"Why I Am Not a Christian"

[MrFrankZito]

I think that the main idea can be effectively conveyed without writing an essay filled with quotes by David Hume, J. B. S. Haldane, Jerry A. Coyne, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins, and so on.

An absurdly simplified argument such as my suggestion may be completely inadequate for an essay... but wouldn't the essay carry more impact if it were more concise?

Conciseness is a tricky thing, though.

For instance, both Bertrand Russell and Richard Carrier have composed pieces entitled, "Why I Am Not A Christian." Both of theirs is considerably longer than my own statement. And, of course, some (Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.) have gone the book-length route. In comparison to those, 3000 or so words is very concise. (Of course, I recognize that The God Delusion and God is Not Great are far more ambitious in scope and detailed in scholarship than my own work, so I do not fool myself into drawing a direct comparison.)

In any event, I do believe that, to refute Christianity adequately, some length is necessitated.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I am curious: Which are the one or two arguments that you, yourself, would not use?

And, in brief, why do you consider those arguments to be unsound or unconvincing?

Humanocentricity, and the inefficacy of prayer. They're both rather trivially countered.

Humanocentricity is easily enough explained by saying that Christianity is the understanding of God as he relates to humanity; that other worlds might have other ways of relating to him is not excluded, and the belief that we are God's special project is sufficiently valid if God is infinitely knowing and caring and is therefore able to give special attention and care to every one of his creations. Even if we aren't the only world God takes interest in, it's good enough for us, for the present, to act as if we were.

As for the inefficacy of prayer in healing the body, if the soul is infinitely more precious and is also immortal, a little suffering in this life is easily portrayed as almost irrelevant. I remember, long ago, seeing a TV interview in which a religious person was criticised for preaching morality while failing to give anyone practical help with day-to-day life; his response was, "Would you save a drowning man's jacket?" In other words, what benefit any healing of the body if the soul is lost, and what loss any suffering of the body if the soul is saved?

Although I don't agree with either of these arguments, neither of them is an argument against religion from the point of view of the religious. Rather, when one is already an atheist, they are arguments that show that a consistent world view can be based on atheism; that, from our point of view, these elements of religion also don't make sense. They're less about why I'm not a Christian, and more about why I am an atheist.

Your other arguments, I feel, are more convincing because they point to internal contradictions in the Christian belief system, which is a far more effective approach to refutation.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

True miraculous events need not be grandiose and ridiculous. Something as "simple" as showing let's say the first 30 digits of a trascendental constant (like PI or e) not known until centuries/millenia later would have been pretty miraculous, without messing with planetary-scale formations.

In the case of Pi, even the first two digits would have been an improvement.

Dave

 

[MrFrankZito]

Humanocentricity is easily enough explained by saying that Christianity is the understanding of God as he relates to humanity; that other worlds might have other ways of relating to him is not excluded, and the belief that we are God's special project is sufficiently valid if God is infinitely knowing and caring and is therefore able to give special attention and care to every one of his creations. Even if we aren't the only world God takes interest in, it's good enough for us, for the present, to act as if we were.

I believe this is a valid criticism since, clearly, as mere mortals who are stranded in a single solar system, we have no real ability to discern what activities god might be undertaking in other worlds. So, in that respect, I believe you are correct: humans might be god’s special project in our sliver of the cosmos, and he might have other pet projects elsewhere. However, I believe this view is complicated when heaven is thrown into the equation. To my knowledge, heaven is supposed to overarch the entirety of creation—not merely our world but, rather, all that is. I have never heard a doctrine of heaven that incorporates extraterrestrials or other entities from other solar systems, galaxies, galaxy clusters or universes. What I mean is that the humanocentricity of heaven might very well betray a deeper, more pervasive humanocentricity vis-à-vis god than you are perhaps allowing. If god truly were rampant throughout the cosmos, with special attention spread over many projects, would not the doctrine of heaven speak to this in some way?

As for the inefficacy of prayer in healing the body, if the soul is infinitely more precious and is also immortal, a little suffering in this life is easily portrayed as almost irrelevant. I remember, long ago, seeing a TV interview in which a religious person was criticised for preaching morality while failing to give anyone practical help with day-to-day life; his response was, "Would you save a drowning man's jacket?" In other words, what benefit any healing of the body if the soul is lost, and what loss any suffering of the body if the soul is saved?

To me, this makes eminent theological sense. It’s true: If an afterlife does exist—with some proportion of humanity making it into heavenly bliss and some proportion being consigned to hell—it makes fleeting earthly suffering seem rather trivial by comparison. However, two points warrant consideration. First, despite this solid theological point, Christians, in fact, do pray for prosaic things like bodily healing and success in a difficult job hunt. Thus, it is safe to say that not everybody agrees that prayer should be reserved for more ethereal, worthy causes. [The John Templeton Foundation helped fund the Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer.] Second, if prayer is only efficacious for such causes—like forgiveness of sins and securing one’s salvation—it puts prayer entirely outside the realm of the testable and falsifiable. One cannot falsify a proposition such as, “Through prayer, my sins were forgiven.” Hence, in my judgment, prayer becomes a concept emptied of meaning and power. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, and I would be inclined to toss the entire notion away.

 

[rsaavedra]

They're less about why I'm not a Christian, and more about why I am an atheist.

x2, agree with this.

Russell, by the way, in his famous essay, addressed specifically what being a Christian is supposed to mean, and how that notion has changed over time. He also challenged some aspects of the dealings and character of Jesus Christ; showed flaws in Jesus' teachings, and explained why he didn't consider Jesus the wisest and best human being in history, even placing Buda and Socrates ahead of him in that respect. He also challenged specific arguments about the existence of god advocated by the Christian/Catholic church through history. And finally, he explained how the Christian church has slowed down progress. So in that essay he did write very specifically, even surgically, about why not being a Christian in particular, not so much in general about why being an atheist.

 

[rsaavedra]

In the case of Pi, even the first two digits would have been an improvement.

Archimedes (287–212 BC) had already computed an estimate of Pi by bounding it between two values whose average was 3.14185. In that Wikipedia entry I'm learning that by around the same time, a Chinese mathematician, Liu Hui, had also computed correctly the first three digits using an iterative algorithm. So correct knowledge of the first three digits in the fractional part of Pi existed already B.C.E. in different parts of the world.

 

[Steelmage]

How about, why I am not a christian because I can think for myself. Or choose to think for myself, rather then have someone else tell me how to think.

 

[MrFrankZito]

rsaavedra,

I wanted to mention that I've made another edit in response to one of your criticisms.

You mentioned that, following my first Hume quote, I did little to explain its meaning to me or elaborate on it. I have revised that following paragraph to read as such:

Why would a god who, in barbarous and ignorant times, was so clear, present and active suddenly, upon the emergence of a scientific understanding of the natural order, become a silent, inert sluggard whose presence could only be discerned in the most obscure, skepticism-baiting ways? Where are the miracles and prodigies for our scientific age? In an instant, god could carve his name onto the Moon. Or, alternately, god could rearrange the planets in our solar system. Because, as Richard Carrier writes, god does “nothing of any sort whatsoever,” choosing instead to be a do-nothing layabout, I am not a Christian.

I believe this improves upon its predecessor, so I appreciate your input.

 

[Aepervius]

"Sarah, 127 years" That is not an impossible age, Jane Calmant was 122 years or something. Sure one could argue she was greatly aided by modern medicine, but still she was 122 years. So 127 years while being a very very rare outlier, might not be impossible. The rest of the ages are naturally non sense.

 

[MrFrankZito]

"Sarah, 127 years" That is not an impossible age, Jane Calmant was 122 years or something. Sure one could argue she was greatly aided by modern medicine, but still she was 122 years. So 127 years while being a very very rare outlier, might not be impossible. The rest of the ages are naturally non sense.

Perhaps it is not impossible, per se, but, in the context of ancient times, during which people lived many fewer years than they do today, and bearing in mind the Bible's pronounced tendency to make ludicrous claims vis-à-vis longevity, I think Sarah does belong on the list, although perhaps with a small disclaimer that this particular example of ridiculousness is not as egregious as some others are.

 

[rsaavedra]

In an instant, god could carve his name onto the Moon.

So you would start believing in god if the name appeared carved onto the moon?

I keep thinking this is a terrible and ridiculous choice of a miracle example. Because, for one thing, it could be man-made. How do you know there hadn't been secret Yewish space mission sending rockets and robots to the dark side of the moon, carving as we speek some text from the Torah up there?

What size would that carving need to be? And how would it need to appear, and where, for you to take such a "miracle" as truly god made?

What is more, the carving could be even alien-civilitazion made if you want. Notice that you could push this "miracle" that much. An alien civilization with a knack for teasing and playfulness (or manipulation) could learn about our religious beliefs and do such a carving, and yet that wouldn't prove any existence of any god.

 

[MrFrankZito]

So you would start believing in god if the name appeared carved onto the moon?

I keep thinking this is a terrible and ridiculous choice of a miracle example. Because, for one thing, it could be man-made. How do you know there hadn't been secret Yewish space mission sending rockets and robots to the dark side of the moon, carving as we speek some text from the Torah up there?

What size would that carving need to be? And how would it need to appear, and where, for you to take such a "miracle" as truly god made?

What is more, the carving could be even alien-civilitazion made if you want. Notice that you could push this "miracle" that much. An alien civilization with a knack for teasing and playfulness (or manipulation) could learn about our religious beliefs and do such a carving, and yet that wouldn't prove any existence of any god.

All right... you've convinced me.

I rewrote that particular paragraph once more, eschewing my Moon example and selecting a more substantial Carrier quote than I had previously been using.

Why would a god who, in barbarous and ignorant times, was so clear, present and active suddenly, upon the emergence of a scientific understanding of the natural order, become a silent, inert sluggard whose presence could only be discerned in the most obscure, skepticism-baiting ways? Where are the miracles and prodigies for our scientific age? Richard Carrier writes, “For example, only those who believe in the true Christian Gospel [could] be granted…supernatural powers that could be confirmed by science; only true Christian Bibles [could] be indestructible, unalterable, and self-translating; and [a] Divine Voice [could] consistently convey to everyone the will and desires of the Christian message alone.” Because god, if existent, is a do-nothing layabout, I am not a Christian.

 

[rsaavedra]

All right... you've convinced me.

I'm really glad

In general, we should never take lightly the difference between something extraordinary and something allegedly "supernatural" or "divine."

 

[RandFan]

Hey Frank,

I've never liked post hoc justifications (though I'm not immune to such). Your premises could all be true all the while none of them having led to your state of belief (or lack thereof). There is no way to know. A petty complaint I'll concede and one not worth altering anything for.

I liked the article. Parts do seem a bit derivative (though you have addressed that above).

I particularly liked the following quote (as well as the section):

Why would a god who, in barbarous and ignorant times, was so clear, present and active suddenly, upon the emergence of a scientific understanding of the natural order, become a silent, inert sluggard whose presence could only be discerned in the most obscure, skepticism-baiting ways?

I would add (sorry if you did and I missed it) why does god behave and symbolize those barbarous and ignorant times (hell = dungeon/torture) (god = king, lord, law giver, sits on throne, must be worshiped and feted, etc.)

Overall I think it good if though perhaps a bit long but that's just my inconsequential opinion. I certainly don't have any quarrel with the premises or logic.

 

[Paulhoff]

Why do I not have any so-called god as a god, because I have never found it to answer any question. Those who do have a so-called god, I find their answers to be only ones that they have to start with.

Paul

 

[MrFrankZito]

Hey Frank,

I've never liked post hoc justifications (though I'm not immune to such). Your premises could all be true all the while none of them having led to your state of belief (or lack thereof). There is no way to know. A petty complaint I'll concede and one not worth altering anything for.

I liked the article. Parts do seem a bit derivative (though you have addressed that above).

I particularly liked the following quote (as well as the section):



I would add (sorry if you did and I missed it) why does god behave and symbolize those barbarous and ignorant times (hell = dungeon/torture) (god = king, lord, law giver, sits on throne, must be worshiped and feted, etc.)

Overall I think it good if though perhaps a bit long but that's just my inconsequential opinion. I certainly don't have any quarrel with the premises or logic.

Thank you for your comments!

I am especially glad that you liked the section about god being silent/inert because, as I wrote in the opening paragraph of the essay, I chose to present my reasons for not being a Christian in descending order of importance. Thus, god's silence/inertia, to me, represents the very strongest reason to reject Christianity.

It was actually difficult for me to give that reason the primary slot, because I think The Argument from Mundanity--number two on my list--is also sound and unanswerable.

In any case, I'm glad you feel that I gave such a strong anti-Christian argument its due presentation.

 

[Thunder]

I am not a Christian because the New Testament is BS.

 

[linusrichard]

Not to mention, you don't need a reason to not be a Christian. You need a reason to be a Christian.

 

[MrFrankZito]

Not to mention, you don't need a reason to not be a Christian. You need a reason to be a Christian.

I pretty much agree. But, since I used to be a Christian, and de-converted to atheism, I think it's worthwhile to note why I no longer adhere to the faith.

 

[linusrichard]

I pretty much agree. But, since I used to be a Christian, and de-converted to atheism, I think it's worthwhile to note why I no longer adhere to the faith.

Oh, no doubt. I hope it didn't seem like I was pooh-poohing what you were doing.