Ex-Christian Monologues

I've been thinking about something lately: Christian salvation.

Paul, in his letter to the Ephesians said,

"For by grace are ye saved and through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast."

In Evangelical circles, this kind of grace is described as unmerited favor.

Unmerited: Not earned.

If Christianity were the only modern religion that provided powerful, life-changing, mystical experiences, then those things might add validity to their beliefs. If only Christianity provided these unexplained feelings, it might be reasonable to conclude that Christianity is unique. The problem is that disciples of other religions also have dramatic stories.

Why are you so angry? It doesn’t make sense to be angry about God, since you don’t believe there is a God. You people are like talking to robots that only repeat their programming. I feel so sad for you. You haven’t truly experienced Jesus or you would never say the things you say. I accept that you don’t believe, but why be disrespectful of someone else’s religion? I don’t get it, why would you need encouragement in your ex-Christianity?

Why do Christians read their bibles daily or weekly? Don’t they already know what it says? Why do they obediently swarm to church services each week, sometimes three times a week, to hear the Word of God as preached by some stranger? Again, don’t they already know what His Word says? Why must Christians labor all day in prayer, praise and worship, calling on His name? Does God truly need all this sycophantic toadying to stroke his ego?

Christianity is not about loving or serving the Creator of the universe. It is not about gratitude for creation, or even the supposed gift of either temporal or eternal life. Christianity is not about loving your fellow man, or giving to the poor. It is not about compassion. Christianity is, pure and simple, about avoiding hell.

When Christians show up on this site, it is usually to argue. Rather than present positive evidence for their beliefs, they choose instead to throw out what I call side arguments on a variety of topics. These side arguments are not necessarily meant to show that Christianity is true, but they are meant to show that non-belief is an untenable worldview. Instead of presenting any positive evidence for the existence of a God, a Jesus, angels, devils, etc., they'll attack from different angles. The following is not meant as a comprehensive covering of all the possible apologetic directions Christians are in the habit of taking, but just a few of my favorite.

Witchcraft was now classified a heretical cult. Not only that, but it was considered heretical to not believe in the power of the Devil. The punishments against witchcraft were carefully laid out, as well as the methods for detecting and trying witches. The hitherto sporadic cases of witchcraft were now to be viewed as a cohesive group that had been marshaled together by Satan to attack and destroy Christianity.

Christianity brags that it holds the ultimate meaning and purpose for human life. It states most emphatically that the whole purpose of the human experience is to enjoy God and glorify Him forever. It boldly claims that any and all activity outside of the narrow path is worldly, of the devil, and ultimately worthless.

While finding a valuable meaning for an individual life is something most people desire, to accuse all who reject the claims of Christianity to be living worthless lives, is arrogantly rude, and historically it’s been destructive.

Hello, I’m Dave, the webmaster of ExChristian.Net and you’re listening to the Ex-Christian Monologues for April 3, 2006.

The topic for this podcast is “Good and Evil.”

What is good and what is evil? Where do we get our definition of good and evil? What is the source of our understanding of morality, and how do we decide what is moral vs. what is immoral?

Christians claim that without the commandments of God, there is no standard to determine good from evil – morality from immorality. Without the Bible, Christians say, everyone would do what was right in their own eyes, meaning there would be moral anarchy. Supposedly, without God’s mind on the subjects of good and evil, Hitler can be considered every bit as moral as Gandhi. Morality apart from God, it is insisted, would be subject to being decided by majority opinion. And, as we all know, majority opinion frequently changes.

Disobeying God’s commands, according to the writer of 1 John, chapter 3, verse 4, is the definition of sin, the definition of evil.

Okay, if disobeying God’s commands defines evil, then suppose God commanded that lying, stealing and murder were now moral obligations? Would lying, stealing and murder then become good? Would the failure to lie, steal, and murder then become sin? Suppose God ordered slaughter, genocide, and bloodshed – would those actions become good and the disobedience of His order be considered evil?

It’s immaterial to this discussion as to whether God would ever, or has ever, ordered lying, stealing, murder, or genocide. The point is, if He ordered these things, would these actions become moral, and would the failure to obey the commands be immoral? If God commanded genocide, would genocide be good? Is genocide, under any circumstances, the right thing to do?

Christians insist that good is defined by what God commands, whereas my premise is that good is defined independently from any god. If there is no definition of good apart from God’s commands, then we have a real problem. How can we be sure that God, or what He commands, is good?

We have to have an idea of what defines “good” before we can point out that quality in God, or decide that God even fits the definition of good. If God is the definition of good, then we have no information on what good means. If God does not answer to any standard, and whatever he does or commands defines good, then the word good, when applied to God, is meaningless. Everything is potentially good, or potentially evil, depending on the whims of God.

To identify “God’s goodness” we need to have some standard outside of God in order to differentiate his goodness from his other attributes. Without some way to segregate his goodness from his other qualities, we might confuse his power, or possibly his omniscience, with his goodness. Example: If I am trying to purchase white paint, I need to know what white means. I need a point of reference, a way to compare between things. Without a prior understanding of the color white, there would be no way for me to identify the correct color – I might come home with blue paint. I think we’d all agree that the word paint does not in any way define the meaning of the word white.

How about this example: If every time you see me, I tell you I am fat, yet each time you see me my weight has fluctuated up or down by 100 or more pounds, then the word fat, when I use it to describe myself, has no meaning. If I weigh 150lbs, or 300lbs, and I always call myself fat, then if I’m on the phone and tell you I’m fat, the word gives you no information. If good has no definition outside of “God’s commands” then the word good has no meaning when used to describe God, because good is whatever God commands, regardless of what those commands might be. Nearly everyone agrees that genocide, murder, theft, lying, etc. are wrong, but they are either immoral because God says so they are inherently immoral independent of God’s commands. If those things are immoral independent of God’s commands, then moral standards do not originate from God, and God himself finds he must answer to that standard.

If someone insists that God wouldn’t command atrocities, or murder, etc., because of his nature, his justice, or his love, we still run into the same problem. We still have a god answering to a standard outside of him, something defined as justice or love. If God defines love and justice, then again, we have more meaningless words. Another argument is that our own moral judgment is fallen and therefore inadequate to determine right from wrong without God. But if our moral judgment is so unreliable, then how can we rely on it to determine that what God commands is good? I am convinced that the foundational definition and understanding of good and evil – morality, if you will – is independent of the commands of any god. For the most part, people throughout history, regardless of culture or religion, have agreed that lying, stealing, murder, and so on are generally wrong.

However, the finer details of what defines moral vs. immoral behavior does change with the times. Just a few years ago, many good Christians didn’t dance, play cards, wear shorts, or show bare skin at the beach. Now, few Christians see these things as sin. Not long ago in America, slavery was defended as moral by a huge block of Christians. It required a war to decide the issue, and now few would consider a return to slavery as morally desirable. Interestingly, the Bible has been used to support the positions of both sides of these, and many other discussions.

I don’t believe basic foundational morality is defined by majority opinion, but neither do I believe that morality is defined by the commands of a god. When I was a Christian I believed that turning the other cheek was a command of God. Yet, even then I knew that if someone threatened the physical well being of my family, I’d have no compunction in defending their safety. If someone entered my home uninvited, brandishing a weapon, I’d feel no guilt in putting a bullet through the invader’s heart, and society would likely have judged me guiltless.

I believe that a better explanation of the origins of our moral sense is rooted in the primal needs of our species. We are social creatures, who band together in family, tribes, and nations. We crave security and safety. We desire survival for ourselves and for our children. The societal rules and laws we’ve developed over the centuries, the ones that have stood the test of time, find their originations in fulfilling these basic human needs.

Good must be identifiable apart from the commands of a god, or good has no meaning. Therefore, a god is not necessary for defining good and evil.

You’ve been listening to the ExChristain Monologues, a podcast from ExChristian.Net.

Welcome to the ex-Christian monologues, a podcast from the webmaster of exchristian.net.

I’m Dave, the webmaster, and it’s March 26, 2006.

Here’s a comment someone posted on exchristian.net just this morning:

“May I ask you a question?” writes the poster, “How are you so sure that there is no god. I think I understand well the position of agnostics. But I am curious about your conviction of no god. Anybody tell me?”

It is both frustrating and fascinating the number of times I’ve seen this question. The people asking are usually sincere, or appear sincere – they believe they are asking a pretty good question, one the requires a pretty good answer. Some people think that by simply asking that question, or some variation of it, that they’ve made a good point, or proven something.

Another version of the “how can you be sure there is no god” question, would be, “what is your evidence that there is no god?”

Okay, let’s consider this for a bit.

Here’s a statement: There is a god.

Here’s another statement: There is no god.

On the face of it, many people see these two statements as almost two sides of the same coin. What I mean by that is that Christians generally see these two statements: There is a god, vs. There is no god, as equal.

But are they really equal?

Let’s create a scene here. I’m no longer a Christian and I’m talking to a Christian friend. My Christian friend states there is a god and I deny that there is a god. Surprised by my denial, he asks me for my evidence that there is no god. I ask him for his evidence that there is a god and he shakes his head, asking again for my evidence that there is no god.

We seem to be at an impasse.

Then he waves his arms dramatically and proclaims, “Look at the world we live in, the complexity and variety of life, the beauty of creation, the majesty of the heavens. That is evidence of my god.”

I look around, and I have to admit, his description is apt. Life is wonderful and so is the rest of the Universe. I have to agree with him on that. What I deny is that the existence of the Universe gives incontrovertible evidence of a god, or that a god played a role in creating the Universe.

My friend and I share a few common beliefs. We both believe life is grand and that the Universe exists, and is magnificent. Now my friend wants to add another belief to this list, a belief in a god.

Now, I freely admit, I don’t know where the Universe came from, if it came from anywhere. I don’t know why our planet appears beautiful to my eyes, or how life can be so complex. I don’t know – I admit it. My Christian friend has offered an explanation for the existence of these things – things we can both agree are quite remarkable.

Now, this is where the in breakdown in our conversation starts – right here.

My friend is the one offering an explanation for why the Universe exists and why it is the way it is. I am not offering an explanation; I’m claiming ignorance on these points. He is claiming authoritative knowledge.

Now, when someone claims to know the reasons for something, it’s proper to expect some justification from them before accepting the explanation.

Let me put it another way.

Someone could state that the Earth is being held in space and spun by giant invisible spirits. Now, before anyone would be expected to accept that belief, they would be well within their rights to ask for some evidence that supports the belief.

I agree that the world is hanging on nothing and spinning. I might not know how the Earth could possibly hang in space and spin, but I don’t believe invisible ghosts on steroids are pushing it in a steady rotation. I might not even have a better explanation than a “ghost theory,” but I still deny that such a thing is true. It falls to the person who claims to have the explanation to provide the supporting evidence. It doesn’t fall to me to provide evidence as to why I don’t believe in the ghostly world turners. All I need do is state that the evidence presented by the spirit theorists is unconvincing. I need not provide evidence as to why I deny the explanation; I simply deny that the evidence presented is sufficient for me to accept and believe.

Let’s consider another example. A man’s windshield is smashed and he accuses his neighbor of the crime. The neighbor denies having done it, and asks for the accuser’s evidence. The accuser replies with, “Where is YOUR evidence that you didn’t commit the crime?”

I can hear it already! “That’s not the same thing.”

Isn’t it?

Let’s see, the two neighbors agree that there is a smashed windshield. The owner of the car has a belief. He believes his neighbor is responsible for the crime. He thinks the smashed windshield is enough evidence to prove his neighbor’s responsibility in the matter. He offers no evidence for the crime except that there is a smashed windshield and his belief. Everyone can agree there is a smashed windshield, but one person has stated a belief, an explanation for smashed windshield.

Similarly, my Christian neighbor and I agree there is a Universe, but he has offered his belief, his explanation for the Universe. As with the windshield, it falls to the person making the explanation to provide evidence supporting the explanation.

Should the windshield case ever come before a judge, the accuser will need to present evidence supporting his allegation – his belief – first that he has a neighbor and secondly that his neighbor sabotaged his property. The accused will need to present nothing, except maybe to show that the evidence is insufficient to prove his guilt.

Okay, suppose I say I’ve designed wings that when strapped on my arms, will make me fly. My friends deny that I’ve made such a thing. It falls to me to prove my assertion; it doesn’t fall to my friends to prove their lack of faith.

How about I tell you I was taken into a UFO where I had nice chat over tea with Bigfoot. Would you believe me? If not, why not? Any reasonable person would expect me to provide some solid evidence before believing that Sasquatch and I are acquaintances who occasionally have lunch with Extraterrestrials. Skeptics would be justified in saying “I don’t think so.” It wouldn’t fall to the skeptic to give evidence for his or her lack of belief in my little story, no matter how much I believed it myself.

Still, I can hear the Christian voices, “Prove there is no god! See, you can’t prove it! Therefore, God exists!”

The demand for disproof can never lead anywhere. I can say “there is good evidence that a god does not exist.” Then I could challenge the Christian to prove that my evidence doesn’t exist. The Christian could counter with “There is evidence that your evidence doesn’t exist – prove that there is no evidence disproving your evidence.”

The discussion quickly gets confusing and silly and goes absolutely nowhere.

Now if the Christian could offer some evidence that his or her god exists, then a fruitful discussion might ensue.

I don’t believe in Bigfoot, fairies, ghosts that like to play spin-the-world, or Zeus. Until some solid evidence is presented supporting a belief in these things, I can say with much confidence that none of these things exist, except in stories and in the imaginations of some people. I need not PROVE that Bigfoot, fairies, world lifting spirits, or the gods on Mt Olympus don’t exist. It falls to those who state any of these things DO exist to provide the evidence supporting their beliefs.

In a similar fashion, I can claim that the Christian God does not exist. There is simply insufficient evidence supporting the existence of a god. Pointing to the Universe as evidence of Christianity’s god, is much like pointing at the smashed windshield as evidence that the neighbor smashed it. In the story there is a smashed windshield, and how it happened is a mystery. Evidence must be presented showing that the neighbor was indeed responsible for smashing the windshield.

Likewise, there is a Universe, and its genesis is frankly, a mystery.

Now it’s time to see the evidence that supports the Christian’s accusation that the Christian god is responsible for the Universe.