Atheists and Christians

Belief and non-belief in the light of science, history, and philosophy

The facts are far friendlier to Christianity than many atheists contend, but this need not be devastating for non-believers. Site shows what an "Atheist Manifesto" might look like if it took account of philosophy of science, history, and data on the relative level of functioning of the religious and the non-religious. A little humor may intrude, but site offers a serious and extensive examination of the issues ,with supporting data and references.

 

 

                              

                          About This Site                                           

 
 
This site is designed to correct some common misconceptions about Christianity and atheism.  If you keep exploring, expect the unexpected, because a lot of what we "know" just ain't so.  This main part of this site is based on selections from a book in the final stages of preparation--Talking Back To Atheists: How the anti-Christian  movement ignores science, reason, and history.  The book goes into more detail about some of the issues raised here, examines additional questions, and documents sources more specifically. 
 

Each section of this site summarizes relevant research or logical arguments.  Most pages have a partial list of sources that would allow you to examine the supporting evidence.  I would like to believe that the material in this site could have been written by an honest atheist resolved to stick to the facts.  But such a brilliant atheist might not rush to be baptised.

So we'll begin with A Fact-based Atheist Manifesto.  This manifesto omits some of the erroneous assumptions of other Atheist Manifesto type documents, while acknowledging that people might remain atheist even if they were familiar with the actual facts.

 

Contents

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

                     Fact-Based Atheist Manifesto    

 

Here is a statement of belief, a "Credo" ("Incredo" if you prefer) that can be endorsed by an honest atheist, fully aware of the facts.

 
I may or may not be a "Bright" ( as Daniel Dennett proposes calling atheists), but I am not an idiot.  Nor am I uneducated; I am aware that some of the claims made by other atheists don’t hold up.  But I don’t feel that the facts force me to abandon my basic position.  
 

I do not pretend that science and reason compel people to be atheist.

Sam Harris, in his own manifesto, said "one's convictions should be proportional to one's evidence, and to pretend to be certain when one isn't—indeed, pretending to be certain about propositions for which no evidence is conceivable—is both an intellectual and a moral failing."  So I won't claim greater certainty for my atheism than the facts allow. 

I understand the limits of what science and pure reason can prove or disprove; I am aware that scientists are as likely to be believers as the general population.  As non-believer Stephen Jay Gould said, "either half of my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs."  I am also aware that no arguments convince all philosophers that God does not exist.

But.

I don't need to pretend.  While I know what the evidence says, I also know what it doesn't say.  Neither reason nor empirical evidence can disprove my position.  If my atheism requires a leap of faith, so too does your belief in God.

 

I am aware that committed believers tend to be happier and mentally healthier than those who are religiously inactive.

I understand extensive research suggests those actively involved in their religion are not only more satisfied with life than most people, but function better mentally and physically. 

But.

The validity of my atheism does not rest upon proving that those who disagree with me are delusional, or cruel, or childish.  I do not need to believe that “religion poisons everything.”  I don’t need to say that religion is harmful to believers or to society when the facts say otherwise.  It is for me sufficient to say I think believers are mistaken.  Also, while the data on the adaptive functioning of active believers may suggest the religious choice is not a foolish one, those facts don’t logically prove that choice correct. 

 

I acknowledge that society may be a kinder and gentler place because of the past actions of dedicated Christians.

I know that history shows dedicated Christians led the way in opposing many atrocities of the past, including slavery, the oppression of New World natives, and the Holocaust.  I am aware they promoted a number of civilization’s amenities such as charities, hospitals and science.  I understand that my morality, which I prefer to call “humanist values,” may ultimately derive from the Judeo-Christian tradition.

But.

So what?  I can enjoy the benefits that Christianity has helped provide for our culture without believing in it myself.  And I now claim the morality which says “feed the hungry, help the needy” as my own, regardless of where it came from.  [N.B. Some atheists may in fact reject this morality.  They can substitue their own at this point.]                       

 
Perhaps the reasons for my atheism are grounded in emotion rather than logic.

I am aware of research suggesting factors other than a "deep committment to reason"—such as family conflict, being raised in home that did not stress religion, or psychological problems—might influence the beliefs of atheists.

But.

“The heart has its reasons.”  And those reasons are important to me, regardless of where they come from.  Can you deny the importance of emotion in your own beliefs?   I may not claim to base my position on reason, but that doesn't mean I see it as irrational.

 

Are you believers still offended?

Well, don't you remember your own scripture, which says faith comes from God?  And let me ask the "practical atheists" among you—those lukewarm Christians who act as though there is no God while claiming to believe there is—which of us has chosen the more honorable route?
 
        Suggested Readings     
 
 
History and Christianity

1. Stark, R. (2003).  For the glory of God: How monotheism led to reformation, science,

    witch-hunts, and the end of slavery.  Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

 2. Moynahan, B. (2002).  The faith: A history of Christianity. Image Books, New York.

 3.  D'Souza, Dinesh (2007). What's so great about Christianity. Regnery Publishing, Inc.,

    Washington DC.

 4. Carroll, V. & Shiflett, D. (2002).  Christianity on trial: Arguments against anti-religious

    bigotry.  Encounter Books, San Francisco, California.

 5. Netanyahu, B. (1995).  The origins of the inquisition in fifteenth century Spain. 

    Random House, New York.

 6. Stark, R. (2007).  Discovering God: The origins of the great religions and the evolution

    of belief.  New York: HarperCollins.

 
Science and religion

1. Stark, R. (2003).  For the glory of God: How monotheism led to reformation, science,

    witch-hunts, and the end of slavery, pp 192-197.  Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

 2. Elmes, D. G., Kantowitz, B. H., & Roediger, H. L. (2006).  Research methods in psychology.  Thompson/Wadsworth,
    Belmont, CA.
 
3. Gould, S. J. (1999).  Rocks of ages.  The Ballantine Publishing Group, New York.
 
4. Popper, Karl R. (1959).  The logic of scientific discovery.  Basic Books, New York.
 
 5. D'Souza, Dinesh (2007). What's so great about Christianity. Regnery Publishing, Inc.,

    Washington DC.

 6. Carroll, V. & Shiflett, D. (2002).  Christianity on trial: Arguments against anti-religious bigotry.  Encounter Books,
    San Francisco, California.

   

Religion, happiness, and health

1.. Spilka, B., Hood, R. W., Hunsberger, B., &Gorsuch, R. (2003).  The psychology of religion, an
      empirical approach.  Guilford, New York.
 
2. Brooks, Arthur (2008).  Gross National Happiness, New York: Basic Books
 
 3. Ryckman, R. M. (2004).  Theories of Personality, 8thed. pp 633-640.

    United States: Wadsworth, 

4. Seligman, M.  E. P., Rashid, Tayab, & Parks, Acacia C. (2006).  Positive

    psychotherapy, American Psychologist, 13, 774-788.

 

Contents

 

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Religion Associated With Happiness/Health?

     
    Highlights

                The research in this area is complex—but if somebody wakes you up in the middle of the night and demands you summarize it, tell them that religious involvement is associated with greater happiness, better mental health, and even with superior physical health.  The people who are religiously active aren't the ones living drab, joyless lives. 

     

    Religious involvement is associated with feelings of well-being, positive moods, and greater satisfaction with sex, marriage, work, life in general.  Interestingly, serving something one believes is bigger than oneself is more strongly related to life satisfaction than is the pursuit of pleasure—perhaps something to think about for those who advocate hedonism.

     

    Religious involvement is also associated with mental health.   It goes along with lower rates of depression, suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, delinquency among teenagers, recidivism in adult criminals, and divorce rates.  Schizophrenics tend to have lower levels of religious commitment than the general population   Psychological functioning improves and psychiatric symptoms are reduced following religious involvement such as participation in worship.  Those who have suffered abuse in childhood have fewer psychological problems as adults when they are religiously active.

     

    The benefits associated with religion aren't just psychological in nature; good physical health also seems to be associated with religious involvement.  Those who are active religiously are less likely to develop disease (they tend to have lower blood pressure, fewer strokes and heart attacks) recover faster, and live longer.  Spirituality is one of the "coping skills" most strongly associated with handling stress well.  This is not some new development.  In Roman times, before Constantine made Christianity legal, Christians lived longer on the average than non-Christians.

     

    There's more.  Forgiveness, helping others, and a sense that life has meaning or purpose are not necessarily limited to religious people alone.  Nevertheless, Christianity stresses all three, and it might be helpful to ask how they relate to health.  Briefly, all three tend to be associated with good mental and physical functioning.

     

    If Richard Dawkins and other militant atheists are sincerely worried that Christianity is harming people, they can breathe a sigh of relief.

     
     

    Partial list of references

    Brooks, Arthur (2008).  Gross National Happiness, New York: Basic Books

    Filsinger, E. E. & Wilson, M. R. (1984)  Religiosity, socioeconomic

        rewards, and family development: Predictors of marital adjustment.  Journal of

        Marriage and the Family, 46, 663-670.

    John Gartner (1996). Religious Commitment, Mental Health, and Prosocial Behavior: A review of

        the empirical literature.  In Shafranske, E. P. (ed.) (1996).  Religion and the clinical practice of

        psychology,  American Psychological Association, Washington, DC., 187-214.

    Ryckman, R. M. (2004).  Theories of Personality, 8th ed.  United States: Wadsworth, 

        pp 633-637.

    Seligman, M.  E. P., Rashid, Tayab, & Parks, Acacia C. (2006).  Positive

        psychotherapy, American Psychologist, 13, 774-788.

    Spilka, B., Hood, R. W., Hunsberger, B., &Gorsuch, R. (2003). The psychology of

        religion, an empirical approach, pp169-206. New York: Guilford.

    Young, Michael; Denny, George; Young, Tamara; & Luquis, Raffy (2000).  Sexual

        satisfaction among married women.  American Journal of Health Studies. 

     

     
     

     
     
     
     

     

     

           

                  Does Science Disprove Christianity?   

     

    Highlights

                Research shows that scientists are as likely to be believers, and active in church, as anyone else.  There’s a reason for that.  The philosophy of science suggests that religious questions cannot be investigated scientifically.  Science can show that those who are active in their religion tend to be happier and healthier—mentally and physically—than other people.  It can confirm many of the events mentioned in the Old and New Testaments.  What it cannot do is to verify—or disconfirm—the truth of basic religious teachings.

     

    The statement “there is no God” is not a scientific statement.

    Neither is the statement “There is a God.”   Science deals with statements about the universe, but the Christian God is said to be outside (or "above," or "beyond") the universe.

                According to philosophers of science like Karl Popper, scientific statements must make predictions that can be checked against the facts, and they must be capable of being disproved.  Consequently, if we want to make the claim that science supports the “No-God Hypothesis,” we need to see if it meets Popper’s criteria.  What empirical predictions could be examined to distinguish between the God Hypothesis and the No-God Hypothesis?  And what findings would invalidate the No-God Hypothesis?  If the No-God Hypothesis cannot be falsified, and no testable predictions distinguish it from the God-Hypothesis, then it is not a scientific theory.
     

    If We Can Explain Creation, Can We Rule Out A Creator?

    Some critics of Christianity have argued that the complexity and apparent design of the universe can be explained without recourse to a Creator, by using concepts such as evolution.  And, they argue, since we have an alternative to "the God Hypothesis," we ought to abandon that hypothesis.

     
    There are a few problems with this line of reasoning.  First, the case for a complete "alternate explanation" hasn't yet been made.  It is not enough to show how complex life forms could have arisen from a "chemical soup;" you need to explain the origin of the soup--matter, energy and the laws of physics themselves.  At present, the facts point away from a universe that has existed forever and towards a universe that came into existence at a particular point in time—a view which many think resembles the Biblical account.

     

    Second, the "God Hypothesis" wouldn't be automatically invalidated by even a complete alternative explanation for Everything.  The existence of an alternative theory doesn't automatically rule out the original.  Finally, as noted above, we would have to ask what empirical predictions distinguish the God Hypothesis from the No-God Hypothesis.

     

    Can science disprove scripture?

    It is true that scientific discoveries might make a particular interpretation of scripture more or less probable, but that wouldn't necessarily invalidate the verse itself.  St. Augustine, a prominent Christian theologian, said in the Fifth Century that no one should read the scriptures to learn facts about the natural world that were not required for salvation, and "If it happens that the authority of Sacred Scripture is set in opposition to clear and certain reasoning, this must mean that the person who interprets Scripture does not understand it correctly.  It is not the meaning of Scripture which is opposed to the truth but the meaning which he has wanted to give to it."  Many other theologians have made similar comments. 

    In other words, even if the Bible is considered to be infallible, we aren't.  And neither are our interpretations of Scripture.  Christians are not expected to disregard reason or facts.

     

    It might be possible to confirm or disconfirm some minor details from the Bible, but that would say little about the basic teachings.  Luke says that, when Christ was born, a man named Quirinius was governor in Syria and Herod was king of Judea.  Early evidence suggested that men with those names were governor of Syria and king of Judea respectively, but not at the same time.  Consequently, some people argued that Luke's entire Gospel was discredited.  But more recent evidence indicates that a second man named Quirinius was indeed governor while Herod was king, so other people are tempted to conclude that Luke has been validated.  Yet the evidence that Luke got his details right does not prove the Incarnation happened any more than the original evidence suggesting that Luke was mistaken on a minor point disproved it.

     

    Actually, the most important assertions of Christianity don't lend themselves to scientific investigation.  That doesn't mean the assertions aren't true, just that they are difficult to confirm or disconfirm by research.  A great many statements about the settings and people in the Bible have received independent confirmation, but that doesn't tell us that the basic stories about God's actions are true.  [It does suggest that the stories of God's actions were placed in the real world and not some land of fantasy.]

       

    Is science the "Voice of Truth?"

    One with-it bishop, not overly burdened by either traditional religion or the philosophy of science—said that the Bible is "pre-scientific, and therefore untrue."  Like the good bishop, a lot of people mistakenly think "scientific" means the same thing as "factual."

     

    But, according to philosophers of science, "scientific" simply means "testable."  A scientific theory must say "If I am right, here's what you'll find when you check the facts."  A STATEMENT CAN BE SCIENTIFIC EVEN IF IT ULTIMATELY PROVES FALSE.  While a scientific theory has to predict new facts, the facts may not have been observed.  The theory may not have been tested yet, or it may have been tested and the predictions found to have been wrong.  Even if many of the predictions made by a theory have been found to be accurate, it still doesn't follow that the theory is true, because some future prediction may fail.

     

    The very best scientific theory we've ever had is probably Isaac Newton's theory of physics.  It endured for over three hundred years, it generated thousands of correct predictions, and it laid the basis for all kinds of engineering projects including the space shots. But, in the long run, some predictions made by the theory were contradicted.  Can we be sure that any of our current scientific theories won't be contradicted in three hundred years, or three thousand?

    A scientific theory can never properly be said to be true, because there is no way to know that that some new facts won't be found which contradict the theory.  Keeps you a little antsy if you're the one who came up with the theory, but it provides job security for all the other scientists.  I am under the impression that the theory of evolution looks pretty good right now, but all bets are off if they find an Australopithecus fossil holding a cell phone next to its former ear.

     

    So scientific theories are not evaluated in terms of their truthfulness, which can never be known with certainty, and science doesn't claim to be The Voice of Truth.  Instead, scientific theories are evaluated in terms of their usefulness.  How useful is the theory in terms of such scientific tasks as explaining known data, predicting new facts, and stimulating more research? And by this standard, Newton's theory was a great scientific theory (still is, for most purposes, even if all of its predictions didn't come true in the long run).

     

    There is another point, which is even more important.  STATEMENTS CAN BE TRUE WITHOUT BEING SCIENTIFIC.

    "Scientific" simply means that the statement makes predictions which we can check out.  But statements can be true (or false) even if we can't prove (or disprove) them.  The dictator still did what he did, even if he shot all the witnesses.  The declaration “all people are created equal” has no testable consequences in the sense that it is meant, but it might nevertheless be both true and important.

    I value science very highly, but I'd argue that the most interesting and significant statements, the ones we have to live our lives by, are not scientific.

         

    Partial list of references

    1. Stark, R. (2003).  For the glory of God: How monotheism led to reformation, science,

        witch-hunts, and the end of slavery, pp 192-197.  Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    2. Elmes, David G.; Kanrtowitz, Barry H.; & Roediger, Henry L. III.  (2006). Research

        methods in psychology, 8th ed, pp 34-47.

    3. Popper, Karl R. (1959).  The logic of scientific discovery.  Basic Books, New York. 

    4. Beck, R. N. (1961).  Perspecives in philosophy.  New York: Holt,

        Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

    5. Stroebel, L. (1998).  The case for Christ: A jounalist's personal investigation of the

        evidence for Jesus.  Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

                         

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

                                          Atheism, Theism, And Reason   

     
     
    If you ever find yourself touring The Halls of Reason and come across the room where the militant atheists meet, tiptoe quietly as you pass it.  They don't think anyone else is there.

     

    • The militants have set up a "National Day of Reason" to coincide with the "National Day of Prayer," apparently in the belief that the two are somehow contradictory and that those who pray wouldn't welcome a Day of Reason. 
    • After a gunman killed 32 people at Virginia Tech in 2007, atheists conducted a poll asking people whether they should "pray or reason" in times of crisis—as though people who did the one wouldn't do the other.
    • The New Yorker magazine, lamenting the omission of atheists from a presidential candidate's litany of praise for various religious groups, suggested that nonbelievers be acknowledged with a nod of appreciation for their "deep commitment to reason"—thus assuming that atheists reach their position through reason and hinting that other people lack such a commitment.
    • Sam Harris' "Atheist Manifesto" appears on the web in conjunction with phrases such as "Truthdig," "The Reason Project" and "The Truth Squad."

     

    No wonder some atheists identify themselves as "The Brights" and their opponents as "mammals!"  But is atheism really characterized by an emphasis on reason?  And is a belief in God characterized by disregard of logic?

     

    Are atheists free from superstition?

                Polls show that those who do not attend religious services are more likely than those who do to believe in such things as ghosts, the paranormal, palm reading, astrology, and Big Foot (Big Feet?).  This is not a particularly new trend.  Atheist Thomas Hobbes (1595-1679) dismissed religion as "credulity," but said that witches were "justly punished."  Jean Bodin (1530-1596) said that all religions were false, but he believed in demons and the Devil; he advocated burning witches alive and wrote a book which revived witch hunting when it was in danger of dying out.  Arthur Conan Doyle—Sherlock Holmes guy—dismissed Christianity but was a big believer in spiritualism and faeries. 

    G. K. Chesterton said "When people cease to believe in God, they do not believe in nothing; they believe in anything."   It looks as though he may have been right.  Maybe we'd better not assume that eliminating religion will get rid of superstition, or increase humanity's commitment to reason.

     

    Do atheists derive their position solely through reason?

     Some researchers have concluded that apostasy represents rebellion against parents and other aspects of society as a result of familial strain; doubts are less common among those who are well adjusted and who get along well with their parents.  Research suggests that people abused as children subsequently have lower levels of religious involvement and greater alienation from God.   Other studies find that atheists are more likely than believers to have had conflicts with their parents when growing up, and that these family conflicts arose before the people turned away from religion.  Still other research suggests that children are more likely to abandon their faith if their parents divorce.  Interestingly, some prominent militant atheists have said they suffered abuse as children, and others have described strained relationships with their fathers.

     

    And there is also this.  People with religious doubts are more likely to be unhappy.  Evidence suggests that that they experience more subjective stress, depression, and self-reported life hassles than believers.

    And this—the most common reason for not being religiously involved is being raised in a home that did not stress religion.

     

    Does all of this research suggest that atheism is nothing more than a dark delusion resulting from psychological maladjustment and an unfortunate childhood?

    Frankly, I would argue no.  Not all atheists, or even militant atheists, have such backgrounds.  Also, people can reach correct conclusions for irrational reasons—some people pick the right horse because they like the jockey's colors.  But what the research does do is to warn us against the automatic assumption that people are atheist because of their commitment to reason and evidence.  In many cases non-rational factors are influencing their views.

     

    Does reason prove that God does not exist?

    If all philosophers agreed that there were seemingly unassailable proofs that God did not exist, we might wonder.  But that is not the case.  Now interesting arguments for atheism are raised from time to time, and attacks on purported proofs for the existence of God are made.  But where are the formal philosophical proofs of atheism that convince all philosophers?  And in the absence of such arguments, by what right are theistic and Christian positions singled out as unreasonable?

    Much of modern philosophy suggests that pure reason cannot prove anything about external reality.

    To even talk about something interesting, we've got to make certain fundamental assumptions (such as "There is a real world beyond my thoughts") which aren't proven but are themselves acts of faith.  Theism and atheism are arguably just such assumptions, incapable of being proved or disproved by logic alone.

    But.

     

    First-hand experience

    Nevertheless, the theistic position could be proved, at least conceptually.  If an individual has a personal encounter with God, that individual is no longer relying on faith.  Sure, your report of such an experience might not convince me.  But I bet it convinces you.   Few people will claim to have had a literal conversation with God, but many will claim to have experienced His presence and guidance.  Twentieth Century monk Thomas Merton said "Don't worry about knowledge of God.  Rather seek personal experience of God in an awareness of love."

     

    But hold on.  How do the people with the personal experiences know they aren't hallucinating or delusional?  Well, how do you know you're not in a straight jacket right now, hallucinating that you're reading this website?  And why would we assume hallucinations with no evidence?  The strongest arguments against first-hand-experience-theism are also arguments against the possibility of knowing anything under any circumstances.  And even if you were persuaded by the arguments, you would still have to act as though you knew whether your experiences reflected something real or not.  That bus which is apparently hurtling towards you could be an illusion, but you're going to have to decide whether or not to get out of the way.

     

    There is another way in which first hand experience could support the choice of the religious path.  Some people may have no particular awareness of the presence or guidance of God, but nevertheless find that religion has made their lives better.  Again, their experience may not be persuasive for me, but as far as they are concerned they have direct proof that the religious way works.  Oddly enough, as we look at the scientific data comparing the psychological and physical functioning of the religious and the nonreligious ( Religion Associated With Happiness/Health? ), we find support for the practical utility of the religious path.  This is not proof of the existence of God, but it is evidence that the religious way is not a foolish one.

     

    By contrast, the atheistic position is incapable of being proven, even conceptually.  There is no direct revelation for an atheist.  No first hand experience could be adequate, any more than not hearing music proves there is no such thing as musicians.   How do you prove something or someone does not exist?  How do you prove a negative?  [Okay, people who do geometry for a living prove negatives all of the time—but only after accepting a number of "givens."  And yes, some people have tried to argue that more universal negatives can be proved.  But not all philosophers are convinced.] 

     

    It is the atheistic position which must inevitably depend upon blind faith.
             

    When atheists place placards in the town square, or signs on the sides of London buses, declaring that "there is no god," they are making a dogmatic statement that people are asked to take on faith.  Religious people who have had a direct experience of God, or who have tested the religious way and found it helpful, are being asked to ignore the evidence of their own lives for the sake of an unsupported declaration.  Perhaps these “mammals” (as Christopher Hitchens likes to call people) don't have to be excessively stupid or illogical to demur.

                       __________________________________________________________

    Why Not Play It Safe With Agnosticism?

    Agnosticism superficially appears to be the most intellectually respectable of the religious positions, because it simply says that we should wait until we have more information.  Yet it is the one position which is impossible to live.  While the agnostic waits for more information, she prays or doesn't pray, goes to church or doesn't go to church, treats "the least of these" as though they were they are as valuable as herself or treats them differently.  Some militant atheists suggest people keep their children away from church until they are old enough to "make up their minds for themselves," while they would never dream of taking their own children to church until they are "old enough."

    Historian Toynbee said that everybody must "find answers to these questions in order to take the action they must take by virtue of being alive."  Psychologist William James said "We can act as if there were a God….lay plans as if we were to be immortal; and we find then that these words do make a genuine difference in our life."  References such as those given in the Religion Associated With Happiness/Health? section suggests that this "genuine difference" is one that changes life for the better for those who act as if there were a God.

                                   

    You can think as an agnostic, but you will live as some variation of a theist or an atheist.  And it's not an act of intellectual courage to pretend that you aren't making a leap of faith.

                 ___________________________________________________________

       Partial list of references

    1. Associated Press Poll, October 26, 2007.

    2. Gallop Poll, October 8, 2008.

    3.Robins, R. H. (1959).  The encyclopedia of witchcraft and demonology, p224.  New

        York: Crown.

    4.Trevor-Roper, H. R. (2001).  The crisis of the Seventeenth Century: Religion, the

        Reformation, and social change, p112.  Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.

    5. G. K. Chesterton, in Fitzhenry, Robert I. (1993).  The Harper Book of Quotations, p

        390.  New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.

    6. Caplovitz, D. & Sherrow, F. (1977).  The religious dropouts: Apostasy among college

        graduates.  Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    7. Doxy, C., Jensen, L, & Jensen, J. (1997).  The influence of religion on victims of

        childhood sexual abuse.  International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 7,

        179-183.

    8. Pritt, A. F. (1998).  Spiritual correlates of reported sexual abuse among Mormon

        women.  Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 37, 273-285.

    9. Hunsberger, B. (1980).  A reexamination of the antecedents of apostasy.  Review of

        Religious Research, 25, 158-170

    10. Kooistra, W. P. & Parament, K. L. (1990).  Religious doubting in parochial school

        adolescents.  Journal of Psychology and Theology, 27, 33-42.

    11. Wilson, J. & Sherkat, D. E. (1994).  Returning to the fold.  Journal for the Scientific

        Study of Religion, 33, 148-161.parental divorce

    12. Burris, C. T.; Jackson, L. M.; Tarpley, W. R.;  & Smith, G. J. (1996).  Religion as

        quest: The self-directed pursuit of meaning.  Personality and Social Psychology

        Bulletin, 22, 1068-1076.

    13. Lawton, L. E. & Bures, R. (2001).Parental divorce and the "switching" of religious

        identity.  Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 40, 99-111.

    14. Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1922).  Tractatus logico-philosophicus. New York: Rutledge.

    15. Beck, R. N. (1961).  Perspectives in philosophy, pp 273-340.  New York: Holt.

     
     
     

     

     
                      
     

                 Do Atheists Take A Leap Of Faith?    

     
     
    THE PARABLE OF YEA, NAY, AND EH?

                Just what kind of benighted people base their lives on guiding principles that can't be supported by scientific evidence and hard logic?  Let us consider the Parable of Yea, Nay, and Eh?

     

    Mr. Yea has wandered all day in the jungle, when he comes to deep canyon running as far as the eye can see.  It's getting dark, which is when the jaguars become feisty, and he's afraid that something he disagrees with will eat him.  Just then he sees a swinging bridge, and signs of civilization on the other side.  He's saved!

     

    Or is he?  That bridge looks a little shaky, and he's not at all sure it will hold him.  Now he has an old book that recommends the bridge, but how does he know that the writers weren't deluded?  He's also passed some people along the way who advocate the bridge, but can he trust their advice?  Some of those folks look a little scruffy.  He checks out the bridge as well as he can from this side, but he's still not sure.

     

    Bridge, or jungle?  Jungle or bridge?  Finally, he steps out onto the swinging structure.  Sure, he looks back from time to time, and he's not completely tranquil as he sways over the awful abyss.  But he's made his decision.

     

    He's made an act of faith.

     

    On a different occasion (I won't tell you whether before or after Mr. Yea's choice), Mr. Nay finds himself in the same situation.  He doesn't bother to check out the bridge, but promptly heads back into the jungle.  Only he tells himself he didn't make an act of faith.  After all, he figures, it's up to the people who like the bridge to prove it's the better choice.  People who like the jungle don't have to prove it's safe.  He takes pride in his rationality as the shadows deepen and a twig snaps in the dark.

     

    Dr. Eh? also finds himself in the same situation.  "This is far too important a decision to make on faith," he tells himself, "so I won't choose either the jungle or the bridge until I have adequate data."  He heads back into the dense foliage and sits beneath the trees, listening to the guttural music of the night.

     

    This story is an allegory—a Mother Goose tale with a lesson.

    Mr. Yea represents a theist (a believer in God), Mr. Nay an atheist, and Professor Eh? an agnostic.  The bridge is the religious path, but it wouldn't make a great deal of difference to the story if the choices had been reversed, with the jungle trail the religious way.  Mr. Yea would still have made an act of faith, and realized he was making it.

     

    Having faith doesn't mean that people don't check things out before choosing, and it doesn't mean that they don't have doubts or second guess themselves afterwards.

    Because they are aware of having made a choice, they can start out on the religious path and turn back if they don't feel it's working for them.  They have consciously chosen a course of action, a way to live, so they can evaluate it—and reevaluate. 

               

    Mr. Nay has also made an act of faith—a choice that goes beyond the evidence—but he denies it.  Which might be why he doesn't bother to check out the bridge more closely.  He has somehow convinced himself that only one of the alternatives needs supporting evidence.  Because he doesn't realize he is making an act of faith, he does not choose as intelligently, as thoughtfully, as he might have otherwise.

               

    Now what about our agnostic, Professor Eh?  Although he has for practical purposes chosen the jungle, he doesn't think he made an act of faith one way or the other.  Intellectually, he is withholding judgment pending further evidence.  But meanwhile, in real life, he actually has made his choice and spends the night among the jaguars.

     

    Agnosticism superficially appears to be the most intellectually respectable of the religious positions, because it simply says that we should wait until we have more information.  Yet it is the one position which is impossible to live.

    The professor crosses the bridge or he stays in the jungle.  While the agnostic waits for more information, he prays or doesn't pray, goes to church or doesn't go to church, treats "the least of these" as though they were they are as valuable as himself or treats them differently.

     

    Well, I'm sure the parable has provoked a lot of "yabots."  As in "yeah, but…the analogy's imperfect."  "Yeah, but…don't some believers just believe automatically, without any reflection?  Without any 'checking out the bridge?'"  I'm sure some do.  But Christianity stresses conscious decisions, choices, and "acts of will."  Those baptized as infants are confirmed at a later age.  Adult church members are often asked to reaffirm their choice.  A lot of Christians stress the "Born Again" concept.

     

    "Yeah, but why couldn't Mr. Nay also realize he is making a choice, and check out the bridge just as carefully as Mr. Yea before deciding?  Isn't it possible for an atheist to have checked out the religious option with an open mind before deciding?"   Sure, and many atheists feel that they have done exactly that.

     

    But if you think that the analogy's unrealistic in depicting some atheists as being unaware that they choose, or as demanding more proof for one option than for another, then read some of the writings by the militant atheists.  The militants suggest people keep their children away from church so that they can "make up their minds for themselves," while they would never dream of taking their own children to church until they are "old enough to decide on their own."  Some claim that it's up to theists to prove their position, and that atheists don't have to have reasons for their choice. 

     

    It's not a matter of realizing that your choice could be wrong—Mr. Yea is very conscious of the possibility of miscalculation as he swings over the awful drop.  A more thoughtful Mr. Nay might be quite aware that the way of the jaguar could be a serious boo-boo.  It's a matter of having to live as though you knew the answers to certain questions when you really can't know definitively at present.

     

    Historian Toynbee said that everybody must "find answers to these questions in order to take the action they must take by virtue of being alive."  Psychologist William James said "We can act as if there were a God….lay plans as if we were to be immortal; and we find then that these words do make a genuine difference in our life."  References such as those given on the Religion Associated With Happiness/Health? section suggests that this "genuine difference" is one that changes life for the better for those who act as if there were a God.

     

    You can think as an agnostic, but you will live as some variation of a theist or an atheist.

     And it's not an act of intellectual courage to pretend that you aren't making a leap of faith.

     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

                              Historical Boon Or Bane?       

       
     

    Highlights

    Committed Christians played a leading role in combating a wide variety of historical wrongs, including the exposure of infants on hillsides, slavery, the horrendous treatment of Native Americans, and the Nazi slaughter of Jews.  Dedicated believers promoted charities, hospitals, and universities.  They played a major role in the development of science, and many philosophers argue Christianity created the conditions which made science possible in the first place. 

     
    Much of modern morality derives from a Christian past.
     

    When the pagan emperor Julian The Apostate tried to revive polytheism, he advised its priests and congregations to do something they never had done in the good old days—help the needy.  He said that Christians gained recruits because of their "kindness to strangers" and because "the Galileans feed our people along with theirs."  He figured pagans needed to get on the same bandwagon to compete.  Julian was right.  Early Christians pioneered the welfare state.  They cared for plague victims when no one else would, bought the freedom of mistreated slaves, opposed the exposure of unwanted infants on hillsides, and in general were the last hope of the desperate.  The world was a different place morally after the arrival of Christianity.  Even that morality sometimes called "humanistic" owes much to Christianity.

    Slavery was opposed on scriptural grounds but endorsed by most prominent Enlightenment figures (some of whom invested in the slave trade).  It was only in retrospect, after religious pressure had eliminated slavery in the West, that people began to believe reason opposed such practices. 
     
     
     
    But haven't Christians done awful things over the years?
     
    Sure, some nominal Christians behaved deplorably, just as have members of other groups including atheists.  But the Christians who committed the atrocities tended to be the least committed to their religion.  As an example, those exploiting Native Americans in the Spanish possessions forbade the reading of Church decrees (some of which condemned the enslavement of the natives).  Those who opposed the exploitation tended to have had a deep religious experience.  Overall, the "Horrors of History" such as slavery, torture and genocide were typically opposed by dedicated, Bible-quoting, Christians but endorsed by “hard-headed,” “practical,” men of the world.  The defenders of slavery were less likely to cite the Bible than those who tried to get rid of it. 
     
     Bigotry and cruel behavior often increases rather than decreases when Christianity fades—anti-Semitism grew in Germany as church attendance declined.  Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Not were vehemently anti-Christian and murdered millions.
     
     
     
    A lot of the deplorable behavior blamed on Christianity is more justly laid at the doorstep of secular society. 
     
    During the first 300 years of Christianity, believers treated slave and free as equals—and one slave became pope.  But a few decades after Constantine made Christianity both legal and respectable, resulting in an influx of previously pagan Romans, the new Christians no longer allowed slaves to serve as priests or even appear as witnesses in court.  Also, while most of the old Christians had been pacifists, many of the new Christians began to see the benefit of an army that supported a Christian empire.   The Church had been infiltrated and corrupted by society. 
     
    But dedicated Christians remained, and they have made a huge difference over the centuries. 
     
     

    Partial list of references

    1. Stark, R. (2003).  For the glory of God: How monotheism led to reformation, science,

        witch-hunts, and the end of slavery.  Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

    2.  Netanyahu, B. (1995).  The origins of the inquisition in fifteenth century Spain. 

        Random House, New York.

    3. Carroll, V. & Shiflett, D. (2002).  Christianity on trial: Arguments against anti-

        religious bigotry.  Encounter Books, San Francisco, California.

    4. Moynahan, B. (2002).  The faith: A history of Christianity. Image Books, New York.

    5. Stark, R. (2005).  The victory of reason: How Christianity led to freedom, capitalism,

        and western success.  Random House, New York.

    6. Stark, R. (2006). Cities of God: The real story of how Christianity became an urban

        movement and conquered Rome. Harper One, New York.

    7. Stark, R. (2007).  Discovering God: The origins of the great religions and the

        evolution of belief.  New York: HarperCollins. 

     
     
     
     
          

     

                                Personal Observations                                           

     

                Going by recent writings of militant atheists, there are a number of misunderstandings about Christians.  This website has tried to correct many of them with data and logic.  Here are some more personal observations.

    The vast majority of Christians I know, socially and in Sunday schools, do not reject either reason or science.

    They may pray in times of crisis, but they also gather information, study how other people have handled similar situations and with what results, and critically evaluate possible solutions.  Most see no conflict between science and religion, and tend to have pro-science attitudes.  Their awe at scientific findings does not appear at all diminished by their faith, nor is their faith diminished by the findings.  Like most Americans, their knowledge of history is sometimes shaky, but they are interested in it and eager to learn.  Incidentally, they are more likely to be aware of the supposed misdeeds of nominal Christians than the actual contributions of committed ones.

     

    They have almost all considered the possibility that there is no God, usually many times throughout their lives.

     They are quite likely to be familiar with many of the points raised by atheists, and their reaction to hearing such arguments is not typically shocked horror or cries of "blasphemy."  These points are far more likely to be the subject of discussion, and reports of Christian misbehavior are frequently the stimuli for self-examination.  They don't advocate the persecution of atheists and they don't assume atheists are personally immoral.  A comment sometimes heard in Sunday school classes is "Of course atheists and members of other religions can be just as moral as Christians…."

     

    Most of the Christians I know have at least heard of the purported findings of Biblical criticism, and know about alternative ways of approaching Scripture.

     They are aware that natural explanations of certain Biblical miracles have been proposed.  They have some familiarity with other religions—not nearly enough, but more than most of the atheists I know—and many Sunday school classes have studied other faiths.  Christians may be wrong, of course.  But not because they have never considered the possibility.

    I have spent most of my career in university settings.  In terms of knowledge of matters outside of one's occupational specialty, and open-mindedness, the Christians I have known outside of university settings compare favorably with my colleagues.  And I have seen far more shock and out-of-hand rejection of unexpected or contrary-to-basic-belief findings and concepts among atheists than among those who attend Sunday school.

     

                True, Christians are a diverse bunch and no one person's experiences are likely to represent the entire breed.  But over the years I have been involved with a number of congregations belonging to various denominations, in different parts of the country, in both rural and urban settings.  I don't think my experiences are completely non-representative.

               

    I might add this.  I grew up in the South during Segregation days.  Most of the grownups I knew approved of the practice, and defended it on a variety of "practical" grounds.  About the only voice telling me that it wrong was the Bible, with its "Do onto others" verses—which the few critics of Segregation I knew quoted extensively.

                And this.  I have worked as a psychologist in prisons.  It seemed to me that those who became religiously active while in prison were less violent and functioned far better than other inmates. 

     

    Contents

     

     

     

     

                             An Atheist Prayer?                                                     

              

    Lord, if you can hear this I have seriously messed up, because I don't believe in you for an instant.  But I would like to think that I do value truth, so if you exist I want to know it.  If you are real, I invite you to somehow make me aware of your presence.  If I cannot make myself listen for your "still small voice," I will at least try to keep my fingers out of my ears.

                I sincerely believe I am talking only to myself now, sending up puffs of air to the empty sky.  But I can honestly say that I feel wonder and gratitude for much in the universe, and it would be nice to have someone to express it to.  So, Source-of-Everything-That-Is, if you are sentient and can understand, accept my thanks and praise.  I also feel anger at much of what I see on earth, and I suppose it would be nice to be able to express that also.  But instead of asking you—if there is a "you"—to accept my curses, let me ask that you help me do something about the misery that troubles me.

    If you are the God-who-is-love, and interested in the well-being of humanity, then I would like to work with you.  If you are that God and not a God of hate or bigotry, then I invite your guidance.  And if my make-up for some reason does not allow me to accept your existence, and yet you do exist, then I still ask you for your guidance as well as your forgiveness.

                For what it is worth, amen.

     
     
     
     
     
     

     

             

               Common Objections To Christianity     

     

                Some folks will use any stick to beat a snake, and they figure any argument's worth trying if it'll confuse a Christian.  ["The decrease in religious involvement over the last few decades shows that the accumulation of knowledge is driving out superstition."  "What?  The actual evidence shows that Christianity has increased and atheism has decreased over the last 100 years?  Clearly the quality of education is deteriorating."]

    Many of those who say that Christianity is unreasonable actually have no particular reason for saying so, and may have thought little about it.  They could be passing on casual impressions they picked up from Family Guy.  Others, however, do have specific objections in mind that they take very seriously. 

    Several of these claims (Chrisitianity is disproved by logic; Christianity is disproved by science; Christianity is responsible for the Horrors of History; Religion is associated with maddeness and misery) are addressed on other parts of this site (see, for instance, the Does Science Disprove Christianity? , Atheism, Theism, And Reason, Religion Associated With Happiness/Health? , Historical Boon Or Bane?  subsections with their supporting sources).

    Here are some other common objections that have appeared in print. 
     
     
     

          Does suffering disprove Christianity?    

     

     The Biblical answer to the question "why do people suffer?" is this: "We don't know, but what can we do to help?”  [See Job; Luke 13:1-5; John 9:2-3]  
     
     
    What Christianity teaches about suffering is basically five things:
    • Help those who suffer.
    • We encounter Christ Himself when we encounter those in need.
    • Don't inflict suffering on other people.
    • Don't blame the victims of suffering.
    • Evil and death will not triumph in the end.

     

    A recent Newsweek article said, "With little trouble atheists can pose devastating questions; if God is great, then why do babies get cancer?" 

    But precisely because God is great, we may be incapable of understanding the answer to the Newsweek question, at least at present.

    The Book of Job in the Hebrew Bible (Christian Old Testament) teaches that humans cannot comprehend the ways of God.  Psychology teaches that people may not even be able to comprehend the ways of the world; we have cognitive limitations which make it difficult to handle complex information.  As Biologist J. B. S. Haldane put it, "My own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."  It should not be surprising that we cannot understand the ways of the Creator of that universe. 

     

    The argument that the existence of suffering precludes the existence of God rests upon the proposition that, if we knew infinitely more than we do now and could handle information infinitely more complex than we can at present, we would still see things exactly the same way.  That might not be true.

     

    In any case, replying "I don't know" to the problem of suffering is no more devastating for Christians than it is devastating to an atheist to reply "I don't know" when asked to explain the origin of some natural phenomenon, or of the universe itself.

     

    Christianity takes suffering very seriously.

    It does not say that suffering is illusory, or that the suffering of individuals is something to be endured for the greater good of society or the advancement of the species.  It doesn't say that those who suffer deserve it because of misdeeds in this life or a previous life.  It doesn't say "life is unfair" and leave it at that.

     

    Christianity is the religion of Good Friday and the Crucifixion, the faith that looks suffering in the face and says "that's awful."  Of course Christianity is also the faith that looks suffering in the face and then looks beyond, to Easter and Resurrection.

     

    The Christian viewpoint provides some comfort for those suffering, and some reason for others to try to help them.  I haven't seen any evidence that people suffer less or help more if this view is abandoned.

     

    The argument from suffering is not a logical argument at all

    It is rather an emotional one.  And as an emotional argument it can be powerful, especially for people who are enduring suffering in their own lives or (worse) the lives of their loved ones.

    But people react differently to pain and misery.  Those who habitually blame others when things go wrong may tend to blame God when confronted with tragedy, and some of these will try to "punish" God by not believing in Him.  Those who have a what's-in-it-for-me faith may well abandon it when things are not going well.  But others report that their faith got them through terrible times, and some people say that their faith deepened in response to suffering (according to Sam Harris, 80% of Hurricane Katrina's survivors said that the event only strengthened their faith).

     

    The research on coping and religion, such as that mentioned  in the Religion Associated With Happiness/Health? section, might suggest which of these approaches helps people function better.

     

    The Frank Sinatra Objection: "God can't exist unless He did it my way."
     

    The "misery precludes a benevolent deity" line of argument is only one example of a more general approach.  Some writers claim that God could not exist or we wouldn't find so many redundant species, or evolutionary dead ends, or apparent biological inefficiencies, or suffering among animals.  None of these objections is logical in nature.

    Partial list of sources

    Simon, M. A. (1957).  Models of man. New York: Wiley. 

    Shepard, R. N. (1964).  On subjectively optimum selection among multi-attribute

        alternatives.  In M. W. Shelley, II, & G. L. Bryan (eds), Human judgments and

        optimality.  New York: Wiley. 

    Einhorn, H. J. (1972). Expert measurement and mechanical combination. 

        Organization Behavior and Human Performance, 7, 86-106.

     
                          Common Objections To Christianity                                    About This Site   
     
     
     

               Does Christianity stop thinking?                  

     
     
    Highlights

    Some atheists complain that religious beliefs are the only unchallenged beliefs in the world, and don't allow for any correction. 

    And it is true that fundamental assumptions about ultimate reality (whether called religious or not) aren't easily or lightly changed.  They can't be altered every hour, or we couldn't function day by day.  That's one reason why I wouldn't expect militant atheists to suddenly convert, even if every argument they claim convinced them to be atheist were to be exposed as bogus.

     

    But everybody makes such fundamental assumptions, and a leap of faith undergoes more examination when people are aware that they have made one.  Atheism is itself all too likely to be an unchallenged belief.

               

    There is another angle that deserves consideration.

    Sincere religion can force the examination of other basic assumptions, especially the ones which are so universal in our culture as to be almost invisible.

     

    Why would anybody call slavery into question when it has always existed and almost all of the people you know, including Enlightenment figures like Voltaire, Hume, and Thomas Jefferson, accept it?  Why would you challenge the treatment of natives when kings and queens and sages, the best and the brightest, agree that Europeans are superior and deserve to rule?  Why combat racism when progressive, modern (and atheistic) intellectuals like Thomas Huxley and H. G. Wells, speaking in the name of science, argue for the suppression or even the extermination of inferior races?

     

    But committed Christians who quoted the Bible did challenge the basic assumptions of many ages, including slavery and the abuse of native peoples.  G. K. Chesterton, who challenged the racism of H. G. Wells and the imperialism of Rudyard Kipling, commented that the Catholic Church could easily imagine consecrating a black bishop.  He said "A dead thing can go with the stream; only a living thing can go against it."

     

      Just as a net makes tennis more challenging, so too does a set of religious beliefs allow commonly accepted worldviews to be challenged.  Mangling metaphors still further, Christianity provides a place to stand while moving the world. 

     

    We are pretty good at identifying the faults of our ancestors.  What viewpoints help us to spot our own flaws?  "The Forces of History?"  "Progress?"  "Evolving Higher Consciousness?"  "The Inexorable Advance of Civilization?"  "Modernity?"  "The Cutting Edge?"  These philosophies come down to assuming that our own time, which is after all the most recent, just happens to be the wisest.  Wouldn't such philosophies in fact be the most vulnerable to the excesses or errors of any particular age?

     

    Some say that all moral views are subjective, and there is no such thing as absolute right and wrong—in which case we have no basis for condemning slavery, or Inquisitions, or the subjugation of native peoples, or the Holocaust.

     

    There are those who want to base an "objective, scientific" morality on genetics.  But is a genetic view of morality, which supposedly explains current morality in terms of factors built into our biological makeup, really likely to challenge "the wisdom of the current age?"

     

    Accepting Christianity is not the end of thought, but often the beginning.

     
     
                          Common Objections To Christianity                                    About This Site   
     
     
     

    (some) Christians harsh because of Christianity? 

     

        If a vegetarian robs a hot dog stand and eats the inventory, surely an impartial observer must concede that the dastardly deed might not have been done because of vegan beliefs.  Similarly, if a supposed Christian commits an action clearly condemned by the Bible and the example of Christ, and is promptly criticized by fellow believers, it is at least possible that Christianity wasn't the real reason for the misbehavior.

        Those who would argue that Christianity is responsible for any misbehavior committed by a nominal Christian must logically blame atheism for the deeds of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. 

     

    Why would people claim to be motivated by religion if they really aren't?

                Sometimes they do it to fool other people.  Just as some politicians wrap themselves in the American flag, or talk up "democracy" when what they really mean is "protecting my big campaign contributor's financial interests," there are those who will try to sell a bad product by associating it with something noble like religion.

     But.    

    Some people actually believe the excuses they make--rationalization.

    When people "rationalize" they give—and believe—reasons for their actions that aren't the real reasons.  A man who didn't want to help a person in need because it was too much trouble might say that the victim deserved what he got.  A woman who stopped going to church because she didn't want to get up on Sunday morning might claim it was because of logical objections.

     Rationalization doesn't just involve giving excuses to fool other people, it involves actually buying into the excuses ourselves.  Research suggests that a lot people do use rationalization (and that those who do don't function as well as more realistic people).  

    Rationalization and Harsh "Religion"

    Why is so much garbage done in the name of Christianity?  Rationalization may provide one answer.  In times and places where Christianity is respected, people may disguise their dark deeds—even from themselves—by claiming to be motivated by Christian teachings.  Someone who wanted to get rid of social outcasts might convince himself that a verse in Leviticus required him to burn them as witches.

    But with no Christianity, the harsh people wouldn't stop being harsh, they'd just find other rationalizations (most of the Enlightenment figures who criticized religion supported the burning of witches).  Harsh Christians could easily become harsh atheists, or harsh Muslims, or harsh PC police, as the prevailing cultural winds dictated.  Indeed, insofar as Christianity exerted any kind of moderating force, we might expect cruel behaviors to get even worse.

     

    Partial list of sources

    Sappington, A. A. (1989).  Adjustment: Theory, research, and personal applications. 

    Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove California, p 246-266.

    Stark, R. (2003).  For the glory of God: How monotheism led to reformation, science,

        witch-hunts, and the end of slavery.  Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Vaillant, G. E. (1977).  Adaptation to life: How the best and the brightest came of

        age.  New York: Little, Brown.

     
                          Common Objections To Christianity                                    About This Site   
     
     
     

                         The Good Book makes nice people do bad things.                                 

                Movie and TV villains are pious folk.  There's a good chance that the axe-murderer you see lurching through the shadows will recite a verse or two from the Bible as he starts chopping.  In media-land the oily embezzler, the wife beater, and the child abuser will likely prove equally facile in quoting Scripture.  Critics of Christianity think Hollywood gets it right.  They claim the Bible is a book of hate, and argue that Christians are able to act decently only to the extent that they are able to ignore it.  They think the Bible makes people harsh and judgmental.

    Is that true?  Let's take a look at what it actually says. [Bible quotations are from The Contemporary English Version.]

    Christians who want to use obscure verses to justify treating people harshly have got to ignore the example of Jesus.  One of the most memorable stories in the New Testament is the story of "The Woman Taken In Adultery."

    A group of legalists catch a woman having sex with someone she wasn't supposed to have sex with and, citing regulations from the Old Testament, want to execute her.  Jesus refuses to allow it.  Instead, he tells the crowd that only someone who has never sinned may throw the first stone.  "The people left, one by one….  'Where is everyone,' he asked.  'Isn't there anyone left to accuse you?'  'No sir,' the woman answered.  Then Jesus told her 'I'm not going to accuse you either.  You may go now, but don't sin any more.'"  (John 8:3-11) 

    There were many other occasions when people tried to use Scripture to advocate uncharitable behavior (for instance, to say Jesus shouldn't heal sick people on the Sabbath, or that His disciples couldn't gather food when they were hungry) but in each case He rejected the harsh interpretation.  [See, for instance, Luke 13:10; Mark 2:23-28; John 9:16; Luke 14:2; Mark 7:1-8.]

    The test

    What's going on here?  Jesus insists that everything in the Law must be obeyed, down to every last letter and punctuation mark (Luke 16:16-17; 2 Timothy 3:16-17), but He systematically refuses to allow the Law to be used as a weapon.  Is He just being inconsistent?

    No, because Jesus meant something different by the Law and the Prophets than His critics did.  He said that if you really understand the Law, it boils down to the commands to love God and love your neighbor.

    "Treat others as you would want them to treat you.  This is what the Law and the Prophets are all about."  (Matthew 7:12)

     "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind.  This is the first and most important commandment.  The second most important commandment is like this one.  And it is, 'Love others as much as you love yourself.  All of the Law of Moses and the Books of the Prophets are based on these two commandments." (Matthew 22:36-40) 

    "The Scriptures say, 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind.  They also say, 'Love your neighbors as much as yourself.'"  [Luke 10:26-28)]

    So Jesus was not breaking or ignoring the Law.  "I did not come to do away with [the Law and the Prophets], but to give them their full meaning."  And their full meaning included the Golden Rule.  Those who played legal-eagle and looked for obscure verses that they could use to condemn others were the ones who had broken the Law, because any interpretation that conflicted with the two great commandments was at best a misunderstanding.

                St. Paul echoes Christ (although people sometimes quote isolated verses from Paul to justify harsh actions).  "In the Law are many commands, such as 'Be faithful in marriage.  Do not murder.  Do not steal…'  But all of these are summed up in the command that says 'Love others as much as you love yourself…So love is all that the Law demands."  [Romans 13:9]

                Some people are probably thinking by now: "Yeah, but… there really are Bible verses which are harsh."  Critics delight in tracking down such verses, and using them to support their contention that the Bible advocates cruelty.  And some nominal Christians also track down some of these verses to justify their dubious actions.  A few remarks might be helpful.

    First, the Bible can be made to support harsh behavior, but only in the same way that New York Times editorials can be made to support right-wing positions, or Wall Street Journal editorials can be made to support left-wing positions—by taking statements out of context.

    The Bible as a whole is not so malleable to our biases.  The chapters bend less easily than isolated verses, and an entire book, an entire Testament, even less.  The "Don't judge" verses are spread through several books of the Bible.  In addition, there are repetitive themes of mercy, humility, and helping the needy which keep cropping up in both the Old and New Testaments, and which are difficult to ignore.  If we use all of Scripture, and honestly try to understand what it is saying, we won't find that it supports cruelty.

    There's a difference between using the Bible for guidance and using it for ammo.  Here are some other considerations.

     The "hard verses" tend to be obscure

    They are usually found next to the verses regulating the handling of mildew, the eating of shellfish, and shaving—verses that most Christians don't see as applying to themselves.  And the hard sayings are surrounded by very different types of verses.  For example, Leviticus may talk about stoning for various offenses, but it also says to care for the poor, the needy, and the foreigners who work in our land.  Anybody claiming to be motivated by a "hard verse" would have to be prepared to follow the nearby verses as well.

    Not all verses are followed by "Go and do likewise." 

         The Bible says "Judas hung himself."  This doesn't necessarily mean we are to emulate him.  The fact that the ancient Israelites battled some other tribe doesn't automatically mean we are to make war on a neighbor.  Some verses are spoken by Satan, others by sinners trying to justify behavior that is condemned, and still others are directed to specific people in particular circumstances (many of the tribes the ancient Hebrews fought practiced child-sacrifice; the letters of Paul are addressed to specific people and sometimes discuss a unique local situation).  Some verses, as in the Psalms, are cries from a troubled soul.  Not all verses are intended as instructions to us. 

    Christians not bound by Old Testament regulations.

                Christians are explicitly told by Scripture that they are not bound by the rules given to the ancient Israelites.

    People who claim to be following the literal meaning of selected verses in the Old Testament when they judge others, or do harsh things to them, have to ignore a lot of Scripture in the New Testament.  Actually, the Old Testament also warns against stressing specific rules and regulations at the expense of concern for fellow humans.

    *          *          *

                The "Do-unto-others" verses have played a major role in Christian history.  Those committing atrocities ignored the verses or claimed they didn't apply, those opposing the atrocities cited them.  The verses were quoted when Christians spoke out against the Inquisition, the mistreatment of natives in the New World, slavery, and the Nazi nightmare.  Throughout history, they are the words used against legalists who dare to selectively quote the Good Book to justify some bad action.

    They are the wooden stake to Harsh "Religion's" vampire heart.

     

                           Common Objections To Christianity                                    About This Site   

     

     

      Atheists are brighter and less superstitious  

     

           Daniel Dennett proposes calling atheists "The Brights" (which seems to imply that everyone else belongs to "The Dumbs"); Christopher Hitchins likes to refer to ordinary people as "mammals;" atheist writer Sam Harris says that people who take their children to church are guilty of a "ludicrous obscenity;" Richard Dawkins says that those who believe in "god" are delusional and that teaching children religion is worse than molesting them sexually (not claims that can be supported by research).  The proposition that something must be seriously wrong with anyone who disagrees with a militant atheist's position is not a new one.  Writing in the Nineteenth Century, atheist Thomas Huxley tried to preempt opponents by saying "No rational man, cognizant of the facts…." 

    You don't have to be arrogant or intolerant to be a militant atheist, but it may be an occupational hazard.

     

                                          What's A Militant Atheist?
    An ordinary atheist is someone who believes there is no God.  A militant atheist is someone who believes that faith in God is not only mistaken but harmful.  Many militant atheists try to stamp out religion.  While an ordinary atheist might feel comfortable in using  The New Atheist Manifesto, a militant atheist would probably not.
     
    Is the arrogance justified?

    Are the Brights less superstitious, more likely to base their position on reason, than the Dumbs?  Actually, polls suggest that non-believers are more likely than those active in their religion to believe in such things as ghosts, UFOs and Big Foot (Big Feet?).   This is not a new development.  Atheist Thomas Hobbes (1595-1679) dismissed religion as "credulity," but said that witches were "justly punished."  Jean Bodin (1530-1596) said that all religions were false, but he believed in demons and the Devil; he advocated burning witches alive and wrote a book which revived witch hunting when it was in danger of dying out.  Arthur Conan Doyle—Sherlock Holmes guy—dismissed Christianity but was a big believer in spiritualism and faeries.

    As writer G. K. Chesterton says, "When people cease to believe in God they don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything."

     

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              The Brights would like to believe that they reached their position solely through science and reason.  Actually, research suggests that a variety of childhood events (such as abuse, parental divorce, lack of stress on religion in childhood home) and psychological problems appear to predispose people to atheism. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

    Are the "Brights" smarter than the "Dumbs?"  Actually, the research on intelligence and belief is mixed—some studies find no difference, some find the non-religious more intelligent, and some find the religious more intelligent.  No studies that I am aware of find a correlation between intelligence and correctness of belief. 

       

    To finish the Huxley quote:

             "No rational man, cognizant of the facts believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man."  Neither certainty in the wisdom of your own views not a firm belief in the inferiority of those who disagree with you guarantee the accuracy of your positions.

       

    Partial list of sources

    Dennett, Daniel C. (2006). Breaking the spell: Religion as a natural

    phenomenon, p 21.  New York: Viking.

     Hitchins, Christopher (2007).  God is not great: How religion poisons everything.

    Twelve, Berkely, CA.

     Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion, p 266-269.  Houghton Miffin, Boston

    Herzberg, Hendrik (2008).  Round One.  The New Yorker, January 7, 24.

    Associated Press Poll, October 26, 2007.

    Gallop Poll, October 8, 2008.

    Robins, R. H. (1959).  The encyclopedia of witchcraft and demonology, p224.  New

        York: Crown.

    Trevor-Roper, H. R. (2001).  The crisis of the Seventeenth Century: Religion, the

        Reformation, and social change, p112.  Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.

    Francis, Leslie J. (1998).  The relationship between intelligence and religiosity among

        15 year olds.  Mental Health, Religion and Culture, 1, 185-196.

    Dittes, J. E. (1969).  Psychology of religion.  In G.  Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.) The

        handbook of social psychology (Vol. 5, pp602-659).  Reading, MA: Addison-

        Wesley.

     
                          Common Objections To Christianity                                    About This Site   
     

     

      Only ignorant people are religious.              

     
    The more education people have the more likely they are to be religious.  Around the year 2000, most university graduates were theists, and atheistic propensities among the highly educated have been declining for many years.  Although many people believe that science and religion are incompatible, most of those people aren’t scientists.  Belief does not decline as people go through a scientific education, and scientists are as likely to be believers as people in the general population.

      

    Partial list of references

    1. Stark, R. (2003).  For the glory of God: How monotheism led to reformation, science,

        witch-hunts, and the end of slavery, pp 192-197.  Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    2. Greeley, A. M. (2002).  Religion in Europe at the end of the second millenium.  New

        Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

    3. Roof, W. C. (1993).  A generation of seekers: The spiritual journey of the boom

        generation.  San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, p 73.

    4. Associated Press Poll, August 21, 2007.

    5. Spilka, B., Hood, R. W., Hunsberger, B., &Gorsuch, R. (2003). The psychology of

     

         religion, an empirical approach, pp169-206. New York: Guilford.

     
                          Common Objections To Christianity                                    About This Site   

     

    Muslim attacks prove Christianity bad     

     
     
        Often, in articles attacking Christianity, authors will make reference to Muslim terrorist strikes against civilians.  The implied message, although typically not stated directly, is "because a minority of Muslims have committed acts of terror, Christianity is dangerous."  Following the reasoning of this argument, we should all condemn the Women's Temperance Movement for the public drunkenness exhibited by the Men's Pub-crawling Society. 

        The New Testament is full of anti-violence, anti-vengeance teachings (for instance, Matt. 26:51-53; Matt. 5:19-20; Matt. 13:39-42; Luke 6:27; Romans 12:19; Peter 3:9…).  It is unreasonable to believe that people sincerely trying to follow those teachings would be inspired to commit violence.  [I am also skeptical that Islam in and of itself caused the acts of terror, but will leave it to the Muslims to reply.]

                          Common Objections To Christianity                                    About This Site                                             

     
     
     
     
                                                                                           
     

     

                       Morality and Atheism                    

     

    Some atheists say people should "be good for goodness sake."  But where does our notion of what is "good" come from?

     

    Highlights

    Much of the morality we take for granted in the modern world, including that sometimes called “humanistic,” may ultimately derive from a Christian past.  When the pagan emperor Julian The Apostate tried to revive polytheism, he advised its priests and congregations to do something they never had done in the good old days—help the needy.  He said that Christians gained recruits because of their "kindness to strangers" and because "the Galileans feed our people along with theirs."  He figured pagans needed to get on the same bandwagon to compete.  Julian was right.  Early Christians pioneered the welfare state.  They cared for plague victims when no one else would, bought the freedom of mistreated slaves, opposed the exposure of unwanted infants on hillsides, and in general were the last hope of the desperate.  The world was a different place morally after the arrival of Christianity.

     

    The “Horrors of History” such as slavery, torture and genocide were typically opposed by dedicated, Bible-quoting, Christians but endorsed by “hard-headed,” “practical,” men of the world.  Slavery was opposed on scriptural grounds but endorsed by most prominent Enlightenment figures (some of whom invested in the slave trade).  It was only in retrospect, after religious pressure had eliminated slavery in the West, that people began to believe reason opposed such practices.

     

     Can Science Provide An Objective Morality?

    Atheist writers Dawkins and Harris dismiss the atrocities committed by atheist regimes such as Soviet Russia or the Khmer Rouge's Cambodia as the result of bad science and inadequate data (implying that the atrocities would have been perfectly justified if the science had been better?).  But Stalin wasn't the victim of inadequate data when he concluded that the kulaks weren't obeying him, nor did Pol Pot use faulty analysis when he decided that educated people might be more likely to oppose him.  More complete data and more rigorous analysis still wouldn't have told them that their actions were wrong.

    Some socio-biologists turn to genetics as a basis for morality.  We can easily propose a set of genes for any particular behavior, including "moral" behavior, and no doubt come up with a reason why this behavior and the associated genes help humans survive.  But what gene will we find for something we're not doing yet should be?  It's odd that the moral genes opposing slavery, and the exposure of unwanted infants on hillsides, kicked in only after the appearance of Christianity.  Atheist Steven Pinker proposed that our genetic structure might explain why some mothers put their newborns into trash cans; on what basis should we decide to override our genetic predispositions?

    Not only have values such as "it's good to help the needy," or "slavery is wrong," not been empirically validated, they are incapable of being empirically validated because science cannot demonstrate that one set of values is better than another.

     

    Science talks about "what is" and has no way to get to "what should be."


    Are atheists at least as moral as believers? 

    I suppose you could make a case that religion is associated with moral behavior.  Research indicates that religious people are more likely to help those in need than the nonreligious, and within a congregation the most religiously involved tend to give more than other members.  Believers are less likely to engage in non-marital sexual activity, especially premarital sex.  They are less likely to engage in domestic violence or other criminal behavior.  The more importance people place on God, the less likely they are to approve of buying stolen goods or failure to report damaging a car in a parking lot.

    But not all research finds large differences between the two groups, and few Christians would claim that atheists are immoral; most have atheist friends who they see as upright.  Group data can be misleading.

                Still, a few points may be worth mentioning.

     

    First, moral views are inevitably religious in the sense of involving fundamental assumptions that go beyond evidence.

     

    Second, it's not inconceivable that this common morality could erode in the future should the culture move away from religion.  Most Victorian atheists were highly offended by any suggestion that abandoning Christianity would promote promiscuity, and I doubt any significant differences between the sexual activity of Christians and that of others would have been found in the late 1800's. 

     

    But today, as we saw above, you do find that the rate of non-marital sex is lower for Christians than for others.  Whether you see this as a problem or not, the point is that secular values can change in ways that would have horrified our ancestors--and may yet change in ways that will horrify us.  No one is saying that particular individuals will suddenly become immoral if they convert to atheism.  But values derived from a Christian past could be lost over time.

     

    Third, history suggests that those most interested in the welfare of souls tended to be the ones most interested in the material welfare of others.  It is always possible that the future will be completely unlike the past, of course.  But it seems unwise to assume it.

     

    And incidentally, St. Paul says that Christians should be good out of gratitude rather than from fear of punishment.

     

    Partial list of sources

    Baier, C. J. & Wright, B.R. E. (2001).  "If you love me, keep my commandments: A

        meta-analysis of the effect of religion on crime.  Journal of Research in Crime

        and Delinquency, 38, 3-21.

    Carroll, V. & Shiflett, D. (2002).  Christianity on trial: Arguments against anti-

        religious bigotry.  Encounter Books, San Francisco, California.

    Moynahan, B. (2002).  The faith: A history of Christianity. Image Books, New York.

    Stark, R.  (2001).  Gods, rituals, and the moral order.  Journal for the Scientific Study

        of Religion, 40, 619-36.

    Stark, R. (2003).  For the glory of God: How monotheism led to reformation, science,

        witch-hunts, and the end of slavery.  Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
     
                          Common Objections To Christianity                                    About This Site  
     
     

     Atheists are persecuted by religious people      

        
    In an episode of the television cartoon "Family Guy," the family angrily turns against their dog Brian—the show's intellectual figure of reason—once they find out that he is an atheist. 

        The fact that the family was offended might seem a great mystery.  After all, they had routinely mocked religion, God and Jesus in earlier episodes, so why on earth should they be angry at Brian?  But this depiction, inconsistent as it makes the family appear, may actually contain some truth.  People actively involved in their religion are more tolerant of other religious views than those who are only superficially involved.  Insofar as atheists are being discriminated against, it is likely that those truly committed to their faith aren't the ones doing it.

     
    But are atheists persecuted? 

        We've got to get more specific. 

    Worldwide, Christians are probably persecuted more than non-believers, and those Militant Atheists are a big reason why.  Atheist dictators still persecute Christians.  In the United States, research suggests that conservative Christian students in secular universities experience considerable discrimination.   Also in the United States, a glance through recent newspapers reveals that churches are burned and gunmen shoot up congregations from time to time—I certainly wouldn't want to bet that atheists are more often the victims of murder and arson than are the religious.

     

    In other areas, however, particularly politics, I believe that American atheists do face possible discrimination.  Certainly atheism tends to be unpopular in the United States.  Christians, taught to "judge not" and to "turn the other cheek," must oppose any mistreatment of atheists.  Others might want to rethink the wisdom of a system which guarantees that at least some politicians will be hypocrites—if you can't run for office unless you claim to believe….

     

    But what about your own situation? 

    Are you discriminated against?  Does it take courage for you to be an atheist (or a Christian)?  Here's a thought experiment:

     

    Imagine that you mention to the people you usually hang around with that you are an atheist.  How much flack do you think you'll get?  Now imagine that you announce you have had a religious conversion.  Would you expect a better or worse reaction from your peer group than with the atheist announcement?  Would you suffer any disapproval or discrimination at work if it were known you were atheist?  How about if it were known you were strongly religious?  Your atheism (or your religion) may be a source of contention within your family.  But if you are estranged, did the estrangement occur before or after your commitment to atheism (or religion)?

               

    Depending on who you hang around with, and where you work, your answers will differ.  In some circumstances it will be atheists who suffer discrimination, in others it will be believers.

    Courage is required only when a majority of the people you usually associate with despise your views.

     

    Partial list of sources

    Stark, R. (2003).  For the glory of God: How monotheism led to reformation, science,

        witch-hunts, and the end of slavery.  Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

    Neff, D. (1996). Our extended, persecuted family.  Christianity Today, 14, April 29.

    Hyers, Laurie & Hyers, C. (2008).  Everyday discrimination experienced by

        conservative Christians in secular universities.  Analysis of Social Issues and

        Public Policy, 8, 113-137.

     

                           Common Objections To Christianity                                    About This Site  

     

     

    Scientific Studies Discredit Bible?                   

               
    You might read in the paper that the New Testament Book of James was actually written by some guy named Mortimer.  Or you might see a program on TV which claims that the Gospel of John is useless, but this new Gospel of Judas is pretty hot stuff.

    Most of these challenges to Scriptural accuracy are based on approaches such as "textural criticism," which is a way of looking at things like typical and atypical word usage or inconsistencies among different Biblical manuscripts.1  Thus, the authorship of a particular letter traditionally attributed to Paul may be challenged because the Greek is of much lower quality than is usual in Paul's letters.  ["Paul write good.  He no turn out garbage like this if he tried."]  How are Christians to make sense of such scholarly "findings?"

    We might start with this: although Elaine Pagels (Hidden Gospels),2 John Crossan (Jesus Seminar),3 and Bart Ehrman (Misquoting Jesus)4 are quoted far more often in the popular media than other Biblical scholars, their opinions in fact represent minority positions rather than consensus.

    In this section:
     

     

    Is Science Chipping Away At Christian Beliefs?

                                                                              

    In the second half of the nineteenth century, many scholars doubted that Jesus ever lived.  Today, the battle lines are more typically drawn over the precise words He used or exactly what He did and on what occasion.  Evidence is accumulating that, within a few years of the supposed event of the Crucifixion, people across the Roman Empire (and beyond) were for some reason worshiping a man who had died the shameful death of a criminal; considerable historical and archaeological evidence supports the details of the New Testament. 5

     

    Copying Errors?

                                    

    How do we know errors didn't creep in, when we're dealing with copies of copies?  One safeguard lies in the number of ancient copies available for comparison—if one copyist makes a mistake, the manuscripts from many other copyists can be used to correct it.  More than 5,000 copies of the New Testament in Biblical Greek exist, compared to only 650 copies of the Iliad., which is the runner-up.  The agreement among the copies of the New Testament is unusually high.6

    If the New Testament is to be dismissed as untrustworthy because of such issues, so must all other ancient books and the events they describe.

    The earliest copies of Homer's Iliad follow the date of its composition by almost a thousand years.  The earliest copy of the Annals of Tacitus dates to about 700 years after it was supposedly written; the earliest copies of the Icelandic sagas also date many hundred years from the time they were first written down.7,8  By comparison, our copies of the New Testament are practically hot-off-the-original-quill.  And although complete manuscripts of the Gospels date to "only" the Third Century, fragments from the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Matthew date to around 100 AD or even earlier.9

    The traditional dates for the Gospels would mean that they were composed while eye witnesses of the events described were still around to contradict distortions.10  But a fair amount of evidence suggests that the originals of the gospels were written in Hebrew, which would mean that they were composed even earlier—perhaps earlier than the letters of Paul, which are generally considered to have been written within twenty years of the death of Christ.11

     

    How Scientific is Textural Criticism etc.?

                                                                                    
              The media often present textural criticism as a science, but it lacks many of the attributes of one.  [Can its statements be disproved?  Has it led to many correct predictions of things we didn't already know?]  Its pronouncements should not necessarily be granted the prestige of science, and its techniques need to be subjected to critical evaluation themselves before we can accept any conclusions it reaches.

    To be scientifically useful, evaluation techniques must be shown to be both reliable and valid. 12  For instance: can scholars use the techniques of textural criticism on a document and, operating in ignorance of what other scholars have said, consistently reach the same conclusions?  That would be evidence of reliability.  Can the techniques correctly identify which sayings were said by a particular person—Cicero, for instance--and which by someone else, when we know for certain who the authors were?  That would be evidence of validity.  [If they can't correctly identify who-said-what when we're sure about the author, why would we trust the techniques with material whose origin is under dispute?]

    Conclusions or Assumptions?

                Many of the conclusions of textural criticism are not findings at all, but follow from its assumptions.  As an example, the technique assumes that "supernatural" events such as correct prophecy cannot occur. 13   Any passage that appears to contain a correct prophecy is therefore presumed to have been written after the fact.    Thus the Gospel of Matthew is dated as having been written after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, despite some evidence that it was written earlier, because it seems to contain a prophecy of that destruction.

    Another assumption, made by the Jesus Seminar group, is that only short sayings of Jesus are likely to have been remembered. 14    Any lengthy saying is therefore dismissed as inauthentic, which eliminates much of the Gospels.  [Actually, evidence suggests that people in preliterate or partially-literate cultures can remember astonishing amounts of material, and that the material sometimes accurately depicts events occurring hundreds or even thousands of years ago.  Also, I suspect that political reporters could recite long segments of a candidate's stump speeches from memory, having heard them a few times.]

    Now it might be interesting to see what is left of Biblical writings after you make such assumptions as "no miracles" and "no long speeches," but you can't then turn around and use the results to prove that no genuine verses make correct prophecies or that Jesus never spoke lengthy sayings.  Those conclusions would have been assumed, not proven.  Of course the conclusions might be true, if the assumptions are right.  But, like the computer folks say: "Garbage in, garbage out."

    Not Sufficient to Speculate About Possible "Explanations"

    To an outsider at least, many of the Biblical study techniques appear to consist of plausible speculation with little confirmatory evidence.  As an example, consider James Kugel's account of the "modern Biblical scholarship" take on the Cain and Abel story in Genesis. 15  The verses tell of the world's first murder, when Cain slew his brother.  But for "modern scholars" the key passage is the one in which God, having punished Cain with exile, also offers protection.  "Therefore anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance sevenfold."

    Clearly, say certain scholars, this is a story devised hundreds or even thousands of years after the supposed event to account for a phenomena current in the story-teller's world--namely the fact that a tribe called the Kenites would retaliate for the murder of a tribesman by killing seven members of the group that murdered him.

    I think we should at least consider such arguments.  But what is the evidence for the scholars' interpretation?  Well, in Hebrew the spelling of "Cain" is same as the spelling of the Hebrew word for "Kenites," which were a real tribe.  Did members of this tribe actually kill seven people for every tribesmen killed?  We don't really know, because there's no direct evidence.  However, the Kenites are believed to have lived in the same area as two other tribes that were known for being fierce fighters.  Therefore, say the scholars, it would not be unreasonable that the Kenites might have also have been warlike, and perhaps even bloodthirsty enough to repay one killing with seven.  "It must have been," they assert, "that from a very early period, the Kenites already had a reputation for killing seven of your people if you killed one of theirs."

    But the custom of seven-fold retaliation has not been described in existing documents of the period.  The scholars' argument is essentially that the Cain and Abel story was invented to explain a custom we have no evidence ever existed.  The only reason for postulating the custom is to have something for the Bible story to explain.  It's easy enough to make a theory fit with previously known facts; once you invent hypothetical facts, you take all the fun out of the exercise. 

    Even if we had solid evidence that the custom of seven-fold retaliation existed, we still wouldn't have a scientific theory.  It's not enough for a scientific theory to explain facts we already know about, it must predict new facts.  "If I am right, this is what you will find.  And if I am wrong, this is what you'll find instead."  To a non-specialist, it looks as though "modern Biblical scholars" often have no way to correct erroneous theories other than by offering newer and seemingly more convincing speculations.

    The point is not to dismiss all of the techniques used by Biblical scholars, and certainly not all of their conclusions.  However, we should be cautious about accepting those conclusions uncritically, and it might be wise to ask for independent verification.

    Bias

    Finally, Stark16 claims that a very large number of Biblical "scholars" are motivated by angry atheism.  The tone of many authors in this area is marked by an unusual hostility towards their subject matter; compare works about Napoleon with works about Christ by Ehrman, Crossan and Pagels.

     

    What About Those "Hidden Gospels"?

                                                                                 

    The Gospel of Thomas, which is not in the New Testament, is popular among many revisionists.

    Pagels suggests that it is more likely to be authentic than some of the Gospels that are included in the Bible. 17  But most scholars date the Gospel of Thomas as having been written long after the New Testament gospels and as having been appropriately excluded from the New Testament. 18  Some of the material in it is odd, and could be interpreted as anti-female.  [For example, "Every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."]  It is probably significant that, when Christians were being persecuted by the Romans, the Gnostics were ignored. 19

    True, future scholarship or the discovery of older copies may vindicate the Gospel of Thomas or other "secret gospels," and we should be careful about rejecting a saying only because it is unexpected.  But the case for accepting these alternative gospels as authentic, much less for replacing the New Testament Gospels with them, has certainly not been made at present

     

    Contradictions?

                                    

    We would have to see specific examples of contradictions in order to respond, but a lot of the ones I have run across don't impress me much.  Bishop Spong, among others, suggests that the supposed discrepancies in the various Easter accounts of the Gospels clearly rule out a literal interpretation of the Resurrection. 20  I can only say that, if I'm ever accused of a crime and have several eye-witnesses testifying against me, I want him on my jury.

    The "discrepancies" he is referring to look to me like nothing so much as what you would expect when independent observers give accounts of the same actual event.  Frankly, the variations are far more compelling than precise agreement would be, since the former suggests independent sources, and the latter would suggest rehearsed testimony.

    Some people talk about discrepancies between certain verses in Leviticus or Deuteronomy and the New Testament, but they ignore the verses in which Christians are told they are not bound by Jewish law.  Other "discrepancies" look to me like the same story told from different angles, with more detail added or different aspects emphasized for different audiences.

    Naturally, not everybody will see it the way I do.  But the point is, a lot of the "contradictions" people claim to detect are not seen as truly contradictory by all readers—they are not facts, but perceptions and interpretations.  And it may be significant that the supposed contradictions apparently didn't trouble those ancient scholars who selected what went into the Christian Bible.  In any case, the supposed contradictions in minor details scarcely constitute proof that Scripture does not present the basic facts.

     

    What About "The Woman Taken In Adultery?"

                                                                           

    As Ehrman has noted, many scholars believe that the story of "The Woman Taken In Adultery," in which Christ refuses to allow a mob to stone a woman caught in sexsual misconduct, was not originally in the Gospel of John (some of the earliest manuscripts of John don't have it; the style resembles Luke's more than John's, and some copyists in fact put the story in the Gospel of Luke). 21

    But scholars don't necessarily dismiss the story as something that never happened; the argument is primarily about authorship.  Many argue that it represents an authentic oral tradition that the early copyists weren't sure where to put. 22  Most Christians are relatively unconcerned with identifying the precise author so long as the story tells us something true about Jesus.

    Ehrman argues that it is highly unlikely that a Jewish teacher of that time would have countenanced no punishment for breaking the Law.  But while the story might be atypical for many Jewish teachers of that era, it was completely in character for Jesus.  Several other verses depict Him as rejecting the use of harsh interpretations of Old Testament Scripture to condemn people (for instance, Luke 13:10; Mark 2:23-28; John 9:16; Luke 14:2; Mark 7:1-8).  Jesus frequently ate with sinners and people who were "unclean," people who most Jewish religious leaders would avoid.  The hero of one of His parables was a Samaritan rather than the orthodox Jews in the story.  The story of the Woman Taken In Adultery is completely consistent with Jesus' character and teachings as revealed in other verses of the New Testament, which is probably why it came to be included in the first place.

     

    Exact Quotes?

                                 

    There is a story about a Civil War general who, in the heat of battle, was urged to seek cover.  "Don't worry," he sneered.  "They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist—."  The details and precise wording of the general's statement vary from author to author, but almost always end with the general's remark being cut off mid-sentence by a sharpshooter's bullet.  I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that there are scholarly papers which amass vast amounts of data to determine the correct version.  But I have a hunch that the casual reader, who comes away with the idea that a general was shot at about the same time as he was declaring such a feat impossible, has understood the essence of the event.  Sometimes the exact words aren't necessary to get the most important part of a message or a story.

    Most Christians don't much care about the precise wording, as long as they have the essential meaning of what Jesus said.  So the conclusions of groups such as the Jesus Seminar might not be all that important if they are simply talking about the likelihood that we have precise quotes.

     

    Sources

    1. Stark, R. (2007).  Discovering God: The origins of the great religions and the

    evolution of belief, p 304-5.  New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

    2. Pagels, Elaine (1979). The Gnosic Gospels. New York: Random House.

    3. Crossan, J. D. (1991). The historical Jesus: The life of a Mediterranean Jewish

    peasant.  San Francisco: Harper Collins. 

    4. Ehrman, Bart D. (2005). Misquoting Jesus: The story behind who changed the

    Bible and why.  Harper, San Francisco.

    5. Stark, R. (2007).  Discovering God: The origins of the great religions and the

    evolution of belief, p 295-297.  New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

    6. Stroebel, L. (2007). The case for the real Jesus: A journalist investigates current

    attacks on the identity of Christ.  New York: Gale Cengage Learning Stroebel, L. New York: Gale Cengage Learning.

    7. Bruce, F. F. (1981).  The New Testament documents: Are they reliable? Pp 11-13. 

    Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

    8. Hurtado, L. W. (2006).  The earliest Christian artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian

    origens.  Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans

    9. Stroebel, L. (1998).  The case for Christ: A jounalist's personal investigation of the

    evidence for Jesus, p 62. Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

    10. Stark, (2007). P 298

    11. Tresmontant, C. (1989). The Hebrew Christ: Language in the age of the Gospels. 

    Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press.   

    12. Elmes, David G.; Kanrtowitz, Barry H.; & Roediger, Henry L. III.  (2006). Research

    methods in psychology, 8th ed.

    13. Stark 2007, p 326

    14. Crossan, J. D. (1991). The historical Jesus: The life of a Mediterranean Jewish

    peasant.  San Francisco: Harper Collins. 

    15. Kugel, J. L. (2007).  How to read the Bible: A guide to scripture then and now.  Free

    Press, New York.

     16. Stark, (2007). P 298

    17. Pagels, Elaine (1979). The Gnosic Gospels. New York: Random House.

    18. Stark 2007, pp 324-327

    19. Ibid, p 326

    20. Spong, J. S. (1991).  Rescuing the Bible from fundamentalism: A bishop rethinks the

    meaning of scripture.  San Francisco, CA: Harper SanFrancisco.  

    21.  Ehrman, Bart D. (2005). Misquoting Jesus: The story behind who changed the

    Bible and why.  Harper, San Francisco.

    22. Stroebel, L. (2007). The case for the real Jesus: A journalist investigates current

    attacks on the identity of Christ.  New York: Gale Cengage Learning.
     
     
     
    Contents
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
         
                        Suggested Readings                       
     
     
    History and Christianity

    1. Stark, R. (2003).  For the glory of God: How monotheism led to reformation, science,

        witch-hunts, and the end of slavery.  Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

     2. Moynahan, B. (2002).  The faith: A history of Christianity. Image Books, New York.

     3.  D'Souza, Dinesh (2007). What's so great about Christianity. Regnery Publishing, Inc.,

        Washington DC.

     4. Carroll, V. & Shiflett, D. (2002).  Christianity on trial: Arguments against anti-religious

        bigotry.  Encounter Books, San Francisco, California.

     5. Netanyahu, B. (1995).  The origins of the inquisition in fifteenth century Spain. 

        Random House, New York.

     6. Stark, R. (2007).  Discovering God: The origins of the great religions and the evolution

        of belief.  New York: HarperCollins.

       

    Science and religion

    1. Stark, R. (2003).  For the glory of God: How monotheism led to reformation, science,

        witch-hunts, and the end of slavery, pp 192-197.  Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

     2. Elmes, D. G., Kantowitz, B. H., & Roediger, H. L. (2006).  Research methods in

        psychology.  Thompson/Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.

     3. Gould, S. J. (1999).  Rocks of ages.  The Ballantine Publishing Group, New York.

     4. Popper, Karl R. (1959).  The logic of scientific discovery.  Basic Books, New York.

     5. D'Souza, Dinesh (2007). What's so great about Christianity. Regnery Publishing, Inc.,

        Washington DC.

     6. Carroll, V. & Shiflett, D. (2002).  Christianity on trial: Arguments against anti-religious

        bigotry.  Encounter Books, San Francisco, California.

       

    Religion, happiness, and health

    1.. Spilka, B., Hood, R. W., Hunsberger, B., &Gorsuch, R. (2003).  The

        psychology of religion, an empirical approach.  Guilford, New York.

     2. Brooks, Arthur (2008).  Gross National Happiness, New York: Basic Books

     3. Ryckman, R. M. (2004).  Theories of Personality, 8thed. pp 633-640.

        United States: Wadsworth, 

    4. Seligman, M.  E. P., Rashid, Tayab, & Parks, Acacia C. (2006).  Positive

        psychotherapy, American Psychologist, 13, 774-788.

     
     

    Comments


    Zia Shah

    Faith and reason: an invitation to Christians

    Almost 40% of people are unaffiliated with the Church in Europe and about 20% of those born in Christian families are unaffiliated or agnostic in North America, as the dogmas no longer make any sense to them. It is not only Santa Claus that is make belief, but a lot more ... Read on and in the words of Francis Bacon, “Read not to contradict … but to weigh and consider.”
    Albert Einstein said, “The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.”

    "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." Galileo Galilee
    This invitation is extended to the fellow Christians with love and compassion because the Holy Quran says about them:
    And thou shalt assuredly find those who say, ‘We are Christians,’ to be the nearest of them in love to the believers. That is because amongst them are savants and monks and because they are not proud. (Al Quran 5:83)
    Andrew Conway Ivy writes, “One should never retreat from reason. One should use reason, and use it accurately and aggressively. A faith which is not preceded by reason is a weak faith and is vulnerable to devastating attack and to subversion. Religious faith not based on reason breeds bad character and bad conduct.”

    For rest of the story:
    http://knol.google.com/k/zia-shah/faith-and-reason-an-invitation-to/1qhnnhcumbuyp/52#

    Last edited Jan 5, 2010 2:48 PM
    Report abusive comment

    Zia Shah

    Our God: Proving the existence of God by rational means

    This is an easy to read short book by Hadrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad. The book was originally published in Urdu in 1928.

    Here is the foreword of the book:

    I have long wanted to write a book on the subject of the existence of God, for the benefit of young people in particular. I wanted to set out in a brief and simple manner the arguments which prove the existence of God—Who is our Master and Creator—and to describe His attributes and the advantages and means of establishing communion with Him. For a number of reasons, I have, until now, been unable to fulfil this desire. A few days ago, however, someone asked me about the existence of God in his own peculiar manner, thus rekindling my old desire. I took this to be an appeal from beyond and embarked upon writing this book. No one has any capacity to undertake anything without Allah and I place my trust in Him alone.

    It would be incorrect to think that I have prepared myself for this task, or that I wish to shed any light upon it from a purely intellectual point of view. The only purpose I have in mind is to share my existing knowledge on the subject with the young and ordinary people in a simple and concise manner. If God so wills, it might grant guidance to some lost soul, or refresh someone’s stagnating faith, or serve to comfort some anxious and restless heart, or, perchance, our dearly beloved might come to realise that the true aim and purpose of our lives is to recognise our Lord, Whose love is greater than any other.

    Before I begin I pray to the Almighty: ‘O my Lord, You are aware of all my shortcomings and my knowledge and deeds are not hidden from You. Grant me, through Your grace, the strength to complete this book in accordance with that which pleases You. Grant power to my words and lead my pen along the path of righteousness and truth, so that people may recognise You and attain the goal of their lives. O my Helper and Guide, though I consider myself true in my intentions, You know me better than I know myself. If You are aware of any ill-intentions on my part, do have mercy on me and purify me so that this book may not be deprived of the blessings which You send down in support of the truth. Be it so, O God. Amen.'

    The whole text can be read online:
    http://alislam.org/library/books/OurGod.pdf

    Last edited Dec 30, 2009 3:31 AM
    Report abusive comment

    Spiros Kakos

    A very good knol

    This is a very good knol. Would like to reference it in some of my Knols. I could also use your feedback for my "Religion and Science Unification" knol.

    A 5-star rating from me! Keep knoling!

    Last edited Sep 25, 2009 12:12 AM
    Report abusive comment
    Drew Sappington
    Drew Sappington
    College professor; Clinical psychologist
    St. Augustine, FL
    Article rating:
    Your rating:
    All Rights Reserved.
    Version: 141
    Versions
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2009 3:08 PM.

    Reviews

      Knol translations

      Activity for this knol

      This week:

      32pageviews

      Totals:

      1203pageviews
      5comments
      ©2009 Google