By
Amy Korst
July 4, 2007
In a recent Opus comic strip, everybody’s favorite penguin politico was conversing with Binkley about a trend the cartoon called “surprising:” “atheist books are suddenly bestsellers.”
This is indeed the case. Number seven on The New York Times Best Seller List is Christopher Hitchens’ God Is Not Great. Also selling well are Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, Daniel Dennett’s Breaking the Spell and Sam Harris’s The End of Faith.
Opus attributes this trend to a simple matter: “I’m not crazy about the idea of the maker of the universe knowing my most embarrassing secrets,” he says, even as the stars above him spell out “tinkles in tub.”
While I agree with Opus that I’d rather my personal failures not become publicized, I think the reason more Americans are buying books about atheism (and, presumably, turning away from religion) is because they quite simply cannot find relevance in organized religion anymore.
Frankly, it’s no wonder why.
Just a few weeks ago, The Seattle Times reported that Seattle Episcopalian priest the Rev. Ann Holmes Redding has converted to Islam without denying her status as a Christian. Redding’s explanation of this phenomenon was remarkable in its ability to skirt the issue.
“I am both Muslim and Christian, just like I’m both an American of African descent and a woman. I’m 100 percent both,” she said.
Never mind the fact that Christians worship Jesus’ divinity and Muslims do not. Redding’s dual faith is essentially a religious free-for-all, suggesting that when it comes to religion, anything goes.
Add to that the fact that the Roman Catholic Church has just issued “Guidelines for the Pastoral Care of the Road,” a document outlining 10 recommendations for the Catholic driver to follow. These guidelines include crossing yourself before setting off on a journey, not making rude gestures and avoiding drinking and driving.
Some might see these two cases as instances in which organized religion is reaching out to a crowd of people who live a modern lifestyle. In reality, religion comes off looking absurd and desperate to interact with a 21st-century audience. The fact is that many, many people no longer find it acceptable to be governed by ancient church guidelines.
The number of people engaging in premarital sex, for instance, is astronomical. The Church still maintains that this is a sin leading directly to hell.
So what is organized religion to do? It is certainly not practical to expect churches to leave behind centuries-old doctrines just to attract more followers. Instead, today’s religious organizations would do well to attempt to regain some lost dignity.
Rather than diving head-first into every possible political argument, be it abortion, physician-assisted suicide, gay marriage or others, perhaps churches ought to stand back and let the debate unfold without influencing the fight. Just as governments respect the ever-wise separation of church and state, so should all religions.
Additionally, it is advisable to avoid trying to look “cool” by issuing guidelines for things like driving, which the church has no business being involved in.
Religious leaders would do well to remember, too, that organized religion isn’t for everyone, nor will it ever be. Accept your followers for who they are, and don’t resort to three-ring circus tactics in a recruitment attempt.
25 Comments
#1 Jon
on July 6, 2007 at 12:06 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
In response to NeoGothic: If you read what I have to say again, I am redefining the word religion...but to make it easier to understand, let’s now call what I said is religion is a belief system. You believe in the idea of no God or gods while you still do not have proof (science can be used both in the promotion of atheism and religion). To use the TV analogy (which I actually like a lot), each channel can represent a religion and turning off the TV represents atheism, but turning off the TV is just as much a choice as choosing which channel to watch. Basically, I am trying to say that no belief in God or gods is equal to a belief in God or gods. We don’t have to call it a religion, but it is very close in nature.
In terms of your next point on assuming atheism leads to communism, I would like to ask you to provide an example of a government that came about using atheism as the underpinnings that was/is not communist or highly socialist. Additionally, you contrast this point with a knock on religious societies by bring up only the bad and not the good. I find this funny because religion is what has created the freedoms we have in this country. On the other hand, I completely agree that religion has the ability to oppress on a scale that can be absolutely evil, but so can atheism. The knock on religion because it has been used for evil and not good can equally be applied to atheism. Atheism is not perfect, and neither is religion.
In like sense, there are positives about both organized religion and atheism. The 1,000 years of darkness you mention can be countered with numerous examples where religion has been freeing, enlightening, and progressive. From religion we get the idea that all men are created equal (although at the time religion also oppressed Africans who were used as slaves). In this statement, there was both good and bad. In terms of an atheistic view point, there is a desire for all men to prosper (something that is in common with religion). At the same time, there are atheists who are out for their own gain. Again, let me reiterate the point that atheism isn’t as unique as atheists would like to think it is.
Finally, you state that I gave the opinion that religion should stay out of government. That wasn’t my point exactly. My point is that there is no way to avoid religion in government in a free society. There will always be private citizens fighting for their religious or atheist view points in government and when those private citizens of like mind join together, they form an organization which is born out of their common religion and therefore organized religion in politics in a free society is unavoidable. You should thank God that religious people in America haven’t ever tried to force atheism out of politics.
I will say though that I do not know as much about this subject as I should and would like. I agree with you that I should learn more about it, but might I suggest that you also learn more about the good religion has done before making a one sided, idealistic decision as to whether or not religion is worthy of some merit. It appears that you don’t want to even consider that some good could come out of religion.
In response to Doug: Can you prove that there is no God? I mean really, if there was scientific proof that there isn’t a God or gods, wouldn’t most people believe it? Science can support both a thesis for a God and a thesis for no God. It completely depends on what facts you use and how you piece them together. It takes a much greater amount of faith on your part to not believe in God than to believe that there is one based on the extreme complexity of the universe. By the way, where did the universe come from? Something can not come from nothing. Based on this, answer me the question as to where the universe came from? You will never be able to prove the non-existence of God, it is impossible and therefore your comment condemns your beliefs as much as it does mine. And that is the rub, because we find ourselves back to my initial point that whether or not one is religious or atheist, we all believe in and worship something.
One final question for atheists: Why do you hate God so much when it is the failures of humans, religious and atheistic alike, which have caused all the grief in the world? Just because religion fails does not make God false.
#2 El Tajin
on July 6, 2007 at 1:49 p.m.(Potwin, KS | Unverified Name)
Jon,
“I would like to ask you to provide an example of a government that came about using atheism as the underpinnings that was/is not communist or highly socialist. Additionally, you contrast this point with a knock on religious societies by bring up only the bad and not the good. I find this funny because religion is what has created the freedoms we have in this country.â€
Read the documents written by the founders of the USA! Educate yourself before making false claims. All the dominate founders of the USA would be self announced Diests or Atheist in todays usage. None of them were Xtians. You might even try a rational reading of your own bible to correct your thinking of what it says as well. I did, that’s one reason I am an Atheist.
“One final question for atheists: Why do you hate God so much when it is the failures of humans, religious and atheistic alike, which have caused all the grief in the world? Just because religion fails does not make God false.â€
It’s pretty hard to hate Santa Claus and the tooth fairy or maybe Zeus, which is the feeling of most Atheists about the Xtian god…and the Greek ones. We would just like to be free from paying for your delusions and putting up with your proselytizing.
#3 Citizen
on July 6, 2007 at 1:52 p.m.(Iowa City, IA | Unverified Name)
Amy: Congratulations on a well-written piece, and an excellent suggest that religions would do well to heed.
Jon: I'm afraid you've misrepresented the position of many atheists in your attempt to created a false equivalence between religion and atheism. In this case, many atheists do not "believe that no god exists." Instead, they do not believe in any of the gods that have been proposed so far, because of the general lack of evidence.
You ask Doug for proof that there is no god, but the burden of persuasion is on those claiming that there is a god. If it were otherwise, consider how many claims I could make that you would have to believe if you couldn't provide evidence that they weren't true.
As for the beginning of the universe the correct answer is "we don't know", not "let's make something up, and hassle people who don't believe our baseless claim."
Finally, you promote the canard that "atheists hate god." Please think about this a little harder; just because you who believe in god, love god, doesn't mean people who don't believe in god, hate god. How can I hate something that I don't believe exists?
It is the failure of religion to provide evidence for the existence of gods that causes me not to believe in them, not their other failures, as heinous as those are.
#4 NeoGothic
on July 6, 2007 at 2:25 p.m.(Minneapolis, MN | Unverified Name)
To Jon: First of all, if we're going to have a discussion about anything you can't redefine words like "God" and "religion". That's a common apologist ploy. I've heard people redefine the word 'God' as love or energy. If he were either, he could be found in your brain chemistry or a quart of oil, respectively. Redefining words to try to make your point can lead (and it often does) to talking about nonsense. As for your next point about atheism and communism, I can't show you an example of a government that used atheism as any sort of an underlying principle as there are none. To take the classic example of the Soviet Union; atheism was chosen by the early leaders of the USSR as it was the easiest to enforce. Also, it's hard to use atheism as a rallying cry against anything, particularly the Soviet government. For your misguides assertion that our freedoms come from religion, nothing could be further from the truth. The vast majority of our founding fathers were deists. A deists is someone who follows no organized religion but still maintains a belief in a god. The deist god of the founding fathers would be a huge dissapointment to most of today's religious. The deists belive (yes, they're still around) that a god or supernatural intelligence started the universe in motion and then provided no further input. The ideas and ideals that we hold dear in the United States derive directly from the Renaissance and the Elightenment that followed, two events in history where people specifically and purposefully threw off the yoke of the Church and rejected religious dogma. "All men are created equal" comes to us from the ancient Greeks and Romans. It was they who invented our system of government (a Republic, not a democracy as is commonly thought), not the ancient Hebrews or Medieval Christians. The idea of a repersentitive government was a very alien concept to both of them. In short, the US of A was founded on Pagan ideas. As far as forcing 'atheism out of politics', that would be a violation of the esablishment clause of the First Ammendment and would be fully punishible by law. As far as religion doing good in the world I'll not deny it. Many religious people give charitibly to many worthy causes. However this is a case of finding a piece of chocolate in a pile of poo. Even though it's choclate, you still don't eat it. The good is out-weighed by the bad. And finally, we don't have to prove there is no God. The burden of proof is on those making the claim, not the negation of that claim. This is known, after Bertrand Russell's depitcion of it, as the Celestial Teapot fallacy. If I were to claim that there were a small teapot in orbit of the sun out beyond Neptune, farther out than our most powerful telescopes could see, you couldn't disprove what I say either. You can't see it with a telescope, so therefor you couldn't locate it to send a space probe either. Now most people wouldn't take me seriosly until I came up with some proof and rightly so. It's the same way for religion. There's no hard, tangible evidence for your claims of this "God" beiing and so therefor no one is obliged to believe you until you come up with some proof. Again, the burden of proof is on the person or group making the claim. It is the religious who must come up with evidence, not the non-religious. Oh and here's a humorus aside for you: Both you and I are atheists, Jon. I just go one god farther than you do.
#5 Jon
on July 6, 2007 at 5:31 p.m.(Renton, WA | Unverified Name)
In response to El Tajin: I believe you to be partly correct in your assessment on the early USA, although, I think you try too much to dismiss the influence Christianity had on the beginnings of this country. Regardless of the founding fathers being Christians or deists (very few were atheist), the main influence was the Bible and Christianity. Even if they weren’t Christians they used much of the Christian philosophy to form the USA. It was a religious philosophy that gave us much of the foundation for this country (although similar ideals could have potentially come out of other religions).
Next, you tell me to read my Bible. I have read it and I find that Jesus was killed by organized religion, love is the greatest of all, and I am to consider others better than myself. What principles does atheism stand on? What morals? If there is no God than why not kill and steal if you can get away with it?
Finally, why do you dismiss religion just because the followers are flawed? Specifically with Christianity, what Jesus said and what some Christians have done throughout the ages are two different things. A misunderstanding and misapplication of the message should not cause it to be dismissed. Unfortunately, that is what it appears some atheists do.
In response to Citizen: First, do you consider yourself an atheist or agnostic? Second, I do not want to give you the impression that the burden of proof is on atheists to prove the existence of God or gods. I just don’t think it is also solely on the religious to prove God or gods. I don’t believe that I can prove to you the existence of God 100%. I also do not believe that you can prove the non-existence of God 100%. It seems to me hard (if not impossible) to prove either using science or reason. All I was looking for was some sort of admittance from an atheist that they could not prove the non-existence of God just like I can not prove the existence of God 100% using science or reason. Hence, an atheist has to have faith just like a religious person. I agree with you about the universe but it makes you sound more agnostic than atheist.
Finally, I understand your point about hating God or gods. The point I was trying to make is what makes Christianity (since it is what I believe) bad is the messengers and not the message. To dismiss the message because of the faulty people that are delivering it does not serve the message justice. Much of what Christians do is not what Jesus commanded, but that should not cause someone to dismiss Christianity. I find it faulty to dismiss Jesus based on his followers since the foundation of the religion says that we are all sinners and just screw things up anyways.
Thanks for your insight. It brought a new perspective to the discussion.
In response to NeoGothic: See my response above to El Tajin about the early USA. Additionally, I do not mean to redefine religion. We can leave it as it is. Instead, let me make the point of religions and atheism being both beliefs requiring some amount of faith. You can’t disprove God and I can’t prove him in the manner in which we think of proof and disproof: science and reason. I can give you other things which point to the existence of a god or of God, but that will not satisfy your reasoning. So it is pointless to say to you I can prove God.
Next, you say that the good of religion is like “finding a piece of chocolate in a pile of poo.†That is a gross analogy, but in some sense you are right. War, slavery, hate, etc have all come from religions. These things have also come about using an atheistic philosophy. At the same time peace, hope, charity, and love have all come from religion (specifically Christianity). The problem is people don’t always put their Christianity in to practice as the Bible commands (1 Timothy 5:4 and James 1:27 if you have a Bible). Your beef is not with the religion, but with those who claim to be religious who do not act in the way of their religion. Your beef is with me since I don’t always act in the ways that Jesus has commanded me.
Finally, I want to thank you for your response. I can tell you are passionate about this issue, even though we are on opposite sides. You seem to have a lot of knowledge about the ideas surrounding this…definitely more knowledge than I currently have.
This is a great string of posts we have going. I am appreciative of people who aren’t apathetic to or afraid of such a debate.
#6 Herb the Husky
on July 6, 2007 at 7:42 p.m.(Gig Harbor, WA | Unverified Name)
Amy, I usually really like your editorials, but what you are suggesting is rather akin to censorship. What about the marketplace of ideas? Shouldn't people (even people we disagree with) be allowed to speak their minds? And doesn't the idea of tolerance extend to tolerating the intolerant?
Militant atheism, such as that espoused by Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris (especially Harris), is scary in the depth of the vitriol and hate aimed at people of faith (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live...). Yes, religious people have made mistakes. But religious people have done great good by engaging the culture.
Indeed, people of faith like William Wilberforce and William Lloyd Garrison (not to mention MLK) were mocked, derided, and told to stop tying to force their religion on others. Thank God they didn't listen to the folks telling them to be quiet.
Universities, hospitals, relief societies, and many more good things have come from religion. To say that faith is now, at this point in human history, no longer relevant, is a big jump, and it’s the wrong call.
I say let the religious people add their two cents, and strive to separate the actions of a few crazy fanatics and power-mad maniacs from destroying the positive force faith is in this world.
After all, what is the alternative? Without God, all we have left is the likes of Hitler, Mao and Stalin.
#7 Citizen
on July 6, 2007 at 8:36 p.m.(Iowa City, IA | Unverified Name)
Jon: Actually, my preferred label is Humanism, but for the sake of this discussion, I'll limit myself to remarks concerning atheism and agnosticism. There are generally two types of atheism: hard and soft. Hard atheism is the one you were speaking of, an affirmative belief that there are no gods. I think it is the rarer of the two. Most atheists I have spoken to are soft atheists, which is the position that I cited, a lack of belief in gods.
Agnosticism, on the other hand, is not related to belief at all. It has to do with knowledge, as the word itself implies. Lack of knowledge makes you an agnostic. In fact, many theists are agnostic theists, because they have no knowledge about gods, just faith. It is also possible to be an agnostic atheist, which is not believing based on a lack of knowledge. This is another way to describe a soft atheist.
It all comes down to one principle: In the absence of evidence, we should not believe claims. Since you acknowledge that believers cannot prove gods exist, I don't have to prove that they don't. I am justified in not believing based on the failure of believers to prove that they do.
#8 Craig
on July 6, 2007 at 8:40 p.m.(Troy, VA | Unverified Name)
Myself not being religious, I'm wondering why religious people should stay out of public affairs? You speak of the separation of church and state but I think you have the principle wrong. I'm pretty sure that the public is granted its voice no matter where the public derives its views. For example, some may be anti-war because of religious beliefs or because of a philosophical/ethical framework from which they operate. Why should one be quiet and the other not?
#9 Jon
on July 6, 2007 at 10:42 p.m.(Renton, WA | Unverified Name)
Citizen, thanks for the info. You have clarified a few things for me, although I disagree with your premise of “In the absence of evidence, we should not believe claims.†On one hand, sometimes we are not given enough evidence, but have to make a decision any ways. Even though you believe you do not believe a claim, from my point of view you do. You believe the claim that none of the world’s religions are right and either there must be some god yet to be revealed or there is in actuality no god. To me your claim that your belief is not a claim is a way of avoiding the reality of your belief.
Additionally, you should consider that there is plenty of evidence for some religions, especially Christianity (since it is what I believe). Jesus fulfilled over at least 300 prophecies from the Old Testament. It would have to be a large conspiracy for the New Testament to line up with the Old Testament. Additionally, thousands of people saw Jesus after he rose from the dead. The complexity regarding Christianity is absolutely amazing when you think about and dissect the Bible and the issues surrounding it although it is not a 100% “reasonable†to believe in Jesus. Assuming Jesus was a real man, what is your view of him? Was he just a good man?
One additional question I have is ‘What would make an atheist believe in God?’
#10 Pipes
on July 7, 2007 at 1:05 a.m.(Irwin, PA | Unverified Name)
@scott: Regarding your comment, "Since no historian denies the life of Jesus..." This is actually not true. There are no historical pieces of evidence for Jesus EXCEPT for Christian accounts. Similarly, there is no extrabiblical evidence for Herod's annihilation of baby boys, or for the entire Exodus story...I could go on and on. In fact, there is some interesting evidence for Jesus being based off the story of Horus. I invite you to read more here, @ http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr....
In short, don't believe that all historians believe that Jesus existed. That's just not true.
#11 weemaryanne
on July 7, 2007 at 8:17 a.m.(Toronto, Canada | Unverified Name)
And the Pope wants to bring back the Latin mass. Because you know, the Catholic Church is not nearly irrelevant enough yet.
These people never listen to themselves. Then they wonder why the rest of us fall down laughing at them.
#12 Theo
on July 7, 2007 at 1:23 p.m.(Johannesburg, South Africa | Unverified Name)
Thanks for a fine article.
Even more important than churches leaving the public alone, is churches (and churchgoing parents) stopping the faith indoctrination of children, at least until they're old enough to think and decide for themselves.
By all means, teach children about the various religious and philosophical approaches to life's metaphysical conundrums, but then teach ALL of them, including secular humanism, and do it academically and objectively.
I can dream, can't I?
#13 XanderG
on July 7, 2007 at 2:45 p.m.(London, United Kingdom | Unverified Name)
To Herb the Husky: Calling atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris militant is ridiculous. What have they done to warrant such a label? They have written books where they criticise religion, with words. The other people normally labelled 'militants' are those who blow themselves up, killing others in the name of Allah (though there are other types of militants).
Wilberforce and the other Christians had their work cut out to abolish slavery using the Bible as it actively condones slavery: (http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm) has many examples of passages condoning slavery.
It is strange that you think universities and hospitals come from religion. Both are so tightly entwined with science, that is impossible to seperate them. Modern medicine relies on science and not magical incantations like prayer or speaking in tounges. Universities are used to acquire and diseminate knowledge about the world through research and analysis, all traits used in science, and not religion. Knowledge based around faith tends to be useless and circular.
Also finally you make the often quoted fallacy that Hitler was an atheist, and that Mao and Stalin committed their acts because of atheism. Firstly Hitler was most likely Catholic, and definitely believed in some kind of god or 'providence'. In fact he used the historic hatred, in Christianity, of Jews to whip up anti-Semitic feelings in Germany. Also most Germans at the time would have been Christians, as was the norm then.
Now Stalin and Mao were atheists, but it does not mean that they committed their horrific acts because of atheism. Where are the scriptures of atheism that call for murder of believers? They do not exist. All atheism is, is a lack of belief in gods. Nothing more. The views of atheists are very varied. It could be argued that Stalin did believe in a god; himself. His 'cult of personality' was effectively a religion, and citizens of the USSR were taught to see Stalin as the 'messiah' of their country. Though true that he attacked the church establishment, this was mainly because they represented a power base he could not control, and that could threaten him. Most of all Stalin was a paranoid control freak. In the Purges, he wiped out any person who posed a threat to him, or could even possibly present a threat. Many of the same points can be applied to Mao.
To Jon: You suggest there is plenty of evidence for religion and specifically Christianity. You claim there are at least 300 prophecies from the Old Testament, that Jesus fulfilled. Care to name any? One I can think of is that the messiah would be a descendant of King David. Thus both Matthew and Luke give genealogies of Jesus tracing him back to King David, and in Luke's case even as far back as Adam.
However they both disagree on his ancestors. Mathew 1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?...) and Luke 3:23-38 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?... quite a lot. And of course the idea of Jesus' ancestry through Joseph is pointless, since he was born by virgin birth!
And of course the problem with saying that the New Testament fulfils Old Testament prophecies, is that the New Testament was written after. They authors would have had full access to the Old Testament and its prophecies. It would have been simple for them to write the New Testament in a way that conforms to the prophecies, which is what I believe is the case with the above. So, you see, no large conspiracy needed. Just men who wanted their scripture to have some ancient credibility.
Thousands of people saw Jesus rise from the dead? Well actually they saw him alive. The rising from the dead was never seen. And we do not know they saw any such thing. We have a book which says people said they saw a man alive, who they believed to have been dead. And we still have no indication of the Bible's veracity, other than the fact it says it is true.
Finally, you ask what would make an atheist believe. A fair question, that requires some thought. I know what would make me believe, but it is a lot of work to write, in what is already an extremely long comment. So I'll point you to (http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/th...). Though I don't agree with everything there, most of it I would apply to myself. Also check out its parent page (http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/in...) for similar essays that may answer any other questions you may have.
#14 Tom
on July 7, 2007 at 4:37 p.m.(Gig Harbor, WA | Unverified Name)
Well, Mr. Pipes, among others, the decidedly non-Christian ancient historians Tacitus and Josephus mention Jesus as a real person. The Roman and Jewish historians, respectively, also refer to the followers of Jesus as "Christians" (Tacitus in book 15, chapter 44 of his Annals, written c. 116 A.D., and Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews, written c. 93 A.D.). Ask any UW history prof, and they'll back these two sources up, as they're about as trustworthy as they get. So there are, in fact, people outside of Christianity who verify the existence of Jesus. As a history major, I wanted to make sure people know this.
#15 Pipes
on July 8, 2007 at 9:48 a.m.(Irwin, PA | Unverified Name)
@Tom: Mrs. Pipes, actually... :)
As far as Tacitus goes, I don't believe he ever actually mentioned the name "Jesus". Besides, the authenticity of that passage has been in question. There's little documented evidence of Nero persecuting Christians - besides, there wasn't a lot of Christians in Rome at the time anyway. Besides, Tacitus wrote his Annals in 116 CE, as you said. Jesus died approximately 36 CE. Doesn't that seem odd to you, that NOBODY wrote about Jesus for approximately 80 years? It would be like nobody saying a thing about George Bush until 2088. And Bush didn't perform miracles.
I don't know much about Josephus, but I do know that his authenticity is also in doubt by folks like Origen, and similarly he wasn't even born until Jesus was dead.
I'm not a history major, so as far as looking deeply into the authenticity questions, that's not a place for me. But I do find the 80-year gap between people writing anything about him - and no CONTEMPORARY of Jesus saying anything about him, save for the Bible - telling.
#16 Jon
on July 8, 2007 at 12:45 p.m.(Renton, WA | Unverified Name)
Pipes, how do you know that NOBODY wrote about Jesus for approximately 80 years other than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? It seems presumptuous that you would make this statement. It seems that you come from an initial skeptical viewpoint (as many atheists do) making it impossible to have an open minded debate. For example, most atheists start with a presumption that miracles do not occur because they have never seen one. Additionally, you disregard the Gospels as not being worthy of merit because they are positive towards Jesus. I hate to say it, but any writing is going to have a bias, just like any news reporting. What assumptions you have to begin with dictate where you will end.
Additionally, you make a common atheist assumption that since we don’t have writings from when Jesus was around or close after his death and resurrection that there were none other than the four Gospels. Luke starts his Gospel by stating, “Many have undertaken to draw up an account…†of the life of Jesus etc. Mark was one of these, but Luke references many. Since we don’t have the actual writings, then we have to take Luke at his word (Although there are some writings containing references to Jesus dated within the first half of the first century). Unfortunately, due to your biases that you carry in to the opinion of this issue, you dismiss the Gospels immediately.
Finally, I am amazed at how initially biased atheists are but claim to be open minded. If you don’t believe in the potential for supernatural activities, you dismiss a work because it is positive towards the subject, and work from the offset to disprove religion based on warped reasoning (Just because I can’t prove it doesn’t mean it isn’t there or can’t happen), science (which has its own inconsistencies), and experience (of which all three become your idol of worship) then you obviously have no high ground in this debate. That isn’t to say many if any religious people have any high ground either on this debate, but religious people usually aren’t as likely to claim an open mindedness either. I know a lot of closed minded religious people (I would actually call them more ignorant than anything). Regardless, I am glad to at least see a few people with some passion for such a topic as this. It is encouraging that apathy hasn’t infected all of us Americans no matter which side of the debate you are on.
Xander: I could give you these prophecies (i.e. no broken bones when he was crucified, lots cast for his clothing, born of a virgin, born in Bethlehem, etc) but you wouldn’t believe them anyways because of your initial biases. I assume you don’t believe supernatural activity can occur and you immediately dismiss the Gospels and the Bible due to its positive account of Jesus, the supernatural activities recorded, and supposed inconsistencies within the Bible.
In regards to the genealogy inconsistency you mention, I agree that at first glance this does not make sense based on the ideas within our culture as to how things should progress, but there could be other explanations for why these two genealogies differ. The Jewish culture in early AD I am sure was extremely different from the culture of America in the 2000s. There may have been different ways for accounting for these things (physical account versus legal account, Mary’s versus Joseph’s lineage). As Americans, we are biased to see things through our own cultural norms, but when you consider a society 2000 years removed on the other side of the planet, you must make room for cultural differences.
#17 XanderG
on July 8, 2007 at 4:13 p.m.(London, United Kingdom | Unverified Name)
Jon: You assume wrongly about the biases I have. For a while I really did try to believe in a god. The closest I could rationally get in in my mind was pantheism, which I now reject. But you are right I do not believe in the supernatural, but I do hold a small possibility open that it does exist. If some evidence, proper empirical evidence, was placed in front of me in favour of the supernatural, I would have no choice but to consider the evidence, and then decide. But as I have seen no evidence for the supernatural, I do not believe in it. This is also the way I view your god. I see no evidence for it, and thus do not believe in it. That is not to say that because there is no immediate evidence for something it does not exist, but when we have so many better natural explanations for phenomena, it seems an unneeded step to introduce a supernatural element.
I do not immediately dismiss the accounts of the Gospels because they favour Jesus, otherwise I would not have made an attempt to read them. But reading them does indicate to me that the writers had an agenda. Really it is reading the Gospels, and some of the conflictions, and the fact that all I have is their word on it, that points me towards disbelief.
For me, my belief of deity would have to have far stronger evidence then the words of some writers 2000 years ago. And since no deity, or its followers have been forthcoming with this evidence, I remain an atheist.
You also make the false assumption that I am American, like I presume yourself to be. I am actually British, though I do not wish to make a big deal of this. It just seems you made a fair few unfounded assumptions on me, rather quickly. For someone who was quick to point at me for having 'initial biases', you seem to have made many biased assumptions about me.
Really instead of attacking me for my 'biases', why don't you actually give some evidence for your religion? Instead of trying to avoid this by saying I won't believe it anyway, why don't you take a look at the page I sent you, and see if you can produce anything along those lines. If you really want to know what would convince me, ask me, and I will set it out for you.
#18 Jon
on July 8, 2007 at 7:34 p.m.(Renton, WA | Unverified Name)
Xander: First, if proper empirical evidence was set in front of you as proof of the supernatural, in my opinion it would cease to become referred to as supernatural. In that case, you will never believe in the supernatural. Second, of course the writers of the Gospels had an agenda; every writer has an agenda…even those who claim to be unbiased in reporting news. In regards to conflictions, I don’t have all the answers, but I think if one studies it and considers some of the possibilities some things may be made clearer, but maybe not all things (no one has all the answers and that is why we are even debating atheism vs. religion). Even then, you have to realize that some of the writings are figurative while others are literal and Jesus spoke in parables a lot.
Finally, I will reiterate the point that you, in my opinion, will never believe in the supernatural (God) because the thing you base your judgments on is whether or not it can be naturally/rationally proved. If it can, then it isn’t supernatural. At the same time, I personally don’t believe that you have a slam dunk case with what you choose to believe either. I am making an assumption that you believe in evolution (correct me if I am wrong), but have you ever seen or heard of an inter-species form that wasn’t a recreation based on bones? Are the bones enough proof? Where did the matter come from for the big bang or for the beginning of existence at all? Rationally, something usually does not come from nothing. The only thing then, other than God, that could prove this theory would have to be a principle of science we have yet to discover. So either way (religion or atheism), we all put our hope and worship in to something not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
In the end, I think atheist and religious people are all alike in that we will always have to have some amount of “faith†until the truth is fully revealed. I do appreciate your opinion Xander as I can tell that you really do want to know the truth. You and I are quite alike. I have more respect for you than people who take what their parents infused in to them and accept it as the truth. I won’t tell you that you’re wrong and I won’t tell you that you’re right and hopefully one day we will both know the truth (or in the case of atheism we’ll just die and go out of existence, which isn’t that horrible I suppose).
#19 Pipes
on July 8, 2007 at 10:50 p.m.(Irwin, PA | Unverified Name)
Jon - you're absolutely right. I don't know for sure that nobody wrote about Jesus for 80 years post-death. All I DO know is that we have none of them - zero, zip - and for a guy that allegedly performed a lot of miracles, this is inconsistent with what I think is PROBABLE.
After all, it's all about probabilities, isn't it? You're probably confusing weak atheists and strong atheists. Strong atheists - such as Richard Dawkins - believe there is no god. I am a weak atheist, which means I don't believe in god. Catch the difference? The best analogy I've ever seen is one pertaining to the Loch Ness Monster. Of all the people searching for Nessie, and all the fuzzy photographs, and the people claiming to see it...well, after reading all the evidence we have, I just don't believe the thing exists. It might, but I haven't seen enough proof for it. If I was on Loch Ness and it came up and waved at me, you sure can know I'd change my mind real quick. On the other hand, there are people who strongly believe that Nessie does not, could not exist. Even if Nessie came and visited them personally, they'd reason it away.
Do you see the difference? Substitute the Loch Ness Monster for god/s, and there you have it. So no, I don't believe I'm being presumtuous for dismissing the Bible, just as you probably don't think YOU are being presumptuous for dismissing the Quran or other religious texts.
In any case, I'm not dismissing the Bible outright. I'm about halfway through the book, and for something that purports itself to be the word of an infallible god, it sure has a lot of mistakes. As a for instance, can you tell me the story of Easter? I mean, the exact story. Matt, Mark, Luke, and John ALL tell different stories. In Matt (28:2), an angel was sitting on the rolled away stone. In Mark (16:5), a young man was sitting to the right of the tomb. In Luke (24:4), two men were standing by the women inside the tomb. And in John (20:1), nobody was there! The Bible also states pi as 30/10, or 3. I could go on, and on, but there's so many little mistakes it's just impossible to list here. (Of course, this could be a problem with the translation. But then how can any Christian really know what to DO unless they can read it in the original Aramaic?)
I took the Bible on its OWN merit and have disregarded it as such, which is why I disregard Luke's writings. Similarly, I have never seen a miracle, and I doubt I will. I'll always look for the scientific side of things. Remember, just a few hundred years ago, demons caused disease. Until an amputee grows an arm back - and why couldn't god do that, anyway? - I shall remain a nonbeliever in miracles. (For an interesting site, and one I'm sure you'll consider very biased - it is - is whydoesgodhateamputees.com. Nevertheless, the question has merit, I believe.)
As a comm science major, I don't think anyone can really come at this issue with a complete nonbias. Especially for people like us - we're debating on the issue, so we obviously have a stake in it. It's impossible not to take sides.
#20 Jon
on July 8, 2007 at 11:33 p.m.(Renton, WA | Unverified Name)
Pipes: I agree with you on the bias thing. Everyone has a bias and I just don’t think anyone can ever completely eliminate it. In terms of the four passages you mentioned, I do not see how each of the accounts has to exclude the others. Matthew and Mark are easy to reconcile as the angel who sat on the stone could have gotten off and went in the tomb before the women got there. He was only necessarily on the stone when he scared the guards off. We can reconcile that to the John passage since the only thing John says is that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed. There are not necessarily any contradictions yet. Finally, Luke can be reconciled in that there were two messengers in the tomb, but none of the other writers found it necessary to mention this fact. In the end, just because the accounts differ does not mean that they aren’t all valid.
Seriously, if we were to take JK Rowling, Stephen King, J.R.R. Tolkein and Ernest Hemingway and put them in a room where they would watch a scene acted out and then ask them to write without conferring what they saw, they would come up with four different stories but all of them equally true.
In terms of your comment on Pi, I have no answer because I have not ever heard that argument. Thanks for your response.
#21 valhar2000
on July 9, 2007 at 3:54 a.m.(Madrid, Spain | Unverified Name)
Amy, even though the backlash I expected has not come (you have not been threatened with evisceration by a christian who loves you because god tells him so; fancy that! And yes, I have seen that happen), I still think you have done a good thing saying what needs to be said.
#22 scott
on July 9, 2007 at 8:46 p.m.(Woodinville, WA | Unverified Name)
Mrs. Pipes: First, Jesus' contemporaries did say stuff about him, but it is in the Bible. Folks who thought he was a sham didn't write about him until there was good reason to write about him, because other folks were dying saying he rose from the dead. I don't see a big problem with non-Christians waiting to write about him for a few years; why would they write about someone faking miracles? There were probably lots of people trying to get a crowd. If they really thought he was doing miracles, we can hardly count them as a non-biased writer.
You're also right that it would be really weird if there was no documentation of persecution or Jesus' resurection for 80 years after the event. That's why it's very convincing that there's documentation of Christian persecution only 20-30 years after Jesus' resurection, under the riegn of Nero like you mention.
I believe there's two other sources who mention Jesus and early Christian persecution. Suetonius (A.D. 70-160) was a Roman historian and annalist of the Imperial House. In the VITA NERO 16.11-13 (Nero Ruled A.D. 54-68) Suetonius mentions the persecutions of Christians and indirectly refers to the resurection: "Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition [the resurrection]." I know that Suetonius must have written this after the fact, but he documents that it happened under Nero's reign. Earlier documentation closer to the actual reign of Nero was likely lost or not preserved as well.
Pliny the Younger (A.D. 61 or 62-113), nephew of the encyclopedist, Pliny the Elder, became governor of Bithynia (northwestern Turkey) in the early second century. In a letter written around 111 to the emperor Trajan to explain early Christian worship gatherings that met early on Sunday mornings in memory of Jesus' resurection day, he says: "I have never been present at an examination of Christians. Consequently, I do not know the nature of the extent of the punishments usually meted out to them, nor the grounds that the sum total of their guilt or error amounted to no more than this: they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day [Sunday in remembrance of Jesus' resurrection] to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honor of Christ as if to a god..."
Both these passages mention persecution. I find it really strange that some odd 20-30 years after Jesus' death people would be willing to be tortured and killed for a lie they knew wasn't true, or an event they weren't very sure of. Many of the people involved in the situation would still be alive. People could have talked to many of the people around and verified the situation. We are talking about the belief of a dead person coming back to life. This isn't a belief that one makes up, that can't be verified with a body, or that benefits a person in any way unless it's true. We must then ask ourselves, what would early Christians have to gain from dying for a lie? They had no idea that anyone would remember their death. For all they knew, their belief in an event that happened 20 years earlier that resulted in their torture and death, would be immediately forgotten. The only reason to hold this belief, to die for it, would be if it really was thought to be true, more true than any other belief they held.
Finally, the site you mentioned is a very interesting site. In response, I'll just tell a story of unanswered prayer. This story is found on pages 7, 8, 9, and 20 of my church's monthly print @
http://www.marshillchurch.org/audio/0...
It's a story about a kid who died of cancer, written by his mom. I'll insert a quote but I'd encourage you to read the whole thing "For some reason, your tragedy drew us closer and closer to God the worse things became. I have been thinking about the promise of heaven – and the problem with looking to the world to make you happy, expecting no hardships or disappointments, and feeling cheated when they occur." That's the rub. No where in the Bible does God promise an absence of hardship. For some reason we expect God to be very concerned with our comfort, but he's not. That's evident. However, he is concerned that our hearts are changed to be like his.
#23 anon
on July 9, 2007 at 8:53 p.m.(Beverly Hills, CA | Unverified Name)
I tire of the matter-of-fact way in which christians rattle off their superstitions / beliefs / pick your term - as thought they were true and everyone knows it. That is particularly annoying to those of us who don't share those ideas, but even some who do have privately expressed to me that they too find it irritating. I think the churches and their followers would do well to adopt a little more genuinely respectful attitude toward those who don't share their views.
#24 scott
on July 16, 2007 at 1:53 a.m.(Woodinville, WA | Unverified Name)
anon, I'm guessing you don't share my view, so this is a great opportunity for you to respect my belief in past said truth.
#25 eye-of-horus
on August 5, 2007 at 10 a.m.(San Rafael, CA | Unverified Name)
It's very funny when we apply our standards to the past without understanding the culture being evaluated.
In the ancient West (3000 BCE - 500 CE), dying and rising gods were thick on the ground. Anybody who was anybody eventually received a divine bloodline. And, as for ascending into the celestial regions, even Hercules managed that.
In other words there was already an existing mythological matrix which specified how an obscure (or non-existent) figure, like Jesus, could be made-over into a god.
Martyrs prove nothing about the truth of any religious claim. This much should be obvious from Islamic suicide bombers who see themselves as martyrs and are seen as martyrs by family and fellow religionists alike.
There is immediate payoff in prestige for martyrdom -- first for the family (which sometimes also gets paid) and then for the wider group which gets reinforcement of belief and propaganda. The same was true for early Xians. When the early church became powerful enough, it forbad voluntary martyrdom.
Does being a martyr make one statement in the Koran or New Testament true? Of course not.
The case of Pliny the Younger (and many others) gets well told in:
Robert Louis Wilken (Author) The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (Paperback)
eye-of-horus
copyright asserted 2007
Post a comment