fare better or Christianity? I don't know. But my guess
is that percentage-wise, atheists are better educated than others, and better
educated people are usually better people toward others, even if there are
exceptions to this. While I don't have a statistical study on this, this stands to
reason. Better educated people know that violence breeds violence and that
nothing much is solved by violence. They would also have a much greater
tendency to rationally discuss the issues they wish to change, and to properly
evaluate the reasons why they might seek to do someone harm. Nevertheless,
there are people with Freudian "Death Wishes" everywhere, regardless of what
they believe. They are suicidal by degrees. Some Christians feel they have
committed the unpardonable sin, or that God cannot forgive them, so they no
longer care what they do to others, or themselves too.
WL: When I think of one of the greatest secular failures of all time, the USSR,
I can so easily apply the terms class struggles, homophobia, racism, mass
neurosis, intolerance and environmental disasters. Please dont tell me you
honestly believe that these will be eliminated by getting rid of Christian
(religious) influence. So just how does atheism address the natural tendency for
self preservation and dominance?
JWL: In the first place, secularism didn't fail with the demise of the USSR.
Leninism did. Lenin hijacked Marxism for his own power-seeking purposes.
Lenin does not speak for the rest of us atheists today. Modern atheism addresses
your worries through education and in understanding the different viewpoints
of others. Once that is accomplished we can no longer say of someone that they
are stupid and hate them merely because we have disagreements. Education
fosters tolerance. And while no one can be tolerant of everything, we can be
53
54
and prophets), it gave these producers power over the masses, for if the people
disobeyed God's messenger or priest, they would face God's supposed wrath. It
was all so quite convenient for the producers of religion who offered
explanations of dreams and the mysteries of a lifeless body. They gained power,
fame, and money over the consumers of religion (the masses). But if they created
a religion that was merely ice cream and cake, the people would no longer fear
the producers of religion, and the producers would not receive power, fame and
money. Besides, ancient people would not have believed in an ice cream and
cake giving God, anyway, since life was very hard, demanding, and scary.
WL: Actually I like being deluded (though obviously I don't think I am).
Within my worldview I can explain most of what goes on in my world. So please
don't try 'save' me and I'll try not to 'save' you. I'll try simply provide an answer
for the hope that I have. Albeit rather poorly.
JWL: But then what do you have to say about the Bill Craig's in the world
who argue that Christianity is correct, and I'll rot in hell if I don't believe? They're
trying to "save" me, even if you're not. So long as people like that are out there I
can argue against them all I want to. If that means you get caught up in the
middle between us, preferring to be left alone and also preferring to leave people
like me alone, I cannot control that. You don't have to listen in. You don't have to
assume that what I write is about you, either. It's only directed at apologists like
Bill Craig who think I'll rot in hell if I don't agree, and that's a charge I must
respond to, if for no other reason because my own life is at stake if hes correct.
He's claiming that if I disagree that's what will happen to me, and I object very
strongly to such a challenge on behalf of everyone who reads that challenge,
since it is so extremely guilt producing, and since many people don't know how
to adequately respond to challenges like that. But I think I do, and so I speak out.
Why is my focus on debunking Evangelical Christianity? A recent Barna Poll
shows that Most Americans take well-known Bible stories at face value. That is
one reason I focus on that which I do. According to Barna, two-thirds of
American adults take well-known Bible stories at face value. That's a lot of
people; 200 million of them (including children)! So I take aim at a very large
audience, which includes evangelicals, mainline Protestants, AND Catholics who
believe the Bible.
A former Blog member described why we at DC have chosen to debunk
evangelical Christianity in these words:
Not only is fundamentalist Christianity the greatest threat in the United
States to science, tolerance, and social progress, but it is also the most
prevalent form of Protestant Christianity to be found in our nation, whether
you like it or not. It is the fundamentalist religious right that holds the reigns
of the Republican party (which currently controls the nation, in case you
didn't realize), and it is this same fundamentalist religious right that lobbies
for the teaching of lies in public school and fights against funding for
embryonic research that could potentially save the lives of millions.
Whether you like it or not, it is this flavor of Christianity that makes the
loudest, most obnoxious, most dangerous impact on the world today, giving
us plenty of good reason to direct the brunt of our attacks in its vicinity.
I can, and I do argue against mainline and even Catholic Christianity. It's just
not my focus. My focus is on fundamentalism because the majority of Christians
55
believe the "literal" passages in the Bible, and because they have a zeal for
pressing their views upon me through economic and political power. Liberals are
not that much of a threat, period. They do not blindly accept what they read in
the Bible, and that's being more reasonable than fundamentalists, who have a
Bible verse for every problem, intellectual or social. I can agree with liberals on
this, so why bother with them?
Again, my goal is to dislodge the evangelical Christian off of dead center.
Once they are knocked off center they will be less cocksure and less of a threat to
my personal liberties. They will begin to think for themselves without blindly
accepting what they read in the Bible.
There is one factor in what I do that may be among the biggest motivators of
all. I like taking on challengesbig ones. Throughout my whole life people have
told me from time to time that I cannot do something, and I liked proving them
wrong. I also challenge myself. I want to see how good I can get at something.
Several years ago I started writing up some lessons about 8-Ball for our pool
league. The league operators begrudgingly copied them on the back of our score
sheets. When pool players in our area saw them, they laughed at
merepeatedly. Whenever I missed a shot they would say, Hey, Loftus, write
that up as a lesson next week will you? Sometimes people can be unmerciful,
and they can hold you down. Apparently only the pros could give advice about
pool, and since I wasnt a pro, I shouldnt presume to tell others how to play the
game. Who did I think I was? Its these naysayers who browbeat others into not
even trying to do well. But they motivate me. Those pool players are no longer
laughing. For five years I wrote monthly instructional columns for the best
national billiard magazine in America, and I have a book about pool that is
getting some excellent reviews.
Anyway, I hate being laughed at. Being ridiculed and mocked motivates me
like nothing else. Its like pouring gasoline on the flames of my passion. I want to
make these people eat their words. I know what I am capable of doing if I set my
mind to it. I get stronger when personally attacked. I even warned the very
people on the web who daily attacked me. But they ignored my warnings.
If you want to motivate me, just mock me. Belittle me. Harass me. Christians
have done this to me repeatedly on my Blog, and elsewhere. In my opinion they
are Christianitys worst enemies, for in doing what they have done, they made
me stronger. It motivated me to debunk the very faith that justifies their
treatment of me. Their actions convinced me they wouldve lit the fire that
burned me at the stake for heresy in a different era. So it made me want to go for
the jugular vein of their faith.
All I can say is that this motivated me. If these obnoxious Christians were
concerned about the Christian faith against my arguments they shouldnt have
personally attacked me like they did. They shouldve simply engaged me with
good arguments. It was they who motivated me to beef up the arguments in my
book. So let me just take a moment to thank those Christians who have
ridiculed me for also motivating me. To you I owe a debt of gratitude. Your
God must be very pleased with you. The question remains whether the sum
total of your individual efforts as Christian apologists will ever be in the plus
column after we factor in how you have helped motivate me to debunk the
very faith you each claim to defend.
56
57
There are other reasons to be angry. We could be angry for the way religion is
forced upon us by the majority through the law and upheld in court cases. We
could be angry at what Richard Dawkins describes as child-abuse in the form of
indoctrinating children to believe. We could be angry with how our tax money is
being used to support churches, or that churches don't have to pay taxes. We
could simply be angry at ignorance parading itself as education, or angry at the
inhibiting of science because of religious based beliefs and fears.
Whether were angry or not says nothing about whether Christianity is true. If
what we believe is correct, then we have a right to be somewhat angry for being
taught a delusion.
Besides, I see a great deal of anger coming from the Christian community.
According to many sermons preached in America every Sunday we are evil
doers, God haters, tools of Satan, and unworthy of any kindness at all, for we're
already headed to hell. As I just described in the previous chapter, I have
personally been viciously verbally attacked for arguing against Christianity. If
Christianity wins in the marketplace of ideas, why should Christians be angry
with me? Let the truth prevail. In a prior era Christians would burn me at the
stake for being an evil doer. And I was serious when I said I think some of these
Christians who have personally maligned me wouldve lit the fires!
The reason for anger on both sides of this great debate is because we're in a
cultural war of values over the hearts and minds of people, especially the
children. But we're simply not angry at God at all. We might be angry with
ourselves, those who led us to believe in the first place, church people who
abused us, and so on. But we're not angry with God. We don't believe the
Christian God exists.
58
59
they did, to do what they did. Are you Jesus? No? Then you don't have the right
to do as he did.
The same hermeneutics these Christians use to interpret and apply the Bible
in dealing with false teachers, was also used to justify southern slavery. Get and
read William Swartley's book, Slavery, Sabbath, War & Women (Herald Press,
1984). This Christian book is really about hermeneutics. Its main thesis is that
there are two different ways of interpreting the Bible with regard to these four
different ethical issues. On the one hand you have the literalists, and on the other
hand you have those who stress Biblical principles over some of the literal
statements in the Bible. And guess what? The literalists defended southern
slavery, while those who stressed Biblical principles (like Galatians 3:28) were
against it.
The problem here is that Christians who berate and ridicule false teachers
because Jesus did argue based upon the same interpretive principles as those
Christians who defended southern slavery. Other Christians stress Biblical
principles like loving the way the Good Samaritan did, who was considered an
outcast, a half-breed, and a worshipper at a false temple.
In fact there are two good reasons for treating those who disagree politely,
like I do: 1) People will listen to you, which is the goal, isn't it? 2) You might
learn something in the interchange of these ideas, since no one has a corner on
the truth.
Certainty is unattainable when it comes to such issues, so it's best to at least
tone down the rhetoric. But on they go. They are right about everything.
Everyone else, even many other Christians are wrong, which is another
personality induced my-way-or-the-highway attitude of what an apologist is
supposed to do.
Actually we apostates can consider ourselves lucky. In a previous era they
would have tortured us and burned us alive. Atheists don't deserve apologies
because they are less than human. And once you demonize your opponent you
can do anything you want to them, and Christians have done just that.
Many people listen to what we say at DC because we say it respectfully.
Think about it. Many people cannot hear what these other Christians say because
they can't hear their words above the loud screams of their attitude.
Even if these Christians are right about Jesus, Paul, and Elijah, who cares?
We live in an opinionated society; one that values the free expression of ideas
and where educated and intelligent people realize we will not all agree. That's
the difference that makes all the difference.
These Christians should adjust their views, just like theyve done with their
liberal views on women when compared to Christians of earlier centuries. They
should adjust, just like they've done by condemning racism and slavery, unlike
those who justified these things in the American South. They should adjust, just
like they do with their liberal views of hell when compared to the Middle Ages.
They should adjust, just like they do with regard to their liberal and heretical
ideas of a free democracy when compared to earlier times of the divine rights of
kings. They should adjust, just like Christians have done who longer think the
Bible justifies killing people who disagree. They should adjust or die trying to
kick against the goads.
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
indeed fail the test if certain things happened in my life, then why test me like
that? Why let the devil do what he did, if in fact it was a test? If it was a test then
it makes me feel like a pawn in a cosmic game of chess. Is this really what
happened? God was playing with my life just to win a challenge with the devil,
as in Job 1-2? Thats disgustingly like experimenting on captive prisoners with
new drugs and surgical procedures so that the science of medicine can advance.
But if I fail the tough test Im supposed to go the hell? This is simply immoral on
any level.
We humans disagree about all things that can be disagreed about. Some
things are much more important than other things. No wonder there are so many
different religions, and so many splinter groups of each religion, or no religion at
all! According to religious people, whether God is pleased with us and where we
will spend eternity are the most important issues of all. And its no surprise we
disagree. But if we cannot agree on lesser important issues, then why is it that we
should be any more logical when it comes to religious issues? The more
important the issue is to us, the more we cling to it and the more our emotions
run wild while we try to defend our viewpoint. It would certainly seem that the
more important the issue is to us, the less rational we are with regard to it, and
the less likely we are to give it up.
If this is all the case, then it is simply impossible for God, if he exists, to judge
anyone based upon what they believe. God cannot judge anyone for not holding
to the correct set of beliefs. Whether one believes the Koran or the Bible, whether
they are Mormon or Jew, whether they are Catholic or Protestant, there is simply
no way God could condemn someone for not believing the correct things about
religious issues. Period. Why? Because Im pretty sure most all of us are wrong
about many crucial issues. I could be wrong too. So why should God condemn
us for being wrong about religious issues, when were merely doing the best we
can?
If God exists he cannot even judge us for how we behave, because how we
behave flows out of that which we believe, and that which we believe flows from
the sum total of experiences and thoughts that we have encountered for as long
as we have been alive. I believe all of usevery single one of usdoes the best
we can given our gray brain matter, along with our life experiences. There can be
no harsh judgment from God, even if he exists. If I am wrong about anything I
have written, then I am wrong. For me, it is an intellectual matter. I think I am
right about what I believe, and I think Im right about what I dont believe.
If God does exist after all, may he be pleased with me for doing the best that I
can, given the nature of that which he has given us to work withwhich isnt
much.
67
68
69
out the new guy. The consciousness of the church was grounded in the
mythos of ancient Israel, seeing its history in terms of its relationship with
God, and seeing God as the ultimate causal agent for anything that
happened to it. When good things happened, God was blessing the church
for being faithful. When bad things happened God was punishing the
church for its lack of faith. Because my theology, and the ethics derived from
that theology, was very different from that of the congregation, and because
so many bad things were happening to that congregation as a result of the
socio-economic climate in the broader community, the people felt that God
was punishing them for tolerating me.
While this is an extreme case, it is not entirely atypical. Pastors have
little real power over their congregations, and what power they do have
rests in the consent of the congregation. Their power comes from their
spiritual wisdom, their education, and especially their ability to persuade.
Each of these areas of power rest in part on the inherant reasonability of the
congregation. If a congregation fails to recognize good spiritual wisdom, the
value of education, and the validity of the pastor's theological arguments,
then that congregation will be unmoved by the pastor no matter what he or
she does.
I think Sandlestraps did what was right. His role is to tell the truth, and he
did. He didn't expect the fierce response, that's all. One never knows exactly how
people will react. You get blindsided all of the time in ministry, even when you
think you're doing the right thing. Later you may question what you did, but
people hit you from out of the blue that you never quite expected would. And
you can't always know what will bring out these kinds of responses, or how
intense they will be.
My cousin preaches in Las Vegas, NV, right now. Most of the people in his
church earn their living from the gambling industry. Do you think he should
preach against it? Naw. He would get fired, and so would any preacher who did.
Is it best then not to say anything about it and minister in other ways? Sure it is.
But here is a case where he knows what to do. In other cases a preacher doesn't
always know. But is he doing right?
Become preachers. Go ahead. I dare you.
70
71
But I wanted to grieve too. Instead, the sermon angered me a little. It made
me want to argue, not grieve. I was there to pay my last respects, even though I
knew this is probably the message I would have to sit through. I could've stayed
away, but I wanted to show my last respects and to be there for her surviving
husband, who was closer to us as a friend than she was.
So I've decided. I will not attend any more funerals than I have to. I'll only
attend the funerals of family members (and very very close friends). I will only
go to the viewings/showings of others. I don't have to say why I didn't attend
the funeral. I just won't go to them anymore.
And if my atheist wife dies before me, then I just may do something with my
captive audience too, if I have a funeral for her at all (she doesn't want one
precisely because prayers, religious poems, and a sermon is what family and
friends will expect). After we laugh about her antics, since she's simply the
funniest and wittiest person I have ever known, and after we cry over her loss,
by remembering her many kind deeds and words, here's what I might say:
"Gwen was an atheist and so am I. When I've attended Christian
funerals I had to sit through sermons where I was told that if I won't repent
I'll go to hell. I was told that if I want to see the deceased again I should
believe in Jesus. But what if I used this opportunity to express several
reasons why I think such a view is false? I want you to live life like Gwen
did, as an atheist. I want you to have a better life like hers was, without such
a false delusional belief. I appreciate that you've come to show your last
respects, but this is my day to express to a captive audience how she lived
her life, and she lived a good life as an atheist."
Then I'd pause with a smile and say, "I won't do this, but how would you
feel if I did?"
72
73
I feel maligned, I know. So Im sorry. The truth is, I am not an angry atheist,
except with a few Christians that purposely provoke me on a daily basis. Other
than that, I have nothing to be angry about. Ive already expressed why Im
debunking Christianity earlier in this book, and Im not doing so because Im
angry at God or Christians in general. The title to my Blog suggests that I am, but
it is only titled that way to grab peoples attention, and it has done its job
effectively. Maybe Blogging is an outlet for me to express things I wouldn't do in
person, since I value people and I really don't want to offend anyone I personally
know.
She wanted to tell me a story about how her son was miraculously healed. It
was an amazing story, about prayer and a brain tumor her son had. It's a story of
how prayer stopped his seizers, and that it dislodged the tumor away so that a
second surgery could successfully remove it. The neurosurgeon told her that it
was a miracle. She wanted me to Blog about it, but I will not touch that with a ten
foot pole, and I told her why. I will criticize miracles, yes, but not personal ones
that a Mother believes happened with the son she loves so dearly. That would be
rude. She believes its a miracle, and thats all that I want to say about it. She
wanted me to consider that and change my mind.
I simply told her that as an atheist I am not saying I know there isnt a God. I
merely dont think God exists. He might. But I just dont think so. I went on to
tell her that if a God exists, then I am about 99% certain that he isnt the 3 in 1
Triune God of the Bible, though.
She said even though we were close at one time she was nervous to visit
with me, thinking she might not be able to argue with me. I, however, didnt
want to argue with her. I told her that most people I know and are friends with,
and work for, dont even know Im an atheist. I told her that I dont go door to
door with flyers and try to convince anyone at all. ;-) She smiled. In person, you
may not even know what I believe. The closer as a friend someone gets to me the
more they know about what I believe, thats for sure, and sometimes we get into
an argument, but not often at all.
Just seeing her again had the greatest impact upon me, for it forced me to
recall an era when I simply had no doubts at all about my Christian faithnone.
It made me remember those great times we had, and it was all because we
shared the same faith.
She had with her a picture of a few of us at a reunion in 1995, when I was in
the throes of doubt. We had a great time that day too. I had a ball cap hat on. She
wondered if I had lost some hair from it, because I always wore hats. When she
knew me 35 years ago I had a grey hat, like the one the scarecrow from the
Wizard of Oz wore. She liked my cowboy hat though, and said it looks good on
me.
During our visit Brenda said Im the same person, personality wise, and that
I was just as friendly toward her as I had ever been. She was somewhat surprised
by this, I think, since many Christians seem to think atheists are bad people, and
maybe I had changed.
She was also very surprised that on my Blog I have several links to Christian
sites that argue against usvery surprised, and pleasantly so. As she said this I
asked myself why there aren't very many Christian sites that do likewise, in the
interests of a fair discussion of these issues.
74
I asked her if she had read any atheist books, and she said she was not going
to contribute any money to people who write such books. She was only going to
read what they write on the web. Many times before she reads what an atheist
writes she says a little prayer that God would not let her be led astray by what
she is about to read, and I found that interesting. I decided Id give her the
Loftus/Wood debate DVD on the problem of evil, and I handed it to her. I
figured that since David Wood is debating me that she could see both sides, and
I didnt think that would offend her. When I gave it to her, her eyes lit up. She
had read what David and I had written on our sites, but became pretty excited
about seeing the debate for herself. Then I decided Id ask her if she wanted a
copy of my book, and she said she did. She asked me to sign it, and I did. I wrote:
To Brenda, with many many fond memories of my Christian past. Youre still a
sweetheart.
She asked me if I will ever regret writing what I do and leading people
astray. I pondered that question, but I dont think I said anything. What I
thought as she said it was how far apart I am from where I started. I went from
not having any doubt at all about Christianity to having practically no doubt at
all that it is wrong. Its amazing to me as well. But it happened.
As she left I asked her if she thinks my book might adversely affect her faith.
Shes never studied the things I have been educated in, so she may not have the
answers to my arguments. But she can do searches on the web, and she does
have some Christian apologetic books, even though she didn't know who
William Lane Craig was.
My purpose with good friends like her is not to change her beliefs. Personal
friends of mine are different than the people I write for. I like her just the way
she is. As a good friend I accept her just the way she is, with her beliefs. She just
wants to know how atheists think. If her faith is adversely affected by reading
what I write, then I can't do anything about that.
Brenda, thanks for coming by. Tell your husband hello from us. The joy was
all mine. Thank you.
75
76
who had privileged access to the inner workings of the church and who know
what Christianity is all about.
IM: Which religion do you think needs debunking worse: Christianity or
Islam? Why?
JWL: Christianity has already gone through an Enlightenment. Most
Christians do not take the Bible at face value because of this. They cherry-pick
their ethics and their beliefs from out of the Bible even though they claim
otherwise. They allow dissent too. They no longer kill heretical people who
disagree, like professing Christians did in the Inquisition. Islam has not had its
own Enlightenment. There are still an overwhelming majority of Muslims in the
Middle East who take the passages in the Koran at face value, so many of them
consider themselves to be at war with the infidels in a religious sense. In a
nuclear age like ours with people who have these beliefs, I consider Islam to be
the biggest threat to civilization, especially since its the fastest growing religion
today. I just dont know enough about Islam to debunk it like I do with
Christianity.
IM: How do you respond to creationists who claim the clockwork perfection
of the universe demands the existence of a designer?
JWL: In the first place, this universe does not show evidence of perfection.
The problem of evil is probably the greatest obstacle to believing in the good,
omnipotent God of Christianity. In my book this is probably my best chapter
where I argue this universe speaks with loud empirical evidence against such a
God. There is evidence of unintelligent design everywhere which cancels out any
claim to intelligent design. I also would say with others that the God-hypothesis
does not explain how the Christian God gained the information he had to create
such a universe. With others, I ask, who designed the designer? How is it
possible for some triune being to exist eternally without ever learning anything
or growing incrementally? That is absolutely baffling to me. Dr. William Lane
Craig even used the word bizarre when he first started studying the options to
explain existence. Its bizarre that something exists rather than nothing at all. We
must start with a brute fact, either choice we make. With the late Carl Sagan I
simply save a step, by starting with the brute fact of this universe.
77
78
Kenneth Kantzer, Dr. Stuart C. Hackett, and Dr. Ronald Feenstra. There are
many books written on both sides of this great debate that merely preach to the
choir. Mine is not one of them. Most skeptics who read it will see, for perhaps
the first time, how Christian apologists defend their faith. I dont think most
skeptics understand Christianity enough to be able to deal effectively with
believers. So skeptics will learn some valuable lessons and arguments if they
want to convince believers they are deluded.
HM: How could you convince someone to become an atheist if theyre not
quite religious anymore but not yet ready to abandon their faith?
JWL: I dont know what will convince any particular person to become an
atheist, since that which is considered convincing to people is person-related.
There is an irreducible personal element involved in whether an argument is
convincing or not, in the absence of a mutually agreed upon repeatable scientific
experiment. That being said, I think the arguments in my book will push the
reader in that direction. The major goal in my book is not to convince people to
become atheists, though, although I do argue for this. My major goal is to do the
hard work of pushing Christians off of dead center. I aim to dislodge them from
their certainties, to provoke them to doubt; intensive doubt if possible. Where
they end up after I get them to think for themselves, without reliance on dogma
or an authoritative inspired book, will be up to them. But I show them the way if
they wish to follow in my path.
HM: What changed the most for you when you became an atheist?
JWL: Well, I didnt become a serial-killer, if thats what you mean Im the
same person I was when I believed. Nothing much has changed in that
department, except I dont go to church activities and I no longer feel guilt for the
lack of tithing or prayer or evangelism or unforgiveness, and so on and so on. I
feel, well, human!
HM: Where do you agree and disagree with the New Atheists?
JWL: I am grateful for the awareness these men have created among the
English speaking world. Just like the gays had to grab our attention by being
obnoxious, so also Dawkins in particular, had to treat religion in demeaning
ways to provoke believers to really think about what they believe. He treats the
monotheistic religions just like everyone else does to dead gods like Zeus or
Apollo or Poseidon. We easily dismiss these mythical characters. Sam Harris
reminds us that the sole difference is that the majority of people alive today
believe in the God of the Bible. Now that these New Atheists have
accomplished this rise in consciousness I want to treat the arguments of the
believers seriously, and show why they are deluded to continue believing in a
non-threatening, respectful manner.
HM: Are you optimistic about the future of atheism?
JWL: Yes, very much so. I think its the wave of the future, even if it is
sloughing along at a slow but steady pace. There will always be believers, of
course, but skepticism will continue to rise in the polls.
79
80
81
think youre being used of the devil to deceive them. There's no use in beating
your head against the wall on this. People are deluded just like you once were.
You're going to have to accept this fact. They will probably never agree with you.
As a Christian you accepted the fact that non-believers didn't believe
without wanting to beat them up with your arguments. Now do the same thing
as an atheist with believers. It'll be better psychologically for you. As a Christian
you focused on people who were receptive to the gospel. Now do likewise as an
atheist with believers. Focus on those people who are receptive to the evidence.
Continue searching for better arguments, of course. Get into online chat rooms
and test your skills to express yourself there, and not with former friends.
Former friends will want to see if what you're going through is a mid-life crisis, if
youre in that age group. It will take years until they figure out it isn't. But you
stand as a witness on the other side now. Once they conclude this is not a midlife crisis they may consider your arguments and may do their own searching.
5. Are there resources to help me free my kids from the Christian delusion?
You may want to get and read Dale McGowans book, Parenting Beyond
Belief: On Raising Ethical, Caring Kids Without Religion (2007). You should get
a subscription to Michael Shermer's Skeptic Magazine, since it contains a nice
sized section written just for kids.
Beyond that there are skeptical meet ups that may be in your area. Get your
kids to meet and play with non-believing kids. Do a search for these groups at
http://www.meetup.com/. There are also skeptical groups associated with
Center for Inquiry that would help introduce your children to skeptical children.
Dan Barker has also written a few books for young skeptics like Maybe Yes,
Maybe No: A Guide for Young Skeptics, and, Maybe Right, Maybe Wrong: A
Guide for Young Thinkers.
82
83
today's world, but despite their own modernity they believe supernatural events
took place in the Bible. Christians may also admit the surrounding cultures of the
Israelites and Christians were superstitious to the core, but maintain against the
evidence that Gods people were not children of their times. Christians must also
admit that by today's more civilized standards God acted in cruel ways in the
Bible. Christians must also admit that history isnt exactly a science in providing
a clear revelation from God since they're dealing with a historically conditioned
text of the Bible. Christians will argue that until I can prove God does not have a
good reason for allowing suffering in this world, they can still believe God is
good. Isn't it clear here that Christians are explaining away the evidence?
The evidence for Christianity is just not there, while the evidence that must
be explained away to believe is a massive amount.
Of the meager amount of positive evidence that does exist for the believer,
mostly circumstantial, I am under no rational obligation to accept it. Christian
philosopher Kelly James Clark describes what Im looking for when it comes to
the evidence. He wrote: Sometimes, even when we dont have a better
explanation of the evidence, it is more rational to reject the best explanation on
grounds of implausibility. Indeed, most of us regularly dismiss claims that we
find wildly implausible, not due to careful consideration of the evidence, but
simply because we judge them antecedently improbable. We do this with reports
of UFO sightings, many reports of miracles and magic, and with tales of ghosts
and dragons.Inference to wildly implausible best explanations requires a lot of
evidence (emphasis his). Indeed, the evidence must preponderate sufficiently to
swamp our initial skepticism of the implausible hypothesis in question. And the
more information included in the hypothesis in question, the more evidence is
required to make it rationally acceptable. [Five Views on Apologetics, ed.
Steven B. Cowan, pp. 140-141]. So even if there is some paltry amount of
evidence for the Christian faith, I can still reject it based on the initial grounds of
implausibility. Given everything I have ever experienced and learned through
my studies, its wildly implausible to think God became a man, atoned for our
sins, rose up from the dead, and will cast all sinners into hell. Dead people stay
dead, for instance. Paltry circumstantial evidence cannot overcome this initial
implausibility. It would require a lot of evidence, and thats something
Christianity does not have on its side.
84
85
86
87
These expectations are largely what we find in the Genesis story (or
strictly, stories) of creation. There is, then, a logic to the picture of the
universe with which the Genesis story presents us: given the initial
assumptions about God, his nature, and his intentions, the Genesis universe
is pretty much how it would be reasonable for God to proceed. Given the
hypothesis of theism and no scientific knowledge, and then asked to
construct a picture of the universe and its creation, it is not surprising that
the author(s) of Genesis came up with the account which they did. (pp. 215216).
Everitt argues that this universe is not what we would expect to find prior to
our discovery of the scale of the universe given the supposition of classical
theism, where "God decides to create a universe in which human beings will be
the jewel" of his creation, and of whom "God will have an especial care for
human beings." (p. 215).
He puts his argument into this form:
(1) If the God of classical theism existed, with the purposes traditionally
ascribed to him, then he would create a universe on a human scale, i.e. one
that is not unimaginably large, unimaginably old, and in which human
beings form an unimaginably tiny part of it, temporally and spatially.
(2) The world does not display a human scale. So,
(3) There is evidence against the hypothesis that the God of classical
theism exists with the purposes traditionally ascribed to him. (p. 225).
He admits the limited nature of this conclusion when he says, it is not a
proof of the falsity of theism. We can also add that as presented, it does not even
claim that theism is probably false, although, the argument is not negligible.
The findings of modern science tell against the truth of theism. (p. 226). There
is indeed a mismatch between the universe as revealed to us by modern science
and the universe which we would expect, given the hypothesis of theism. (p.
225).
The crucial premise seems to be the first one. A key supposition is that
human beings will be the jewel" of Gods creation, and of whom "God will have
an especial care for human beings." (p. 215). Its based upon what we would
expect from such a God given the purposes traditionally ascribed to him.
Hes asking us what we would expect to find before we had any scientific
knowledge about the universe, given the fact that mankind is the pinnacle of
creation in that universe. It concerns what one would predict based upon what
one believes, since being able to accurately predict something confirms what one
believes (whereas not being able to do so, is disconfirming evidence). As far as
what one should expect given the existence of some x, there is a big difference
between (1) finding what we expect to find given x, and (2) finding something
different than what we expect to find given x. When one thinks about this it
becomes obvious that (1) is to be considered evidence on behalf of x, whereas (2)
is to be considered counter-evidence against x. This argument is similar to Rawls
veil of ignorance. What would you expect to find give theistic assumptions
about Gods purposes before actually experiencing the world?
88
Everitt illustrates what he's doing with a figure like Robinson Crusoe, who
wonders whether or not after the shipwreck there is another survivor on the
island. Given such a hypothesis, Crusoe should be able to make some predictions
about what that other survivor would do, such that, if he did them Crusoe would
see signs that he did (like marks on the trees, whistling, singing, having fires at
night, and so forth). Things that confirm his expectations constitute evidence that
there is another survivor. Things that don't confirm his expectations constitute
evidence against there being another survivor.
What Everitt is Not Arguing For. Let me start by explaining what Everitt is
not arguing for. In an online chapter from Richard Purtill's 1974 book, Reason to
Believe, Purtill argues with an entirely different argument when he wrote:
Christianity arose when the universe seemed a smaller and cozier affair.
Now that science has shown us the true age and size of the universe, we can
no longer accept the idea of a God who is personally concerned with our
conduct or our consciences. If any creative power is the cause of the physical
universe it has no interest in us. The idea of God explains nothing and
changes nothing. For modern man, God is dead.
Purtill continues:
"Now this is hardly worthy of the name of argument. From 'the universe is
very large and old' it does not follow that 'God takes no interest in man'
unless we add further premises. And as we will see, these further premises
have no plausibility at all. But the emotional force of the size and age of the
universe, once it is imaginatively grasped, is very great. To many people the
universe, as science shows it to us, does not feel like the sort of universe
which would be made by a personal god. And since many people think
mainly with their emotions, there seems to them to be an argument."
This isnt what Everitt is arguing for. Purtill is discussing an emotional
argument where it seems as though God couldnt be that interested in us if he
created such a vast universe. He answers this difficulty by saying that since God
is infinite he can indeed pay attention to human beings on a tiny pale blue dot
called earth. And while I think this particular difficulty does indeed have a great
deal of emotional force to it from my perspective, I'd have to agree with Purtill
that it is a purely emotional one, and as such, is probably not an argument that
would convince believers. Everitt's argument is not an emotional one. It does not
suffer the same fate as what Purtill argues against.
That being said, I do not believe human beings are logical machines. We are
influenced to believe what we do by our social backgrounds, peer pressure
groups, dreams, aspirations and emotions. And as such there can be no complete
separation from what one feels and what one thinks. There will always be a
component of emotion included in our logical evaluations of these matters, and
vice versa. I know people, smart people, who can logically defend something
that they believe entirely for emotional reasons. How else can those of us who
disagree with the Mormons or the Muslims explain what they believe any other
89
way? And for this same reason the emotional force of the problem of
evil/suffering is not one to be taken lightly either.
Again, Everitt argues that this universe is not what we would expect to find
given the supposition of the classical God of Christianity, where "God decides to
create a universe in which human beings will be the jewel" of his creation, and of
whom "God will have an especial care for human beings." (p. 215).
Everitts argument is also not about whether certain present day beliefs about
theism are essential to theism. Peter van Inwagen wrote:
A lot of what theists believed about the mundus [the physical universe]
and its contents has turned out to be wrong: that the earth is at its center, for
example, that God had created it in essentially its present form about four
thousand years before the birth of Christ, that a living organism can exist only
if a rational agent has imposed the form definitive of its species on a
particular parcel of matter .... But none of these theses was essential to theism,
and theists, a few radical and intellectually marginalized Protestants apart,
gave them up with less fuss than atheists have generally displayed in giving
up the idea of a physical universe that has an eternal, uniform past. [van
Inwagen, "Reply to Sean Carroll," Faith and Philosophy, vol. 22, 5, 2005, p.
637].
Van Inwagens point can be granted. For there is indeed nothing on hindsight
that is essential to theism which demands a smaller, human scaled universe. In
one sense what theists consider essential to theism has and is continually
changing anyway, with the advancement of science. In any case, the issue
concerns what theists would've expected (and did in fact expect) prior to the
advancement of modern science with the discovery of the large scaled universe
we all live in.
The Argument Confirms My Expectations. There is just something about
Everitts argument that resonates with me. It confirms my expectations, and as
such confirms for me that God doesnt exist. I think the argument is a good one
even if theists and skeptics themselves might disagree with me. Its no reason to
cease making a particular argument merely because people disagree with you on
both sides of the fence. If anyone thinks this is not a good argument then please
tell me what a good argument against Christian belief looks like. Does everyone
have to agree that it's a good argument before it is one? In my view most
arguments between us serve only to confirm what we each separately believe
anyway. I don't even see a reason why my intellectual opponents must agree that
an argument is a sound one before it can be said to be a good one. Remember, a
sound argument is deductively valid with true premises. So until we can all
agree what makes an argument a good one, dont say this is not a good one.
Come up with the criteria you use to say this argument is not a good one, and
then I'll see how that applies to your pet arguments.
Richard Carrier apparently agrees with Everitt and me on this when he wrote:
For the Christian theory does not predict what we observe, while the
natural theory does predict what we observe. After all, what need does an
intelligent engineer have of billions of years and trillions of galaxies filled
90
with billions of stars each? That tremendous waste is only needed if life had
to arise by natural accident. It would have no plausible purpose in the
Christian God's plan. You cannot predict from "the Christian God created
the world" that "the world" would be trillions of galaxies large and billions of
years old before it finally stumbled on one rare occasion of life. But we can
predict exactly that from "no God created this world." Therefore, the facts
confirm atheism rather than theism. Obviously, a Christian can invent all
manner of additional "ad hoc" theories to explain "why" his God would go to
all the trouble of designing the universe to look exactly like we would expect
it to look if God did not exist. But these "ad hoc" excuses are themselves pure
concoctions of the imagination--until the Christian can prove these
additional theories are true, from independent evidence, there is no reason
to believe them, and hence no reason to believe the Christian theory. [Why
I Am Not a Christian, found at http://www.infidels.org/library, section 4,
Christianity Predicts a Different Universe].
I think Everitts argument is sound, and convincing, but as he admits, it does
not show theism is probably false. That being said, I think a stronger version of
his argument can be made against evangelical Christianity which believes the
Bible is Gods Word, regardless of whether or not they are young earth
creationists, although, given the age of the universe at 13.5 billion years, it
probably applies more to evangelicals who believe the universe is that old. Its to
evangelical Christianity I will henceforth argue my case, and as such, the rest
that follows should be considered my own argument, not Everitts, although I
use his argument as a basis for mine. I will attempt to draw the conclusion that
evangelical Christianity is probably false from what follows.
There is no understandable reason why God had to create such a large
universe on such a scale if the drama on earth is the most important game in
town. If God wanted a cosmic showdown with the Devil then all he needed to
create was a flat disk, or a huge room, or the earth alone, without any stars.
There would be no understandable reason for creating anything else, if the
struggle for human hearts was the main (and probably the only) reason for
creating in the first place, which is what I'm told. It doesnt make sense. Its not
what one would expect, even being cautious with what wed expect.
This argument depends to some degree on whether or not God might have
other purposes for creating such a universe even granting mankind as the jewel
of his creation, and whether or not, given the existence of an infinitely creative
mind, he wouldve made the universe on such a scale as we find it. I will deal
with these objections a bit later.
Biblical Support. Let me offer some Biblical support for the claim that human
beings are the apex of Gods creation. The Bible strongly indicates that humans
are so valuable to God that he created it all just for us. Then God visited us, died
for our sins, and accepts the saints into heaven and casts sinners into hell.
The Bible leads believers to think they lived in the center of the universe
which was small in scope, which I laid out in my other book. Just take a look at
what the Bible says about the universe. Read this with a pre-scientific, not with
an ex post facto post-scientific reader's viewpoint, and it's clear what they
probably believed. See diagram, below. This is especially so when we consider
91
that the creation account in Genesis 1 starts first with the earth being formed out
of the chaotic waters (not creat
created).
ed). Later (on the 4th day) the universe of stars is
created to surround it. It is very probable that pre-scientific
pre scientific ancient people
thought this way about the universe.
It doesn't take much theology to see that mankind is the apex, or the most
important reason for creation.. Take the following conclusions from scholars:
"The biblical view starts with the assertion that the eternal God has created
man, the most significant of all his created works." Man is not only Gods
creation, but the pinnacle of his creative
creative effortman is distinct, the high point of
Gods creative work, the apex of his handicraft. The progression of the created
things in Genesis 1 is climatic; all of Gods created work culminated in his
fashioning of man. - Ronald B. Allen "Man, Doctrine
Doctr
of" Baker Encyclopedia of
the Bible.
"Having first called the earth into existence with its various requisites for
human life, God then declared for the making of man. The impression that the
Genesis account gives is that man was the special focus of G
God's
od's creative
purpose. It is not so much that man was the crown of Gods creative acts, or the
climax of the process, for although last in the ascending scale, he is first in the
divine intention. All the previous acts of God are presented more in the natu
nature
re of
a continuous seriesThen God said, Let us make man. Then
Then--when?
when? When the
cosmic order was finished, when the earth was ready to sustain man. Thus while
man stands before God in a relationship of created dependence, he has also the
status of a uniquee and special personhood in relation to God." - H. D. McDonald
"Man, Doctrine of." Evangelical Dictionary of Theology.
Theology
"Man reflects God in a unique manner. Man is thus different from other forms
of created organic life, over which he has been given dominion...he
dominion...he reflects the
Creator in a way unparalleled by anything else in creation." - R.K. Harrison, "Old
Testament Theology" Evangelical Dictionary of Theology.
Theology
"Genesis 1:26-30
30 shows human beings as the crown of creation...the image of
God...probably means that God makes beings with whom he can communicate
92
and who can respond, because, in contrast to the rest of nature, they are like him.
So humanity receives the divine blessing and is given the role of God's viceregent...to have dominion or control over the future course of the world." - J.R.
Porter "Creation" The Oxford Companion to the Bible.
"The Genesis account of creation accords to man a supreme place in the
cosmos." - "Man," New Bible Dictionary.
"...the creation of humanity is surely accented as the climactic achievement of
Gods creative activity." - The Anchor Bible Dictionary (1:1166)
The reason I pulled these quotes out of dictionaries and encyclopedias, both
conservative and liberal, is because they usually express the prevailing
consensus on such matters, and each one of them was written by a scholar in
their own right who had published articles and books on this topic.
According to these scholars the creating of human beings is the culmination
of creation itself, the crown of creation, the apex of creation and as vice-regents
over it they are surely to be considered the reason for creation itself, if not the
most important reason for creation.
And they do so for good reason. Isaiah 45:18 says: For this is what the Lord
sayshe who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the
earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be
inhabited.
That is, the purpose of creation ("heavens" and "earth") was that it should be
inhabited. Coupled with the fact that in Genesis God tells human beings they are
the rulers of his creation and made in his image, they are the purpose for God
creating it in the first place.
The testing of our souls and redemption itself confirms this viewpoint. In the
case of Job the testing of his soul had significance for the unseen heavenly world,
or at least, so say evangelical commentators. God even visited earth in his Son to
redeem not only sinful humanity, who caused this whole mess (as provoked by
Satan), but creation itself, or so say conservative exegetes.
Pauls interpretation of the fall also supports this view, for he says it
adversely affected all creation (Romans 8:19-23): The creation waits in eager
expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to
frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in
hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and
brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the
whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the
present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit,
groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of
our bodies.
Paul said all of creation (i.e. the universe itself and all creatures living in and
depending on that universe) was adversely affected by Adam and Eves sin, so
that means if Paul is correct, and if there are aliens, then they were also adversely
affected by what Adam and Eve did. This would strongly suggest that aliens are
also under our rule and that their status before God is below ours. Paul also
wrote that Christ is reconciling all things unto himself whether they be things in
earth, or things in heaven. (Col 1:20).
I think Pauls theology of the fall and of reconciliation demand that what
happens on earth through human beings as the apex of Gods creative
93
handiwork and through the God-man Jesus, affects all of creation, which
includes the whole universe, according to the Bible.
In the gospel of Matthew (16:19) we also learn that what the apostles bind and
loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven, and that could only mean the
church is Gods ruling representatives in the universe as a whole?
If passages as these (and others) do not indicate that what happens on earth
by humans is the most important game in all of creation, or that Christians who
believed the Bible before the rise of modern astronomy shouldve known better
than to believe what this implies, then I simply am at a loss for words. The word
delusionary comes to mind.
Consider also that when it comes to the problem of evil and the free will God
supposedly granted to human beings, its typically argued by Christians that
God wanted free willed creatures who could freely choose to love him, and as
such human beings are the only ones who can make that choice without being
directly in the presence of Gods power. It assumes humans are the reason for
God having created in the first place.
While the following words are not found in the Bible they are used by
theologians to describe the importance of the creation of mankind. What does the
dictionary say about them?
Apex
1. "highest point: the highest point of something
2. most successful point: the most successful part of something, especially
somebody's career or life
Culmination
1. highest point: the highest, most important, or final point of an activity
2. act of culminating: the arrival at, or the bringing of something to, a climax.
Climax
1. vti reach key point: to reach the most important or exciting point in
something such as an event or a story, or bring something to its most important
or exciting point
Crown
3. top-ranking title: a title or distinction that signifies victory or supreme
achievement
4. uppermost part: the top part of something, especially a hill
Now, does this suggest that the sole reason for creation was to create
humankind? I think so, for according to the Bible if the apex, or crown, or climax
of creation, humankind, was not created, then it would not be "good."
It is argued that Psalm 8 says otherwise. Some have argued that along with
Psalms 8; 144:3, and the ending of Job that man is insignificant, and thats true.
But insignificant compared to what? Human beings are insignificant compared
to God alone, but that says nothing against the idea that human beings are the
apex of his creation. Its entirely consistent for man to be the reason for creation
and at the same time for God to be so above mankind that the Psalmist can
wonder why God even bothers with us.
Others argue based upon Psalm 8 that human beings are "lower than angels."
But this is clearly based upon an obvious mistranslation and a misinterpretation.
94
Lets take a good look at Psalm 8:3-8 (New American Standard Bible):
When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers,
The moon and the stars, which You have ordained;
The Psalmist is not conceiving of the type of universe we do today, as weve
seenby far.
What is man that You take thought of him,
And the son of man that You care for him?
Notice this is a case of Hebrew parallelism for future reference below. The
first phrase is paralleled by the second one, even though no parallel phrase is
exactly similar in all respects. Man = son of man; thought of = care for.
This is basic wisdom literature exegesis here.
So if by the word man the Biblical writer thought of the phrase son of
man, then this same phrase, when applied to Jesus, must mean little more than
what it means here. If, however, the phrase son of man, when applied to Jesus,
means son of God, then all human beings should be considered "sons of God.
Yet You have made him a little lower than God,
And You crown him with glory and majesty!
Again, a Hebrew parallelism. God is crowned with unique glory and majesty
that none other receives, so also God crowns man with glory and majesty no
other creation receives.
In any case, Hebrews 2 is obviously a misinterpretation of this Psalm, since
the Hebrew writer is speaking exclusively about Jesus as the son of man who
was made lower than the angels by virtue of being born a man. In Psalm 8 it was
humankind itself that was made lower than God. The author of Hebrews
understood Psalm 8 primarily as messianic and eschatological. Yet there is no
reason to read it as such in the Psalm itselfnone! In Hebrews, not . . . mankind,
as in Psalm 8, but Jesus is awarded this dominion in the world to come. That the
Hebrews author was not just now introducing this subject is made plain by the
expression about which we are speaking in Heb. 2:5.
The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (2:784),
has this to say about the thoughts of the writer of the book of Hebrews:
"He was thinking here primarily of Jesus (Heb. 2:9). No doubt the familiar
messianic designation Son of Man (v. 6) contributed to this understanding.
Thus, he asserted, while total dominion over the created order is not yet His,
Jesus is at last seen as crowned with glory and honor because He suffered
death. The One so crowned was made a little lower than the angels for the
very purpose of dying, that is, that by the grace of God He might taste death
for everyone. This last statement is best understood as the purpose of the
Lords being made lower than the angels in His Incarnation."
If anyone else misinterpreted a text in this manner Christians themselves
would laugh at him or her. The only thing the Hebrews writer does say when
comparing angels to mankind is this rhetorical question: Are not all angels
95
ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation? Heb. 1:14, and
this makes my point.
About Psalm 8:5, where it uses the word Elohim translated "God" above, The
Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (1:797) says this:
"The KJV followed the Septuagint (LXX) in translating this word
angels. The NIV has chosen heavenly beings, which follows the same
interpretation. Though in some cases lhm may refer to angels, this is not
its main meaning. Man was created as Gods own representative on earth,
over the Creation, but lower than God. David was amazed that God should
exalt finite man to such a place of honor.
There is a no word for word equivalence between Hebrew and Greek words
such that the LXX accurately represents the Hebrew lhm. Nonetheless its
illegitimate to base an interpretation on a Greek translation of a Hebrew word,
just as it is to base a belief based upon a mistranslation of the context of a whole
passage.
Evangelicals might want to affirm the fact that the author Hebrews renders
"Elohim" (gods) as (angels) suffices to clarify the meaning of the Psalm
within biblical theology (Heb. 2:7). But this opinion is nothing different than
saying this: "The Bible said it; I believe it; that settles it." Hebrews 2 is clearly
based on a misinterpretation of the text of Psalm 8 as well as a mistranslation of a
word in it. The Hebrews writer used the Septuagint translation which had
already previously rendered "Elohim" as . Is the LXX inspired? Tell me!
And does inspiration guarantee that what the Bible says is accurate even when it
can clearly be shown to be incorrect? How is this possible?
Biblical scholar Hector Avalos informs me about the translation of Elohim and
wrote this (via email):
The translation of 'elohim as "god(s)" in Psalm 8:5 is not controversial
anymore, and is accepted in the following translations:
NRSV: "lower than God."
REV: "less than a god"
NAB: "less than a god"
NJB: "less than a god."
To be more literally accurate, less than the gods would be better because
Elohim is plural. This is also the opinion of Mitchell Dahood, the Catholic
biblical scholar, in his commentary on the Psalms I:-1-50 (Anchor Bible; New
York: Doubleday, 1965), p. 51. He translates it, "Yet you have made him a
little less than the gods" (p. 48).
Man was created a little lower than the gods, which reflects a polytheistic
religious viewpoint. In order to soften the polytheistic implications of this
the translators do some interesting things with this Hebrew word.
96
97
his image. Its very clear he created a world as a cosmic stage with man as the
apex for this redemptive drama to unfold.
Someone suggested there might be other goals for Gods having created this
present universe, like 1) to get people to wonder if there is a God who made all
of this, 2) to cause people to reflect on his glory and power (i.e. worship); 3) to
humble us; 4) to show us how important we are to him, how much he cares, etc
But if my argument here is successful then the scale of this universe is actually
counter productive to achieving these goals.
Here is a powerful analogy: Since theists are so fond of the parental analogy
when it comes to the problem of evil, let me offer one that actually works when it
comes to the scale of the universe. Lets say a great great great great great
grandfather makes a playhouse for his children to play in the size of the United
States, which no one else is to use until they are born. And they learn through a
last will and testament that he made it for them (evangelicalism). The playhouse
was created expressly and exclusively for them. In it are placed all kinds of
animals which have been living in it and reproducing at devouring one another
since he placed them in it. Birds, kittens, puppies, gerbils, hamsters, small turtles
along with various bugs as well as all kinds of predators like lions, tigers, bears,
spiders, scorpions, and snakes. They are told o do with it what they want (given
a few rules as the creator/great greatgrandfather). It does not belong to anyone
else.
These children would expect that this playhouse would be on a child's scale.
They would not expect adult things in it, like lions, tigers and bears, high
windows they cannot reach or see out, chasms they could not cross, levels they
cannot reach, or areas they could not even see, much less even visit. This is what
they should expect, and this is obviously so.
Now the great greatgrandfather might have reasons for doing otherwise
than they expect, but what would they be? It is, after all, the childs playhouse,
created on a childs scale. Not even other adults could figure out why a father
would create an adult scaled playhouse for children, much less could the
children themselves figure it out. So it would quite naturally lead the children to
question the intelligence or kindness of their great greatgrandfather (since they
cannot question his existence, which is what they would do if, like us, they never
saw him). But in our case with our universe we do question the existence of God
given our so-called playhouse, which was not created on a human scale.
God should have "gotten down to the business of creating humans right away
instead of wasting time on dinosaurs and sabre tooth tigers and wooly
mammoths" precisely because of amount of animal suffering that took place
prior to the arrival of mankind. I see an obvious connection with my analogy
here. It was a waste if man is the apex of creation, especially if there was so much
needless suffering due to the law of predation in the natural world (which is
morally baseless and unnecessary), there are no moral lessons for animals to
learn from their sufferings, and since there is no reward for them in heaven after
they die.
Historical Evidence for These Expectations. I also think there is historical
evidence that the church as a whole expected a smaller universe with the earth at
98
the center of it, although there are a few notable theologians who thought
otherwise. The evidence from Christian history is that they did in fact think the
earth was the center of a small universe with man the apex of creation based
upon Biblical passages.
An overwhelming number of Christians prior to the rise of modern science
believed they were on a fixed planet in the center of a very small universe
compared to what we have found. Just see Dantes universe as depicted in his
monumental poem, the Divine Comedy. This book was extremely influential in
depicting the universe as it was believed to exist by the masses of Christians
without being censored by the influential theologians and heresy hunters [see
Diagram next page].
"It is widely considered the central epic poem of Italian literature, and is
seen as one of the greatest works of world literature. The poem's imaginative
vision of the Christian afterlife is a culmination of the medieval world-view as
it had developed in the Western Church. It helped establish the Tuscan dialect
in which it is written as the Italian standard. [Wikipedia, The Divine Comedy].
Dante's Divine Comedy was believed to depict the known universe. I don't
think this can be reasonably denied. This is how they thought about the world.
Take a good look at that universe. THATS WHAT MOST PEOPLE EXPECTED
PRIOR TO HAVING SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE. As such the force of my
argument is related to what they expected. If most people expected something
different than what was found then that's some pretty strong evidence for what
Everett, Carrier and I argue for, which is contrary evidence to the Christian
theistic hypothesis.
The church tried and convicted Galileo for his ideas and placed Galileos book
on the banned list. Descartes refused to publish his book The World after
Galileo was arrested and tried. Does that not count as slowing down the progress
of science? When it came to surgeries, the medical need for cadavers, and every
INNOVATIVE type of advance, I think Christianity either slowed the progress of
science or tried to stop it. Remember, every INNOVATIVE type of progress.
Stem cell research is just a recent example. Of course, in situations where the
church had no power to stunt the growth of science then thats a different matter.
In fact, given the Galileo debacle as propagated by the Philosophes of an earlier
day, precisely because God did not communicate to his people accurate
information about the true size and scale of the universe, the Bible and the
church lost credibility in the eyes of many people. The Galileo debacle has been
used rightly or wrongly as disastrous for the credibility of the church and the
Bible as a whole. Because God failed to tell us about the scale of the universe it
has led many to see the Bible as written by non-inspired superstitious people.
Some creationists, like Hugh Ross, claim God needed to create such a vast
and old universe in order for the earth to exist with the right conditions to
support human life as we know it. But this is the lamest argument of them all in
my opinion. Why? Because Ross and other Christian theists believe God is
omnipotent such that he created the laws of the universe in the first place! So if
God is this omnipotent deity and if he created the laws of the universe, then he
couldve merely created a small planet containing human beings; and that's it.
99
This is just obvious to me. But even if I grant them their point, it doesnt even
matter, for this same God is supposedly a miracle working God. Even if it was
metaphysically impossible for God to create the earth as it is without a vast
universe because he couldn't create nature's laws differently, then this says
nothing at all against God performing perpetual miracles. If he is a miracle
working God he could indeed have created a terrestrial biosphere that would
sustain human life even if the laws of nature would not allow it. All it would
100
take are a few perpetual miracles. As far as theists know, the laws of nature are
themselves just perpetual miracles created by God anyway.
Placing This Argument in a Larger Context. Finally let me place this whole
argument into a larger context. There is no good reason for God to have created
anything at all, much less a universe so vast and old. If God did create a world,
given his stated purposes in the Bible, it seems to me he would not create
animals in the first place, or if he did, he wouldnt have them exist for hundreds
of thousands of years before the apex of his creation came on the scene,
especially since animals are not needed, they experience a great deal of suffering
due to the law of predation (which is morally baseless and unnecessary), there
are no moral lessons for animals to learn from their sufferings, and since there is
no reward for them in heaven after they die.
This whole argument is but another example of where God did not
communicate effectively to his people. He did not clearly and unequivocally
condemn witch hunts, Inquisitional trials and tortures leading to death, or brutal
slavery. Nor did he condemn wars fought for religious causes like the Crusades.
Also, there is no clear prophecy that was stated prior to an event that clearly
applies to a distant future event that cannot be chalked up to mere wishful
thinking, or luck. God not only did NOT create our bodies with a stronger
immune system, he didnt even give us instructions from the get-go on how to
discover penicillin, much less even tell us that such a thing is possible and that
we should look for it while perhaps millions of people died before we discover it,
and thats just one such discovery.
There are so many things God did not tell us in advance that it sometimes
amazes me Christians think he exists. Let me just ask the believer to show me
something, anything, even one thing, that we find in the Bible that could not
have been spoken by an ancient person of his times, such that what he said could
only be attributed to his having divine knowledge. It cannot be done. The
evidence is that there is nothing in the Bible that could not have been said by a
human being living in that day and timeNOTHING. The Bible is a human
product coming from superstitious ancient people.
Christian responses to this problem are ex post facto ones, after the fact. They
claim an omnipresent God didn't have to create a small universe or the earth in
its center, and I understand their reasoning, given after-the-fact explanations,
once the facts have been established. But what Everitt and I are talking about is
what one would expect beforehand! Christians do the same thing with slavery.
Most Christians today claim the Bible was clear about slavery and that slave
holders in the American South were stupid about the Bible and immoral. But
again, that's ex post facto reasoning too. There were many powerful Biblical
passages that supported what they believed about slavery, just as there were
many powerful Biblical passages that supported Dante's Universe. It's obvious
that ex post facto arguments have little effect on this argument precisely because
they are ex post facto.
We should be privy to that which would provide a reason to doubt if not
knowing it would produce doubt. God did not tell us something about the scale
of the universe. So when modern science discovered it, such a discovery
undermined the credibility of the Bible and the church whose theology is based
101
on it. It's one of the major reasons why I reject Christianity today. The Genesis
creation accounts are myths. There is nothing in them about how or why the
universe began to exist. If God existed then he could've provided us with some
truth about this, but he didn't because the Bible is not from God.
Surely when freethinkers could actually begin expressing themselves without
the fear of boiling water being poured into steel boots where their feet were
lodged youd expect there to be some rage. Rage doesnt always lead to a fair
discussion of the ideas, as I know all too well. But my beef is not about whether
or not the Philosophes properly understood the Galileo affair, but whether or not
the theistic God would knowingly withhold information from his people
knowing that by doing so he misled themnot just about the scale of the
universe, but also about witches and heretics and black people who had The
Curse of Ham. Any idiot would see potential problems about such things, so
how much so should an omniscient God. Again, why, as but one instance, didnt
God ever say, Thou shalt not own, buy, sell, or trade human beings as slaves,
and say it as often as needed?
So I think the Argument From the Scale of the Universe, especially when placed
into this larger context, makes it "probably false" that evangelical Christianity is
correct.
102
103
Seven) What kind of justice is it to punish every creature on earth for what a
pair of humans did? Supposedly we are still under this curse of sin. This is
extreme to the utmost. No known laws of justice would think this was fair
punishment, and that's all we have to go on when considering whether or not
such a story was historical and reflects the behavior of a good God.
Eight) If God had given Adam and Eve enough evidence to believe that if
they sinned they would bring upon the whole earth this immense suffering, they
would not have sinned! There is no way they could know the full results of God's
punishment, and there is no way God gave them enough evidence to refrain
from sinning. This is easily shown. Let's just say several thugs stood over you
and said they were going to put you in the hospital with "so many broken bones
you won't be able to walk for a year," if you stepped over a line, and you
believed them too. Would you step over that line? Now I'm not asking for that
overwhelming kind of evidence, but it is clear that God did not give enough of it
to them. To claim that God did give them enough evidence is blind faith, for if he
had they would not have sinned.
Nine) If you believe God wanted Adam and Eve to sin so he could manifest
his glory for all eternity, then that's a different story, and it still depends upon
whether this event happened at all. But if this is what you want to claim then I'll
argue as Pierre Bayle argued: One might as well compare the Godhead with a
father who had let the legs of his children be broken in order to display before an
entire city the skill which he has is setting bones; One might as well compare the
Godhead with a monarch who would allow strife and seditions to spring up
throughout his kingdom in order to acquire the glory of having put an end to
them. Is that what a good king (or father) would do? If you say God abides by a
different morality than he demands of us, then all attempts to defend this God
fall by the boards.
Ten) There are other reasons. I'll just stop here.
104
105
When a theist claims God made the rules of t-chess, I can assess whether or
not God in fact created these rules by arguing that these rules are not good ones
based upon the believers own claim that God is perfectly good and revealed
these rules for believers to follow in a divinely inspired book. I can also
legitimately evaluate whether or not believers actually play by these rules and
whether God consistently plays by these same rules.
For the theist to effectively counter my arguments she cannot merely assume
God exists, or that he doesnt like the rules for a-chess. He can do this, of course,
but doing so skirts the issue at hand. The issue at hand is whether God exists,
and the rules of t-chess do not lead me to think he does. In fact these rules are
evidence against the existence of a perfectly good God, for the theist has to
explain away this evidence. The issue at hand is whether t-chess rules are good
ones based upon the standard of goodness laid out in Gods so-called inspired
book about the game, not by the standards of a-chess rules. So once again, the
issue isnt about whether the rules of a-chess are good ones. This is a distinctly
separate issue.
Lastly, let me drop the whole distinction of t-chess and a-chess, and just talk
about the game of chess as it is accepted and played around the world. Lets say
the theist claims God is playing chess and he makes a move. What if every world
class champion and every Grand Master thinks he made a bad move? What do
we do then? It depends on how bad the move is. The worse that Gods move is
then the less we can continue to believe God is omniscient, omnipotent, and
omnibenelovent. Thats called evidence, and if world champion chess players
cannot see the move as a good one, this is important evidence against the claim.
For my purposes lets consider the 2004 Indonesian tsunami which killed a
quarter of a million people. Who can look at this and be happy that it took place?
Who would actually walk among the bodies, smell the stench as they
decompose, and lift their hands in giddy praise for Gods goodness? Who can
watch as a mother holds the body of her dead son and the next Sunday during
worship say, Praise God for the wonderful tsunami he didn't stop from
happening! Who could watch as half naked kids stumble around from building
to building looking for their parents in the aftermath, and tell them to thank God
for what he has done with a million dollar smile on her face? Does any Christian
do this? We all intuitively recognize what is obvious. This was a bad chess move.
Actually there are some bad chess moves that not even an omniscient God
can make good, once he purportedly makes them. Some moves lead to a loss of a
chess piece, loss of positional strength, or checkmate, that even a novice chess
player can take advantage of. Thats how bad I think Gods moves are. And Im
supposed to believe there is an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenelovent God?
No. There is overwhelming evidence here against such a belief.
106
107
good heavenly parent exists. And if I cannot begin to understand God's ways as
analogous to a parent, and if he wants me to believe in him, he should help me
understand his ways. It's that simple. Not communicating to children who seek
to understand is being an unresponsive parent. As children grow older it no
longer makes any sense for a parent to say, "because I said so," especially when it
supposedly comes from a being we don't really know exists in the first place!
Reflective and responsible children, if they are to be treated as the adults they are
about to become, require answers, reasons, and evidence. This is not what I see
from the God who supposedly is a good parent.
I've got other things to do than to waste any more time on this analogy. I
consider it dead in the water. The Christian God does not act like a loving father,
period. Stop this asinine analogy. You must come up with different analogies
than this one if you wish to defend your God from the Argument From Evil.
108
109
arrives safely or she doesnt, unless believers expect God to do something about
the past.
My challenge is to have Christians pick any tragic event in the past everyone
believes took place, announce that they are praying to change it, and then watch
what happens. They must announce it in advance of praying for it, lest they
claim to have changed tragic events that no one ever believed took place in the
first place. It's a simple test. It could be to prevent the Holocaust, the terrorist
9/11 attacks, the assassination of John F. Kennedy, or any tragic event reported
in the daily newspaper. My prediction is that every single prayer to change every
tragic event in the past will fail, and that they will know that it failed. Every
single one of them. Without fail. I claim that this should be considered strong
evidence that either God does not exist, or that he does not have foreknowledge,
however conceived. Choose any event and let's them begin. Get millions of
Christians to pray. If that doesn't work, pick another tragic event...then
another...then another. My prediction is that nothing will ever change. Nothing.
Believers might respond that God doesnt answer all prayers, but what can
they say if God doesnt answer any of these prayers at all? Believers might also
claim that we should not test God. However, Moses asked for evidence that God
would be with him to lead the Israelites out of slavery (Exodus 4), Gideon asked
for evidence that God would help him conquer the Midianites (Judges 6), and the
prophet Malachi challenged believers to test God with their tithes (Malachi 3:10).
According to the Bible there is nothing wrong with asking for evidence to
believe. Even if some believers still want to maintain that they should not test
God, my challenge need not be seen by them to be a test at all. For if God can
either change the past, or prevent the past from happening based upon his
foreknowledge of their prayers, then they should pray to change tragic events in
the past simply to help alleviate the sufferings of people who lived in the past.
Moreover, since believers typically think prayer is more efficacious when there
are more believers praying for something, then they should get together to pray
to have God prevent a tragic event in the past from taking place. I'm merely
saying that believers should pray for the past just like they do for the future,
since there is no reason why God can't answer prayers for the past. And in both
cases they can end their prayers with the words, Thy will be done, too.
There are certain conceptions of God that this test will have a great deal of
force against. If a believer thinks God exists outside of time, as Boethius did, then
God can actually change what we consider to be the past based upon his
knowledge of the prayers of believers (there would be no time indexed prefix
fore to this knowledge of Gods because he would be present for all events
timelessly). Actually, with this conception of God there is no reason why God
cannot change any event in the past, even without someone praying to change it.
What reasons God might have for doing this I cannot specify. But Christians who
believe in petitionary prayer typically think God acts based upon their prayers.
Why else does Jesus tell them to pray that God would send forth workers into
the harvest, unless God wont do that if they dont (Matthew 9:37-38)? Abraham
purportedly argued God out of destroying all of the inhabitants of Sodom and
Gomorrah (Genesis 18), while Moses purportedly argued god out of destroying
the Israelites (Numbers 14). There is also a parable of Jesus, in which an unjust
judge answered a request because a persistent widow kept pleading her case
110
(Luke 18). This parable is meant to teach believers that they should continue to
pray for God to alleviate their sufferings, and not give up.
There are certain conceptions of foreknowledge that this argument will have
a great deal of force against. If a believer is a Molinist, then his God would know
what believers would be praying for regardless of whether the event actually
occurred yet. Based upon God's counter-factual knowledge of future free-willed
contingent actions, he could intervene to prevent tragic events regardless of
whether these events have occurred or not. Based upon this foreknowledge, God
could answer these, as yet, unspoken prayers, by preventing the events before
they occurred.
But this argument has force against any Christian theist who believes God
has foreknowledge. For if God foreknows the prayers of believers, then God
should be able to prevent the past based upon his foreknowledge of these future
prayers.
Some Objections:
One objection is that the past is already the result of Gods actions in the past
based upon his foreknowledge of the all the prayers of believers, both past,
present, and future. If God were to change the past, or prevent the past from
happening, he has already done it. If he did so in light of his foreknowledge of
our prayers, and he doesnt change his mind, then the past cannot be changed.
Let's make a distinction between A) history as we now know it, and
B) History as it will forever be. History as we know it, A, is the history of events
as we know them to have happened in the past. History as it will forever be, B, is
final history never to be changed. For all we know there only exists A, history as
we now know it. But what history ends up being B, as the result of the prayers of
believers, is a different thing entirely. Until God purportedly ends human history
and with it time itself, history as we know it, A, is always amendable due to the
prayers of the saints and based upon God's foreknowledge of those prayers. If
history can be changed, then the believer cannot say this particular history is the
will of God. He can only say that about final history, i.e., the history that goes
unchanged.
Of course, I see no reason why God cannot change his mind based upon
petitionary prayer, as weve seen with Moses and Abraham earlier. There are
many passages about God changing directions as the direct result of the actions
and prayers of believers in the Bible, for instance. God is described as changing
his mind in several passages in the Bible (Genesis 6:6-7; Exodus 32:10;
Deuteronomy 9:13; I Samuel 15:11; Psalms 106:44-45; Jeremiah 18:8-10; Joel 2:13;
Amos 7:3, and Jonah 3:10). And if that is true, then I see no reason why its not
equally true that prayers to change the past might help to change Gods mind. I
see no reason why the past is fixed and unalterable, given the present state of
physics, as I mentioned, and I likewise see no reason why God cannot change the
past if he is outside of time.
But even if it isnt possible to change Gods mind about the past, what
believers pray for can affect the past. All Im referring to when arguing about
prayer changing an event in the past is that prayer would be changing what God
foreknows, since he supposedly has foreknowledge of the future. Christian
111
philosophers such as George Mavrodes thinks the past can be altered and argues
that whenever he does something then he also prevents God from ever having
foreknown that he didn't do it. [Is the Past Unpreventable Faith and Philosophy
Vol. 1, no. 2, (April 1984).
Whether the past can be changed really isnt the issue here anyway, since Im
talking about whether God could prevent an event from happening before it
occurred based upon his foreknowledge of a future petitionary prayer. Here is
where the argument has some force to it. According to George Mavrodes we
prevent God from knowing something with every free choice we make. Since
God cannot foreknow what we do if we don't do it, we must do it for him to
know that we did. When we do, it prevents God from knowing we did
otherwise. So we prevent God from knowing everything we don't do.
If Mavrodes is correct that when he does something he also prevents God
from ever having foreknown that he didn't do it, then the prayers spoken after a
tragic event can be answered if and only if believers actually pray. By praying,
believers alter what God knows in the past, namely Gods foreknowledge of
what they do. In other words, if God can only foreknow what a believer does,
then he can only retroactively answer prayers spoken after a tragic event if and
only if they actually pray to change that event. If they don't pray, then there are
no prayers for God to retroactively answer.
Believers purportedly change or alter or prevent or determine the
past every single day by what they do. What do they change or alter or
"determine," according to Mavrodes? They determine what God foreknows by
their actions, and prayer is something they do. But God cannot foreknow what a
believer does if he or she doesnt do it. So they must do it to alter the past,
specifically what God knows about our future actions. By praying after a tragic
event occurred in the past believers are purportedly determining what God
foreknows from all eternity. And based upon his foreknowledge God can
purportedly prevent the past from happening before it happens. The problem is
that since God can only foreknow what believers do, he supposedly also
foreknows that they wont be praying for a particular event to be changed. But if
they do pray then God would have this foreknowledge.
Another objection has to do with the paradox of time loops, where
philosophers are debating whether or not someone can actually go back in time
and kill themselves. Or in our case, if a believer would pray that he died rather
than his daughter in a car accident. But I see no reason why God couldnt answer
that prayer, if a believer offered it, regardless of the time loop, for according to
believers, the one praying that prayer is resurrected so that he would still
remember offering that prayer. And as such, he really did pray that prayer.
Several suggestions have been offered about these types of paradoxes. Perhaps
God wouldnt answer those types of prayers, anyway. However, the notion of
backward causation does not involve time loops. Backward causation simply is
the claim that time can move in both directions, into the future as well as back in
the past. If an event causes something to happen in the future there is no time
loop, just as if an event that caused something in the past does not. It just means
that something in the future caused something in the past. In our case, it merely
means that God prevented an event in the past from happening, which was
caused by the future prayers of the believer.
112
The most serious objection is probably that if God did decide to prevent an
event in the past based upon his foreknowledge of the future prayers of
believers, then no one would know God changed that event. Thats a good
argument, since all knowledge about an event, even the prayers themselves,
would no longer exist. There would supposedly be no memory of those spoken
prayers too. Lets say believers prayed to change the 9/11 terrorist attacks and
God foreknew these prayers and prevented it. Then we wouldnt have any
knowledge of that event or the fact that anyone prayed to change it, since we
would be on a different time line. That is, the belief that God does not answer
prayers is unfalsifiable.
However, I see no reason why God couldnt allow the believer who prayed
to remember that he had prayed, so he could know his prayer was answered,
and I see no reason why people whose future is unaffected by the events not
occurring couldnt still have knowledge that they had prayed to prevent it. And
it is in this regard that I can still ask why no believer has ever claimed to have
had such a prayer answered. Although, Ill admit that if a believer did claim to
have changed the past because of a prayer, and if I had no memory of that event
ever occurring in the first place, I would not think his claim is a credible one.
Lets assume God does answer a prayer to change the past, and the prayer is
that a loved one does not die in a car crash a month ago. On this new timeline a
believer never remembers praying the request because the loved one never died.
At that point why would a believer care whether he remembers it or not? Would
anyone? No. Why? Because his loved one is still alive. So why not pray, even if
the results could never be shown to be positive? It shouldn't matter to believers,
if all they can say is that we won't remember having prayed for an event if God
answered your prayer. If that's their only objection, then they have no objection
to praying for the past. If prayers can help the sufferings of someone in the past,
and the past can be altered or changed, then Christian should have an obligation
to pray for events in the past.
Even if I grant that we probably wouldn't know if God answers such a
prayer, it doesnt change anything. For we could still know if God didn't answer
such a prayer. And thats the point of this test. My bet is that God won't answer
any such prayer, and that we will know this. My challenge is that believers can
select and pray for every single tragic event in the past, and nothing will ever
change. Not one. The believer will remember praying for something to change in
the past because no prayer will ever change anything in the past.
We never have to be bothered with how we would know if it if such a prayer
worked. Why? Because it will never work. Thats my prediction. Have believers
pray for 100 events of the past, anywhere from Lincoln's assassination to Jeffery
Dahmer's victims. Write them down. 100 events. I predict that after praying there
will still be 100 unchanged events on their list. They can say we wouldn't know it
if God did answer such prayer all they want to, but there are still 100 events on
that list. Or 1000 events. Or 1 million events. Depending upon how many events
they prayed for, they will all still be there. That's my prediction.
You cannot conclude God answered some of these requests but that we just
don't know that he did. Why? Because these events are still on their list. So pick
any tragic event in the past. Announce it. Pray for it. And we'll never see God
113
answering that prayer no matter how many times it is prayed for, and no matter
how many believers are praying for it.
And when prayer is tested in this manner it ALWAYS FAILS! ALWAYS.
As far as backward causation itself goes, and the potential unreality of time
goes, there is a great deal of literature on this topic with quantum mechanics,
wormholes, and tachyons. Backward causation is consistent with the theory of
Special Relativity.
Time is not fixed according to the current state of physics. Many conclude
from this that time is unreal. And if this is the case with your creator's world,
then he himself can change the past even after it took place. There is nothing
standing in God's way from doing so, since it already can (and probably does)
take place. You can also do a search for wormholes, time travel, tachyons,
backward causation, Omniscience and Free will, Special Theory of Relativity,
Quantum Mechanics. There is an interesting book out called Time's Arrow. Time
doesn't just move in one direction.
Now just apply this physics to God. If he foreknows prayers then he can not
only change the past, with all of the strangeness that might go with it, but he can
also prevent the past. If God is outside of time then prayers for the past are just
as likely to be heard and answered as prayers for the future.
It doesn't matter if praying to change the past wasnt mentioned in the Bible,
either. There are many things we have realized with the advance of modern
medicine and morality that we do differently because we know better that aren't
mentioned in the Bible. What does the Bible say about nuclear war, abortion,
assisted suicide, contraception, heart transplants, capital punishment, suing
another Christian in today's denominational world, and so on and so on.
Christians use Biblical principles to understand these things not explicitly
condemned in the Bible.
Maybe through contemporary science God is leading a new generation of
prayer warriors to pray for the past like never before? Why not?
The only problem Christians have with it is that they don't think it will
work, and they won't admit it. Christian, you dont really believe in prayer after
all, do you? That's what I think, and for good reason. Prayer doesn't work,
period.
114
115
understanding the reasons why we can't come to belief through more and more
worldly knowledge. And how exactly do we know this is what God is doing to
the wise? Isn't this a conclusion of the intellect? And by arguing for this arent
Christians now making an intellectual case for faith here? Isn't their argument
that the gospel of salvation has been made to be foolish on purpose, to blind the
eyes of the wise? And so they want to convince the wise to see this? And once
the wise see this point the Christian hopes they will abandon their wisdom
and believe? Aren't Christians approaching unbelievers with reason here?
Paul apparently would want me to find God in the message of the gospel as
found in the pages of the Bible, versus philosophy texts. And how is it I should
come to this conclusion? Because Paul said so? What reasons, or intuitions, or
experiences are there to lead me to this conclusion? Surely there must be reasons
why we should do this with the Bible, rather than the Koran, or the Book of
Mormon. There must be reasons for choosing to hear God speaking in the Bible
over these other books. What are they? Unless there are some reasons I could
even choose my philosophy texts over the Bible. But if there are some reasons,
then thats appealing to wisdom from below.
The rest of I Corinthians reveals that the Corinthians argued about most
everything that could be argued about. Paul was making an argument that the
true Christians in Corinth would recognize Pauls letter as spiritual wisdom
from above and heed his advice. Those who didnt were carnal, or natural,
Christians. No wonder then, that when many Corinthian Christians rejected
Pauls advice in his first letter, they went on to deny Paul was an apostle too.
Because of this, Paul was forced into making a major argument in II Corinthians
that he was indeed a true apostle. They denied that his message was spiritual
truth, they denied Pauls charge they were carnal or natural Christians, and
they denied he was an apostle.
In II Corinthians Paul argues he truly was an apostle. He does so based upon
wisdom from below. Paul uses his experiences, his sufferings, his knowledge,
his conversion, and even a vision (chapter 12which no one else was privy to) to
bolster his claim that he was a true apostle. This is knowledge from below
which, because Paul wrote it, becomes for Christians, knowledge from above.
But it is knowledge from below. Elsewhere Paul affirms the value of
knowledge from below when he talks of nature (Acts 14:17) and some worldly
wise poets (Acts 17:28) leading people to God. Is there a conflict here to be
resolved? Or a necessary tension?
And thats where we are in todays world too. Christians see I Corinthians 1-2
as spiritual truth. But just like several of the Corinthians, I deny these words
are truths spoken from God through Paul. Now what? Here is where knowledge
from below comes in, just as Paul tried to defend his apostleship with
knowledge from below. Its this knowledge that shows me whether or not the
message is from above. And based upon wisdom from below I claim that I
Corinthians 1-2 is not wisdom from above.
Does God do this because of the supposed fall of Adam and Eve in the
Garden of Eden? Why would God now punish those who approach him with
reason, when God purportedly created us as reasonable beings? Why not put a
curse on stupid gullible people who will believe anything (like Adam & Eve
supposedly were?), and instead allow those who do seek him with reason to find
116
him? Why condemn the worlds intelligent population? Why not just provide
better reasons? This is so arbitrary! God might just as well have decided to keep
anyone who is tall or fat, blonde or brunette, male or female, hairy or muscular,
from finding faith. It just sounds like Christians now have been given an excuse
as to why they cannot convince the scholars and philosophers of any age.
This Christian position is ultimately anti-intellectual. Its saying our intellect
can eventually damn us to hell. What is the alternative way to assess the claims
of Christianity here? And when does the anti-intellectual nature of this quest
stop? Why does it stop as soon as we open the pages of the Bible? Why not
continue being anti-intellectual as we begin to read the Bible too? Why should
we use good hermeneutical principles to understand the Bible? If the Holy Spirit
leads us to open the Bible in the first place, then when facing any question about
life, why not just open the Bible and put our finger down on a verse for the
answer. Why not?
Aren't Christians themselves frustrated that God frustrates the "wise," since
they want more unbelievers to convert and be Christians? And don't they read
apologetics books to try to come up with better arguments to lead people like me
to faith? Why is it they'd like better arguments to save people from hell, but God
doesn't care to provide them? Does this mean Christians care more for skeptics
than God does? If you were God you'd provide better reasons, wouldn't you?
Why doesn't God do this?
117
118
I think this is the Achilles heel for Christianity. The Achilles heel for
Christianity is the huge difference between the ancient mind and our modern
standards of reasoning, our hermeneutical understandings, our moral
consciousnesses, and our methods for understanding history, psychology, and
science. We reject the notion of an atoning sacrifice, whether animal or human.
We reject the way Matthew, Jesus, and Paul interpreted the text of the Old
Testament. We have better standards for judging purported historical events. We
reject the inadequate moral consciousness of an ancient barbaric biblical people
when it comes to slavery, women, and war. And we reject the whole nature of
superstitious thinking when compared to modern scientific thinking today.
Christians must either canonize these ancient biblical standards, and thus
perpetuate primitive thinking; come to some halfway house in between, which
satisfies neither house; or reject these particular ancient standards totally, like I
do.
I have actually heard of Christians who seek to canonize the biblical
standards of slavery for today. They will say slavery isnt wrong, if done the
biblical way. But the Bible says a slave owner can beat a slave within an inch of
his life so long as he doesnt knock out a tooth or an eye (Exod. 21: 2021; 2627).
If the slave owner does kill his slave, the only punishment was most likely that
he merely lost his property. These Christians are inconsistent on which issues
they canonize, which ones they hold a halfway house on, and which ones they
reject (like slavery). At least Pat Robertson is consistent when it comes to
explaining why people suffer. Hell argue the way that biblical writers did when
natural suffering takes place. Robertson has said that when evil strikes, God
allowed/caused it because of someones sin.
Modern science provides the fatal wound to the Achilles heel of Christianity.
Science proceeds on the assumption that there is a natural explanation for every
event. Every modern person does this, even Christians! When it rains on their
parade, modern Christians dont go off thinking God mustve sent the rain to
spoil their parade. If they cannot have a baby, modern Christians dont go off
thinking God must be preventing them from having a baby because theyve
sinned. These Christians will just go see a fertility doctor, if they have the money.
When we hear an unexplainable noise in the night, not even Christians will
believe theyve been visited by an angel. They will just assume the house
creaked, or the wind outside blew a tree limb against the house, or the dog
knocked something over. When it comes to prayer, before the advent of modern
medicine, Christians had to pray with faith when they were sick. Now Christians
just take a pill or go see a doctor. Before the rise of the mass production of food
in the Western world, Christians had to fervently pray give us our daily bread,
because they didnt know where their next meal was coming from. Now
Christians barely even remember to pray before meals, since daily food is no
longer a problem.
There is becoming less and less room for God, as we explain more and more.
We are less religious today because of science. And while there is no scientific
experiment that can show God doesnt exist, or that he doesnt work in this
world, we still operate on this scientific naturalistic assumption so often that it
makes secularists out of us all. If this assumption works so well and describes so
119
120
121
When it comes to our behavior, Calvinists will argue that human beings
desire to do the things that they do, and so God is not to be blamed when we do
evil deeds, even if God has also decreed that we should do them. However, if
God decrees that we do a deed, then he also decrees that we desire to do that
deed. Therefore, God decrees that human beings desire to do everything that
they do. We could never have desired to behave differently. So why blame us
because of God-implanted desires that cannot be our fault anymore than
marionettes on strings can be blamed for any of their actions.
The Calvinist will fall back on the idea that God is an artist and hes creating a
massive mural painting on a wall. In any painting there will be bright colors and
dark ones. There will be highlights and shadows. There will be points of focus
and points that draw attention to the points of focus. Gods painting is beautiful,
were told, and he needs all the colors to create it. Some humans will be points of
focus while others will be in the recesses, drawing attention to those focal points.
We who want to judge the painting simply dont understand what God is doing.
We have no right to complain if we are used by God to accentuate the beautiful
colors in the mural and are condemned to hell because, after all, we all deserve
hell. The end result will be a beautiful painting that brings him glory. Every color
is needed, and likewise, every evil deed and every condemned soul is needed, to
make this a beautiful painting and to bring him ultimate glory. Thats why
Calvin describes Gods decree as horrible, and it is.
If we argue that such a God does not care for us and is only interested in
himself, the Calvinist will respond that he has a moral right to be concerned with
his own glory over everyone else, since he alone deserves all of the glory. We
deserve none of it. The Calvinist will claim that we deserve nothingnothing.
And why is that? Because we are worms, miserable sinners deserving of
nothing. Any mercies God may want to offer us by decreeing such things that
bring us happiness, including salvation, are undeserved. They will claim we all
deserve to be in hell, so anything good we receive is because of Gods love and
mercy extended toward us. And why do we deserve to be in hell? The bottom
line is because it brings God the most glory. This is indeed horrible, decree. As
Calvin admits. But if God can decree us to desire to do evil deeds, then he can
also decree us to desire to only do good deeds. Why does our present world
bring more glory to God than a world where God decrees that all human beings
completely obey him? At this point the Calvinist punts to ignorance. She doesnt
know why. But its exceedingly implausible and wildly far-fetched to think this
world brings more honor to God than one where everyone obeys him, which is
what the Bible says he desires. Its much more likely the Calvinist God just
doesnt exist. With glory like that, who needs shame? Such a God is duplicitous
in his dealings with human beings for his own ends. Calvinism is morally
bankrupt as a theology. It denies the obvious, time and time again.
The Calvinist answer is that everything God does is good, even if we cannot
understand it. Every instance of human suffering brings about a greater good,
Gods glory. Everything that happens brings God glory. We are not to question
this or to complain. Hes creating a beautiful painting. God knows what hes
doing. We should trust him, they say. But why does a Calvinist think anyone
should trust her God? Why? What reasons are there for trusting such a God?
There are nonenone!not on Calvinistic grounds, since according to Calvinists
122
we deserve nothing from God at all! Their God can treat us any way he wants to
with complete and utter disregard for us as human beings, since we are
condemned as sinners going to hell. On their own grounds they cant even trust
him to be truthful with them, since the Bible tells them one thing and God
secretively decrees something different, which brings me to the second problem
for Calvinism.
The second problem has to do with the Calvinist idea that God sovereignly
decrees everything we believethat whether or not a person believes in
Calvinistic theology is decreed by their sovereign God. The bottom line here for
the Calvinist is that all of these specific Calvinistic conclusions were the ones that
God had secretly and sovereignly decreed that Augustine and Calvin should
arrive at from all of eternity. They could not have arrived at different theological
conclusions.
If so, how is it possible to trust any of these Calvinistic conclusions if we dont
have access to Gods secretive will? As far as the Calvinist knows, Gods
secretive will may be that they should be deceived in accepting Calvinism. Based
on their own theology they have no reason to trust Godnone. Their God is
already recognized to be duplicitous. God may be leading them astray, based
upon his secretive will, only to cast them in hell for his own glory. For all they
know, God may turn around and reward those of us who are skeptics, simply
because he secretively decreed us into unbelief too. For the Calvinist to proclaim
that he can indeed trust God just because God says he doesnt lie doesnt solve
anything, for the Bible is merely Gods revealed will, not his true secretive
sovereign will. So Calvinism is a theology that leads to total skepticism about
everythingeverything. Their God could very well be Descartes evil demon.
All that the Calvinist can say is that this is what God has led me to believe,
and thats why I believe it. Based upon her own theology there is absolutely no
guarantee that what she believes is true, or that its based upon the available
evidence. According to the Calvinist, I am an atheist because this is what her God
has led me to believe, and thats why I believe it. There would be no way either
of us could believe differently. Therefore the evidence for or against our
respective beliefs could be overwhelmingly against what we each believe, but
God decrees we believe what we do anyway. We would have no way to know
which of our views is correct, since we both cannot be right.
A Calvinist might object by arguing that even if her God makes her believe
against the total available evidence, such an admission still presupposes the very
existence of the Calvinistic God. Hence, it still assumes Calvinism is true, even if
all of the available evidence was against it. But this is an epistemological problem
concerning internal consistency, and the question is whether or not she can know
she is correct about her theology. If the Calvinist grants that the total evidence
could be against her belief, and that her position leads her to agnosticism about
the available evidence, what follows? Epistemologically, she should cease
believing. Its that simple. Such a person should reject Calvinistic Christianity
EVEN IF THE CALVINISTIC GOD EXISTS! Thats righteven if the Calvinistic
God exists! A person cannot continue to believe once its acknowledged, on her
own grounds, that she cannot know whether or not the evidence favors what she
believes. Based upon Calvinist grounds she has no reason to say the evidence
supports what she believes, and so there is no way to independently decide if she
123
124
125
the precision with which they interpreted the law and the strictness with which
they kept it (Antiquities of the Jews, 18:15).
Example: Handwashing. (Mark 7:1-5). Mosaic Law required bathing to
remove certain impurities before entering the temple. The Pharisees thought that
it would therefore honor God to do so before the Sabbath and festival meals, for
these days are special too. This reveals how carefully people thought about the
law and about observing the will of God. The law in principle covers all of life.
Pious first century Jews thought through every detail, so as to observe Gods will
in every possible way. [E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, 1993, p. 45].
The written law is very incomplete; in theory it covers all of life, but it often
lacks details. Consequently, it had to be extended and applied in all kinds of
ways(p. 209).
Example: The Sabbath Day. The Bible forbids working on the seventh day.
Various passages specify some of the things that count as work, such as lighting
a fire, gathering wood, or preparing food (Exodus 16:32; Numbers 15:32-36).
There is, however, no systematic definition of work. When it came to treating
people with illnesses or healing people on the Sabbath, the Pharisees forbad the
work involved in the treatment of minor ailments, so they found ways to achieve
desired results without actually working. On the Sabbath one could not treat a
toothache by applying vinegar, but one could put vinegar on food and eat it,
which would achieve the same result. While it was generally agreed that
transgressing the Sabbath was permitted if human life was at stake, the question
remained how serious must an illness be to justify treatment on the Sabbath.
[See E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, pp. 208-209]. When it came to
traveling on the Sabbath, they could only walk 3/5th of a mile (unless they took
a mat and laid down for a while).
There were purification laws, food laws, tithing and fasting laws. Practically
every area of human life came to be included and regulated by an abundance of
individual prescriptionsbelieving as they did that God had provided for every
circumstance that could arise. [New International Dictionary of N.T. Theology:
Pharisees]. It would be a mistake, however, to think that the Pharisees were
consciously trying to make life more burdensome for people. Evidence suggests
they had a passion for ceremonial righteousness, and a strong desire for their
nation to be a separate people from the error of paganism, which was what they
believed caused God to send their people into Babylonian Captivity.
Three areas of conflict between the Pharisees and Jesus:
One) The authority of the written law over against the oral law and the traditions of
the fathers. Adherence to the oral tradition, with its rules for interpreting the law,
was seen by the Pharisees as the way to the fulfillment of the written law. (New
International Dictionary of N.T. Theology). It was a way of honoring their fathers
(and the 4th commandment) whom they respected. But the oral law also led
them to the belief in the resurrection from the dead, with a final judgment of
rewards and punishments, along with the belief in a cosmic struggle with Satan
and his cohorts. In this sense the Pharisees were theological liberals as opposed
to the Sadducees who rejected the belief in the resurrection. The odd thing is that
Jesus (and Paul) also believed these thingsthings that stemmed from the oral
law! This makes Jesus somewhat inconsistent in his view of the relationship of
126
the two laws. And in this sense he too was a theological liberal! [See James Dunn,
The Living Word, Fortress, 1987, pp. 44-55). Jesus condemned the neglect of the
written law when it was in conflict with the oral law. But the Pharisees just
didnt think there was any conflict between the two!
Two) According to the New Testament, some of the Pharisees focused on ritual purity
whereas Jesus focused on a purity of the heart (Matthew 23). The charge is that they
had a misplaced focus. This was none other than a debate over spirituality, and
the Pharisees were unprepared (not unlike the Roman Catholic Church in the
time of the Reformation). Because of this, Jesus charged these Pharisees with
hypocrisy. According to The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: Hypocrisy
was a new sin, a sin only possible in a spiritual religion, a religion in which
morality and worship were closely related. The prophets had denounced the
insincerity of worship, but even they did not denounce hypocrisy, i.e., religion
used as a cloak to hide treachery or dishonesty. (p. 2364). The question remains
then, were the Pharisees hypocritical? How can someone judge anothers
motives, which is what it is claimed that Jesus did? Most all of the Pharisees
would certainly deny it, although, just fulfilling ritual ceremonial rites to the
letter cannot reveal the heart of the person performing them, either way.
Three) The Pharisaical brotherhood (neighbors) disassociated themselves from the
common people, whereas Jesus was a friend of outcasts and those deemed to be sinners
(Matthew 9:11; Mark 2:16; Luke 4:16; 5:30; 7:34). In contrast to the masses, the
Pharisees considered themselves to be true Israel. Eventually this grew to the
dimensions of a caste distinction on the part of the Pharisees. [J. Jeremias,
Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus]. But in their defense, they just wanted to associate
with people who desired to fulfill the law. Poverty, and sickness were both seen
by the Pharisees to be signs of Gods judgment (Luke 7; 18). Whereas health and
righteousness were signs of Gods pleasure. And as separatists they disassociated
themselves from sinful lifestyles (tax-collectors, prostitutes, and enemies), and
few people throughout history have done any better.
The Pharisees and the Death of Jesus. There are several books published that
explore who killed Jesus. E. P. Sanders boldly writes: The High Priest and the
chief priests are the primary actors, and the Pharisees play no role at all. The
stories of Pilates reluctance and weakness of will are best explained as Christian
propaganda; they are a kind of excuse for Pilates action which reduces the
conflict between the Christian movement and Roman authority. [E. P. Sanders,
The Historical Figure of Jesus, p. 269-274; See also, John Dominic Crossan, Who
Killed Jesus? (Harper, 1995), and Uta Ranke-Heinemann, Putting Away Childish
Things (Harper, 1992, pp. 97-121)].
127
128
Lastly, if the Trinitarian God has always reigned over his world, then what
difference did it make to the world in general that Jerusalem was destroyed in
70 AD? Presumably God (Father, Son, & Spirit) never had to ask anyone for
permission to reign over his world. The Bible claims he just does, and that he
always has done so. It really doesn't matter to God whether or not people
acknowledge that he does--he just does. So if preterists are correct that God-inJesus started reigning in 70 AD, then who is Jesus now reigning over that he
didn't reign over before then? Since his reign has always been over everyone,
then it can only mean that he began reigning specifically over Christians in 70
AD. But ever since the inauguration of the church he was supposedly already
their king!
So what difference did the destruction of Jerusalem make in the lives of
anyone at all with regard to the reign of God-in-Jesus? I see none.
Its worth quoting William Lane Craig's critique of Tom Wright's partial
Preterism (which occurred in his review of Wright's tome on the resurrection of
Jesus) at some length in this connection) [See Craig, William Lane. "Review of
N.T. Wright's Christian Origins and the Question of God, Faith and Philosophy,
Vol. 22, No. 2 (April 2005), pp. 241-242:
"...Wright defends in his earlier books [i.e. his books prior to his work on the
resurrection of Jesus]...the view that Jesus' prophecies of the coming of the Son of
Man in judgment were fulfilled in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem.
Wright repeatedly asserts that Jews did not anticipate "the end of the space-time
universe" at the coming of the Kingdom of God, but a shift within history. I
wondered in reading those earlier works how Wright would interpret Paul's
teaching that the general resurrection of the dead would take place at Christ's
return (I Thess. 4:13; 1 Cor. 15:20-23, 51-54), teaching which was given prior to
AD 70. Surely Wright did not believe that the predicted (general) resurrection
took place in AD 70? Certainly not; Wright maintains that the second stage of the
resurrection remains future. But if that is the case, in what principled way can we
discriminate prophecies concerning Christ's return in AD 70 from those
concerning his final return? Are we really to think that Paul, writing in the AD
50s, took the return of Christ and the attendant resurrection to be something
different than the return predicted by Jesus and anticipated by the early church
(Mk. 13)?"
For a devastating critique of Wrights Preterism see Edward Adams, The Stars
Will Fall From Heaven: Cosmic Catastrophe in the New Testament and its World
(London: T & T Clark, 2007). Edwards argues convincingly that the people in
Jesus day literally believed in a cosmic catastrophe at the eschaton (end times, or
at the coming of the Son of Man) and that the stars will literally fall from heaven,
especially since they believed the stars were hung in the firmament which held
back water and was supported by pillars.
129
130
131
132
There have been successful businessmen for instance, who, when they
become Christians become successful preachers in large churches. Why? Because
they were taught to believe in themselves, were good looking, smart, and/or first
born children. There are second born children who are insecure and, well,
different than their older brother or sister, and they have a hard time being
successful because they were raised to be a little selfish and/or lazy, as but one
example. But I see the exact same kinds of attitudes brought into the Christian
faith that these same people had before being Christians.
There are so many psychological factors of our potential in life that are
determined by how we were raised and our genetic makeup that human beings
do not have the same chances in life. I could go on and on..on and on.about
how these factors overwhelmingly determine our chances to succeed in life.
As an atheist I find nothing strange about this at all. Thats just the way it is.
People get lucky and people get unlucky, and in-between. We should just play
the hand that was dealt to us the best we can. We cannot complain. All we can do
is to strive to be the best we can be in this world and be happy for whatever
success we can accomplish.
But what about the Christian? Several theistic explanations are offered for
this disparity, like Adams sin and the sins of the fathers being brought to bear
down on the children. But how does that explain Adams own household, in that
Cain (the second born) sought to kill Abel (the first born)? Or that Eve being a
woman was deceived first? That sounds pretty stereotypical, doesnt it? If so,
then neither Eves nor Cains chances in life were the same as Adams and Abels.
Eve and Cain had a propensity to do what they did by virtue of their birth (or
creation). Besides, why would Christians today accept an ancient oriental
standard of federal headship to explain how Adams sin was conferred on people
who had not yet been born? Christians today dont think this way about guilt.
No one assigns personal guilt to the son for what a father does.
Christians will say that the rain falls on the just and the unjust. Of course
Christians must conclude this, even if Jesus hadnt said it. Why? Because if they
believe in a good God then they must see this disparity and they cannot conclude
anything else. But Im asking why this is so. Why does the rain fall on the just
and the unjust, and why does the drought fall on the just and the unjust. It just
all appears to fall by chance.
But the question remains from the Christian perspective, what did any of us
do to be born into the homes we were born into with our genetic makeup? What
did we do prior to birth? What did any of us do wrong before we were born such
that we were not born into a successful home with good looks, a very high I.Q.,
with talent oozing out our veins? Why does God purportedly give some of us a
chance to succeed and others do not have a prayer? Remember, before we were
born we hadnt done anything good or bad. What are Gods criteria for creating
some of us with a chance in life and others of us no chance in hell? Does he create
us into these homes by chance?
So, how can God judge us all fairly if we never had the same chances in life?
Oh, I know, he's supposedly omniscient. But that must mean that God has
middle knowledge (Molinism, i.e., that God knows what we would've done had
we had the same chances), but if that's the case, then again, he didn't even need
to create us on earth to test any of us at all! He could've simply foreknown what
133
134
135
confines of the Christian community who support them...it is all done from
within. They know the arguments against what they believe better than most all
other believers. They are keenly aware of the many problems to what they
believe and defend. So long as they stay inside the confines of the Campus
Crusade for Christ organization, who pays the bills, or a Seminary setting, or a
strong denominational tie of some sort, they will remain conservative, or, at least,
they will not express very many liberalizing tendencies or doubt. But if they
teach at a secular university, receive tenure, or are cut off from the conservative
church for one reason or another, you will see them shift to the left almost every
time. Some of them change their minds entirely. So I think many of these
evangelical apologists are but a stones throw away from giving in to massive
doubt. When being open and candid they will even express some serious doubts
about their faith. However, most of them probably won't even allow themselves
to entertain these doubts.
For the most part evangelical scholarship is very specialized. Christian
scholars who may know a great deal about philosophy do not know that much
about biblical criticism, like probably Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne,
while scholars in Biblical criticism don't know that much about philosophy. So in
this specialized atmosphere those Christian scholars who are working in one
field of study can lean on others who write in another area of study for the
defense of their faith, and vice versa. [Others like Geisler and Craig do know a
great deal about it all, though]. Christian philosophical scholars who may be
resting on the results from other Christian biblical scholars for the defense of
their faith may never have seriously considered the skeptical arguments about
Biblical criticism, and vice versa. This is why a general cumulative counterapologetics book like mine is needed, for I discuss the whole range of issues that
must be dealt with by all Christian scholars.
There is an undeniable leftward trend to biblical or Christian scholarship. All
one has to do is to observe the liberalizing and leftward trend of Biblical scholars
and seminaries. Most of these scholars entered seminary as conservatives but
progressively become liberals, pluralists and even skeptics. Seminaries which
defend inerrancy are relatively young and reactionary schools against the
liberalizing schools they once supported. Yale, Princeton, and Harvard, for
instance, were all started to train preachers. The testimonies of Michael Shermer,
Robert M. Price, Gerd Ludemann, Robert Funk, John Dominic Crossan, John
Hick, Marcus Borg, John A. T. Robinson, William Dever, Bart Ehrman and
Hector Avalos all provide individual evidence of this for their respective
disciplines of learning.
Where are examples of liberal or skeptical students of the Bible or theology
who have progressively become more evangelical or fundamentalist in affirming
inerrancy? Where are the liberal seminaries that have progressively become more
evangelical or fundamentalist in affirming inerrancy? Where are the secular
institutions that have reversed themselves and decided to become an evangelical
seminary instead? These things dont happen! Could it be that a deeper level of
Biblical understanding will lead progressively to greater disbelief in the Bible as
Gods word? I think so.
136
137
understanding of the Bible once again, among true Christians in the 20th Century
church, and beyond. And so the history of the church is a history of errors (both
social and theological) precisely because she was led astray in the 2nd century
A.D.
My view now is that this is an absolutely inaccurate portrayal of church
history for many reasons that this book lays out in some detail. The history of the
church can actually be seen to demolish evangelical claims over and over. To
read the disputes Christians had down through the centuries is enlightening. To
say one has finally arrived at the truth is not only naive and simplistic, but
ignorant. One needs only to gain a good grasp of church history to see this, and
as an introduction I highly recommend this fair and balanced book for starters.
There are others. I could only wish that more Christians would become church
historians.
138
139
140
winning the pot. The pot odds concern the ratio of the amount of a particular bet
to the total money in the pot at the time of that bet. If, say, someone must bet $5
in hopes of winning the pot, which has $200 in it, then the pot odds are 40 to 1,
which is the ratio of the money in the pot to the bet ($200 divided by $5). For
every dollar the gambler bets with such odds she has the potential of winning
$40. Such a bet is a good one even if the actual mathematical odds of winning the
hand are not large, because the risk is small in comparison to the reward. If, on
the other hand, someone must place a bet of $50 to win the same pot of $200 (or a
ratio of 4 to 1 pot odds) the bet is a bad one unless the actual odds of winning the
hand are much greater, for the reward is not worth the risk.
Lets say the two cards youve been dealt with are two spades, an Ace and a
King. Lets also assume that of the four other cards dealt face up on the poker
table two of them are also spades (say, 5 and 8). At that point you need for the
last dealt card to be either an ace (winning pair of aces) or a king (winning pair of
kings), or a spade (for a winning spade flush). The actual odds of one of those
cards being drawn last are a little better than 1 in 3. Lets assume that if one of
these cards is dealt last youll win that poker hand. Lets also assume you must
decide whether or not to place a bet of $4 on a pot that has $36 in it before that
last card is dealt face up on the table. Thats 36 divided by 4 equals 9; or 9 to 1 pot
odds. At that point you must ask yourself whether you should place that $4 bet.
The actual odds are against you 1 to 3, but the pot odds are in your favor 9 to 1.
Because of the pot odds you should bet the $4, and heres why: If you faced this
same situation seventy-five times and bet $4 each time for a total of $300, and
you won one time out of three bets (the actual odds), your gain would be about
$900 because of the pot odds.
Now lets consider the actual odds and the pot odds when it comes to Pascals
Wager. According to the Wager the payout is an infinite amount, so the pot odds
are extremely high; an eternal bliss. With the pot odds so extremely high its
argued I should place the bet. And what are we to bet? According to the
Christian faith I must bet it all, my whole life. I must die daily. I must take up my
cross and follow Jesus. I must be totally committed and have total faith. Thats
what Im called upon to do, daily, even to the point of guarding my very
thoughts. I must sacrifice that which I think about and I should not lust, hate,
covet, nor entertain any doubts.
But heres the problem. Good poker players only place reasonable bets. Thats
what makes them good poker players in the first place. And they win more often
than people who dont place reasonable bets, even if a risk taking gambler might
get lucky once in a while with an unreasonable bet. Hence, this is the key to
winning at pokeronly placing reasonable bets.
What makes any bet based on high pot odds a reasonable one? In the first
place, placing a bet based on the pot odds is only a reasonable one if the poker
player plays a certain number of hands. Its the number of hands that she plays
that makes a bet based on the pot odds a reasonable one. As indicated above,
placing a bet on the actual odds of 1 to 3 with the pot odds being 9 to 1 is a good
bet precisely because the poker player will continue to play more hands of poker.
As she does she will eventually win more moneyits all but guaranteed! But if
we are only going to play one hand of poker and we never play the game again,
then a reasonable bet must be made on the actual odds (the higher the better),
141
otherwise, the person making such a bet is nothing more nor less than a gambler
who simply likes the thrill of taking bigger and bigger risks for bigger and bigger
rewards.
Secondly, reasonable poker players should never gamble more than they can
afford to lose, even if the odds are fifty/fifty. A poker player must consider the
impact of losing everything she has when placing a bet. Even if someone might
think gamblers are not being unreasonable by wagering everything they own,
what reason would we say that a non-gambler should place this bet if the actual
odds are fifty/fifty? Who, for instance, would say its a reasonable bet to flip a
coin in the air with a fifty-fifty chance of winning when a person must bet
everything she owns, including his $350,000 house, $50,000 car, and her very
livelihood, for a chance of having the riches equal to everyone in the world,
making people like Bill Gates and heads of state like those of Saudi Arabia
paupers by comparison? While some people may indeed place this bet, its
certainly not a reasonable one demanded of everyone. The non-gambler whose
life is happy has no reason to risk that which she already has for that which
could be hers. And while wed think the person who lost this bet was foolish,
anyone who won it would also be foolish, even though she won. She would only
be lucky. For this reason poker players do not bet everything theyve got unless
they are pretty sure they have a winning hand. Pot odds are minimized as a
factor with a bet like this.
So if the actual odds for a winning poker hand in Texas Holdem are 1 in 3, it
does not matter what the pot odds are if this is the players last hand and if she
must bet everything she has! Pot odds only matter when the gambler can play a
number of hands and when shes not betting everything she owns. So when it
comes to Pascals Wager how many times can a religious seeker bet everything
for the chance of winning the eternal bliss pot? She can only do this one time!
And she must bet everything. There are no second chances. There are no more
hands to play. This would be it.
Since contrary to Pascal, I calculate the actual odds at much less than
fifty/fifty, and since contrary to Pascal, I consider my life to be happy just the
way it is, and since this is the only hand I will ever be able to bet on, I must bet
on the actual odds. Therefore, accepting Pascals Wager is simply a very bad bet.
The actual odds are extremely low for his bet. With those odds I will
undoubtedly lose everything I havemy present life!
The third objection to Pascals Wager is the decisive one, the many gods
objection. It eliminates the force of Pascal's wager, I think, since now we have
many religions and many gods all clamoring for our obedience; Muslims,
Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and so on, and so forth. One religion claims that
if you don't follow its god you will fry in hell, while another one makes the same
claim. Since many gods are threatening us with hell if we don't believe, then
Pascal's Wager cannot help us to decide between them. All of them offer an
infinite payout, too. All of them demand belief and obedience. Whom should we
believe? Whom should we obey? Pascals Wager does not answer this objection
on its own terms. We still must judge which religious viewpoint has the most
probability and such judgments are based on the accidents of birth, as Ive
argued with the Outsider Test for Faith. Hence Pascals wager failsbadly.
142
143
changes, it became more and more difficult for the animals to derive their
nourishment solely from the grasses and herbs. Gradually certain animals began
to obtain some of their proteins and other needed foods by killing and eating
animals smaller than themselves.eventually teeth and claws and other such
characteristics (perhaps originally intended merely to tear and eat tough roots,
bark, etc.) were modified and became established in certain varieties, and many
species of animals thus became carnivores. They tell us that the greatest
modifications were reserved for the drastic changes in environment following
the great Flood. After a supposed world-wide Flood, Morris and Clark argue,
God even authorized man to eat animals (Genesis 9:3-4). [The Bible Has the
Answer (El Cajon: master Books, 1987), pp. 116-120].
Of course, such an answer is simply no longer taken seriously by any
scientifically literate person, even by many other Christians. C.S. Lewis admits
that Carnivorousness, with all that it entails, is older than humanity. [The
Problem of Pain, chapter 9, Animal Pain]. Christian apologist/philosopher
Paul Copan has argued, based on the Bible, that there was animal death before
the fall of man, and that human beings and various animals were indeed meat
eaters before the Flood (despite Genesis 9:3). [Thats Just Your Interpretation
(Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2001, pp. 150-152).
What Morris and Clark have done is to believe their literal interpretation of
the Bible despite what weve learned from the sciences. This is evident from the
title to their book. But Ive already shown in my other book that we should not
believe the Bible just because it says something. Their answer is wildly
implausible to modern scientifically literate people. Its simply amazing to me
the gerrymandering that they must do to believe in their literal interpretation of
the Bible. The cold hard truth is that the evidence overwhelmingly speaks
against their view. They must also deny that the present is the key to
understanding the past, which is a bedrock truth among scientists, without
which science would be rendered ineffective. And their answer still doesnt help
us understand exactly why animals should suffer simply because Adam and Eve
sinned. Again, as Ive already asked, what did animals do wrong to deserve this
punishment?
Option Two. C.S. Lewis speculates a different sort of answer based on a
Satanic corruption of the beasts prior to the existence of human beings. Having
rejected the traditional answer (Option One) Lewis speculates that some mighty
created power had already been at work for ill on the material universe, or the
solar system, or, at least, the planet Earth, before ever man came on the sceneIf
there is such a power, as I myself believe, it may well have corrupted the animal
creation before man appearedThe Satanic corruption of the beasts would
therefore be analogous, in one respect, to the Satanic corruption of man.
According to Lewis, living creatures were corrupted by an evil angelic being.
[The Problem of Pain, chapter 9]. By corrupted Lewis means that the beasts
were made to prey upon one another.
Ive already shown that the belief in Satan, or the Devil, belongs to the mythic
consciousness of ancient superstitious people in my other book. I have also
argued that if such a being rebelled against absolute goodness and power that it
makes him pure evil, suicidal and dumber than a box of rocks. Apart from those
arguments there is no Biblical text pointing C.S. Lewis in this direction, and
144
hence no biblical evidence that this is what happened. But more than this, A.
Richard Kingston informs us that if God entrusted to fallible angelic beings such
absolute control over creation that it was within their power to brutalize the
animal kingdom for all time, then he cannot be exonerated from all culpability
for what allegedly happened. Must we not go further and say that such action
would indicate either incompetence or the fact that the sufferings of the lower
creatures are unimportant in the eyes of the Creator? [Quoted in Animals and
Christianity: A Book of Readings, eds. Andrew Linzey and Tom Regan (New
York: Crossroad Pub., Co., 1988), p. 74].
Option Three. Another option is to say that animals have no souls, cannot
think, and therefore feel no pain. Rene Descartes, known as the father of modern
philosophy, had argued that all material bodies are automata, machines. Human
beings are machines with a soul that can think. The difference between human
beings and the animals is that animals cannot reason or think because they have
no souls. Only human beings have souls. Animals were like clocks with springs
which caused them to move and made noise. One reason he gives for thinking
animals cannot think is that if they thought as we do, they would have an
immortal soul like us. This is unlikely, because there is no reason to believe it of
some animals without believing it of all, and many of them, such as oysters and
sponges are too imperfect for this to be credible.it is more probable that worms
and flies and caterpillars move mechanistically than that they all have immortal
souls. [Animals and Christianity, pp. 50-51].
Descartes was understood by his followers, beginning with Malebranche, to
say that animals did not feel pain precisely because they couldnt thinkthey
were just machines. In a later letter to Marquess of Newcastle Descartes clarified
himself by saying that animals have life, since he regards life as consisting
simply in the heat of the heart. He also said he didnt deny that animals have
sensation, in so far as it depends on a bodily organ. [Animals and Christianity,
pp. 50-51]. But his followers either didnt get that message or they probably
thought pain is something more than a mere sensation which requires thought
and intelligence to detect. Since Descartes denied animals can think, it seemed
natural for people like Malebranche to take what he argued to an extreme and
claim that animals eat without pleasure and cry without pain. Descartes
followers used this as an excuse to torture, kill and experiment on animals. As a
result were told that experimenters administered beatings to dogs with perfect
indifference, and made fun of those who pitied the creatures as if they felt pain.
They said the animals were clocks; that the cries they emitted when struck were
only the noise of a little spring that had been touched, but that the whole body
was without feeling. They nailed poor animals up on boards by their four paws
to vivisect them and see the circulation of the blood which was a great subject of
conversation. [Peter Singer, Animal Liberation (New York: Avon Books, 2nd ed.
1990), pp. 201-202].
Voltaire responded to what Peter Singer has described as such a bizarre
belief in these words: Barbarians seize this dogthey nail him to a table and
dissect him alive to show you the mesenteric veins. You discover in him all the
same organs that you possess. Answer me mechanist, has nature arranged all the
springs of feeling in this animal in order that he should not feel? Does he have
nerves to be impassive? Do not assume that nature presents this impertinent
145
146
answer simply denies the omnibenevolence of God, and as such, isnt an answer
at all. It concedes the argument. It denies God is the kind of God demanded by
Christian theology.
Most Christians have disagreed with Wood and Geach, anyway. Based upon
a caring Creator, God is seen as a being who cares for all of that which he created
by virtue of the fact that he created them. While no Christian has to go as far as
Saint Francis of Assisi, he characterizes the complete opposite viewpoint. He
called all creatures, no matter how large or small, even crickets, by the endearing
terms of brother and sister, because they all had the same creator.
Option Five. One reason why its believed God may be indifferent to the
sufferings of animals is because God is much more interested in human soulmaking. John Hick makes this argument in these words: The justification of
animal pain is identical with the justification of animal existence. And from the
point of view of the divine purpose of soul-making, animal life is linked with
human life as the latters natural origin and setting, and origin and setting that
contribute to the epistemic distance by which man is enabled to exist as a free
and responsible creature in the presence of his infinite Creator. If, then, the
animal kingdom plays this part in this indirect way in the forming of man as a
child of God in this eighth day of creation, the process must be justified by its
success. [Evil and the God of Love (London: Collins, 4th ed., 1975), p. 350].
I have already critiqued Hicks views in my other book, specifically the whole
idea of the soul-making defense when compared to soul-breaking defense in
the face of an evil God, and the unjustifiable idea of epistemic distance when it
comes to gauging my wifes love for me if I withhold from her my love. In the
end, though, Hicks God is using animals as a means to an end. Their intense
suffering doesnt matter to God so long as they have been used by him to
produce human beings who can be made into his children. Now its one thing to
use inanimate objects as a means to an end. I can use a hammer to help nail
down a roof, for instance. The hammer feels no pain so theres no problem using
it as a means to an end. But when it comes to using sentient creatures as means to
an end, disregarding their inaudible cries for help, thats another matter. Ive
already questioned why God wants free creatures who love him in the first place,
or why he created anything in the first place, anyway. But if a theist can sit by
and watch as a fawn is slowly burned to death in a forest fire, or as a cat kills a
mouse, or as killer whales drown a humpback whale calf, and not question
whether her God is perfectly good and caring to all of his creatures, then Im
baffled.
Hicks God is a speciesist, who falls under all of the same criticisms that
human beings fall under when they treat animals with utter disregard and
disrespect. Peter Singers book Animal Liberation, is the Bible for this type of
criticism. Singer argues that discrimination against animals is unjust simply
because they belong to a certain species, just as we should be against any
discrimination against any human beings because of the color of their skin.
According to Singer the interests of all sentient beings are worthy of equal
consideration and respect depending on their capacities for thought.
Option Six. God may resurrect all sentient animals to a new life, either on a
new earth, or in heaven itself, thus rewarding them for their service to God and
to man. Early church fathers Irenaeus, John of the Cross and Athanasius all
147
believed this, as do some modern Christian thinkers like Keith Ward, and C. S.
Lewis (with regard to tamed animals).
Ive already criticized this answer with regard to the sufferings of human
beings. Compensating creatures for their tortures does not morally justify their
sufferings; otherwise someone can torture people and simply compensate them
for doing so. Likewise, I dont see how rewarding animals for their sufferings in
a heaven made for them makes their sufferings morally justifiable. I have also
criticized the probability of having resurrected bodies too. How is it possible to
resurrect any body, whether man or beast, if that body no longer exists due to
being completely eaten or burned to dust? Other problems emerge. Would there
also be a hell for animals that do wrong? Would we really want mosquitoes in
heaven with us? If not, then would they still be mosquitoes in a glorified body?
Or would there be separate heavens for each distinct species; a dog heaven, a cat
heaven, and so forth? These are ridiculous questions, if you ask me, but they are
entailed by such a bizarre belief.
Option Seven. The last option is the Ignorance Defense once again. Christian
apologist C.S. Lewis punts to that option when he wrote that the problem of
animal pain is outside the range of our knowledge. God has given us data
which enable us, in some degree, to understand our own suffering: He has given
us no such data about beasts. We know neither why they were made nor what
they are, and everything we say about them is speculative. [The Problem of
Pain, chapter 9, Animal Pain]. Professing Christian philosopher John Hick
concurs when speaking of sub-human life: We can glimpse only that aspect of
Gods purpose for His world that directly concerns ourselves. [Evil and the God
of Love (London: Collins, 4th ed., 1975), p. 353].
Granted, both Lewis and Hick offered some reasons for thinking animal pain
is not divine cruelty, but in the end they punt to ignorance. Lewis, for instance,
offers two initial reasons in defense of his Christian view. The first reason is a
deductive one unrelated to the evidence itself. He wrote: From the doctrine that
God is good we may confidently deduce that the appearance of reckless divine
cruelty in the animal kingdom is an illusion. However, I can easily reverse this
deduction of his. I deduce that from the evidence of animal suffering there is no
good God! Lewiss second reason is an argument by analogy. Lewis thinks he
has previously offered good reasons why human pain is not divine cruelty. He
claims the success of these arguments about human pain make it easier to believe
animal pain is not divine cruelty either, even if he cannot specifically say why
animals suffer. I, however, have argued that there is no satisfactory solution to
human suffering, so if my arguments succeed, as I think they do, there is no
reason to think there is any good solution to animal pain either. Having
mentioned these two reasons for thinking animal pain is not divine cruelty,
Lewis admits: After that, everything is guesswork. [The Problem of Pain,
chapter 9, Animal Pain]. And thats all he has left, guesswork, due to his
Christian control beliefs which Ive already argued against.
The bottom line, according to philosopher C. E. M. Joad, is that either
animals have souls or they have no souls. If they have none, pain is felt for which
there can be no moral responsibility, and for which no misuse of Gods gift of
moral freedom can be invoked as an excuse. If they have souls, we can give no
plausible account (a) of their immortalityhow draw the line between animals
148
with souls and men with souls?or (b) of their moral corruption. Moral
corruption for Dr. Joad, as I previously mentioned with regard to C.S. Lewis, is
the fact that animals are purportedly no longer in a state of innocence and prey
upon one another. Who or what corrupted them, Joad asks. Did they sin?
Hardly. Did the devil corrupt them? Joad rejects this as implausible. Ive
already looked at this answer and found it seriously deficient myself (Option
Two, above). Did mankind corrupt them through Adam and Eves sin? Again,
no, as weve seen (Option One)! Joad wrote: The hypothesis that the animals
were corrupted by man does not account for animal pain during the hundreds of
millions of years when the earth contained living creatures, but did not contain
man. [Animals and Christianity, p. 59.]
Now Im not asking Christians to explain everything, not by a long shot. I
cannot explain everything. But I do expect them to explain, well, a lot. What I
hear from them instead is that we cannot understand Gods ways; that we are
ignorant; and all we can do is guess about this, and guess about that. This is
simply not enough. Whether it comes to the beginningless existence of the trinity,
divine prophetic foreknowledge, the incarnation, the virgin birth, the atonement,
the general resurrection of our bodies, free will in heaven, the problem of evil, or
a great many other beliefs, Christians retreat to this position far too many times
for me to have enough reasons to believe. Period.
149
150
improbability that even if Jesus was born of a virgin we who are separated in
history by 2000 years would still be rational to reject such a miracle. This is
especially true when other famous figures in the ancient past were said to have
been born of a virgin.
Besides from all of this, if Tipler has shown the virgin birth to be a natural
event explainable by science then how can he still call it a miracle if it occurred?
It would now a natural event which does not need a God to perform it. By
explaining it, if he did, he explained it away. Such a natural event, if it occurred,
does not point to God.
151
152
153
154
155
Actually atheists say these religious stories are delusionary, or false. I do not
question the sincerity of the claims of believers, just like I dont question the
sincerity of paranoid schizophrenics. They arent lies intended to deceive, they
are simply false. And liberal Christians are simply playing pretend with these
falsehoods.
Think of it this way. At Christmas time parents will tell their children that
Santa Claus will bring presents to them. They tell their kids Santa sees if they
are naughty or nice. When my kids were growing up I told them about Santa,
but I also told them we were playing a pretend game. They might not have initial
understood me when I told them were playing pretend, but as they grew
older and asked me if he really existed, I would always say No. Children love
to pretend. Its their nature, I think. So do adults, especially if they role play
while having sex. Is there value in playing pretend? Yes. It provides spice to our
lives. People pretend when they think positively, too, especially sports fans who
sit in the same seats, order the same food, and wear the same jerseys to the ball
games, as if thatll help their team win.
This discussion has made me think about playing pretend. I liked the movie
Toy Story, produced by Disney. The character Buzz Lightyear actually thought
he had supernatural powers and could fly. When he learned the truth he was
depressed to the point where he didnt try to help others out for a while. As the
movie progresses he learned to do what he could without any of his special
powers. I was going through my period of doubt when I first took my kids to
that movie, and I asked myself, is Buzz Lightyear better off knowing the truth? I
think so, and the reason is clear. Buzz Lightyear couldve gotten himself killed by
bouncing around on spoons and acting like he could fly through the air when he
really couldnt fly. He couldve hurt himselfbadly. The truth is always better,
come what may.
Some pretend games are foolish, period. Some provide the needed spice to
life, yes. But when pretending crosses over to the point where a person actually
thinks the pretend games are real, then I see dangersmany of them, depending
on the game being played.
So the question I put forward is whether or not pretending the game of
Christianity is playing a dangerous game. I think it is. Sure, it may provide a
certain spice to life, since having a heavenly father figure can provide comfort,
but it also sacrifices the intellect, encourages others to do likewise, and buttresses
the claims of other religious people to maintain their faith who do evil in the
name of religion.
Richard M said (on my Blog):
this is my main objection with the views if folks like Sam Harris and
Richard Dawkins. Much as I respect them otherwise, I think they err
grievously when they lump liberal religionists with conservative ones.
Atheists and secular humanists will find no better friends in the world than
reformed Jews, Unitarians, and the like -- they will be the ones who join
atheists to vote for atheist candidates, push to keep ID out of schools,
promote critical thinking and science education, support liberal social
causes, welcome Hindu prayers in congress, support physician-assisted
suicide, support same-sex marriage, ban coercive prayer from public schools,
and jump at the chance to send Pat Robertson a one-way ticket to Sheol.
156
Agreed! However, religious thinking adds several new areas of conflict to life.
We already fight over money, our kids, our spouses, our jobs, our races, our
genders, and our nationalities. But religions also provide additional areas of
conflict over sacred spaces, books, traditions, leaders, and gods [On this subject
see Hector Avaloss book, Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence].
Granted, the liberal is probably not going to fight over these things, so she has a
benign type of faith, for which I can be thankful for. And Liberals help me
debunk evangelical Christianity with some great scholarship, for which Im
thankful for. But when the liberal participates in surveys where its claimed, say,
that 70-90% of the people believe in God, this bolsters those fundamentalists who
do fight over sacred spaces and gods. There has been a great deal of harm done
in the name of Christianity. So its like claiming to be a member of the KKK while
openly disavowing the beliefs of the KKK. Why do that?
157
158
159
themselves, or who refuse to continue living, or who do not care about the things
mentioned above to a significant degree are simply not being rational people.
Some criminals, for instance, may prefer being behind bars because they cannot
live on the outside world for various reasons, or they have some inner need to
punish themselves due to guilt or self-loathing. People who commit suicide, or
who want to die, or do not care about themselves, or anyone else, are people
whom I think are not being rational. They are hurting themselves, and that goes
against our instinct to survive and to live life to the fullest. Any person who acts
contrary to that survival instinct is not being rational in the sense that doing so
goes against a fundamental built-in principle to live.
Now, why do we want the above listed things? Why do we want power, and
love, and significance, for instance? May I suggest with Aristotle that the reason
why we value all of these things is because we want to be happy. According to
Aristotle happiness is the supreme good. We do not want happiness for any
other reason. It is an end in and of itself. We do not want power or love or
significance as ends in and of themselves. We want these things because having
them makes rational people happy.
To someone who asks me why they should want to be happy, or to someone
who asks what is the ultimate standard which tells me I should be happy, I
simply say you cannot rationally want anything else. Its impossible for rational
people not to want to be happy.
So I stand squarely in the happiness ethical tradition stretching back
beginning with Socrates/Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Mill, and up to the modern
day Virtue Ethicists. Happiness for these thinkers means holistic happiness.
It is not being a pig satisfied. It is not having mere hedonistic pleasure. The
more of the above list of things a person has, the happier that person is going to
be. Lacking in any one of them will reduce ones happiness by some degree, or
not having these things in sufficient kind and quantity will reduce a rational
persons happiness. Having riches, for instance, without any of the other things,
will not bring a person enough happiness. The happiest person will have all of
these things to the utmost degree.
If we want to be happy we must pursue them, and we must have some
acceptable degree of them all.
What About Ecclesiastes?
A Christian blogger named Logismous Kathairountes, commenting on my
atheistic ethic by saying:
"You've read the book of Ecclesiastes, right? That book is a negative
apologetic against the very thing you've just put forward. The author didn't
accept your axiom that worldly goods (money, sex, good looks, power, etc.)
lead to happiness, and so he set out to test them to see if they really did lead
to happiness. In essense, he had the things that you say bring happiness, as
much as anybody in the world at that time had them. He discovered that
worldly goods don't lead to happiness. That book is the record of an
experiment undertaken with the goal of testing the exact assumptions that
160
you make here. I'll add that my own experience matches up with that of the
author of Ecclesiastes."
Let me briefly comment. In the first place, I noticed you didn't say Solomon
wrote Ecclesiastes, even though it's obvious that if we believe what this book
says about the author it must be Solomon. Yet most all scholars claim Solomon
did not write it--many conservative scholars do not think so either. I find this
odd, since the whole argument is about the personal experiences of Solomon. If
these were not his experiences, and if this book is what we'd call today a "sockpuppet" for Solomon, then by whose authority should I believe what the author
writes?
In the second place, the phrase "under the sun" is used repeatedly in this book
to refer to life without God. Life "under the sun" is "vanity," says the author.
Notice here the superstitious and pre-scientific cosmology of the world according
to this author. According to him, as well as with all of the Biblical writers, God
resided above the firmament which was held in place by the mountains along the
edges of the earth, in which were hung the sun, moon, and stars and from which
water was released to send floods and to water the crops. No wonder they felt
closer to God when praying, worshipping or seeking God's guidance on a
mountaintop (cf., Balaam, Moses, Jesus, and so forth); that's where God lived. So
why should I care what the author says when he is wrong about cosmology?
Maybe he's just a superstitious person? Maybe I should take what he says with a
grain of salt (or a whole saltshaker full of it)?
Lastly, the message itself is only partly true; only part of the story--a half
truth. Yes, it is true that we will die and so there is no ultimate meaning to
anything we do in this life. Our life is ultimately in vain. Nothing we do in this
life will ultimately satisfy the longing for eternal significance, and in that sense
we cannot find complete happiness without such an assurance. "All is vanity" in
that respect. This I admit. That's the truth--the half truth.
But this fact has little to do with how I should live my life on earth. I should
still seek to be happy, even if what I do in this life will not be remembered when
human life and this whole universe dies a future heat death.
Christians talk as if they would commit murder, theft, rape and suicide if
there wasn't a God. However, they should consider the evidence of the many
former Christians who continue to lead happy productive lives even after
rejecting the existence of God. Why do you suppose this is true? Think about it.
We don't do these things because they're not rational and they don't bring us
happiness, as I am explaining.
My argument is that people who live as if there is an afterlife are living a
delusionary life. I'd much rather live with my feet planted firmly on the ground,
than live a delusion.
An Atheistic Ethic is not Claiming Selfishness is a Virtue.
Im not arguing for selfishness as a basis for an atheistic ethic. My dictionary
defines selfishness as being concerned with your own interests, needs, and
wishes while ignoring those of others. It implies that a person is out for himself
alone. It implies the unholy trinity: me, myself, and I. Rational self-interest is
161
something different. A selfish person will lack things that make him happy. A
selfish person will not gain the things in the list I mentioned earlier that make for
happiness. Being short-sighted, she is only interested in instant gratification, not
in the long-lasting benefits of being a good friend of others. A selfish person will
usually reap what she sows. She will experience loneliness, anxiety, guilt, selfdestructive tendencies, few trustworthy friends, depression, fear, paranoia,
disappointment with life, possible jail time, and a short life. To the degree she is
selfish she will be alone. She will be ostracized, and even banished from society.
She will not work well with others and probably be fired for laziness, or for not
getting along with co-workers. So she will probably not reap the financial
rewards she wants to make him happy.
What Im arguing for is different. Its a rational self-interest that seeks the
long lasting benefits of happiness. This means denying oneself instant
gratification for those better, more beneficial, long lasting goods.
An Atheistic Ethic: Rational Self-Interest
I think there is an element of self-interest in almost every act we do, which is
the position of modified psychological egoism, and might be better called
"predominant egoism." I view altruistic acts and self-interested acts on a
continuum, with one side representing acts that are almost completely selfinterested ones, and the other side representing those acts we would call
altruistic but which nearly all contain some self-interest in them. Let me present
my case.
To show this let me take some of the toughest scenarios, then in a later post
I'll deal with some objections to what Im saying.
1) How do you deal with the obvious counterevidence against psychological egoism
provided by, say, the firefighters on 9/11. What does it mean to say that their actions,
which apparently resulted in their risking their lives for others, were really selfish?
In the first place I'm not saying their actions were selfish. As I argued earlier, I
made a distinction between selfish acts and rational self-interested acts. Selfish
acts do not gain a person happiness in the long run.
These firefighters have been trained to do a job. Their reputation is on the
line. They have accepted the challenge of seeing how many people they can save.
They did not think they would die in the process. Besides, people do risky
behavior all of the time, most of it for fun. People enjoy taking risks and
accepting challenges, especially if they can get paid for it. They also love the
mutual respect from other firefighters (and policemen) for being a part of an
organization that saves lives.
Of course, some of them may have been operating from the delusion that God
will reward them in heaven. But if this life is all there is, and we will die one way
or another, then why not be remembered for doing great deeds? For the egoist
that might be the only way for your life to count. If however, someone shirks in
the face of responsibility, and saves his life while letting others die, he is known
as a coward from that day onward. Sometimes in such a situation as this, it's
162
better to die and be remembered as a great person than to live with the social
shame and loss of employment in the only job said person ever wanted to do.
2) What about the "Freedom Rider" who went south to work for civil rights at the
potential -- and actual -- risk of his life to benefit people he did not know, and in so doing
expanding their own political power and rights, lessening his own or those of his family
and friends.
What must be understood is that human beings enjoy a challenge. They enjoy
fighting a good fight and winning, like any contest. They also have a need to
belong. So they join causes to belong. Life would be boring if they didnt. Those
who fought and won can say they accomplished something great in this life.
Why was this considered a good fight? Because whenever the rights of some
people can be denied in a democracy then the rights of all people are at risk.
Many of them did so because they had friends who were black, so it was
personal with them. Many of them did so because they couldnt stomach their
own country. They mightve thought, If this was my country, and I am a partowner of its policies, then I object to what I am allowing to happen, since I value
freedom for all. I dont like who I am for allowing it. To deny anyone rights is to
deny everyone's rights to some degree. It's about the kind of country they
wanted to live in, and they valued the rights of everyone, because everyone
includes themselves and their kin.
Why should they care about anyone else? One good reason is largely because
they care for themselves. How many times have you heard that in order to love
others you must first love yourself? Once people do care for themselves, in the
rational self-interested sense I've previously argued for, they will quite naturally
love others.
3) What about the soldier who sees the war he is fighting is lost, but who continues to
fight on and even go on a 'suicide mission' out of a sense of honor or duty.
Once a soldier is in an army he gives up his rights to his own life. At that
point hes already committed to the possibility he might die. He was either
forced into the army (in other countries) or he volunteered. If he volunteered he
didnt volunteer to die, although some volunteers are not acting rationally in that
they just may want to die. He volunteered for the challenge. Some of these
volunteers saw no better option, given the fact that they needed structure in their
life and couldnt do well out in a free society. Some wanted the hope of an
education. Some are raised in military families who highly prize their service in
defense of their country, so they might not know anything different. Seeing how
his family highly values military service, he will probably do so as well. As a
soldier he is also trained to follow orders and its terribly difficult to disobey
such a command, since his mission may help save other soldiers in the field, and
since being a deserter brings shame upon him and his family as a punishable
crime. No one knows for sure its a suicide mission, either. And no one knows for
sure the war is lost, since a soldier on the field doesnt have all of the information
needed to make that judgment. Hes defending his homeland, his family and his
friends, even if the war is in fact lost. And since we are all going to die
163
anyway, what better way to die than to be a hero, since being remembered well
is the only thing a man has to live on after he dies.
4) What about the soldier who falls on a grenade to save his fox hole buddies.
Once the grenade hits the dirt this soldier is dead anyway, one way or
another. He must act instinctively, as he was trained to do. If he chooses to run
away, his life will never be the same, even if he does get lucky to save his own
skin, and that's not sure. The guilt will be unbearable if he lives. Like Sophia in
the movie "Sophia's Choice," she died the day she chose to save one of her
children while letting the Nazi take the other one away. So why not do what the
soldier was trained to do and save others by falling on the grenade? In the
process he will be remembered as a hero, and by saving others who will continue
to fight he will help protect those who will remember him back home.
5) Why should we care for pets?
Because they give us pleasure. It makes us feel loved. They make us laugh. To
hurt them is not acting rational. It would betray a hatred for oneself, and thats
not acting out of rational self-interest.
An Atheistic Ethic: The Christian Debate Stopper
salvationfound voiced what I was waiting for a Christian to say. He or she
wrote: If someone wants to kill and they feel the advantages outweigh the
disadvantages why shouldn't they kill?
I'm assuming here that he is talking about a premeditated unlawful and
unjust killing of another human being. My answer? Under these circumstances
then she will kill, because that's why people get murdered in the first place by
others who kill them. Since I'm arguing that every human being is motivated to
act from self-interest, then if these conditions obtain for someone, she will
therefore kill. And it doesn't matter what a person's religious or non-religious
beliefs are at that point, because these beliefs also factor into whether the
advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Whether one is a Christian or not,
people will kill under these circumstances.
There is no ethic that can stop someone from killing under these
circumstances...none. Since Christianity numerically dominates in American
society then a whole lot of Christians are killing other people. Men kill their
wives. Women kill their husbands and children. Others kill while stealing. Men
kill after raping a woman. Whom do you think are doing most of the killing
here? Christians. They are in the overwhelming majority. Why do they do this?
Because the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Some do so while in an
irrational rage, or because of paranoia, or due to drugs or alcohol. But they do it.
And so do atheists and agnostics.
Christians will say that the Christians who kill others are not "real Christians."
What can we make of this? According to such a definition a Christian is someone
who obeys the Bible? But how does that follow from the contrary idea that we
164
cannot earn our way into heaven? How can they have it both ways? Deeds mean
little to the evangelical mind in front of a merciful God. Evangelicals will claim
there is no deed God cannot forgive, so murder should be no problem for God.
Christians say a person must repent before he can be forgiven, but does that
mean they can fall away from God's grace, or that their repentance must be
perfect before God can forgive them? And does this mean they should search out
every possible sin and daily repent of it before God will forgive? Surely not.
Lewis B. Smedes [in his book Mere Morality] makes a strong case that God can
and does forgive suicide, and there can be no repentance after such a deed is
committed.
Christians can have an excuse whenever they want to do wrong. I know. As a
former Christian I knew God would forgive me if I did something wrong. So,
when I felt the advantages outweighed the disadvantages I did it knowing full
well God would forgive me.
Having said all of this, I dispute the basis of the question that was asked. I
claim that the advantages will never outweigh the disadvantages in unlawfully
and unjustly killing someone, period. Give me a scenario and I doubt that
rational self-interest will ever conclude the right thing to do is to kill someone
(except in self-defense, or in the defense of someone else). My position is that
people who kill are not acting rationally. Period.
An Atheistic Ethic: A Concluding Thought
I think Ive argued enough for people to get a rudimentary view of my
atheistic ethic. Let me sum it up so far and then conclude with a thought.
I previously said that we need an ethic that is based upon some solid
evidence about who we are as human beings and why we act the way we do. I
also argued that the Christian ethic is practically impossible to obey, and the
motivation for obeying must be judged to be based upon self-interest, which is
basically the same ethic I argue for, without the barbarisms in the Bible.
Then I argued there is solid evidence that people want to be happy, and that
non-rational people do not want those things that make for happiness.
I dealt with the book of Ecclesiastes, which claims we cannot find ultimate
happiness without God.
I distinguished between selfishness and rational self-interest.
I further argued there is an element of self-interest in almost every act we do,
certainly with our over-all life-plan itself, which is the position of modified
psychological egoism, better called "predominant egoism." To show this I took
some of the toughest scenarios and explained that there may be an element of
rational self-interest in them.
I answered the Christian question of why we shouldnt kill someone when we
think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages by claiming there will never be
such a scenario for a rational person here.
Let me just close this off by talking about the kind of character that rational
self-interested people need to be happy. It must be a stable character.
The late Louis P. Pojman argued that it is reasonable to choose and to act
upon an over-all life plan, even though there will be many times where I may
have to act against my own immediate or short-term self-interest in keeping with
165
that plan. To have the benefits of the moral lifefriendship, mutual love, inner
peace, moral pride or satisfaction, and freedom from moral guiltone has to
have a certain kind of reliable character. All in all, these benefits are eminently
worth having. Indeed, life without them may not be worth living. Character
counts, Pojman wrote, and habits harness us to predictable behavior. Once we
obtain the kind of character necessary for the moral life--once we become
virtuous--we will not be able to turn morality on and off like a faucet. With such
an understanding there is no longer anything paradoxical in doing something
not in ones interest, for while the individual moral act may occasionally conflict
with ones self-interest, the entire life plan in which the act is embedded and
from which it flows is not against the individuals self-interest. [Ethics:
Discovering Right and Wrong 5th ed. (p. 188)].
166
167
anything if told by, what appears to be, a sincere person who is otherwise
intelligent. But the stories could be experiences someone had in a dream while
sleeping that just happened to be close to what they experienced in the waking
life. I have had such experiences where I saw something and felt as if I had been
there, only to later realize that I experienced that in a dream world that was more
or less like that. Here Im just applying Humes standards. It could also be from a
heightened sense of telepathy, or information communicated from the spirit
world, or God himself. None of these explanations require reincarnation.
The concept of Deja vu (French for already seen) describes the uncanny
feeling that you might have when you walk into a room and feel like youve been
there before, or youre in the middle of a conversation with someone youve just
met and feel youve met them before and/or had this conversation with them
before. According to Geisler and Amano:
Scientists tell us that this is a form of cryptomnesia; that is, a process
whereby a person forgets that she got her information from a past source (in
her present life) and comes to believe that this information is a memory from
a previous existence. There are times when the subconscious relates a
present event with a previous one that the conscious mind does not
remember. We think that we had been in a certain conversation before, when
in actuality the present conversation is so much like a conversation we had
in the past (i.e., same topic, atmosphere, etc.) that our minds fuse them
together. Researchers have also found a possible physiological basis for dj
vu. When data from the environment enters the eye, sometimes the
transmission of this information to the brain is delayed for a micro-second;
this leads the person to believe that she had seen it before. (p. 76).
For reasons Ill specify below, I just think it is much simpler to deny that the
personal testimonies lead one inexorably to the conclusion that those people
lived a previous life.
Consider some of the problems in reincarnation. One) Astronomy tells us
this known universe began with a big bang. So, when we follow out the
progression of the formation of this earth it was at one time a very hot ball of
gasses, which was forming all of the known elements. Only after it was formed
did life appear. Where did this life come from? How many life forms did it begin
with? Logically at one point there were just 1000 life forms, and further down the
line there were just 1000 human beings at one point. Now there are billions and
billions of life forms, and over 5 billion people on this earth. If one life form dies
and another one is born, then life forms are increasing at a very rapid rate. How
can they account for the increase in population among human beings if one dies
and another is born? Reincarnation sounds very much like a tit for tat, or a zero
sum game.
Two) If a rich racial bigot dies and then is forced to live his next life as a poor
black man in the next life, then how is this particular entity learning anything at
all if it or him doesn't remember anything at all? Let's say that one hour ago you
developed total amnesia. You don't remember a thing about your life prior to
that moment. It would be almost an equivalent experience, except for the fact
that you would have friends and family who tell you who you were. There are
168
no lessons to be learned unless there is memory continuity. For you cannot say:
I see now where I was wrong before. The only lessons you would learn would
be the ones you presently experience. The last lessons you learn are the only ones
you know. These are lessons learned on the other side, someone might object.
But the lessons we learn dont help us in this life.
Three) Eastern Reincarnation depends upon the pantheistic world view in
which we are trapped in a cyclical universe that has no beginning or end,
because time is unreal. We will literally someday in the future be reading these
same words over and over and over and over again in successive cycles. An
eternity of them! We will do this along with everything we have ever done, over
again, and over again, and over again endlessly. There is no escape from this
treadmill of eternal returns. When you think of this it is extremely depressing.
What difference will it make what you do with your life if you must do it over
and over again? Life itself is a trap from which you cannot escape, so why try?
And within each life you have no hope of getting better with each successive life.
In the next life you could be a rat. Maybe the previous life you were Albert
Einstein? Or C.S. Lewis, or Gandhi! You might actually be getting worse with
successive lives. In the next one you might be a serial killer who gets caught and
spends the rest of life in prison! Now there's a happy thought! [John Hicks
version is one in which God is bringing us through successive lives to bring
about perfection is us].
Those who believe in reincarnation in the West simply believe based upon a
few testimonies, which can be subjected to quite a bit of scrutiny. Then based
upon these testimonies they constructed a system that helps explain these
testimonies.
One particular theory is this: There is a creator God who wants us to love
each other and who increasingly sends life forms to earth to experience life on
earth. These life forms choose to come down here but once here must go through
100's of lives to see how much they can experience before the earth is consumed
by the expanding sun. While here they experience love, friendship, pain and a
great deal of suffering, depending on their particular life form, where they are
placed on the earth, and how they live their lives. In the end God brings them all
back to be with him to share what they've learned. It is a kind of schooling with
God and the experiences of life being the teachers to help them grow as life
forms.
With such a theory I have plenty of questions. Why eat meat? You may eat
your grandma who died earlier. Why are you doing that? They willingly chose to
be here and yet you don't give them a chance. You ought to be a radical animal
rights activist asserting that every animal should have equal rights under the
law, and an extreme radical environmentalist.
Furthermore, at what stage in the evolutionary chain does a life form first
come here? This is a very important question, because it indicates something
about the treatment one first needs to experience on earth. Some life forms are
eaten by others as soon as they are birthed, hatched or spawned (infanticide,
birds, fishes, etc). Did they do anything wrong up in heaven to deserve this?
169
What is the purpose of being born as a blind deaf imbecile for life? What can be
learned from that?
Some people have been burned at the stake and tortured for long periods of
time (witch trials, or prisoners of war). What could someone possibly do to
deserve this kind of treatment in a previous life? What could be learned from it?
Who would want to go through that in order to learn something? Why does God
allow that in the first place? Think of the sufferings of Jesus, for instance. What
did he or anyone ever do in any lifetime to deserve this treatment? Why would
anyone choose this fate? Why would any rational person choose to come to earth
knowing this fate might await them? Why would God send someone down to
earth knowing such a fate awaits them? This theory works only from a very
limited amount of suffering many have experienced in the West. It would,
however, be extremely depressing if you experienced these kinds of extreme
sufferings. Let's see, I'm suffering daily at the hands of my torturers, but I
willingly came here on earth to experience these things. That'd surely get you
through those tough times! No, on the contrary, you'd say: "Why did I want to be
here! I'm an idiot!" That would be additional mental pain piled up on top of the
physical pain. I believe that I am not here because of any choice of mine. I would
have chosen a different world. I was just thrust into this world. No one ever
asked me if I wanted to be here. Now I must make due.
Humans are genetically born into a time and place that pretty much
determines what they will believe, and their life choices are based to a very large
extent on their environment. So how could God expect them to do otherwise
than what they did given these things? How can God be displeased if we do
pretty much what these factors lead us to do?
Why doesn't God lead us to believe the truth of things? Why do so many of
us not know the truth of things? It would be simple, I think, to let all people in on
what's truly going on behind the scenes. But we don't know. Why is it hidden
from us and only a few people believe it--people whom others would label as
gullible?
Does God help us in this life? What reason does he have for doing so? We're
here to experience earth's existence, so why should he help us? Maybe we need
to experience the pain of desperately crying out to God and getting nothing back
but silence from him? There's no promise of help here--there can't be. And if
there is no promise of help, then why does anyone conclude in this life that they
should help others at all? How do we know that we should help others? What
ultimate reasons are there for doing so? Since God doesn't help us or
communicate to us in ways that are unequivocally known, then maybe we can
conclude that our particular existence in this life form is to help others learn life's
experiences. After all, life is "red in tooth and claw" in which the fittest survive.
That is, just maybe we are to inflict pain and suffering on others who came to
learn on earth? Why not? They came to learn, and maybe I came to teach them?
That, in itself would be a learning experience for us too!
For all of these reasons and more, I do not accept the concept of
reincarnation. When we die we die. End of story.
170