Cost of the War in Iraq
Links with this logo
open PDF files.
Click on the image below to download Adobe Reader
if you can't open PDF files
The Gospel According to Paul
When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist.
[T]he Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion . . .
Article 11, The Treaty of Tripoli
Unanimously approved by the United States Senate
and signed into law by President John Adams
1797
Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom ... Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism... She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets.
Martin Luther
1546
The National Government will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built up. They regard Christianity as the foundation of our national morality and the family as the basis of national life
First speech to the German people after becoming Chancellor
1933
I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good ... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty. We are called by God to conquer this country.
Randall Terry
Former leader of Operation Rescue
1993
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.
Ann Coulter
Conservative author responding to 9/11 attacks
2001
It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God. Therefore I have a very hard time understanding why there is such a mess about having "In God We Trust" on our money and having God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Why don't we just tell the 14% to Sit Down and SHUT UP!!!
E-mail from a relative
2003
What could be more spiritual than valuing human life and the human spirit? For those who are deeply repressed, the value of human life is not so evident. No feeling person could travel thousands of miles, while in a special uniform, to kill a stranger based only on some abstraction, such as “honor.” In the same way, a person who has felt his own nature deeply and has discovered its profound beauty could not destroy nature around him for the sake of profits. One doesn’t have to be educated to respect nature; it is inherent in the respect for one’s own nature.
(1991)
I’m an atheist. To some people, that means I can’t live a spiritual or moral life. To others, living without a Higher Power renders life meaningless. These typical responses to non-belief in the supernatural always both amuse and concern me. I find it amusing that someone with the ability to imagine fantastic constructs such as gods and devils and heavens and hells, and then fabricate elaborate dogma and institutions to support them, can not imagine meaning in life without them, especially since there is so much else in life that gives it meaning. On the other hand, I am concerned because so many people continue to deny—or even celebrate—the ugly truth about how religious belief and the traditions it has spawned have been used for millennia to perpetrate some of the most hideous crimes against humanity. It is primarily because of this violent intolerance by theists that I am an atheist.
According to scholarly estimates, there are as many as 800 million non-believers in the world who I’m sure would argue that they live meaningful lives. I even know some of them. We are not the evil “godless atheists” that many believe us to be. We are no better or worse than the theists who condemn us.
Although Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines “spirituality” and “spiritual” chiefly in terms of religious belief, it also states that these terms also “relate to” or “come from the intellectual and higher endowments of the mind.”[1] Fortunately, the intellectual and higher endowments of the mind have allowed many humans throughout history to envision a way of thinking and believing and living in the world that promotes human welfare as the highest ideal for which we should strive.
I’m a humanist, meaning that I believe in the ability of human nature to transcend dogma, religious belief, and faith in the supernatural in order to build a world founded on one power we know exists: the power of human love.
Love is the foundation of my spirituality, the force that animates my life, the energy that fills me with compassion and passion, and the thing that gives my life meaning and purpose. My goal in life is to live in love by loving myself and others and the planet that supports us all. For me, there is no greater reason for living, or dying.
Love manifests in my life and creative work in many ways. Love of family and friends sustains me; it fuels my political activism, giving me the strength to stand up for peace and environmental and social justice, and to write letters and send money to organizations that do the same; it motivates my writing, inspiring me to try to make a difference in a world where people succumb to greed and avarice because of social pathology that prevents us from seeing the humanity in others because we’ve repressed the humanity in ourselves.
I am full of pain and fear, yes, but pain and fear are merely the result of a lack of love and interpersonal reverence, a lack that divides and conquers us. Deep down inside me, I know that love is the wellspring of my being, the source of all the good that flows from me and into me, the medicine that can heal me, the only power that will guide us into the wonderful and peaceful world that we all desire and deserve.
I am a devout atheist who rejects Christianity. To understand why I reject Christianity, I present here some of my writings, including letters-to-the-editor and some written dialogues with Christians I know.
Please be advised that some of you will undoubtedly be offended by what follows. However, please realize that many of us are offended and appalled when contemplating the long history of demonization and subsequent brutalization by Christians of those with whom they disagree.
[1] Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1986), 2198.
“The Morality of Atheism” (excerpts from a paper I wrote in 1998 for a course at California State University Monterey Bay called Ways of Knowing)
I was not always an atheist. I gradually became an atheist over the last ten years, after I suffered the very traumatic breakup of a love relationship. In the aftermath of that breakup, I began some soul-searching that manifested as political activism and critical scrutiny of the relevance and merits of New Age religions and Christianity. I therefore began to read the Bible, “metaphysical” books, and several books by Christian apologists. I engaged in many discussions with Christians and others about their beliefs in gods, goddesses or a “higher power.” I also started reading books by unbelievers who argued passionately and eloquently against belief in gods and in defense of biologic facts such as evolution.
During my journey towards atheism, I read only a few chapters of the Bible because I found it abhorrent. The metaphysical books I read were mostly about eastern mysticism or filled with warm and fuzzy ideology espousing a Satan-free version of Christianity. The Christian books I read were remarkable only for their futile efforts to make sense out of nonsense. The discussions I had with Christians were characterized by me defending my unorthodox views of Christianity while repeatedly pointing out what to me, as an unbeliever, are the obvious perversions of Christian dogma. In my interactions with “New Age” proponents and those locked in the addictive Twelve-Step programs spawned by Alcoholics Anonymous, I simply tried to be polite when listening to talk of reincarnation, past lives, or the channeling of cosmic or historic “entities” that communicate with us in order to educate us about the true path to enlightenment.
I soon realized that religious beliefs flourish because of ignorance, blind faith, intellectual rationalization, or an emotional escapism in which hopes for a longed-for afterlife narcotize the painful awareness of the trials and tribulations of this life. At first this realization led me to agnosticism, but that was a short-lived state that was really an attempt to hide my atheism because of what I thought would be my ostracism from society.
I only recently “came out of the closet” with regard to my unbelief. I had (and still have) a deep-seated fear that being a nonbeliever would result in rejection from family, friends and society. After all, since my father was a Lutheran minister, I was indoctrinated with Christianity while a child and then raised in a predominately Christian nation. However, because of the aforementioned trauma, I was shocked into an awareness of previously unknown personal feelings, which filled me with concern and compassion for myself, others and the world around me. Thus began years of self-exploration and involvement in sociopolitical issues such as peace and social justice. During these years, the more I observed “Christian” nations such as ours glorify the militaristic and economic rape and plunder of the resources of weaker peoples, the less I believed in Christianity. The more I looked within myself, the less I believed in a mysterious higher power “out there.” Finally, I was able to admit to myself and others that I am an atheist.
My primary intent here is to argue that Christianity promotes a toxic ideology that will never allow our species to evolve into the peaceful and mutually supportive world that many envision as our birthright and our reason for life. While I am convinced that no religion can do much but distract us from that evolution, my explorations into religion have centered on Christianity, the religion with which I am most familiar. In this discussion I will therefore use my arguments against Christian dogma to assert that 1) an atheist can easily recognize morality and therefore live a moral life; and 2) Christian morality is so inherently defective that the morality of atheism is a worthy alternative.
I must admit here that my interest in promoting the morality of atheism falls short of my passion for arguing against the profoundly immoral tenets of the cult of Christianity. However, I am learning that there is a rich and diverse tradition of atheistic morality that merits investigation. This tradition is replete with deep philosophical discussions by learned and reasonable men and women whose pursuit of truth has lead them away from gods and theistic credenda.
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines “morality” as “a doctrine or system of ideas concerned with conduct . . . goodness and uprightness of behavior: virtue” (1469). Only once in the nearly three column inches under the definition of morality is a religion mentioned, and then merely in one of the references illustrating one of the specific definitions of morality. Therefore, the definitions in Webster’s imply that morality can exist without god. However, as Kai Nielsen points out in Ethics Without God, Christians believe that “without belief in God there is no rhyme or reason to morality, that moral commitment, including commitments to human rights and democracy, will be destroyed” (10).
Quoting Thomas Aquinas, Nielsen shows us that Christians have long felt that moral obligations are based on “a double foundation—immediately upon human nature; remotely upon the intelligence of God who rules all things by His Providence” (25). However, Nielsen then suggests that “What makes us moral beings is not so much the theoretical belief systems we inherit, religious or secular, but the way we have been nurtured from very early on” (17). These “psychological” moral beliefs, argues Nielsen, are the basis of a human morality that can develop and flourish without any prior belief in God.
In arguing that human beings are capable of goodness and virtue without belief in God, Nielsen points out, “without a prior and logically independent understanding of good and without some nonreligious criterion for judging something to be good, the religious person could have no knowledge of God, for he could not know whether that powerful being who spoke out of the whirlwind and laid the foundations of the earth was in fact worthy of worship and perfectly good” (59). In other words, “Morality does not presuppose religion; religion presupposes morality” (77).
In What is Atheism, Douglas E. Krueger describes the Euthyphro dilemma, which shows the failing of the “divine command” theory of ethics, wherein god is the source of morality. Adapted from Plato’s dialogue Euthyphro, the dilemma asks, “does god command what is good because god recognizes what is good, or is it good because god commands it?” (27). Krueger points out that, if something is good because god commands it, anything could be good, clearly an unsatisfactory basis for morality. On the other hand, if god recognizes what is good and then commands what is good, there must be a standard of goodness independent of god, the point Nielsen makes above and one that clearly refutes a need for a god-based morality.
Because of the problems with the divine command theory, Krueger describes several of the ethical systems developed throughout the ages that define morality without dependence on a god. Immanuel Kant’s ethical theory, John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism, and the “virtue-based” theories that focus on the character, rather than the actions, that lead to a moral life—these and many other ethical systems have made important contributions to the philosophic discussions of morality.
In Atheism, Ayn Rand, and other Heresies, George H. Smith introduces a process of arguing the morality of atheism. A philosopher and senior research fellow of the Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University, Smith states, “The virtue of reasonableness is the most potent weapon in the atheist’s moral arsenal” (37). Indeed, reasonableness is required for arguing the morality of atheism. To argue reasonably, I must presume that my adversary is rational and “cares about the truth and is open to persuasion” (40). I must then establish my credibility by arguing knowledgeably. Finally, if the presumption of rationality fails and I find myself arguing with an irrationalist, I need to decide whether the argument is worth the time and effort I will invest to sustain it.
In addition to this introduction to argumentation, Smith’s book provides an historical overview of Western free thought literature.* Smith also provides a sampling of the philosophies of religious toleration that developed from the third through the nineteenth centuries, philosophies developed to counter the sinister effects of Christian intolerance.
Smith offers what appears to be a rather comprehensive history of the philosophy of atheism. For example, he defines atheism as well as ethical atheism, psychological atheism, sociological atheism, pragmatic atheism, metaphysical atheism, epistemological atheism (which includes logical positivism and emotivism), skeptical atheism and objectivist atheism. Smith also shows how eighteenth-century Deists and their forerunners contributed to free thought by using their belief in “natural revelation”—a “knowledge of nature . . . by which God reveals himself to man—to oppose “special revelation—divine knowledge supposedly communicated to a particular person or group of persons” (132).
Smith attributes the classic definition of atheism to Charles Bradlaugh: “Atheism is without God. It does not assert no God” (51). Of course, some atheists declare that there are no gods, but in such cases the burden of proof lies also with the atheist and not solely with the theist.
In examining what theists consider the heresy of atheism, Smith points out that the word “heresy” comes from the Greek hairesis, meaning “choice.” During the early Christian era, however, heresy came to mean “an incorrect and evil choice” “promoted by Satan and his minions as part of their efforts to splinter the [early] Christian movement and impede its progress” (11). In a classic example of the intolerance inherent in the Christian religion, early Christians who merely chose to disagree with the dominant orthodoxy were stigmatized as heretics. Of course, orthodox Christians were in turn undoubtedly labeled as heretics by the many and diverse groups of unorthodox Christians with whom they disagreed.
The incessant infighting among early Christian groups became especially dangerous after the incorporation of Christianity into the Roman Empire in the fourth century. Christian intolerance—now backed up with state militarism—was then directed not only towards Christian heretics but also to anyone who challenged Christian orthodoxy. Heresy now was not merely a sin but a crime of “high treason against the political authority of the Church” that “endangered the theocratic foundation of government” (13).
This politicization of the Church represents the contamination of the voluntary orthodoxy of religious organizations by the coercive orthodoxy of governments. “What had been orthodoxy for a single religious organization became, through the instrumentality of government, orthodoxy for society as a whole” (15). This change represents the way governments co-opt religions to control the masses.
In America today, Church and State are integrated in many insidious ways. Our political and religious leaders use this integration to incite a pathologic patriotism steeped in visions of “one nation under God” and veiled with words such as “freedom” and “democracy.” This patriotism is useful in mobilizing support for “just” and “moral” economic and military warfare against those weaker than us. This is to be expected in what many people call our “Christian” nation, since the Christian god is one of the most evil, ruthless and violent beings ever imagined by the human mind.
I can make the previous statement because I am not blinded by faith. When I make such statements, many Christians are outraged or appalled. However, I am merely pointing out what is obvious. Christians often refuse to allow themselves to see the obvious—no matter how glaringly apparent—if it counters what they want to see. Since I lack the faith required to blind me to the vast inconsistencies and dichotomies of the Christian religion, I am free to engage in critical examination of Christianity.
Without faith, I am free to reject a religion founded on belief in a supposedly loving god who creates beings that he will torment, harass, plague, kill and damn. Without faith, I am free to reject a religion that denies the obvious evilness of a god that allows a devil to ravage his creation. Without faith, I am free to oppose a religion the adherents of which fail to see the glaringly evident schizophrenia of a god that endowed us with the gift of free will but will punish us with eternal damnation for using it. Without faith I am free to be appalled that a religion glorifies a deranged god that created two loving beings and a paradise for them to share but then shamed and humiliated them and allowed their offspring to pillage and poison that paradise. Without faith I am free to see the terrible psychic and social costs inherent in a religion peopled by those who accept what to me is not only unacceptable but unconscionable.
The dichotomous reality of Christian dogma demands repression of the natural feelings of rage, shame, pain, and fear that such a reality must inspire (whether consciously or not). The brain’s response is to mobilizes endorphins to anesthetize those feelings. This natural brain function serves to alleviate emotional or physical pains. This is not science fiction. In Prisoners of Pain and The New Primal Scream, Arthur Janov discusses how endorphins are produced and mobilized by the brain to gate emotional pain. In the former work, Janov also cites research by Dr. Howard Fields demonstrating that psychologic factors such as expectations, hope, and ideas can trigger endorphin production.
“Unfortunately,” as Robert Ornstein and David Sobel report in The Healing Brain, “the endorphins have proven to be just as addicting as morphine and heroin” (93). One can reasonably infer then that religion—simply a system of endorphin-mobilizing ideas that can produce states of mind ranging from bizarre and repressive ideation to rapture—produces more addicts than anything else on the planet. Indeed, because of endorphins, some of which are hundreds of times more powerful than morphine, faith is undoubtedly one of the most powerful ideational suppressors of emotional pain, with the degree of devotion to the particular belief system in direct proportion to the amount of repressed, anesthetized pain. In other words, religion simply acts as a drug masking our symptoms; it does not heal the causes of our strife (As any honest psychologist can tell you, you can’t heal what you can’t feel.). This physiologic reality shows that Marx was much closer to the truth than he could have ever imagined when he asserted that religion is the opiate of the masses.
I sympathize with Christians. Who wants to deal with the real world, or with real feelings of pain and despair, when one can turn it all over to some mythic man/god who died two millennia ago? Tragically, by accepting an Old Testament god who is as indifferent as he is benevolent, by blaming Satan, or their own worthlessness, for their feelings of pain, anger, fear, and shame, and by using Jesus as a scapegoat for sins, many of which are merely “real” and normal human feelings, many Christians relinquish any hope of living a functional life or of dealing effectively with their feelings. Instead of coming to terms with the free will they so ardently defend as one of their god's greatest gifts, Christians are cursed to exercise their gift on a battleground where they must daily face the forces of evil by which their dubious god allows them to be tempted.
For those Christians who claim that I do not understand arguments defending Christianity because I have not been “saved,” I must admit that I will never freely choose to be “saved” into a religion founded on tenets as disgusting as those of Christianity. Of course, the reason I do not understand Christian dogma is that, as even many Christians admit, no one can understand what cannot be understood. To accept Christian doctrines that make no rational sense and must be defended with clever intellectualistic reasoning, one can only rely on faith. This kind of blind and dangerous faith has fueled the fires of self-righteousness throughout the ages, resulting in such corrupt achievements of Western civilization as the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the burning of innocent women and children as witches and, in modern America, the bombing of health clinics where abortions are performed, and the murder of physicians who perform them.
Violence is an integral component of Christian mythology. As Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Barbara W. Tuchman writes in The First Salute, in referring to the Spanish conquest of Mexico, “It is a peculiar habit of Christianity to conceive the most compassionate and forgiving divinities and use them to sponsor atrocity” (34). Of course, Tuchman was being too kind, attributing to God’s followers the violent attributes so hideously visited by Him upon believers and nonbelievers alike. With the “eye for an eye” mentality so prevalent in the Old Testament, and with a compassionate New Testament god invented to save us from the wrathful Old Testament god, no wonder so many Christians are savages who proudly defend their violence as righteous.
Why is Christianity so successful in spite of its ample inconsistencies and dichotomies? “Because,” writes Smith, “the great religions address fundamental problems. Religions are successful, not because they provide the correct answers, but because they ask important questions—questions that concern every human being. What is the nature of the universe? Is there a purpose, or plan, to human existence? Are right and wrong based on timeless, absolute standards? What is the role of reason? Are people inherently good, inherently depraved, or perhaps neither? How does one lead a good life? What is the proper role of sex in human relationships?” (74-75).
Tragically, many of the answers to these questions provided by Christianity over the ages have been used to sponsor some of the most hideous crimes against humanity. Therefore, accepting uncritically the tenets of Christian myth is a dangerous act. Fortunately, there are alternatives. Smith states that the purpose of philosophy “is to provide one with an integrated system of fundamental principles. Philosophy attempts to answer basic questions about the universe and the values proper to human life, and it seeks answers within the sphere of reason” (76).
Regrettably, because of what may be the increasingly complex cerebral ideas of philosophers, they are isolated from the public, causing “an intellectual and moral void that religions have attempted to fill” (77). This void needs to be infused with the reasonableness that philosophy can provide. “Philosophy is important, not only for academics, but also for the average person. Philosophy provides a structure for reasoning, and, when that structure is not present, the influence of reason declines. This is why we have seen in the past several decades. The defenders of reason, therefore, must reintroduce philosophy into the public forum. This is a formidable task, but it is the only long-range solution to the problem of rampant irrationalism” (77).
The many philosophic arguments in favor of atheism are relevant as we search for the answers to the questions that humans have always asked. However, as Smith acknowledges, philosophy has little meaning for the masses, most of whom, like myself, are not equipped to understand the convoluted reasoning employed in philosophic discourse. Furthermore, it is important to remember that no argument, no matter how skilled, reasonable and easy to understand, may be able to change perceptions blinded by religious faith.
Fortunately, as has been argued successfully for millennia, morality can and does exist without gods. In fact, in light of the damning arguments revealing the immorality of theist dogma such as that of Christianity, it is critically important that we recognize and promote a morality independent of theist belief.
My vision of such a morality is based largely on the work of Riane Eisler. In The Chalice and the Blade and Sacred Pleasure, Eisler challenges some of the most fundamental beliefs about human nature and human evolution. Her work counters the male-oriented views of human history and provides us with an historical framework we can use to help transform the most destructive myths of human nature into a reality of mutually cooperative societies whose primary goal is giving and receiving love and living in love.
In The Chalice and the Blade, Eisler describes early European Neolithic “partnership” societies around the Mediterranean that were peaceful and cooperative. Based on the archeological evidence, Eisler posits that these societies conducted regular trade, valued the sexes equally and were devoid of the vast social disparity that is alleged to be an inherent aspect of all ancient civilizations.
The art of partnership societies—symbolized by the chalice, which represents the life-generating and nurturing powers of the universe—expresses a peaceful world view in which cultivation of the earth and material, sexual and spiritual fulfillment were the primary purposes of life. This worldview was manifested in the veneration of a Goddess and the creation of life-affirming religious images, one of the most central of which is a woman giving birth. These images illustrate the reverence of our prehistoric ancestors for the sacred themes of birth, death and regeneration of life.
In stark contrast to the partnership model of society is what Eisler calls the “dominator” model. Dominator societies are characterized by the dominion of groups or classes of people over others, of the ranking of one half of humanity over the other—men over women—and by the institutionalization of war and other social violence, especially toward women. Such societies maintain themselves through force or the threat of force (fear), meaning that physical or emotional pain or the fear of such pain is the primary methods of social control. The art of dominator societies—symbolized by the blade, the power to take life—glorifies wrathful deities, rape, war, and death. Dominator religions are generally patriarchal, and a central religious figure of our current dominator system is of the Christian Savior dying on a cross.
In her work, Eisler points out that humanity has the capacity to evolve in primarily a partnership or dominator direction. For various reasons too complex to discuss here, the dominator model has prevailed for the last five thousand years. However, partnership has always been a countervailing force attempting to exert its humanizing influence on dominator societies. In Sacred Pleasure, Eisler describes and celebrates this partnership influence and presents us with ideas about how a partnership world can evolve and how it will work.
Partnership embodies the type of morality to which I aspire, a morality that needs only love to succeed, a love of mutual reverence and respect, and not the often conditional love required by gods, especially the cruel god of Christianity. Partnership morality would be characterized by each of us loving ourselves, others, and the planet that supports us all. This morality would never embrace a twisted idea of “dominion” over others or our natural resources.
The morality of atheism can be an integral part of a partnership world, a world where faith in our love for one another supplants faith in gods and devils, where the reality of a mutually cooperative life for all earth’s peoples renders meaningless any imagined reality populated by supernatural beings, where there is no need to believe in an afterlife since this life can be the paradise we all want, where all our hopes and dreams and aspirations are transformed into equitable and sustainable societies and institutions that bring us together in a beautiful and wondrous existence of peace and harmony that would finally unite us all into one human family. Religion has never brought us closer to this vision. It is time to give the morality of atheism a chance.
_________________________________________
* “‘By free-thinking,’ wrote Anthony Collins in 1713, ‘I mean the use of the understanding in endeavoring to find out the meaning of any proposition whatsoever, in considering the nature of the evidence for or against it, and in judging of it according to the seeming force or weakness of the evidence.’ Freethought, argued Collins, is opposed to any religion that condemns doubt as sinful, or that demands the acceptance of doctrines on authority or faith” (165).
Bibliography
Eisler, Riane. The Chalice and the Blade. New York: HarperSanFrancisco. 1985.
. Sacred Pleasure. New York: HarperSanFrancisco. 1995.
Janov, Arthur. Prisoners of Pain. Garden City: Anchor Press/Doubleday. 1980.
. The New Primal Scream. Wilmington: Enterprise Publishing, Inc. 1991.
Krueger, Douglas E. What is Atheism? Amherst: Promethues. 1998.
Nielsen, Kai. Ethics Without God. Amherst: Prometheus Books. 1990.
Ornstein, Robert, and Sobel, David. The Healing Brain. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987.
Smith, George H. Atheism, Ayn Rand, and other Heresies. Amherst: Prometheus Books. 1991.
Tuchman, Barbara W. The First Salute. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1988.
This letter appeared in The Californian January 13, 1993
S. Eric McCall, in the soapbox column of Dec. 26, writes: “While the miracle of creation science is a spectacular and awesome thing to contemplate, it still holds up better than does the now antiquated myth of evolution.”
The miracle is, that many people accept the mythic pseudo‑science of creationism—based merely on second‑hand Middle Eastern sacred writings—while rejecting the overwhelming evidence of evolution, manifested in the following areas: the fossil record (supported by over 100,000 radiometric tests); comparative anatomy; embryology; behavior; comparative biochemistry; parasitology; biogeographics; paleontology; and genetics.
Scientists argue about how, not whether, evolution operates. Biologists observe evolution in action, while creationists can only contemplate their spectacular fantasies intellectually.
The disagreement over evolution as fact is, and has always been, by religious adherents who are trying now to rationalize their dysfunctional and archaic dogma by calling it science. The only people fooled by this non‑debate are those who are too awe‑struck by superstitious beliefs to perceive reality.
To “the inexpressible joy that comes from living and giving from the heart of the Christian life,” I say: Ignorance is bliss.
“The empty halls of humanism” seem empty only to those who are restricted by their own blind faith.
This letter appeared in The Californian November 27, 1996
Darrell E. Craig’s column November 16 was illustrative of the inherent dichotomy with which Christians must live: the insidious paranoia they exhibit when contemplating the “pain and travail” they must suffer in order to survive “the enemy of this world,” and the mind-numbing euphoria with which hope for “the coming kingdom” inebriates them. Of course, such incongruousness is perfectly normal to those blinded by faith in a deranged male deity that allows a boogeyman to corrupt his creations.
During Christmas I will not “pay homage to the Son,” a deified man dead for two millennia; I will simply esteem family, friends, and what is left of this beautiful planet that still supports us all. I will also remember that secular humanists and atheists (among many others) are always ready to counter the cult of Christianity in any pathetically misguided attempts of its adherents to satanize the problems of humankind—problems that only humankind can solve—or institute, because of a superstitious and dangerous belief in a Biblical mandate, a theocratic society.
This letter of mine appeared in The Californian December 1, 1999.
Sal Partible’s soapbox of November 5 and Ute Parker’s of November 26 typify the ideas of many Christians who refer to evolution as pseudoscience. Of course, the Christian alternative to evolution is “creation science,” an oxymoron used to impress uneducated Christians and bolster faith in a dysfunctional deity and a storybook called the Bible.
As biologist Tim M. Berra documents in Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, creationists use deception, misrepresentation, and obfuscation to dupe gullible Christians into thinking there is a genuine controversy about the validity of evolution. Parker’s “appeal to belief” pseudo-reasoning—using poll data showing that more people believe in a Biblical view of creation than evolution—is a perfect example of this deception. Of course, even after exposure to the vast evidence supporting evolution, many Christians still cling to their superstitions. This is the “miracle” of faith, which renders many people unable or simply unwilling to see what is before their eyes.
Many Christians and their organizations have done much good in the world (which only proves that humans want to help other humans). However, Christianity will never be a solution for social problems since it has caused so many of them for two millennia. Wars, the Inquisitions, and the witch trials are just a few examples of the homicidal intolerance inspired by Christian dogma. Such intolerance provides a firm basis for viewing Christianity as psychosocial poison. Outrageous? Just check some of the hate-mongering Christian Internet sites to see how some Christians continue to rouse social violence.
Unfortunately, many Christians cannot recognize the perverse Biblical ideals that help warp the minds of those who confuse right and wrong, even though the Bible promotes as right so much that is so dreadfully wrong. Benjamin Matthew Williams is one Christian who actually celebrates those twisted ideals. Williams killed a gay couple near Redding in July and denied that he was guilty of murder. Williams admitted that he was “guilty of obeying the laws of the Creator,” but feels that, if executed for his crimes, he’ll become a “Christian martyr” whose death might inspire others to perpetrate violence against gays and other minority groups.
We can’t hold people like Williams fully responsible for their distorted ideas and criminal acts; they’re merely acting out the schizoid teachings with which they have been indoctrinated by a martial society and a dichotomous national religion whose god acts like a murderous adolescent that can’t tolerate the human nature it created. Therefore, if we allow any further integration of Church and State, we all must accept responsibility for the sociopathic acts this integration can inspire.
With weak-willed state and municipal boards of education succumbing to zealous theocrats who want to inculcate impressionable young minds with Christian mythology while limiting their exposure to fundamental scientific principles, it is increasingly important to oppose the downward spiral towards a Biblical society. If creationists want to reject science in favor of religious dogma, let them do so in their own private homes, schools and organizations.
Straight from the source: http://darwin-online.org.uk/
The following dialogues began when two of my Christian acquaintances responded to letters of mine that were printed in local newspapers. The first of these letters, which appears below, appeared in The Californian newspaper May 11, 1993:
When people blame Satan for social problems such as the use of religion to justify violence, they necessarily overlook or rationalize the fact that God—who, with devious and schizophrenic wisdom, allows Satan to exist—is the Bible’s most violent character, cursing, killing and tormenting while demanding conditional love. Even Jesus, a man of dubious historical reality, used verbal abuse and physical violence to make a point. Moreover, Jesus was antagonistic to his own family, and he taught that abandoning wife, children and dying parents for the gospel was virtuous.
It is the emotional and spiritual conflict inherent in the embrace of dichotomous deities, dysfunctional scriptures and nonsensical dogma that is a fundamental cause of social strife. Sadly, religious addicts narcotize themselves with faith, which blinds them to this conflict, and renders them powerless to resolve its metastasizing manifestations.
Such faith reflects the human brain’s remarkable capacity for fantastic constructs—gods, devils, heaven and hell—with which we repress a reality that we are afraid to face. Tragically, repression of this sort inevitably generates neurotic symptoms such as violence (both inter-personal and international), arrogance, intolerance, or blissful nescience.
Until we relinquish our adolescent, superstitious fixation on the supernatural, I doubt that we will ever reverse our present decline.
I received the following in response to my letter:
Dear Paul,
I read your letter to the editor in the “Salinas Californian” last Tuesday. As at least a friendly acquaintance of yours, I am taking the liberty to respond. I also want you to know in advance that I may write to the “Californian” as well.
Frankly, I’m bewildered by both the tone and the content of your letter. Having had several good conversations with you, I of course know that you are not a Christian and have a multitude of serious differences with the Biblical and historical Christian faith. But I considered your reactions and positions calm and reflective, as they appeared to consist mainly of the typical “big” questions that one often discusses with friends (i.e., how can a good God allow evil and suffering in the world, why do the innocent suffer, how can the sovereignty of God be reconciled with man’s free will, how to reconcile the Old and New Testaments, etc).
But your criticism of Christianity in the recent letter goes far beyond these questions. In that writing your distaste and dislike of Christianity and religion in general is so strong, so visceral that it takes you into the realm of the irrational and the absurd. I write this without any malice, and with no disrespect for your agnosticism or atheism, whatever the case may be. I have many friends whose thinking I can understand and follow who do not believe in God or at least the God of the Bible. My principal impression of your letter is that your disgust for Christianity has overwhelmed your reason.
I will touch on a few points only, and apologize that even in this partial response I could not be more concise. You question the historical reality of Jesus. What kind of comparative historical analysis led you to this conclusion? Did you know that for any important historical figure from ancient and even medieval times there are relatively few primary sources to substantiate their existence, at least relative to the kinds of information and records kept today? Looking at the Gospels, the Epistles, other early church letters and documents, and tracing apostolic succession, one finds far more material than for any other important set of texts. If you doubt the existence of Jesus, than you may as well call into even more serious question the reality of every other major historical figure of the ancient world. It is instructive to note that the Jews themselves, who have every reason to try to reduce the life of Christ to an invention, have not and do not do so. Rather, they grapple with the implications of this existence and the movement that followed, either branding him a heretic or transforming him into a misunderstood Rabbi.
In part of your letter you appear to be reacting to certain passages from the Gospels. Without fail you attribute to Jesus’ actions the worst possible motives and interpretations. In all my reading of the Enlightenment skeptics and modern political philosophers, all of whom were trying to destroy or dilute the Christian faith, I have never encountered such an effort to make Jesus into a scoundrel. Jesus, who submitted to Roman and Jewish authority, restraining his followers (who wanted him to be an earthly king and hero against the Roman invaders) in the garden of Gethsemane when he was arrested (“those who live by the sword will die by the sword”) is painted by you as a man with violent tendencies because he emptied the temple of merchants who were breaking Jewish law. You call him “antagonistic to his own family” because he contrasts the absolute love we must have for God with those loves that come closest, such as love for family. If you are correct in your reading of him, why does Jesus, in the Gospel of John, even as he is dying on the cross, assign the disciple John the care of his mother Mary? Why does he upbraid the Jewish leaders for neglecting the law of honoring parents for their tradition? Why is the historical Christian concept of marriage and family so highly developed and treasured, to the point that we are mocked frequently in today’s media? Do you sincerely believe that your appraisal of Jesus takes into account his entire life, the context of his words, and the overall message of his ministry?
It is in the final three paragraphs of the letter that I had the greatest difficulty tracing your reasoning. Your main point appears to be that belief in Biblical Christianity and a supernatural order is “a fundamental cause of social strife.” Again, in your words, this results in “violence, arrogance, intolerance . . .” and finally our “. . . present decline.” I’m taking your phrases out of several sentences but I think I am being faithful to your point. You seem to be saying that Christianity is responsible for many, if not the lion’s share, of our problems. I’ve had plenty of discussions about “Christian” misdeeds, hypocrisies, and historical tragedies, but your accusations go a lot further. Despite your hostility to Christianity and rejection of its spirituality, you have to be intellectually dishonest to deny the countless ideas, impulses, and works of creativity that are the cultural, political and social legacy of Christianity. Where do you think pacifism comes from originally? Are you familiar with the Anabaptists, Amish, Hutterites and Mennonites? What about charity and altruism? Even your much beloved concept of tolerance has some of its roots in certain strains of independent Protestant movements in England with their strong emphasis on individual religious experience. What about the abolitionist movement that came out of the great English revivals of John Wesley? What about the great monastic orders of the Middle Ages that preserved Scripture and learning, and set examples of service, self-sacrifice, and industry that remain unparalleled? Did you know that practically every institution of higher learning in the United States aside from the public colleges and universities was founded by a Christian church? What about the rich musical, artistic and literary legacy fruit of Christian faith and practice? I had thought that at a minimum you had some appreciation for these efforts. Bach would have flunked your litmus test of how to escape “religious addiction” as would St. Francis, Mother Teresa, Isaac Newton, Handel, Pascal, John Donne, and a host of others.
With regard to the present, are you serious in believing that getting rid of Christian belief would reverse our social decline? To just take our modest community of Salinas as an example, that would mean abolishing Victory Outreach, which works with gangs, Dorothy’s Place and Victory Mission, which feed and house the homeless, the Salvation Army, which does too many things to detail, the Christian day-care centers and schools, which, and I know this first-hand, have successfully educated children that the public schools couldn’t handle, the youth pastors and youth organizations, the many individuals motivated by God’s love who staff these and other charitable organizations, and the churches and Christian fellowships, where men and women learn and relearn integrity, responsibility, faithfulness, charity, and forgiveness. Dramatically changes lives are the most convincing testimony for Christianity.
You don’t need to even do a thought experiment to test your theory. Almost all serious historians and sociologists characterize Europe as post-Christian, and North America as close to it (about 40% of Americans attend church. Around 10% have a strong, committed, Biblically faithful belief. You should be able to rest your theory here too.) In Western Europe with few exceptions 5% or less of the population attends church; in Eastern Europe the population is largely unevangelized. Even the conflicts in Yugoslavia, which are typically characterized as partially religious in nature, are more historical and cultural than anything else. And what does society look like in Europe, where most of the people have definitely gotten over their “religious addiction”? The problems are similar to our own: rising ethnic tensions with the influx of Third World immigrants in all of Western Europe, broken families, an alienated youth that is turning to right-wing extremism, patterns of alcohol and drug abuse, corrupt politics, breakdown of community, etc.
Trying to read between the lines, I wonder how you come to your conclusions. If anger, bitterness, frustration, and other such powerful emotions are fueling your arguments, you’d better pull up short to see if they are twisting your thinking. You have every right to believe what you wish. But when you publish unrestrained and erroneous accusations such as those in your letter, you are committing intellectual slander. If this is part of your healing process, I would leave you with the thought that assigning blame to others, in particular when such blame is exaggerated and untrue, will not bring true healing. True healing starts only with complete, unflinching honesty with ourselves.
Sincerely yours,
My reply follows:
Dear _____
It's been just over two years since you wrote to me in response to a letter of mine that appeared in The Californian. I've wanted to write to you many times since them, but I've been too busy and/or preoccupied to manage it until now.
I've included copies of both the aforementioned letters in case you need to refer to them. I've also included copies of correspondence I've had with other Christians. Since the discourse I had with those acquaintances contains much of what I would have written to you in response to your letter, I decided to let you read those written exchanges. But first, I'll try to reply personally to your letter.
I think it is important for you to realize that what I think and feel about Christianity and religion does not exist in a vacuum. On the contrary, there are probably millions of people in the world [according to scholarly accounts, there are hundreds of millions of non-believers in the world] who share some, if not all, of the ideas I will be sharing with you in this letter, which makes me wonder why you seem to think that the ideas expressed in my Californian letter were so “exaggerated and untrue.” I wonder if you would brand all those others as you have branded me: one who has entered “into the realm of the irrational and the absurd.”
There is absolutely nothing unreasonable about my “strong” and “visceral” thoughts and feelings about Christianity and religion. Neither does the fact that my feelings are strong mean that they are “twisting” my thinking. Sure, strong emotion fuels my thinking and arguments, but I dare say that my alleged “unrestrained and erroneous accusations” are a tad less twisted than those used by Christians (in the name of their god) throughout our history to systematically slaughter, rape, burn and destroy anything and anyone deemed evil (which often meant simply “different”). Such emotion, in our modern era, is used by the Christian Right (Pat Robertson, the Christian Coalition, etc.) and others to mobilize support for some of the most hideous crimes against humanity, including apartheid, the death squads that are still active in Central America, the systematic dismantling of 25 years of environmental protection and an imperfect but vital American social welfare system, to name but a few.
My thoughts and feelings only seem unreasonable to Christians because they are unable, because of faith, to accept the overwhelming evidence that supports conclusions that differ from accepted religious doctrines. What evidence, you might ask? Please read on, and I will list a few of the sources that support my arguments and have helped me develop my ideals. I am sure, though, that, in the end, we will have to agree to disagree about what constitutes “truth” and about our fundamental beliefs. After all, your beliefs are apparently based on the Bible and faith in Jesus, while mine are based on faith in my feelings and a belief—grounded in the evidence accumulating about the Neolithic period of human history, and in the findings of those studying the human brain—that human nature is inherently good.
As for Jesus, my choice of words in my Californian letter was deliberate, since the historical reality of Jesus has long been debated by those much wiser in such matters than I. What was not deliberate during the writing of my letter was to imply that Jesus was a “scoundrel,” although you seem to have assumed as much. Indeed, it's obvious, based on the reactionary tone of your letter, that I “pushed your button” in questioning the existence of Jesus and pointing out his questionable behavior in certain Gospel stories. Your reaction is not surprising, since I was apparently questioning the reality of your sole raison d'être: Jesus Christ.
What I probably should have written in that letter was: “Even Jesus, a man of dubious historical significance . . .” You see, I do not know that Jesus never existed; he may have. But, really, this distinction—whether Jesus lived or was of any significance—is, to me, irrelevant, since I don't believe in Christian myths or the institutions that have been erected to propagate them. If Jesus did exist, I believe that he was a man deified by those that came after him, in order to perpetuate and make more palatable the supremely dysfunctional ideology inherent in the Old Testament, an ideology based on a cultural system that was used to wield control over the masses and that derailed our species' evolution about 5000 years ago (more on this later).
The secondary intention of my letter, which you seem to have mistook for my chief intent, was to illustrate some of the many glaring inconsistencies inherent in Christian mythology. You, as a man of obviously high intelligence, are as familiar with these inconsistencies as am I, but you rationalize them with faith, while I, on the other hand, accept them for what they are: the crumbling supports of a religious facade erected to preserve the most destructive model of human civilization—the “dominator system”—ever to have infected the human species.
The primary intention of my letter was to argue that, should we continue to embrace religions like Christianity, the dichotomous nature of which is inconsistent with the health and well-being of humanity, we will probably never reach the full potential of which we as a species are capable. But you missed the point I was trying to make (and trying to make a point in 200 words or less is sometimes hard for me), instead focusing on what you thought I was labeling as causes of human neuroses (Christianity, belief in the Bible and the divinity of Jesus) rather than as merely its manifestations. (I'm sure you would have questioned my intent either way.)
Christianity neurotic? you may be asking yourself incredulously. How can I make such an assertion, with all the wonderful things that in your letter you have stated can be attributed to Christianity and Christians? Well, this is where you and I will disagree, since it is obvious (and inevitable) that your faith blinds you to the ample evidence that exists to uphold such a claim.
My point is this: Christianity or similar religions have never and will never work because they are founded on or are simply products of a system—the dominator system—that has been shown repeatedly to be associated throughout history with male deities of savage and violent mien, with patriarchal societies based on rigid authoritarianism and the use of force or the threat of force, with suppression and domination of one rank of humanity over the other (men over women, masters over slaves, the strong and rich over the weak and poor), and with the rape of nature. This dominator system—nowhere more apparent than in the Hebrew culture, out of which evolved the Judeo-Christian religious heritage—so vastly overshadows any and all of the truly humanitarian and equalitarian achievements of the societies it has polluted, that defending those achievements is, in my mind, an exercise in futility unless one recognizes that the significance of the achievements lies in the fact that they were accomplished in spite of, not because of, the dominator system out of which they arose.
As to any “evidence” that Christianity or Christians have positively influenced human evolution, my answer to that is that people have been responsible for contributions to our species growth and development. Simply because people are superstitious, then build monuments and establish religions to uphold and glorify their superstitions, and then help people or engage in creation of art, literature, government, philosophy or whatever, does not mean that the manifestation of their superstitious beliefs (gods and belief in gods) are responsible for their acts. All this means is that many people are easily inspired to engage in acts that are inherently human, and many people are even more easily convinced that a supernatural power gave them their inspiration.
Yes, my opposition to Christianity is visceral and very strong, but it is not based on any desire for “getting rid of Christian belief.” If people want to believe Christian (or any other) myths, they are entitled to their beliefs. All I am saying is that until we can evolve beyond the obsessive need for such beliefs, we will continue to use them to justify man's inhumanity to man.
Fortunately, recent archaeological and sociological research is challenging long-held and erroneous beliefs about our past, a past that until recently has been interpreted by men for men. This research has revealed that Europe is not post-Christian, but post-partnership. Partnership is the system that existed in the Neolithic period. During this time people lived in peaceful and equalitarian societies that worshipped a goddess and whose central religious figure was a woman giving birth. The art of these societies, symbolized by a chalice which represents the life-giving and nurturing powers of the universe, expresses a world view in which cultivation of the earth and material and spiritual fulfillment are the primary purposes of life.
In contrast, the dominator system—our current system and the one under which humanity has toiled for the last 5000 years—is symbolized by the blade—the power to take life—and is characterized by dominion of groups of people or classes of people over others, and of men over women. Dominator-system art glorifies wrathful male deities, death, and war, and its religions are patriarchal with the central image being a man dying on a cross.
This correlation—between religions like Christianity and the horribly destructive dominator system—is one that is obviously suppressed or ignored by modern societies, especially the elitist corporate, governmental and religious factions in those societies. Admitting such a correlation would be to admit that the system that supports these factions is actually largely responsible for the plague of human strife escalating around us. I reiterate: It is not our species' turning away from religious worship that is escalating the strife in our world; social and environmental decay is occurring at an ever increasing pace because the dominator system—and I believe religion is an integral part of this system—is killing itself with its ever more voracious appetite for power and control of the earth and its peoples.
My feelings about Christianity and religion do not reflect “disgust” or “distaste and dislike” so much as they mirror despair over the direction our species has taken during these last 5000 years. If you feel that this “has overwhelmed [my] reason,” then I must accuse you of being unreasonable.
You see, I don't have a warm fuzzy god that medicates me with my own endorphins when I feel pain (some brain researchers, neurologists and psychologists believe that that is precisely what happens when an idea is used by the brain to mobilize the endogenous painkillers to repress physical and emotional pain). I depend on family, my friends, and me and I am thankful that I will never be so highly dependent that I must use faith to rationalize away unbelievable tenets like those of Christianity. My comfort is knowing that I will do my best in this life, because this life is the only life of which I can ever be certain.
I am sorry that you feel that speaking my mind is equivalent to “intellectual slander,” but I feel no need to apologize for expressing my thoughts and feelings about Jesus or Christianity, since such expression is my privilege in our society. Those who are unwilling or unable to tolerate my opinions 1) need pay them no heed or 2) can express their disagreement via the media, the telephone (my number's in the book), or the mail. I'm sure some Christians would have me censored, imprisoned, or taken out and shot or hanged. I will surely be the subject of Christian prayer to a god who allows his creation to be ravaged by the evil that he created. (That's a primary problem of monotheistic religions like Christianity: rationalizing the fact that a god, the creator of all, is not really responsible for everything created.)
There is nothing more intellectually slanderous than the Bible and the ideals contained therein. Trying to balance the barbarous nature of an Old Testament god, who is as evil as he is good, with a gentle and compassionate New Testament god who will save everyone from the Old Testament god, is myth in the most destructive form. Never will I accept as healthy or even innocuous a system of belief that requires adherence to such profoundly dichotomous dogma. The very thought is abhorrent to me!
As you will find if you read the following letters, I have thought about, read about and discussed Christianity extensively. Feel free to let me know if there's something about your religion that I'm missing—aside from faith, that is!
If you are interested in reading about some of the facts and ideas that are consistent with my beliefs, please read The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible, by Robin Lane Fox, Primal Man: The New Consciousness, by Arthur Janov, and Jesus the Magician, by Morton Smith. Other books that will inform you about philosophies similar to mine include: The Humanization of Man, by Ashley Montagu; What the Bible Really Says, edited by Morton Smith and R. Joseph Hoffman; Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Unlocking the Secrets of His Life Story, by Barbara Thiering; Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, by Tim M. Berra; Spiritual Warfare: The Politics of the Christian Right, by Sara Diamond; and, what is one of the most important books I have yet read, The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future, by Riane Eisler. [Books I would have added to the list had I known of them at the time: What is Atheism, by Douglas E. Krueger; Ethics Without God, by Kai Nielsen; Atheism, Ayn Rand and Other Heresies and Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith; Who Wrote the New Testament: The Making of the Christian Myth, by Burton L. Mack; Facing the Wrath: Confronting the Right in Dangerous Times, by Sara Diamond; Why the Religious Right is Wrong about Separation of Church and State, by Robert Boston; and Eisler’s Sacred Pleasure and Tomorrow's Children]
The following letter was printed in The Salinas Californian on February 5, 1991. I wrote the letter in response to the newspaper column mentioned in my letter. I sent a copy of my letter to a friend, and her responses, and a subsequent response from me, follow:
“Radical Christianity is Cruel and Barbaric” (the title given to my letter by the paper)
In his soapbox column January 5, Michael S. Buchner said the Nativity scene in Monterey is seen by some as an issue over the separation of church and state. He argues that, since our nation was founded partly on Christian ideals, any questioning of those ideals will undermine our “Christian” nation.
In defense of our nation's Christian foundation, Mr Buchner mentions the Pilgrims who “came to this land motivated by their yearning for religious liberty,” a liberty they were unwilling to share with anyone else. Perhaps Mr. Buchner forgot that the Mayflower Compact assured the Pilgrims complete political control in Plymouth Colony, and intolerance prompted these religious fanatics to legislate cruel and barbaric sentences such as whippings, imprisonment, banishment and, in some cases, death to restrict or prohibit immigration of those with differing faiths.
The misguided behavior of Pilgrims is typical of Christians of self-righteous mien who want to impose their brand of mythology on others, but it is not representative of the tolerance that prevailed during our colonial era when commerce, not religion, was the fuel that powered our nation. Some Christians, especially the fundamentalists, who can be as radical as the Pilgrims, would have us believe that Christianity is the cornerstone of our country. Faith in the principles of the Enlightenment influenced America's leaders as much or more than their faith in the stagnant creed of the Christian church. Anyone who reads an unbiased account of American or European history knows that Christianity has always played a subservient role to imperialism, mercantilism and capitalism.
Unfortunately, most modern Christians seem eager to defer to the sensationalistic paranoia pandered by publications like Encounter, cited by Mr. Buchner, that prey on the terrible fear many Christians have of anything that threatens their fragile security. These publications use cunningly wrought intellectual rationalizations, similar to those used to explain inexplicable Christian tenets, to pervert the questioning of Christian ideals into what Mr. Buchner and Encounter call “a subtle and often surreptitious invasion by the bewildering array of ungodly beliefs—atheism, agnosticism, skepticism, secularism, humanism, and especially hedonism and statism.”
The Christian habit of blaming the world's ills on ideals different from their own has been the fuel with which the fire of self-righteousness has raged throughout the centuries, literally burning anything or anyone that resisted conforming to the dictates of those addicted to the seductive power of religious domination. This conflagration, sustained by Christian superstitions, fear, shame and self-abhorrence, has retarded social evolution by inflaming and perpetuating our species' immature prejudices.
In The First Salute the Pulitzer prize-winning historian Barbara W. Tuchman writes, “it is a peculiar habit of Christianity to conceive the most compassionate and forgiving divinities and use them to sponsor atrocity.” Any defense of our “Christian” nation is a defense of this policy, which our founding fathers applied during the systematic slaughter of Native Americans, and which President Bush is anxious to apply in the Persian Gulf. Bush uses pseudo-patriotic and religious propaganda to incite mercenary attitudes among phobic Christians and others deluded enough to believe the hypocrisy that world peace can be won through war.
Sadly, Christians do not seem to be concerned with forging a course of healthy social evolution, since they cling to a dysfunctional spiritual model of a god who, in His infinite inscrutability, requires humanity [in one version] to destroy itself in a sell-fulfilling prophecy of doom in order to achieve salvation. The rampant depravity that snarls the fabric of our society today is due as much to such unhealthy ideals as it is to anything else.
Nothing will undermine our nation more than to continue to idolize Christianity merely because Western civilization has made that mistake for nearly 2,000 years. The shame- and fear-inducing power of the Christian church, with its wrathful deity who allows satanic forces to savage its creation, has for too long prevented a healthier spiritual vision from emerging in our modern world.
Partnership is the way of the future—partnership between men and women, between the races, and most importantly between those of differing faiths and political ideologies. When we are mature enough to embrace the concept of partnership, which recognizes and reveres the interconnectedness of all peoples and things, and which promises a more life-enhancing and life-celebrating spirituality, we will finally realize the true potential of our lives.
My friend's response to me, written as a letter to the editor of the Californian:
This letter is in response to the letter you printed by Paul Tuff stating Christianity is cruel and barbaric.
I suspect Mr. Tuff's animosity towards Christianity is a coverup for a much more deep-seated bitterness which has been conveniently displaced. This rebuttal comes after much contemplation of the issues he raised.
First, he claims the Pilgrims were barbaric people. They came to this country seeking freedom to be Christians after decades of oppression. They themselves were victims of flogging & other morally degrading acts because of what they believed in. Surely they were an emotionally distraught people after years of this abuse. After upheaving their families & leaving homes behind they arrived in this land with all the hopes and dreams of beginning a new life of religious freedom. After they arrived here, they were threatened again, being confronted with non-believers. These people were the American Indians. And they set out to convert these people. But with kindness. How does Mr. Tuff think the concept of Thanksgiving ever got started? The Pilgrims offered hope of living together in Harmony. The times of the Salem witch hunts in the New England area was an unfortunate set of circumstances, but only practiced by a small minority of people. Most did not condone this behavior. I wish, therefore, to rebuke Mr. Tuff's overgeneralizations, of which he is guilty throughout his letter. To Mr. Tuff's total intolerance of the Christian faith, let me say this:
The most tolerant people on the face of this earth are true Christians, while the most intolerant are those that denounce the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. The true Christian in this country believes that everyone had the right to worship God or not worship God. It is an individual choice. The true Christian believes that anyone has the right to be Christian, Muslim, New Age spiritualist or whatever. No one argues those rights. But at the same time, this country was built on the Judeo-Christian principle & it is this principle that has afforded us the right of all people to worship as they desire! Only the Judeo-Christian principle, as the foundation of any country, will guarantee the right of all people to worship God as they wish—in any form they wish. If you do not believe this just go to a country not founded upon this principle. There is little if any freedom. Muslim countries are highly intolerant of the Christian ethic. So the very thing Mr. Tuff is fighting against is the very thing that has guaranteed him the right to say what he is saying!
It must also be understood that not everyone who calls himself a Christian is necessarily a Christian. In fact, only a small percentage are, according to the Bible. Yet at the same time 90% of Americans stated in a recent Gallup poll they believed in the Lord Jesus Christ. If Mr. Tuff & people like him had their way, they'd make a clean sweep of every influence of Christianity, & with it every vestige of freedom this nation knows would be lost forever! Thank God our forefathers realized this & built the greatest government this world has ever known upon the Judeo-Christian principle! That is what America was built on & is what has made this country the greatest in existence. And the only way we will keep it is by maintaining the Bible-based traditional values that have made us great. That is our strength!
So it seems Mr. Tuff resents us fundamentalist Christians & all we stand for, yet it's perfectly all right for him to espouse his ideologies. How hypocritical it is of him, then, to decry the freedom of the preacher of the Gospel, which is the Good News for mankind. He would be delighted to have every church door closed & strip this nation of every Bible & every traditional value. If he had his way, Christianity would be outlawed in this country & thus plunge this nation into such moral darkness that it would never recover!
Someone said a long time ago: If you have facts, you argue with facts. If you have law, you argue with law. If you have neither, you attack the individual. This seems to be what Mr. Tuff has done, without thought as to what he is proposing—a communistic way of life. History has proved the American way to be far superior. So let all fundamentalist Christians rise to this knowledge! I am proud to say I am one. We are not the opposing faction but rather the overcoming victors in this race called life. Halleluia!
Amen! My response to my friend (who converted to atheism):
Dear _______
Your letter to the editor was written in the true spirit of religious fanaticism. And since you accuse me of overgeneralizations and of arguing without facts, I'll be happy to elaborate on my arguments while questioning yours.
1) I never stated in my letter to the editor that Christianity is cruel and barbaric (In case I didn't mention it, the editor was responsible for the title, not me.) Besides, institutions are not cruel and barbaric—only its adherents are. Christians are the reason Christianity is perceived negatively by people like me. If you take a barbaric Middle Eastern mythology and raise it up on a divine pedestal, of course it will warp those that come under its influence.
2) My “animosity towards Christians” is the superficial emotional state that covers not bitterness, but PAIN: Pain from the dysfunctional choices humans have made throughout our evolution; choices that have resulted in the rape of the very world that sustains our life; choices that allow tens of thousands of people to be murdered because of political disagreements; choices that funnel vast amounts of energy and resources into ever greater weapons of death and destruction at the expense of a better quality of life. This is not bitterness. This is despair.
3) It sounds like you get your history out of Christian paperbacks. 35 of the Pilgrims (who, incidentally, were not referred to as Pilgrims until two centuries after their arrival in America) were members of the English Separatist Church, which was a radical faction of Puritanism. Puritans were a stern and severe group who were responsible for Massachusetts General Court orders that were forerunners in spirit of much of the anti-immigration propaganda and exclusionary legislation that developed later. Beginning in 1656 Massachusetts Bay Colony records are full of the cruel and barbaric sentences I mentioned in my letter to the editor. If the Pilgrims were not cruel and barbaric, why did they legislate such sentences?
4) The Puritans were persecuted in England and in Holland by other Christians! This has always been one of the major problems with Christianity and its factions: they have always harassed not only those with different beliefs, but also those who merely held variations of their own beliefs. The bickering and quarreling among Christian denominations has done much to negate any positive effects of Christianity through the centuries.
5) To say that the Pilgrims were threatened by Native Americans is to pervert history. If the Pilgrims were threatened, it was because they invaded Indian lands. This invasion naturally caused minor Indian resistance, and the Puritans dealt with this resistance in one instance by burning a whole village consisting of 400 men, women, and children. Is this how the Pilgrims offered their hope of living in harmony?! Can you blame the Indians for trying to survive this onslaught by retaliating?
The Indians, treated like ignorant savages, were ultimately the victims of the encroaching colonists. It certainly was not the Pilgrims who were decimated by European diseases, or who were relentlessly persecuted because they were different, or merely in the way of colonial expansion. Many Puritans tried to convert the Indians, a misguided and ignorant endeavor that did much to damage Native American spirituality, but most of the Indians did not desire conversion. Why would they? They had their own religion, which was healthier than Christianity in many ways.
6) The concept of Thanksgiving started because of the efforts of Squanto, a Patuxet Indian who was responsible for the survival of the Pilgrims in Plymouth Colony after half their members were killed in the winter of 1620-1621. Unfortunately, Squanto died like the rest of his tribe, killed by some European disease. Is there any cause for thanksgiving when we look at American history through the eyes of the Indians? No way!!!!! Native Americans were used and abused at every opportunity by the colonists, Christians included.
If Christianity is the only way to go, why were its proponents in the New World enslaving native populations, or murdering them outright, in their greedy quest for gold? Why was the Christian gospel, preached by New World invaders, powerless in protecting native populations from the atrocities perpetrated on them by those invaders? Why was Christianity prostituted by imperialists and mercantilists? Why, in little more than 100 years after Columbus landed in the New World, were the numbers of its original inhabitants reduced by as much as 90%? The answer to those questions lies in the blatantly obvious fact that Christianity has never lived up to its image, or to the supposed ideals of the man on which it is based.
7) You obviously thought I was referring specifically to the Salem witch trials when I mentioned in the letter the fires of self-righteousness. I was simply using an allegory to describe, in general, religious fanaticism taken to its extreme, which has occurred all too frequently throughout the ages. Remember the Crusades and the Inquisitions?
8) If true Christians are so tolerant, why, for example, are they intolerant of women who want abortions? Maybe the Christians who want to make women criminals—by making abortion illegal—aren't true Christians. I don't see the true Christians lining up to care for all the unwanted children that have already been born in this country. On the contrary, most Christians seem committed to bringing more unwanted children into our world.
9) The fundamental problem with true Christians is their distortion of reality, a problem resulting from a faith so blind that recognition of truth is impossible unless it is shrouded in Judeo-Christian trappings. Sadly, Christians severely restrict themselves by accepting only the truth they perceive in the Bible, which certainly has no monopoly on truth. Such self-limitation is precisely why Christianity will never work for those of us who open our minds to our own truths, or to truth from other sources.
10) Reality distortion by Christians is glaringly apparent in their contention that our nation was built on the “Judeo-Christian principle.” To make such a statement is to grossly overrate the importance of Christianity during our nation's infancy. Our nation was not built on religion, but on commerce. Christianity has never been as important a factor in our nation's history as politics or the economy, unless we include “control of the masses” in the equation. If Christianity had such a pervasive influence on colonial America, why were the Indians systematically slaughtered with governmental support? Is a Christian nation that allows such brutality to be defended, or pitied?
11) If the Judeo-Christian principle allows for freedom of worship, why are there so many Christian missionaries around the world trying to subvert native religions by spreading their own? Fortunately, conversion by coercion is mostly a thing of the past, but the whole mission concept is such a woefully inadequate system for spreading the “good news.” You would think that the Christian God would have envisioned a better and more efficient means of saving people, and that he would have some contingency plan for those of us who have never even met Him or His Son. Instead, God will turn His divine back on us and let us go to hell. I cannot believe that a deity with a healthy and functional nature would design a reality that included such a possibility simply because of one mistake in the garden of Eden. [It is also instructive to note here that Christians are sad that, for example, family and friends that are not “saved” will go to hell, but faith medicates this sadness. Such repression with faith is one of the major flaws of any such religion, since such repression inevitably generates neurosis.]
12) I was unaware that “ONLY the Judeo-Christian principle, as the foundation of any country, will guarantee the right of all people to worship God as they wish—in any form they wish.” Talk about overgeneralization! More often in our world's history Christianity has been the officially enforced religion, with dissenters persecuted unmercifully. So why do you mention the Muslim intolerance of Christianity? Muslims are no more intolerant than Christians have been.
13) I am not “fighting against” Christianity; I only question its overall value. If you want to believe that some man who died nearly two thousand years ago is a god who is the only path to salvation, that's your prerogative. I personally consider Christianity (and most organized religions) to be the ultimate medication for people who give up on life because of unresolved emotional pain. By accepting a god who seems as malevolent as he is benevolent, by blaming a devil for their feelings of pain, shame, anger, and fear, and by using a man (Jesus) as a scapegoat for “sins,” many of which are merely normal human feelings, Christians relinquish any hope of ever living a functional life and dealing effectively with their repressed feelings.
14) Since you mention the Gallup poll on belief in Jesus, I assume you think that, simply because 90% of Americans believe in Jesus, He exists. If so, you are guilty of “appeal to belief” pseudoreasoning. If Jesus does exist after being dead for 2000 years, show Him to me, but don't expect me to believe in Him merely because you say He is real to you. What is real for Christians is obviously not real for me, regardless of what you think is real for me.
15) If I had my way, I would not be so presumptuous as to eliminate every vestige of Christianity in our world, and even if I did, I certainly wouldn't worry that freedom would be eliminated also. To believe that freedom would be lost if Christianity were lost is to accept the “slippery slope” pseudoreasoning used to support the pseudo-patriotic propaganda being perpetuated by paranoid prophets of doom!
16) This “greatest government this world has ever known” was, I repeat, built only incidentally on the Judeo-Christian principle. Simply because Christianity was the dominant religion during our nation's founding does not make Judeo-Christianity the cornerstone of our country. Only Christians blind to reason and historical fact would make such an assumption. Fortunately, our nation's founding fathers understood reason, for they were profoundly influenced, as I said in my letter to the editor, by the principles of the Enlightenment.
17) Why is our nation the greatest in existence? The greatest at what? War? Militarism? Drug addiction? Murder? Homelessness? Environmental rape? Coercion? Religious addiction? Job dissatisfaction? Despair? Complacency? Ignorance? Rage? Violence? The only way the United States can lead the world today is through war. We are a sadistic economic power that puts economic expansion before social evolution. That is great? You may be right when you say that Bible-based traditional values are the only way to maintain our present status—some of those values are partially responsible for the mess we are in!
18) I do not resent fundamental Christians and all they stand for. I pity them. And why am I a hypocrite for espousing my ideologies if you are not one for espousing yours? Why do you think that I believe that closing churches and ridding America of Bibles and every traditional value would delight me? Your assumptions are outrageous, but they are not surprising; you have taken my arguments personally, and you are retaliating with emotion and without any reason to substantiate your wild claims.
19) If you think outlawing Christianity would plunge this nation “into such moral darkness that it would never recover,” what do you consider the present state of degeneracy in our country to be, moral enlightenment? Maybe if we were plunged into a darker morality than the one in which we are mired now, we would emerge with values that would allow the partnership principle to prevail, and not the dominator mentality inherent in the Judeo-Christian principle.
20) What's wrong with proposing “a communistic way of life?” The problem with what in this country is deceitfully called capitalism is that it is concerned only with control and exploitation of the world's resources, and not with the health and wellbeing of its constituents. If you knew anything about what communism really is, and not what you think it is, or how it has been perverted, you might not attack me zealously. To defend what in America is really a system of state-funded capitalism as the superior system is to ignore its glaring deficiencies. And accusing people of being communists for disagreeing with you is adolescent in the extreme.
Since you write that “history has proved the American way to be far superior,” I would be interested in seeing that proof. I'm sure we could have some good arguments about that one!
The last sentence in your letter to the editor was rather disturbing. You write, “we are not the opposing faction but rather the overcoming victors in this race called life.” Why do Christians consider life a battle to be won or lost? Why must there be opposing factions instead of one united human species? Why can't we all be victors by honoring the interpersonal reverence we all desire and deserve? I would enjoy some dialogue on the subject.
Paul
The following dialogue started when I sent a letter to a local Christian church in response to a newsletter church members handed out at an Earth Day celebration. In addition to my letter, I sent copies of some of my writings, including “Radical Christianity is Cruel and Barbaric.” Someone at the church sent me an unsigned letter in response. I then sent the following letter, and a father and his son read my stuff and decided to write to me, and we started a dialogue via the mail.
To ___ from Paul Tuff
The modern record of “partnerships” to which you refer is not the record of partnership. True partnership does not involve a world order that condones mass murder as a way to resolve discord, which is what we recently witnessed in the Persian Gulf. True partnership, we are learning, existed during the Neolithic period, when people worshipped a woman giving birth, and not a man dying on a cross. The Chalice and the Blade, by Riane Eisler, explains in great detail the irreparable consequences early religious fanatics wrought as they sought to destroy earlier, and healthier, myths to facilitate control of the masses, and to feed their addiction to domination. The violence, misdemeanor, and exploitation you mention are characteristic of the “dominator” mentality that has gradually occurred as humanity has subjected itself to ideals, like glorification of war, that retard social evolution.
Since the pro-war propaganda you so blatantly pander proclaims your zeal for dominion, your ideals are obviously the same as those that have historically been shown repeatedly to correspond with war, injustice, and repression of women and minorities. This is why I'm concerned that you say “partnership” won't work—you are discounting ideals that haven't even been tried on a global scale in our modern world!
Christianity, on the other hand, has an atrocious record that has persisted for two millennia! In addition to persecuting each other, Christians have vented their hostility on countless others who have disagreed with their views. These were, perhaps, not true Christians? Are true Christians people like you, who celebrate the slaughter of 100,000 soldiers and, according to some sources, up to 50,000 civilians [about one millions men, women and children killed to date because of economic sanctions, according to some sources] to restore a monarchy that is now handing out life sentences to people accused of wearing certain items of clothing? This is the tragedy of the addiction to Christian ideals—your ideals are based on middle eastern myths that sanctify such atrocities as war, and that perpetuate the aberrant social evolution of the dominator mentality. This is why Christian ideals will never work for some of us, for we are not blinded with a faith that inherently represses the will to look beyond those limiting ideals.
I do understand the obsession Christians feel for Christ. After all, Jesus is one of the most powerful non-prescription drugs you can use to medicate yourself against reality! Who wants to deal with the real world, or with real feelings, when one can turn it over to some mythological man/god who died two centuries ago? Christianity is uniquely equipped for those who cannot handle a feeling reality. By accepting a god who is as indifferent as he is benevolent, by blaming Satan, or their own worthlessness, for their feelings of pain, anger, fear, and shame, and by using Jesus as a scapegoat for sins, many of which are merely “real” and normal human feelings, Christians relinquish any hope of ever living a functional life or of dealing effectively with their feelings. Instead of coming to terms with the free will they so ardently defend as one of their god's greatest gifts, Christians are cursed to exercise their gift on a battleground where they must daily face the forces of evil by which their dubious god allows them to be tempted. In other words, Christianity simply drugs the symptoms; it doesn't heal the causes of our strife, because you can't heal what you can't feel.
You say He never fails? What about the 150,000 people who died in a senseless war? What about the masses that now suffer because of the destruction our nation was instrumental in inflicting? What about the billions who will die without ever having even met your god or his son? I'd be interested in hearing your comments on those questions. Maybe you can shed some light on the shadow that the Christian faith seems to cast over our lives.
The father's first letter:
Dear Paul,
I enjoyed your letter—thanks for taking the time to write.
The “type” of Christianity I'm trying to describe—the type I'm living—is the sort that Gandhi described when he noted that Christianity was the best thing going. In fact, he said he would become a Christian, if only he could find one. It is a little like trying to describe a “true partnership.” Any model we look at on earth fails in one way or another to live up to the universal, Platonic ideal. Which doesn't mean we should stop trying, right? I agree that “Christianity” has a terrible record. If fact, if we went further, we'd find that everyone has a terrible record. We want to live according to the highest ideals, but we fail frequently. Evil won't be eradicated by my concentrating on the other guy. Jesus says that evil is not circumstantial, but proceeds from the heart of man. Sin is my contribution, and yours. Giving yourself to God means dying to that which causes death.
Every movement tries to create its own new man—and frequently wipes out millions in the process. Jesus said love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, turn the other cheek, go the second mile. The Spirit of God does “cast a shadow” in the sense that where light is, sin is revealed (and you can't heal what you can't see).
My response:
Dear ___
I'm finally getting around to replying to your letter, which I enjoyed very much. And thank you for sharing my letter with your son, whose response was very impressive.
I agree with Jesus’ assertion that evil proceeds from the heart of man, but if that is so, then evil must be a manifestation of God, unless God is not the prescient being that I imagine Him to be. Since God is responsible for evil, having created it, why should I give myself to Him, since He has the same dual nature as I? Is God therefore any less capable of sin than is man?
The problem I have with your God and the Bible is that the only way I could believe in them would be to suspend belief in my own reality. My reality cannot include trust in a model of the universe that resembles that of a spoiled child. For example, what mentally healthy deity would show love for us by letting those of us who don't follow conditional rules, or who don't even know Him, burn in Hell? Not only childish, but also fiendish!
As I was explaining to your son, Christianity as exemplified by the Bible simply does not feel right to me, and it will never feel right to me because it doesn't make any sense to me. My hunch is that Christianity doesn't make any sense to anyone, but blind faith and/or rationalization of its irrationality, which are acts of intellect, cause people to repress the feelings of confusion, fear, and rage that are inherent in what I consider to be a dysfunctional reality. This repression is what I consider to be the source of “sin.”
Since Jesus said “love your enemies,” I am curious about your reaction to the hideous “love” God-fearing Americans showered on those who died in the Middle East. If you concur with the pro-death propaganda that your church disseminated regarding the Gulf War, how can you write to me about turning the other cheek? What happened to “Thou shalt not kill”? Did we do all we could to prevent war? Perhaps that is what your God will think when he banishes to hell those who “choose,” either consciously or through ignorance, to ignore His/the Bible's version of reality: “I did all I could.”
I guess what I'm saying is that God/the Bible is simply the product of man's creative imagination. Since God/the Bible/Christianity is, from my feeling perspective, as imperfect as we humans, I can only assume that humans created God, and not vice versa.
By the way, if you should reply to this letter, and I want you to know that I would enjoy hearing from you again, perhaps you can explain your statement, “giving oneself to God means dying to that which causes death.”
Pax vobiscum from Paul
The gentleman's second letter:
Dear Paul,
I enjoyed your last letter, another in a series of telling blows that are no doubt undermining the very pillars of heaven. I shall attempt to respond in like manner, and no doubt you will be shaken to the very core of your being after reading my brilliant, persuasive arguments that prove the existence of God, the validity of the Bible, your present precarious state of being, etc.
But wait, you are not going to be rationally persuaded, are you? You base your existence on what you feel, if I read you correctly. This seems to be a pleasant ground of being for your philosophy, but I must say it sure seems SHAKY. If we all did what we felt, life would be chaotic, violent and unpredictable (I must admit that regardless of religious or philosophic convictions, life is always unpredictable).
Please consider: no matter what “movement” people are a part of, they are still people. Greenpeace can get violent. The peace movement gets violent. Human nature is human nature. Dying to self is the answer, and the place to go for that is Calvary. Nobody likes the thought of death, but as Jesus said, “Unless a kernel of wheat falleth into the ground and die—it abideth alone. But if it dies, it brings forth fruit.”
Sincerely,
A rather sarcastic reply, was it not? My response:
Dear ___
Thanks for the letter. Yes, you are right—I cannot be rationally persuaded to believe what I feel is irrational. But I also cannot be rationally persuaded to believe what I think is irrational. On both feeling and intellectual levels, Christianity is irrational.
Basing my reality on what I feel is certainly no less shaky an existence than one based on the inherently feeble foundations of Christianity, which can only be shored up with faith. I could find no fulfillment in Christian philosophy unless I completely denied my feelings, something that I believe is the cause of the chaos in our world. If we heed the arguments of some who study the world without the severely restricting limits imposed by religious dogma, we would agree that expressing emotions is absolutely imperative for the survival of our species. Unfortunately, many Christians remain adamantly opposed to even considering ideas that are foreign to their occlusive and repressed view of life.
Yes, even the peace movement gets violent, and human nature is human nature, but that nature is no different from your God's, since even He resorted to a truly stupendous act of violence and insanity when He drowned His whole planet after His handiwork fulfilled His own demented reality. Even Jesus was not immune from perpetrating violence and verbal abuse. So why would dying to self and selling out to Christianity (which is, after all, simply another movement) be considered a better answer to the question “why are we here?”
I have enjoyed our discussion, ___, but perhaps we have reached an impasse. If you want to pursue our debate further fine, and if you don't, thanks for taking time for our correspondence.
The son's first letter:
Dear Mr. Tuff
Hope you don't mind—my dad let me read your letter in order to get my opinion. Please excuse me for just jumping in on your correspondence mid-stream, but it's too fascination a topic to pass up!
Hmm! How to relate . . . ahh! Truth! That's it! After perusing your epistle I was struck by the fact that any truly fruitful discussion was greatly hampered by two radically differing foundations for “absolute truth.” I believe that you would agree that the goal of science is to find out the truth of a matter—correct? The whys, hows etc. etc.'s must be carefully sought out regardless of personal bias or “wishing something to be so.” So, to simplify the matter immensely, let me say that there is only one significant question here. Namely: Is the God of the Bible truly there (here/everywhere) or not!? If He is then all your protestations of how world events have played out must come from the place of a) all agony—cruelty is never God's desire but is a direct result of mankind's sin. Or . . . b) because of the cruelty in the world I reject God because He's “not my type” (i.e. The Brothers Karamozov etc).
However what I really think is (my I am making a rather large amount of conjectures eh?) that you have decided, after analyzing all empirical evidence (i.e. Campbell et al) that the Christian faith is based on... myth! That is not “true” (except, perhaps, in selective social evolutionary context). You see, our basis for real fruitful debate is inherently plagued with this difference of beliefs—one theistic and the other atheistic or agnostic or...?
Humph and good grief! You really can't think that the bulk of what we call Christianity or Christendom down through the ages has anything at all to do with the truth of the matter!? Yet it seems to me that this historical judgment (argumentum ad...?) has gained credence in the circles of thought which you seem to belong to. Just the other day someone said to me .”..well! Hitler was a Christian and look at all the things he did!” Wow! But really that approach seems to me so blatantly dishonest as to warrant disgust—ahem! Excuse me.
Well I must go—
1) Do you believe that any supernatural event has ever occurred?
2) Do you have any reason not to believe in God/Jesus if shown that He is something other than a non-prescription drug?
Sincerely (without wax)
My reply:
Dear ___
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. I very much enjoyed and appreciated your articulately expressed comments!
Yes, it seems that the bottom line in our discussion is our individual perception of truth. Your understanding of truth is based on the Bible, which some scholars, whom I assume are much more erudite than I, have shown is partially comprised of accounts of ancient myths. Surely there is truth in the Bible, just as there is truth in other religious literature from all over the world, but you, it seems, are willing to accept as “absolute truth” only that which is defined by what you must think is a divinely ordained—albeit unorganized and contradictory—collection of sacred writings.
I myself cannot trust as truth that which comes from without unless it makes logical sense and resonates with the inner truth of my own feeling reality. The Bible and its god fulfill neither of those requirements; on the contrary, it asks me to suspend belief in my own reality in favor of one that demands fantastic leaps of faith in order to be believable. Why should I reject what I know to be true, the only truth of which I can be certain, and accept a version of truth that makes no sense to me! If I were to do so, I would be repressing my feelings through intellectual rationalization, an act that is a neurophysiological foundation for neurosis.
Faith has nothing to do with intellect, you might argue. How, then, do I accept a god that supposedly loves me so much that he gave me the free will to abuse myself, others, and his creation, allowing me, because of his gift, to exercise evil, thereby incurring his wrath? Is this how a “loving” creator inspires faith, by giving us gifts and then punishing us for their use? Am I supposed to accept this dichotomous model of reality by denying it through faith, or am I to use my intellect to rationalize what is to me completely irrational? Regardless of which method of repression I choose, blind faith or rationalization, I would be repressing my natural feelings of utter confusion, fear, and rage through the use of intellect, for that is the only brain function that allows us to accept what is, on a feeling level, unacceptable.
Because the Bible necessitates the subjugation of feeling through dependence on intellect (this is the function of faith), it is one of the primary contributors to the pervasive neurosis that afflicts our world. When you expect Christians to worship a God who is responsible for their misery, you must then expect people like me to ask Christians to accept responsibility for the manifestations, such as war, drug and alcohol abuse, and obsessive and compulsive behavior, that such a neurotic relationship promotes. These manifestations are ones that you attribute to man's sinful use of free will, and to Satan, both of which are actually manifestation of God's creative vision! God is therefore capable of abusing His own free will, for who among us would stand by, without intervening, and watch our children slaughter each other?
And that brings us to what is probably the bottom of your bottom line, Jesus Christ, the mediator of the divine intervention that gives us all the chance at the eternal life promised in the scriptures. Your polite disgust at my confusing Christianity with what has been called Christianity may be based on what you believe is the historical fact of Jesus birth, death, and resurrection. I do not deny that Christ may have been born, that he died, and that he could have rose from the dead; after all, if He did exist, He certainly was not the only man to have accomplished those things. Indeed, Jesus was rather unremarkable, being only one of many prophets and magicians that were very common during His time. Turning water into wine and raising people from the dead were the types of things that holy men from many cultures were expected to do, and which they often succeeded in doing, either through artifice or esoteric knowledge.
Perhaps the bottom line in our discussion is that we cannot have much of a discussion because of two diametrically opposed viewpoints. You choose to believe what I consider to be unbelievable, and vice versa. If that is the case, I regret that our correspondence could not be more fruitful. If, on the other hand, you want to reply to some particular point in this letter, maybe we can continue our dialogue. If so, I look forward to hearing from you again. If not, I am thankful that we were able to share what little we could, for in such sharing, I think, lies the greatest hope for the peaceful unity and healthy evolution of mankind.
To answer your questions, no, I do not believe in any supernatural event, never having witnessed one, and if God/Jesus were revealed to me, how could I not believe?
Incidentally, the only significant question of yours may be “is the God of the Bible truly there . . . or not?” The only significant question of mine is, How can we as a species evolve peacefully in spite of our differing beliefs?
Regards from Paul
His second letter:
Dear Paul
Thanks for your letter! I have a slot of time right now so I'll fire back a missive. [Actually I'm writing from the lobby of my shrink—he's striving to rid me of Christianity-induced neurosis (sorry! heh?!)]
First, a bit of balance on the Bible bit. Yea, tis true that “. . . some scholars more erudite than (you) . . . etc. . . . ancient myths etc. . . . .” But did/do you know that there are many other scholars, maybe even eruditer, who have rationally come to the conclusion that the Bible is most unique and a condensation of truth?! While we're on this Paul, think of all the great men, the great minds and intellects which have wrested greatly with the problem of faith vs the deified “Reason” and embraced faith. The hosts of God-knowing people are abundantly sprinkled with keen and cool and non-emotional human beings (though not many who are only using their intellect for selfish ends and proud.) In the world of science you and I have our minds boggled constantly, often having to accept the scientists explanation in trusting bewilderment (DNA, space exploration, etc.) Why do we accept the seeming impossible? Because we trust those scientists based on past experiences. We feel that if we desired we could empirically verify the seeming impossible data—but seldom do we really feel the need to do this (especially if other scientists concur.) The amazing thing about God is that He is empirically testable also but...the catch is that vital ingredient; faith. However it need not be your blind jump-in-the-dark Kierkegaardian leap. Clearly Christianity (“really truly Christian”) has brought untold joy and peace and love to the world. I'm rambling here but... think of what the Bible requires of a man! To do justly, love mercy, walk humbly. To esteem others better. To love yourself and esteem life as a gift. To love your neighbor more than that. To lay your life down form friends. To love you enemy. To love those who despitefully use you and persecute you. To love peace and seek it. To hate sin and flee from it. To repent and make recompense when you do fall. To love and care for the widow, afflicted and children. To respect your elders (olders) and esteem your parents. To be a faithful citizen. Not to lie. Not to murder. Not to steal or covet or slander or lust after or let those evils go unpunished. To have a cheerful heart and a merry face. To love all wisdom and seek after it with might and main. On and on and on!!!
The trouble is not with doing these things Paul, the trouble is men shy away from them and fight against them (whether they label themselves Christian or atheist). To tell the truth is hard! To be humble is difficult! Some conquer this difficulty, some give up, and many ride the fence of the neurosis you speak of—”I want to but can't, I did but I shouldn't have.” In fact the only way to really win is to not fight against, but give in to all that goodness in the above paragraph (which is simply an outline of God's character, loving but just.) No matter who one is or whatever their creed or belief, if you embrace the goodness (of God) you will do well—guaranteed! The Bible promises that!
You claim that the Bible “. . . necessitates the subjugation of feeling through dependence on faith . . . .” Ouch! Art, lit., Drama, where does faith ever do anything but enhance the splendor of life—the richness of being, feeling, exploring our humanity!
You say the Bible is repression to the Nth degree—you're right! But what does it call us to repress! Ugliness, that's what. Cheating, lies, and knavery. Our baser instincts and foolishness. From this kind of repression comes most of the good of the world. A great violinist, actor, father, doctor, masseur must repress himself, his/her laziness, his/her despair of attaining greatness.
Your strident desire for world peace is based on just such repression. You long for people to release/subdue/dissolve their anger, forgive grievances, absolve debts and . . . guess what . . . you are doing it all in/by faith! Never had the world experienced peace on the scale you dream of and hope for. You (hmm! One finger points at you—four at me!) have an irrational vision that feels right but you have no foundation to prove that it is right (whew! audacious.) The Bible tells us how to have peace, step-by-clear-step.
You're right of course about Christianity being the cause of many world problems because of the neurosis it engenders—at least half right. Most of the pain, suffering, sin in the world comes from mankind rejecting the good and the lovely and the worthwhile and embracing the cheap, and easy, and wicked.
But you blame God?!! You say He is “. . . a God who is responsible for this misery . . . .”! Paul will you never rear children because they will have the choice between good and evil (the tree) and may choose the latter? Could you, were it in your power, pre-program that child as a “GOOD PERSON”—a robot? There could be no beauty in that scenario. No love, no challenge, no victory without a way out of goodness if one desires it. C.S. Lewis wonderfully debates our calling sin “sin” when all that sin is is twisted goodness. God did not create good and then evil. He is all Goodness, but if we choose to twist and squirm and choose the lower things then our goodness becomes twisted and perverted—this we call sin. There is not anything intrinsically evil about a knife, gun, hemlock, or a chemical, but what one decides to do with that medium ahhh! “There's the rub . . . ,” aye?
Please write, my style is poor and needs much practice—it will help me to repress my sloppy grammar and study your succinct style. Amen.
Sans Cere
P.S. Have you read much C. S. Lewis? He came to God purely by reasoning power (well, until the last step, eh?) The Case for Christianity I could lend you though there are other apologetic books with fewer loopholes.
My response:
Dear ___
Thanks for writing. I'm glad that we can continue our discussion. By the way, you needn't apologize for your writing ability, which seems to be at least as good as mine.
Yes, yes, yes, I am familiar with the rationalizations for faith in God/the Bible/Christianity of scientists, physicians, educators, scholars, authors, ministers, laypersons, acquaintances, and family members, but those rationalizations have not made rational what to me, on both feeling and intellectual levels, remains irrational. Let's take C. S. Lewis, for example, who has been called “the most original Christian writer of our century.” Lewis tried to justify Original Sin and free will by using clever and intellectualistic rationalizations to make those paradoxes more acceptable. Lewis writes in The Problem of Pain: “what you call defeat, I call a miracle: for to make things [humans] which are not Itself [God], and thus to become, in a sense, capable of being resisted by its own handiwork, is the most astonishing and unimaginable feat we attribute to the Deity” (113-114). In other words, God made us capable of disobeying Him. WOW! Big deal. But, God knew that we would choose to sin, so I can only conclude that God is therefore the original sinner, for man would not sin unless God gave us that ability, and we are, after all, made in His image. God isn't capable of sin? Giving the gift of free will and then permitting its use to result in eternal damnation is about as malefic a sin as I can imagine. Would you give your child a gun and then let him/her blow his/her brains out because that's what he/she chose to do? That is what Christians ask me to believe God allows us to do. That's faith?! I call it neurosis.
Lewis defends the doctrine of free will by saying that the alternative would be a world of androids in which no true love, peace, or happiness could exist, and in which nothing of real importance could happen. If truth is possible only in the Christian universe, which, Lewis writes, is characterized by a “state of war” that God thinks is a worthy price for free will, then I would rather be a will-less android living in blissful ignorance than a “child of God” living in a world in which we choose to murder, rape, and pillage each other because God allows it as part of His dysfunctional master plan. By the way, what will heaven be but that alternative world where we must be free will-less to ensure the heavenly bliss for which all Christians are praying? What rationalizations have Christians manufactured for that problem?
In More Than a Carpenter, Josh McDowell continues the tradition of Christian rationalization by writing that, although God is a loving God, He is also “a holy, just, righteous God” whose “nature would destroy any sinful individual” (113). McDowell's statement is an ingenious way to brainwash people into thinking that it's their fault that they may go to hell, and not God's, even though it was apparently never God's intention to save all of us anyway, for if He wanted to save us, He would. Christians are quick to point out that God does want to save us, but the fact is, He will not save some of us who use the gift of free will that He bestowed on us. Considering that God is supposedly all-powerful, He could easily have created a universe inhabited with creatures that could both exercise free will and tolerate His “holy, just, and righteous” self without being damned.
I can use my intellect to rationalize, too: perhaps God lets those who do not believe in Him go to hell so that Satan will have some company. After all, God is a loving God who allows Satan to exist and to plague us, so God must love Satan, too. More likely God uses Satan to inspire Christian faith through fear. Christians are certainly inspired by fear of hell and the devil as much as they are inspired by any benevolence that an obviously and necessarily enigmatic God wishes to bestow on them. [I would certainly be afraid of a God who was deranged enough to practice genocide on a global scale during His Flood!]
You write, “Christianity has brought untold joy and peace and love to the world.” I think Christianity has brought untold misery and self-loathing to the world because its adherents must believe they are worthless sinners and horrors to God and to themselves. Lewis wrote in The Problem of Pain, “I have been aiming at an intellectual, not an emotional effect: I have been trying to make the reader believe that we actually are, at present, creatures whose characters must be, in some respects, a horror to God, as it is, when we really see it, a horror to ourselves” (60). I refuse to believe that God sees anyone as horrible (why should He see as horrible a creation whose nature He knew in the moment of its genesis, unless He is then horrified at His own dual nature for knowingly creating something that would be horrible?), and that everyone must see him- or herself as horrible. That's the problem with Christianity: it breeds neurosis, for no one can enjoy true health while believing that God both loves him/her and finds him/her horrible. Anyone who argues otherwise is out of touch with the reality of his/her own true feelings, which must be repressed with intellect (at which Lewis and McDowell excel) to believe such arguments.
What is astonishing to me is that, because people are so desperate for the medication Christianity provides, they are willing to accept such unintelligible rationalizations, and what I find unimaginable is that God offers no contingency plans for those of us who have never even met Him or His Son. Instead, God will turn His divine back on us and let us go to Hell. A more pathological reality is hard to imagine!
Yes, “the catch is that vital ingredient; faith,” and what an improbable catch it is. McDowell wrote, “finally, my mind came to the conclusion that Jesus Christ must have been who he claimed to be . . . . I believe that faith in Jesus Christ is intellectually feasible” (122-123). Lewis wrote, “Only two views of [Jesus] are possible. Either He was a raving lunatic of an unusually abominable type, or He was, and is, precisely what He said. There is no middle way” (21). Indeed, faith in Jesus, or in anything, is intellectually feasible if one can accept fatally flawed tenets like those of Christianity, or the “either/or, no middle way” arguments of its supporters. The fact that faith is the necessary ingredient in acceptance of Christianity serves only to strengthen my belief that Christianity is inherently unbelievable, and a creation of man.
I am obviously not at all impressed by those that throughout history have defended and rationalized Christianity; on the contrary, I consider them part of the problem. Some of them could sell the moon to a Swiss cheese factory, and everyone starved for cheese would comment on the quality of the product! No one can make Christianity palatable to me, because it smells rotten. Our species has depended on its myths for too long. It's time to take responsibility for our lives by facing the repressed feelings causing our addiction to ideas (religion). It won't work, you say? It already has, during the Neolithic period of prehistory. Let's try it and find out!
Since the dichotomous reality of Christianity demands repression of the natural feelings of rage, shame, pain, and fear that such a reality must inspire (whether conscious or not), it mobilizes the brain's endorphin system to anesthetize those feelings. This is part of the medication of which I speak; a natural brain function that acts to alleviate pains, whether emotional or physical. Religion is truly the opiate of the masses when one considers that religion effectively mobilizes the dominant, intellectual side of the brain to repress the emotional side. This is what I was referring to when I mentioned the neurophysiological basis of neurosis. Religion is one aspect of the cognitive component of a biologic system that represses pain. I'll be happy to provide more information along these lines if you're interested.
Don't worry! I'm not blaming God for sin, something that Christians find utterly impossible to consider, which only enhances neurosis because of the repression involved (God gave me the ability to sin, but it can't be His fault, even though He knew I would sin! It's a sin to even think so!) I'm only arguing the other point of view, that God could only be a product of man's imagination, since God's reality is so patently neurotic and nonsensical. Anything that requires such extravagant manipulation of reason to be believable is unreasonable and unbelievable.
The wayward intellectualistic arguments for Christianity really concern me. For example, some Christians, Creationists and Fundamentalists in particular, declare that evolution is only a theory. Christians can twist just about anything around enough to suit their needs, but calling evolution “just a theory” fools only the uneducated and/or those desperate for corroboration, regardless of how weak, for their beliefs. Evolution as a process is considered a fact by [the vast majority of] unbiased scientists who argue only about how evolution functions, not whether it functions. And I for one think we should spend more time trying to realize our potential for a peaceful world instead of arguing over how we got here, which only wastes our time and polarizes us.
So, I must admit that I have no other alternative but to declare myself an atheist. And if God is empirically testable, and not simply a manifestation of humanity's age-old need to give meaning to life, give me the rationalizations for your assertions, and I'll be happy to argue the atheist perspective, based on personal experience and on the research of those probing the secrets of life without succumbing to conditional beliefs or blind faith.
I maintain that a society with foundations in a religion that preaches self-horror, and is inherently repressive, must also be self-destructive. Sadly, Christians remain blind to the infectious effects that unhealthy and unyielding dogmas have had on our society. Instead of accepting responsibility for the destructive effects of polluted Christian ideologies, many Christians adhere ever more closely to their aberrant cerebral doctrines, unable to offer any practical help for our social problems.
I think most Christians have either given up on this life, or seek to dominate it, hoping in the first case only to reach heaven, or, in the second case, to forge a new order on the rubble of the old. Either scenario demands fragmenting choices that some of us can never make: surrendering all responsibility for our lives to some mysterious and incomprehensible deity, or vanquishing the imagined “forces of evil” (perhaps me, because I don't conform?) for dominance. I choose the reality of my own experiences, for therein lies my truth, and not some version of truth that has been written by others, and then interpreted and pandered by biased individuals or institutions who have much to gain (but more, ultimately, to lose) for its acceptance.
Here endeth our correspondence. Amen. I guess they got tired of beating their heads against my wall.
The following was sent to me by an appreciative reader of one of my Californian letters. I agree with it wholeheartedly but regret the sexist language.
Atheism Teaches That
There is no heavenly father.
Man must
protect the orphans and foundlings, or they will not be protected.
There is no god to answer prayer.
Man must hear
and help man.
There is no hell.
We have no
vindictive god or devil to fear or imitate.
There is no atonement or salvation by faith.
We must face
the consequences of our acts.
There is no beneficent or malevolent intent in nature.
Life is a
struggle against preventable and unpreventable evils. The cooperation of man is
the only hope of the world.
There is no chance after death to “do our bit.”
We must do it
now or never.
There is no divine guardian of truth, goodness, beauty, and liberty.
These are
attributes of man. Man must defend them or they will perish from the earth.
Bill of Rights for Unbelievers
The freedoms of thought and expression count among our most fundamental and cherished rights, and promote both individual welfare and the common good in a democratic state. Historically, however, unbelievers, such as secular humanists, atheists, agnostics, rationalists, and freethinkers have faced prejudice, intolerance, and discrimination for their opinions and discoveries.
In the firm conviction that the principle of Church-State separation guarantees the equal rights of the religious and non-religious, we the Campus Freethought Alliance, on this 12th Day of July 1998, hereby present the following Bill of Rights for Unbelievers.
Unbelievers shall have the right to:
-
Think freely and autonomously, express their views forthrightly, and debate or criticize any and all ideas without fear of censure, recrimination, or public ostracism.
-
Be free from discrimination and persecution in the workplace, business transactions, and public accommodations.
-
Exercise freedom of conscience in any situation where the same right would be extended to believers on religious grounds alone.
-
Hold any public office, in accordance with the constitutional principles that there shall be no religious test for such office.
-
Abstain from religious oaths and pledges, including pledges of allegiance, oaths of office, and oaths administered in a court of law, until such time as these are secularized or replaced by non-discriminatory affirmations.
-
Empower members of their community to perform legally-binding ceremonies, such as marriage.
-
Raise and nurture their children in a secular environment, and not be disadvantaged in adoption or custody proceedings because of their unbelief.
-
Conduct business and commerce on any day of their choosing, without interference from laws or regulations recognizing religious days of prayer, rest, or celebration
-
Enjoy freedom from taxation supporting the government employment of clergy, and access to secular counseling equivalent to that provided by chaplains.
-
Declare conscientious objection to serving in the armed forces under any circumstance in which the religious may do so.
-
Live as citizens of a democracy free from religious language and imagery in currency, public schools and buildings, and government documents and business.