Let me preface this article by stating that I do not
categorically dispute Christianity, nor categorically disdain
Christians. Christianity is simply a belief system, and as such is
not deserving of an emotional disposition toward it one way or
another. Nor can one lump together the behavior of all people who
share that belief system.
I am concerned only with the conduct of the individual. Each
individual has his or her own views and acts on them uniquely.
Therefore, each individual, regardless of religious affiliation or
non-affiliation must be understood by his or her own views and
actions, not the views and the actions of the group with which he
or she is nominally or doctrinally affiliated.
With this said, what is concerning is not specifically
Christianity, but the oppressive promotion of the Christian agenda
by some of its adherents. Though this motivates this
counterargument, the basis is the assertion that it is not the onus
of non-Christians to support their case against Christianity, but
it is incumbent upon Christians, if they desire others to adhere to
their dogma, to prove their case against non-Christianity. Thus
far, in 2000 years, they have failed to do so. In fact, the
evidence is stacked against them. To be perfectly accurate, this is
not an article presenting a case against Christianity, but an
article presenting a case against the case against
non-Christianity.
Many Christians start with the premise that their theological
assertions are indeed fact and that if others decide not to believe
in them and live by them, they need to prove why they are not true.
This is of course illogical, though I do not want to get into
mixing logic with faith, since faith is ultimately what the
Christian argument comes down to. One cannot mix logic and faith,
as they are incompatible schools of thought.
Both sides of this argument make this mistake. Christians tend to
use logic where it suits them, and leave the rest to faith.
Opponents of the Christian position tend to use logic until it
fails them or use it recklessly, ignorant of the importance of the
paradox to the Christian premise.
In any case, fruitlessly these discussions invariably come to a
circular argument. On one side, one cannot prove that God exists
and that accepting Christ as ones savior is valid. On the other
side, one cannot prove this is not true. However, Christians who
fall back on this argument as the basis for their own supposed
faith are in fact agnostic.
It is doubtful that anyone exists who is not agnostic to some
degree. To have faith, one must have some doubt. Without doubt,
faith becomes knowledge, and no one knows with certainty even
though they may give lip service to this as a demonstration of the
depth of their faith. However, if God is really listening she will
know the difference.
This is a good time to point out that although these debates
typically come down to the contention over the existence of God,
the Christian message is a great leap further. According to
Christian doctrine, it is not enough to believe in God and be a
good person. Additionally one must accept Jesus Christ as one's
savior and so on. It is one thing to assert that God exists, it is
quite another to make this stretch. Since most people in the West
are exposed to no other monotheistic religions, Christianity
becomes the official flavor of the Western World, comprising most
any who would believe in God and agree with many of the precepts,
yet who might not make the additional leap if equally exposed to
other possibilities.
This aside, we find ourselves with two modes of understanding,
faith and logic, which ultimately butt heads when followed to their
conclusions. There is a third mode of understanding which must be
discarded unfortunately for the time being. Direct experience is a
more reliable method of understanding ones universe than either
faith or logic. There are three problems with direct experience
however.
First, it is severely limited when compared with faith and logic.
It limits ones knowledge to only what one can experience directly.
So, it is naturally combined with either faith and/or logic to
expand ones picture of the universe.
This is the second problem. One can use direct experience to
support an opinion based on faith, or one based on logic equally.
We find that humans, for one reason or another, tend to not take
direct experience and extend it with logic or faith. Rather, they
tend to take a position of faith or logic and support it with their
direct experience.
This brings us to the third problem with direct experience. People
filter and distort direct experience to harmonize with their belief
of how the universe is or should be, based on their position of
logic or faith.
It deserves mentioning that logic and faith are not entirely
mutually exclusive. However, one or both of them is flawed or
incomplete. Therefore, when comparing logic with Christian faith
one finds that they can coexist until followed through to their
ultimate conclusions about the nature of the universe. For example,
both logic and Christian faith will allow that if I drop my pencil,
it will fall to the floor. They can even agree that if a person is
born, he will probably die. We start to cross into contentious
territory when, for example, we discuss what happens after that
person dies, or what the meaning of the whole birth/death process
was.
So concerning ourselves only with the competing methods of logic
and faith, both sides of this debate can agree that the goal is to
come upon the truth, which is in fact the concern of both methods.
Naturally, for there to be faith, there must be a truth, whether
actual or supposed, which is the target of that faith.
In the Christian faith, those assertions come primarily from two
documents, two separate origins the Old Testament and the New
Testament. Therefore, we arrive rapidly at the culprit. Despite
what a few may assert, admittedly there is no other basis for the
faith. Granted, there are other documents and artifacts, historical
or otherwise that are important to various churches, but the Old
Testament and New Testament supersede them all. Lets even set
aside for the moment that there is no compelling evidence that
either of these documents are any more credible than other
documents from the same period, documents with predate them, and/or
documents with a different geographical and cultural origin.
Having recognized that evangelical Christians are the asserting
party, the party asking others to believe something that is not
considered by most people (over 2/3 of the world) to be true, we
rightly ask then, of all the incredible claims made throughout
history, why we should accept this one. The answer is simply that
the Bible tells us that we should. This raises the question of why
we should accept the authority of the Bible. This is the pincer.
The adherent must accept on faith that the Bible is factual, yet
what evidence is this faith based on? The Bible is its own
evidence. This is a bit like trying to lift oneself off the ground
by pulling up on one's own belt loops.
Why then do so many people fall into this obvious trap? The answer
is not so far off. This is a long-known persuasion technique. The
assertor presents a series of ideas or facts that are highly
acceptable, comforting, and/or known to be true. It may even codify
them clearly in a way not adequately codified elsewhere. These are
naturally well-received. Having presented a series of such
assertions, the assertor adds one small thing that would not be
acceptable on its own. Since it comes with such a body of good and
true notions, it seems petty to refute such a small point. One
accepts that if the remaining body is true and good, this
additional point must, by association, be true and good as well.
Subsequent points are added until the assertors alternative agenda
is fully established. A telltale sign of this trick is the rule,
established by the assertor, that one may not reject any portion of
the assertion. One must accept all points or lose the benefit of
the package.
Not coincidentally, this is how cults work. They give several ideas
that are agreeable and comforting, which followers readily accept.
Then they ask followers to accept an idea on faith a small idea
at first. One thinks it is petty to reject this little thing when
receiving so many other good things. However, the small thing is
followed by another and another. Eventually they add up to a much
larger thing, and one looks at it and wonders if one really accepts
all of it. At that point, however, one is into the movement so
deep, physically, emotionally, and spiritually, that one
reluctantly (at first) accepts the questionable ideas so that one
can retain the agreeable benefits one has come to rely on.
Also, in order to keep these things, one is often compelled to
defend the viewpoint and, in most cases, propagate it. It is
against rules not to. To speak out against any portion is to reject
all of it. If one has the freedom to examine and question, to
accept and reject, one could not have a successful cult movement.
Likewise, one could not have Christianity because people would have
rejected those portions that don't make sense and/or cannot be
proven (or have been disproved), and we would be looking at a
considerably different type of religion.
It is, however, important for successful religions to give lip
service to their support of examination and scrutiny. This is like
the money-back guarantee. It lends credibility with low risk, as
few people will take them up on it. It is an odds game. They will
gain more people by suggesting that their movement can withstand
such scrutiny than they will lose from people actually exercising
that right.
Though I do not suppose a nefarious agenda, the Christian model, by
design or by chance, applies this same technique. An attractive
package is put together, and all the follower must do is accept it.
Here, various churches disagree about what exactly the package
consists of, but the basic model is consistent. The Bible is full
of historical fact and common sense advice. This makes it seem to
be true and good. Therefore, when the authors ask the reader to
accept a few less credible points, the established trust is
leveraged.
Let me provide a tongue-in-cheek example. I assert that you should
worship my duck. Do you take me seriously? Of course you do not, I
have established no credibility yet. Well, it is not actually I who
assert that you should worship my duck, it is Duck's will, but we
will come back to that.
Years ago there lived a good man named Martin Luther King, Jr. He
spoke of peace and respect. We Duck followers believe in these same
ideals. Wouldn't you like to live by these? Of course you would.
Well Dr. King espoused the word of Duck. By the way, this is all
verifiable. Read about Martin Luther King, Jr. and you will see
that he espoused a doctrine of peace and respect, and you will see
that what I am saying is true. OK, little is written about his Duck
affiliation, but give me a thousand years or so. Ill edit that
into his speeches and writings.
So, if you reject Duck worship, you reject all of these ideals.
That sort of makes you a bad person. What's more, you can't go to
our Duck summer camp or our private Duck school, so there! By the
way, don't let me catch you worshipping other water foul either
because my duck is a jealous duck.
OK, Duck knows that you could not possibly live up to his rigid
standards, but that's alright. He came up with a plan for this.
Doesn't this make sense? See what a reasonable duck he is. You see,
when Dr. King was shot he somehow paid for all transgressions of
mankind. So, all you have to do is accept King as your savior and
Duck will allow you to come to his pond when you die. Yeah, I know
this makes no sense. How does his death pay for my transgressions?
I don't really get it either, but you'll have to take my word for
it. That's part of the deal. If you reject that, you lose all of
the peace and respect, don't get to play Duck games with the other
Duck worshippers, and don't get to come to the Duck pond when you
die. So, come on. At least pretend that you believe. That's all I'm
really asking.
Sure, the fictitious duck-worshipping cult is a bit over the top.
It is ridiculous to make a point. Why is my duck-worshipping cult
any less credible than the Christ-worshipping cult? The two main
reasons are the valuation of antiquity, and the popular success of
the movement. Christianity has those two powerful persuaders
working in its favor.
First, it has been around longer than any of us. People assume that
if an idea is old and survived all of these years, there must be
something to it. This is of course ignoring the countless examples
of ideas which survived for hundreds or thousands of years and we
now know to be false. Likewise, it ignores that Christian churches
viewed many of these ideas (now known to be fact) as heresy. Also,
any facts that would need to be proved or disproved are lost in
antiquity, making them safe from scrutiny.
Additionally for various reasons, some religious but most political
or military, the movement has gained considerable momentum.
Popularity breeds popularity. Truth rarely has much to do with it.
Why else would various religions dominate culturally and
regionally? Does the truth vary from place to place?
Could it be that some people are right and almost everyone else is
wrong? Even if one could derive a consensus among all of the
Christian sects in the world, that would still mean that the people
in disagreement would outnumber the Fictitious Christian Alliance
(FCA) 2-to-1. Are all of these people wrong, or is it possible that
there is a variety of ways of looking at or describing the same
basic truth? Many Christians discard this possibility, claiming
that there is only one truth and that they alone possess it.
Regardless of the readers position, he or she should not walk away
from this article feeling attacked nor vindicated. It doesnt seem
worthwhile to go back and rehash old arguments, as we are not going
to arrive at any new resolution on them. The goal of this article
is simply to restructure arguments to frame them in a new way that
makes a compelling case for reflection. It is absolutely not my aim
to encourage Christians to abandon their faith.
It is perhaps a good idea, however, for all people to take an
honest look at their positions (based on logic and/or faith) and
understand them from a candid perspective, rather than accepting
them for something they are not. Then perhaps those who feel
compelled to assert their position as absolute truth, will think
better of it.
