This page continues some of my thoughts about religion and links to other sites.
My writings are in black. Plagiarized text is in maroon, sometimes highlighted by me in red.
Go Home .
Go to Page contents near top of Page 10.
Articles by Wayne (continued)
=====================================
Continuation of article Some of my beliefs.
==========================================================================
Tough Questions for the Christian Church, by James Buckner
http://www.churchofsatan.org/tough.html
Extracts:
After years of studying the Bible as an individual and in groups, listening to sermons, attending Christian conferences, leading a small group Bible study, reading evangelicalism's best apologists, and even preaching from the pulpit once, I was dismayed to discover that the church cannot answer the tough questions about Christianity. And I was heartbroken when I finally recognized, quite contrary to my own wish, that the cumulative force of the so-called "difficulties" thoroughly and unquestionably discredits Christianity.
Problems with the Integrity of the Bible
Biblical Inconsistencies
Biblical Ambiguities and Omissions
Misinterpretation of Scripture by New Testament Figures
Failed Biblical Promises
Failed Prophecies
Problems with Miracles
Origin and Transmission of the Scriptures
The Canon
Biblical Values
1. When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, why did God lie about what the outcome would be (Genesis 2:17),
while the serpent told the truth (Genesis 3:5,22)?
2. Why are women treated as chattel and inferior to men throughout the Bible?
3. Why is the Old Testament and most of the New Testament addressed only to free men, and not to women or slaves? Does God deal only with free males?
4. Why does the Bible condone slavery?
5. Why does Yahweh command genocide, including the killing of infants? Why does he command that all women who have "known a man" be slaughtered, but the soldiers are to keep the young virgins for their own use (Numbers 31:14-18)? Why does the Bible portray Yahweh as worse than Hitler (Deuteronomy 20:16-17)? Isn't it blasphemous to call the Bible "God's Word," when it libels him so?
6. Why doesn't the Bible condemn polygamy? Is it not really a sin? In fact, the Bible seems to condone polygamy through examples of God blessing polygamists and by its explicit statements regarding David.
7. Why wasn't Lot condemned for giving his daughters to be abused by the men of Sodom (Genesis 19:8)? The Bible actually calls him righteous (2 Peter 2:7)!
8. How can Christians say that the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion is based on Judeo-Christian ethics when Deuteronomy 13:6-10 and 17:2-7 flatly contradict this?
9. How can being mauled by a bear possibly be a just punishment for name-calling (2 Kings 2:23-24)? Doesn't this contradict God's own edict of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth?"
10. Why is faith - believing something for which there is no evidence - a virtue?
11. Why is rational skepticism a vice? If Christianity is true, won't the truth hold up under scrutiny? Shouldn't the church welcome and promote rational skepticism as a way of confirming and spreading the faith when people see that it fails to undermine Christianity? Why isn't skeptical literature studied and refuted in Sunday School classes?
Biblical Guidance
Conflicts with Science. Absurd Doctrines
1. Where is the justice in punishing us for Adam's sin? The Bible itself says that children will not be punished for the parents' sins (Deuteronomy 24:16). Furthermore, if God really created Adam not knowing either good or evil (Genesis 3:22), how could such a harsh and enduring punishment as death for Adam and all his descendants possibly be just? Our secular courts are more just than God when they show mercy on people who cannot distinguish between right and wrong, such as children and the mentally handicapped. And why isn't this doctrine of original sin found anywhere in the Bible except in Paul's writings?
2. Where is the justice in punishing Jesus for our sins? If our courts of law were to accept the punishment of someone else in the place of the criminal, we would not say that justice has been done, but that injustice has been added to injustice. Would the church have me believe that two wrongs make a right?
3. How can sacrificing Jesus on behalf of the sinner atone for another's sin? This would be like killing my child to reconcile for the misbehavior of my neighbor's child. I have the capacity simply to forgive and forget without demanding compensation for small offenses. Why can't God do this? Does he simply want blood?
4. Why pray? If it changes God's mind then he is not sovereign. If it does not change God's mind then it is superfluous.
5. How can the doctrine of the Trinity possibly be true? Any attempt to make sense of it leads to contradictions. If it is so important, why isn't it clearly taught in the Bible? Why shouldn't an objective student of the doctrine conclude that it was created by the church to hide biblical inconsistencies about the nature of Christ behind a shroud of mystery?
6. Why is God concerned about humans at all? We are less than a speck in the universe. Christianity has the hallmarks of being a religion made by humans for humans.
7. Why have all the rational arguments for the existence of God been successfully refuted? If God exists, is it unreasonable to suppose that there would be at least one irrefutable proof of his existence?
8. Why haven't the existing proofs of God's non-existence been refuted? Surely believers, who have the advantage of an indwelling Holy Spirit with an "infinite mind," cannot be stumped by "finite minds" of unbelievers working within the confining limitations of reason, can they?
9. Why is it that some teachings are conveniently tautological (i.e., circular)? For example, you must pray the will of God in order for prayer to be answered; you must believe the Bible in order to understand the Bible; and the Bible is the Word of God, therefore it is true.
10. How exactly does "loving God and enjoying him forever" give meaning to life? Any satisfying secular activity can give meaning to life. Why does the Christian assume that a metaphysical meaning for life is necessary? Isn't it the Christian who imposes meaninglessness on this present life, declaring that meaning depends for its existence on the life to come? And if Christians did not believe they will live forever, would they continue to love and serve God? Isn't it really eternal life that the Christian loves, and not God? If purpose in this present life is really derived from loving and serving God, then what sense does it make for Christians to make meaning dependent upon a future life?
11. Where is objective, verifiable evidence that a soul or spirit exists and survives the body after death? Why does the Old Testament deny such an idea until the later writings, which show the influence of Greek ideas? The idea of "progressive revelation" does not explain this.
Intractable Theological Problems
1. How could Adam and Eve ever have sinned if God had actually created them perfect, even if they did have free will? If God created them imperfect, how could a perfect omnipotent being create anything imperfect?
2. How can evil exist in the world if God is simultaneously good, omnipotent, and loving? Why is it that no theodicy stands up under rational scrutiny? See Proof that the God of Christianity cannot exist.
3. Why does the church say God did not create evil, when he himself claims that he did in Isaiah 45:7, Lamentations 3:38, and Amos 3:6?
4. Why does God expressly take credit for creating disabilities (Exodus 4:11)? If these are God's doing, then why does the evangelical church insist that disabilities are the result of the fall, or of Satan's work?
5. Why would a loving, omnipotent, benevolent god cause people to believe falsehoods so that he can condemn them (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12)?
6. Why is the Bible inconsistent on major theological issues such as the nature and existence of an afterlife, the efficacy of works of the Law with regard to salvation, and the distinction between soul and spirit?
7. Why does the evangelical church speak of absolute values when the Bible teaches situational ethics?
8. Why is it not possible to formulate a systematic theology that agrees with the Bible in all points? Roman Catholic theology introduces unbiblical and irrational ideas; Calvinistic reformed theology stumbles at the existence of evil; covenantal theology muddles the biblical distinctions between Israel and the church; dispensational theology is too hopelessly complex to be credible because every major inconsistency is explained away by spuriously introducing a new "dispensation;" and Arminianism destroys the sovereignty of God.
9. Why doesn't the Bible itself present its own "revealed" systematic theology. Doesn't God want us to have a consistent and complete framework of theology to support right decision making and teaching others?
Blemishes on the Church
10. Why does the evangelical church rail against one-world government, since they say it is God's plan as revealed in Revelation? How can they justify speaking and acting against God's revealed plan?
The Headless Church
1. Why is the evangelical church subject to the same social movements as the rest of society? If the church is headed by the living Christ, shouldn't the institution be a steady keel in a stormy sea?
2. Why does the church trail rather than lead in social reforms? (For example: the rise of capitalism, rise of the scientific method and critical thinking, abolition of slavery, eradication of Nazism, women's suffrage, civil rights of African Americans after the abolition of slavery.) And why does the church dishonestly claim leadership in these reforms after the fact?
3. Why are the church's day-to-day practices guided by cultural norms rather than by the perfect, absolute, unchangeable norms of God and the Bible? For example, why do churches separate children from their families and age-grade them like the schools, why does the church propagate self-help ideology when the message of the Bible is dependence upon God, why does the church accept and participate in competition where it has rejected it in the past, why has the service of women in the church been addressed only after secular culture has addressed women's issues, why does the style of music in the church and church architecture follow cultural patterns instead of defining cultural patterns?
4. Why doesn't the church understand Jesus's teachings? Why are most preachers afraid to preach straight through a gospel from beginning to end?
Why do they skip over Jesus's "difficult" sayings and the enigmatic passages?
Character of the Church
1. Why has the church done so little good and so much harm in 2000 years, while science has demonstrated remarkable progress in only 500 years? Why is the period when the church dominated western history universally referred to as the Dark Ages, while the period of breaking away from church dogma is called the Enlightenment?
2. Why are the Crusades and the Inquisition and other church-sponsored atrocities politely ignored in many church education programs, leaving church members to learn of these in other venues, or, more likely, to remain ignorant of the heritage of the institution to which they belong and contribute.
3. Why does the church conceal and ignore and misrepresent legitimate criticisms and critics? If Christianity is undoubtedly true, why doesn't the church demonstrate it by refuting the whole body of skeptical literature in Sunday School classes? The church isn't trying to hide something is it? How can the church possibly maintain credibility when it is so blatantly partisan on the side of dogma, and obviously not dispassionately seeking truth wherever the evidence may lead.
4. Why do so many members of the church dismiss the veracity of unbelief without even giving it a fair hearing, especially in light of biblical condemnations of this behavior, such as "He who answers before listening - that is his folly and his shame," (Proverbs 18:13, NIV), and "The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him," (Proverbs 18:17, NIV), for example.
Problems with Jesus's Credentials and Character
13. Why would Jesus prophesy that his kingdom would come in glory before some of those listening to him died, but the kingdom still has not come (Matt 16:18, Matt 10:23, Mark 9:1, Luke 21:31-32)? Surely the son of God could not have spoken a false prophecy, could he?
14. Why did Jesus say his followers must hate their families? Surely, when the son of God said "hate" he meant "hate," didn't he? Why would the son of God confuse us by using hyperbole? How could the examples of Luke 9:59-62, even if allegorical, be hyperbole anyway? Jesus clearly called a man to the irresponsible, disrespectful action of leaving his father, implying that he was not even to attend his funeral, and he called another to leave his family without even saying farewell or letting them know he was deserting them.
15. Why was Jesus disrespectful of his mother?
In John 2:4, Jesus uses the same words with his mother that demons use when they meet Jesus. Surely the son of God knew that Mary had the blessing of the Father, didn't he, not to mention that the son of God would never be rude?
Evolution of Religion by Naturalistic Social Processes
1. If Christian theology and the church have a supernatural origin in an omnipotent God, then why has theology and the church evolved through naturalistic social processes over time?
2. Why does theology change from the beginning of the Bible to the end? Why are the later writings influenced by Greek thought (for example, immortality)? Why is there such a large theological gap between the Old and New Testaments? The changes are not explainable by the idea of "progressive revelation," or by any systematic theology.
3. Why was the doctrine of the Trinity unknown to the church until the fourth century? Why was the doctrine established by vote instead of by revelation? Why was the membership of the voting council loaded with Athanasians? Why was belief in this then-new doctrine made a condition for membership in the church? Why were Arians exiled and executed?
4. Why is Jesus so similar to the other 15 suffering saviors of mythology? Why don't Christians believe any of the other virgin births and savior stories recorded in ancient literature? How is it that the ritual of Christian communion existed in the prior pagan ceremonies of eating the body and drinking the blood of their gods? How is it that the Christian ritual of baptism also existed in the prior pagan cults? Weren't the very defining doctrines of Christianity actually assimilated from the endemic pagan cults? Likewise, why are Easter, Christmas, the Lenten season, rogation days, and others, derived from pagan holidays. Didn't Christianity have any legitimate calendar of commemorations of its own?
5. How did liberal churches come to exist? If they are inclined to believe, why did they not continue to believe the "fundamentals?" Could it be because the fundamentals have insurmountable problems that discredit them?
Conclusion
1. Why hasn't the church answered any of these questions in the 23 years I have been a part of it?
2. Why hasn't the church answered any of these questions in 2000 years?
I can only conclude that it is because the church has no answers.
(c) Copyright 1997, James Buckner. Permission is hereby given to reproduce and distribute this material in whole or in part in any medium, on condition that the reproductions not be sold for any form of consideration, and on condition that the author is duly cited as the source.
End of the extract Tough Questions for the Christian Church
Here endeth the sermon -- at least for now! I have been debating with myself for several years as to whether to call myself an agnostic or an atheist. That is: to state that either I (a) do not believe that God exists, or (b) I believe that God does not exist. Apart from the theological aspect of this question is a closely related one, and that is put into focus by whether or not one believes in the following quotation, by someone who for the life of me, I have not been able to track down (but would be quite in keeping with Bertrand Russell):
"What science cannot tell us, man cannot know".
My translation of this is as follows:
"Believing is not the same as knowing".
I think that this statement is at the same time both very simple and very profound. One's answer hinges very crucially on the meanings one ascribes to the words "science" and "know". I take the word "science" in its broadest sense, as being a discipline based on the scientific method, involving theories and statements that are verifiable, at least in principle, by observation. From that discipline we can infer, and in many cases directly observe, something and say that we "know" it. What we thereby "know" may not be what some would think to be some "absolute truth", although, over years or centuries of development, it is expected to approach more and more closely what we might term absolute truth. At each stage, however, even the most hardened scientist would admit that even the most seemingly well-established theory is"just" our best interpretation of an underlying reality or, in other words, of absolute truth. It is always subject to challenge and to overthrow by a more general theory or, even , ideally, a simpler or more elegant theory. But, in contrast to recent tendencies toward Postmodernist ideas, the scientist would probably state that there is an underlying reality, even though our knowledge of it is as yet (and may always be) incomplete and less than perfect. It is in that sense that I believe in the quotation.
Many -- and I daresay perhaps even the majority of people -- do not believe in the quotation. They find it repugnant. To them, it probably sounds too rationalistic, too impersonal, too cold , unemotional, and mechanistic. To some others, it may mean also a rejection of the possibility of anything supernatural, among which, for example could be beliefs in God, unseen (as yet) forces, some kind of life force (involved, for example, in body auras, and touch therapy), more impersonal forces such as those in Feng Shui, ghosts, spirits, water divining, elan vital, and who knows what else. My sister, who used to go to a Protestant church, at least nominally, over the years, now goes to a Spiritualist (or Spirituality?) Church. It does not teach belief in the traditional Biblical God, but in some kind of "life force" that is supposed to be manifested in each cell of our body and who knows where else. Perhaps something akin to the teachings of Deepak Chopra and his reincarnation, in newer garb (using some ideas of Quantum Mechanics), of the teachings of ancient Indian Ayurvedic medicine? Forgive me if I sound too skeptical!
In these matters, I consider myself to be a scientific rationalist" or "scientific reductionist", and tending more toward atheism than to agnosticism. In contrast to being a "scientific reductionist" are those who one might categorize as believing that a kind of holism is needed to explain things, especially life. To them, the beliefs of reductionism, valid as they may be, are not complete enough, even in principle, to give a collection of matter life. The extra ingredient needed, according to them, is some kind of life force akin to the elan vital or some kind of "connectedness". To consider reductionism as being the idea that the operation of an ensemble of matter and forces is sufficient in itself to explain life may not be giving reductionism its fair due. I consider that the extra ingredient needed to top off a very mechanistic reductionism is not some elan vital of the Enlightenment thinkers, but a combination of the Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Mechanics combined with complexity theory, a manifestation of chaos theory. In essence, that argument is that, given a sufficient degree of quantity and complexity, an ensemble of molecules can evolve into and exhibit what we call life. The terminology in chaos theory is self-organizing systems.
We still need to say a bit more about the concepts of "know" and "believe". In the above quotation, and in general, I use the word "know" to mean having knowledge that is scientifically verifiable, or at least observable, in contrast to the idea that because one might "experience or believe" something it necessarily means that one "knows" something. As an example, consider the case where a touch therapist moves her hands near someone's body, all the while stating that she is manipulating the body's energy fields and restoring them to a more proper alignment, in order to cure or alleviate some ailment. After a few minutes of such "therapy", the patient arises, claiming to feel much better. Who are we to dispute that the patient feels better? Who are we to dispute that the patient "knows" that she feels better? As skeptical as I am, I might not even dispute these claims. But, when we ask the somewhat different question of whether or not the patient actually is better, then I may have a problem. The patient may claim that she has been healed. I might claim that I believe that she instead, feels and believes that she has been healed, but that this does not mean that she either (a) had an ailment to begin with, or (b) is now cured of that ailment. She might claim that she "knows" that she has been healed, and why not -- she feels much better! As a skeptic, if not a downright cynic, I might instead state that I think that it is more likely that she "believes" that she has been healed, but might not actually be healed. A medical diagnosis, as imperfect as it might be, might conclude that she has not been healed, even though she feels better. In that case I would argue that she "knows" something that is not true, namely that she has been cured. I would be happier if she had stated that she "believes" that she has been cured. So, to "know" something in that sense is not always to "know" something that is necessarily true.
We must also add a bit more about the concept of "belief". When I state that all religions have at their heart a belief in the supernatural, and that, usually, but not always, this supernatural entity is God, I can state that this is equivalent to believing in the irrational. Some religious people may take offense at my characterization of their core beliefs as being supernatural and irrational. So be it. I do not necessarily mean to be pejorative in speaking this way, but I probably am, I must admit. When some church people recently objected to the fact that some of the Harry Potter books were available in elementary school libraries, they objected, on the basis that they involved ideas of witchcraft and magic. I am not sure why they should protest so much. The Catholic Church recently appointed an exorcist for Ottawa. His specialty is to exorcise demons or the Devil that might inhabit someone. That someone could be a person as young as a new-born babe, exhibiting, perhaps, some dire consequences of the "original sin" that it acquired by virtue of its very birth alone. In essence, this is belief in magic. I should have thought that, as a young child, I would be more frightened by the prospect of demonic possession and spending an eternity in Hell being tortured by a "loving" God than by some magic tricks of Harry or the erstwhile witch of the willows! After all, the book is not intended to be anything more theological than fairy tales. And yet, in our publicly funded separate schools, which can be Catholic only, such beliefs in demons are required of Catholics. Our state is thereby promoting such beliefs. Do I call religious beliefs, the supernatural, superstition, magic, vital life forces, black magic, witchcraft, voodoo, and a host of others by the terms religious, supernatural, and irrational? Yes I do -- they are one and the same thing in that sense.
When a religious person challenges me and states that all beliefs have a degree of irrationality in them, so why be so critical of religious belief by calling it irrational, my response is to agree that, perhaps with any belief, no matter how rational it may appear to be, there is always some degree of irrationality involved. I am willing to agree in principle. However, in doing so, I maintain that there is a huge gap of difference between believing that someone is possessed by the Devil and stating that I believe that the bus will arrive at my stop in about ten minutes. My belief about the bus may turn out to be wrong. Furthermore, it is not a statement about absolute reality. It is only a statement of reasonable expectation. The bus might be here in forty minutes instead of ten (it got detoured to another route again!); however, there was at least a reasonable basis for my belief, based on past experience and the knowledge that there was a system in place whose aim was to deliver buses to the right place at appointed times. In contrast, what basis is there for believing that the odd behavior of that person that the exorcist is now studying was due to demonic possession rather than, for example, to an organic brain disease or some psychological condition, in spite of the care which the Church takes in avoiding such misunderstandings?
I put the following little anecdote to a scientific friend of mine. In a debate, a theologian challenges an atheist scientist by stating that science cannot explain everything. The atheist replied by saying that he fully agrees that science cannot explain everything, but that at least it can explain some things, whereas religion cannot explain one single thing whatsoever. My friend took exception to what I thought to be a truism. I suspect that he is religious at heart, although liberal minded. He objected on the basis that he thinks that science and religion are two separate realms, each based on fundamental beliefs that at heart are irrational or quasi-religious. He objected to my example that the standard model, with the big bang and inflationary theory could explain the evolution of the universe, from about the first millionth of a second after its creation to the present, represented a theory that was not necessarily more rational than a religious view. He further stated that it was not the essence of religion to explain anything. My rejoinder was that this has not prevented religion from jailing Galilleo for upstart ideas about the solar system, about criticizing theories of creation and evolution, from banning and burning books and people, from banning contraception and knowledge of it, and much more. I must admit that this gives me some pause and the need for further thought on the issue.
There are two schools of thought on this fundamental issue. One stance is to maintain that religion and science are two separate realms (magesteria) of thought, each with their own validity, that do not overlap. The other approach is to maintain that there cannot be two separate realms of ultimate understanding and knowledge. I tend to the latter view. I illustrate this by way of the following letter that I wrote, which was, alas, unpublished.
End of the article Some of my beliefs.
End of part 20 of 60 of Religion Page 20. More on Page 30.
Go Home. Go to Page contents or Articles by Wayne near top of Page 10.
You can e-mail me at waynerp@sympatico.ca