Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Wednesday, May 24, 2006 | Reason : Science of Religion | print version Print | Comments

Document Reply to a Christian

by Sam Harris

Reply ChristianFrom SecularHumanism.org

Since the publication of my first book, The End of Faith, I have received thousands of letters and e-mails from religious believers insisting that I am wrong not to believe in God. Invariably, the most unpleasant of these communications have come from Christians. This is ironic, as Christians generally believe that no faith imparts the virtues of love and forgiveness more effectively than their own. Please accept this for what it is: the testimony of a man who is in a position to observe how people behave when their faith is challenged. Many who claim to have been transformed by Christ's love are deeply, even murderously, intolerant of criticism. While you may ascribe this to human nature, it is clear that the hatred these people feel comes directly from the Bible. How do I know this? Because the most deranged of my correspondents always cite chapter and verse.

Before I present some of my reasons for rejecting your faith – which are also my reasons for believing that you, too, should reject it – I want to acknowledge that there are a few things that you and I agree about. We agree that, if one of us is right, then the other is wrong. The Bible either is the word of God, or it isn't. Either Jesus offers humanity the one, true path to salvation (John 14:6), or he does not. We agree that to be a real Christian is to believe that all other faiths are in error and profoundly so. If Christianity is correct, and I persist in my unbelief, I should expect to suffer the torments of hell. Worse still, I have persuaded others, many close to me, to persist in a state of unbelief. They, too, will languish in "everlasting fire" (Matthew 25:41). If the claims of Christianity are true, I will have realized the worst possible outcome of a human life. The fact that my continuous and public rejection of Christianity does not worry me should suggest to you just how unsatisfactory I think your reasons for being a Christian are.

You believe that the Bible is the literal (or inspired) word of God and that Jesus is the Son of God-and you believe these propositions because you think they are true, not merely because they make you feel good. You may wonder how it is possible for a person like myself to find these sorts of assertions ridiculous. While it is famously difficult for atheists and believers to communicate about these matters, I am confident that I can give you a very clear sense of what it feels like to be an atheist.Consider: every devout Muslim has the same reasons for being a Muslim that you now have for being a Christian. And yet, you know exactly what it is like not to find these reasons compelling. On virtually every page, the Qur'an declares that it is the perfect word of the Creator of the universe. Muslims believe this as fully as you believe the Bible's account of itself. There is a vast literature describing the life of Muhammad that, from the Muslim point of view, proves his unique status as the Prophet of God. While Muhammad did not claim to be divine, he claimed to offer the most perfect revelation of God's will. He also assured his followers that Jesus was not divine (Qur'an 5:71-75; 19:30-38) and that anyone who believed otherwise would spend eternity in hell. Muslims are convinced that Muhammad's pronouncements on these subjects, as on all others, are infallible.

Why don't you find these claims convincing? Why don't you lose any sleep over whether or not you should convert to Islam? Please take a moment to reflect on this. You know exactly what it is like to be an atheist with respect to Islam. Isn't it obvious that Muslims are not being honest in their evaluation of the evidence? Isn't it obvious that anyone who thinks that the Qur'an is the perfect word of the Creator of the universe has not read the book very critically? Isn't it obvious that Muslims have developed a mode of discourse that seeks to preserve dogma, generation after generation, rather than question it? Yes, these things are obvious. Understand that the way you view Islam is precisely the way every Muslim views Christianity. And it is the way I view all religions.

Christians regularly assert that the Bible predicts future historical events. For instance, Deuteronomy 28:64 says, "The Lord will scatter you among the nations from one end of the earth to the other." Jesus says, in Luke 19:43-44, "The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you." We are meant to believe that these utterances predict the subsequent history of the Jews with such uncanny specificity so as to admit of only a supernatural explanation. It is on the basis of such reasoning that 44 percent of the American population now believes that Jesus will return to earth to judge the living and the dead sometime in the next fifty years.

But just imagine how breathtakingly specific a work of prophecy could be if it were actually the product of omniscience. If the Bible were such a book, it would make specific, falsifiable predictions about human events. You would expect it to contain a passage like, "In the latter half of the twentieth century, humankind will develop a globally linked system of computers – the principles of which I set forth in Leviticus – and this system shall be called the Internet." The Bible contains nothing remotely like this. In fact, it does not contain a single sentence that could not have been written by a man or woman living in the first century.

Take a moment to imagine how good a book could be if it were written by the Creator of the universe. Such a book could contain a chapter on mathematics that, after two thousand years of continuous use, would still be the richest source of mathematical insight the earth has ever seen. Instead, the Bible contains some very obvious mathematical errors. In two places, for instance, the Good Book gives the ratio of a circumference of a circle to its diameter as simply 3 (1 Kings 7: 23-26 and 2 Chronicles 4: 2-5). We now refer to this constant relation with the Greek letter p. While the decimal expansion of p runs to infinity – 3.1415926535 . . . – we can calculate it to any degree of accuracy we like. Centuries before the oldest books of the Bible were written, both the Egyptians and Babylonians approximated p to a few decimal places. And yet the Bible – whether inerrant or divinely inspired – offers us an approximation that is terrible even by the standards of the ancient world. Needless to say, many religious people have found ingenious ways of rationalizing this. And yet, these rationalizations cannot conceal the obvious deficiency of the Bible as a source of mathematical insight. It is absolutely true to say that, if Archimedes had written a chapter of the Bible, the text would bear much greater evidence of the author's "omniscience."

Why doesn't the Bible say anything about electricity, about DNA, or about the actual age and size of the universe? What about a cure for cancer? Millions of people are dying horribly from cancer at this very moment, many of them children. When we fully understand the biology of cancer, this understanding will surely be reducible to a few pages of text. Why aren't these pages, or anything remotely like them, found in the Bible? The Bible is a very big book. There was room for God to instruct us on how to keep slaves and sacrifice a wide variety of animals. Please appreciate how this looks to one who stands outside the Christian faith. It is genuinely amazing how ordinary a book can be and still be thought the product of omniscience.

Of course, your reasons for believing in God may be more personal than those I have discussed above. I have no doubt that your acceptance of Christ coincided with some very positive changes in your life. Perhaps you regularly feel rapture or bliss while in prayer. I do not wish to denigrate any of these experiences. I would point out, however, that billions of other human beings, in every time and place, have had similar experiences – but they had them while thinking about Krishna, or Allah, or the Buddha, while making art or music, or while contemplating the sheer beauty of nature. There is no question that it is possible for us to have profoundly transformative experiences. And there is no question that it is possible for us to misinterpret these experiences and to further delude ourselves about the nature of the universe.

If you have read my letter this far, one of two things has happened. Either you have perceived some error that is genuinely fatal to my argument, or you have ceased to be a Christian. Please don't hesitate to contact me with any errors you may have found. You could yet save me the torments of hell.


Sam Harris is the author of The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. His next book, Letter to a Christian Nation, will be published this fall by Knopf.

Comments 1 - 21 of 21 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #275 by Tim on September 24, 2006 at 1:33 pm

Ah, a text full of the classic Dawkins error: telling me what I believe in order to perpetrate a composition of rude straw-man on top of bifurcation fallacies...

There is so much baggage behind merely the phrase "literal (or inspired)", there are so many possible angles on John 14:6, so many attitudes to hell, indeed several approaches on the "viability" of other faiths, that really this "letter" is just annoying.

"The fact that my continuous and public rejection of Christianity does not worry me should suggest to you just how unsatisfactory I think your reasons for being a Christian are."

When you fail to consider that a data-set might have values contrary to the stereotypes you're attempting to impose on it, you are failing to make a scientific research of the domain. When people are involved in the process, they get pissed. Unsurprisingly, therefore, I consider Dawkins a bad spokesman for the atheist camp. Come back when you've included the moderate majority and a bunch of libierals in your research.

2. Comment #276 by Tim on September 24, 2006 at 1:36 pm

"I like suggesting to christians that genesis must be wrong because we have wisdom teeth. Bible thumpers believe we were created as we are today about 6000 years ago. "

Good for you. I await your glee when you find a Christian who also works on the principle that there is truth in the theory of evolution through natural selection. You'll be surprised, you don't get anywhere by assuming *everyone* else is an idiot (except on the roads).

3. Comment #316 by Nick on September 25, 2006 at 1:11 pm

I'm Nick, by the way.

4. Comment #376 by Damien on September 27, 2006 at 9:05 am

The biggest leap of faith is to somehow conclude that God as depicted in the bible is in anyway a decent guy.

5. Comment #382 by Throwaway on September 27, 2006 at 12:55 pm

Nick,
Thank you for your response to the article. I disagree with Stew's assertion that you are refusing to examine your beliefs. Instead, it seemed to me that you simply found this particular challenge to your beliefs to be incomplete/unsubstantiated.

6. Comment #1791 by Richard on October 16, 2006 at 8:52 pm

Excellent article.

All the worlds major religions cannot all be true, however ,they CAN all be false. The fundamental precepts of these religions are incompatible. You can`t be a Christian if you don`t believe that Jesus was divine and was resurrected. Nor can you be a Muslim if you believe in the divinity of Christ or disbelieve that the angel Gabriel revealed himself to the prophet Mohammed.

None of the primary claims of the world religions seem to have any evidence outside of the holy books themselves . A fact that leads one of a more critical nature to strongly suspect that they are all products of religious mythology. A suspicion that is backed up by an understanding of many other pagan religions that preceeded them. (Mithra,Dionysis,Horus-etc)

7. Comment #3181 by Anonymous on October 26, 2006 at 7:05 am

Nick, all those site veiw the world through faith tinted spectacles and are basically preaching to the converted. Take away faith and they have no real content of any merit (not that faith gives them any merit anyway)
Here are a few sites of my own for you to read that refutes many biblical events
http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/central.html
http://www.greenwych.ca/bible-a.htm
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/fabulous-prophecies.html
http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/bible.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/peter_kirby/tomb/index.shtml

Read also the bible unearthed for more on the events in the bible that never took place

have fun!

8. Comment #13861 by Cable on December 19, 2006 at 8:16 pm

Sorry for the late entry into this discussion; I just discovered it. For myself I agree with Anonymous Two. Allow me to present my own version of her(?) argument, somewhat less elegantly:

Sam Harris:
If you have read my letter this far, one of two things has happened.

Or perhaps Mr. Harris is simply not as convincing as he believes he should be. He seems angry, and that doesn't help. I know some bright people who are Christian believers. It is of course extra difficult to make an argument that any intelligent opposition will find convincing, while positively dripping chunks of superiority. This is one of many characteristics of this webpage that makes me think it is atheists who are the target audience of Mr. Harris' argument, not Christians as it would seem to suggest in its title.

As far as I'm concerned, and I dare say most Christians would agree, Nick#16 and Anonymous Two#32 have effectively dismantled Mr. Harris' argument. Since there is little obvious agreement on this, I feel obliged to try to restate their points:

Sam Harris:
the obvious deficiency of the Bible as a source of mathematical insight... Why doesn't the Bible say anything about electricity...

Isn't this an argument to convince yourself, not a believer? I'm unclear why the Christian bible must contain any reference to advanced learning to be genuine. Of course that would have been an incredible convencience for all of us, "just too easy" to quote Dawkins, but seems well outside the scope of the work. The Christian bible need not be a trove of mathematical knowledge in order to live up to its advertised function, a timeless though hardly encyclopedic collection of truths.

Besides, the Bible quotes Jesus as saying something about how much more blessed are future believers who make their decision on faith alone. That's a fantastic statement and fully one argument in ten I've ever heard about the Christian bible ends up visiting it. Once again into the same tepid bathwater: How impossible would extra blessed faith have been for all time, had Jesus then gone on to explain 20th century biology or mediaeval European agricultural practice to his hapless followers? Indeed I think it's safe to conclude that the Christian bible emphatically could not have made any such revelations without giving up (even more) self-consistency, and this point is a non-starter.

every devout Muslim has the same reasons for being a Muslim that you now have for being a Christian.

Personally I find more compelling the similar intra-Christian argument that even between Catholics and Protestants, each believes the other is going to hell. But it is convenient for me that you chose Islam to make your point. I heard a Baptist preacher once declare Islam to be a Christian heresy. I think he must be right. It seems to fit the definition. Obviously then to a Christian, Muslims are all sadly mistaken and will pay for it in the afterlife. Arguments about equivalence of religions are unconvincing to a religious person.

True, for the sheer joy of playing for a while in the field you've laid out Mr. Harris, I've deliberately side-stepped what I believe is your actual argument, that similar religious experiences with contrary conclusions invalidate both. To address your point directly however, I'll say that it's not necessarily true. The simple presence of disagreement does not invalidate both sides. Anonymous Two has already made this point, and argumentative people are fighting over the allegory she used to make it while ignoring the point itself. It seems an obvious point to me.

The Christian bible warns of false prophets. Of what interest is a prophet without followers? Obviously then some people will be deceived. Bible predicted it. Is that not an argument that Islam and the fervour with which it is practiced are evidence of the Bible's accuracy, and Christianity's truth? No really, it is.

--

I've addressed the entire argument, haven't I? Personally I agree with you, Mr. Harris. However I find your argument unconvincing, and your presentation self-defeating. Onward to cherry-pick a few follow-up comments I found interesting.

Mark#24:
if an all-wise, all knowing God had written the Bible, it would be much better--better written, more accurate, more informative, more interesting.

You know there's some nice poetry in the Christian bible. I want to agree with you: it would have been fantastic if that poetry had been the best poetry ever written. Maybe it is the best poetry ever written, and sadly we are incapable of appreciating it. Nevertheless the distinction should be self evident between an instruction manual dictated by benevolent flying saucer jockeys and a book of history and philosophy written for rural sheep herders.

Admittedly the Christian camp is somewhat split on the subject of whether the original text comprising their bible is a faithful record of verbatim dictation. Nevertheless it would be strange to argue that the love poetry to God was dictated by God. That leaves open the argument of which parts may be dictation, and toward which audience God dictated those parts. It's an interesting argument, but not a damning one.

Fred#28:
What I find comical ... utterly infantile ... "God" is ... pathologically obsessed with ... genitals ... narcissistic ... lacking in self-esteem ... emotionally dysfunctional ... Why not just love us unconditionally like any kind parent...

He isn't human, so it's a bit of a lost cause, subjecting him or people's impressions of him to Freudian analysis.

rabidrobot#29:
I think Mr. Harris' arguments are both eloquent and devastating...

I find them cogent enough, yet wide of the mark and unconvincing.

Religion and faith are not logical, and few really deny that. If there were a reason, so to speak, to believe someting, it would not be faith.
--and--
Andrew#35:
Faith is specifically belief that does not depend upon logic or evidence. If you have good reason to believe something then by definition you are not taking it on faith.

Not so. Without going into boring detail let me simply encourage you both to trust me in stating the obvious: religious people familiar with logic find their own beliefs to be entirely logical. Many religious people arrive at their faith from logic. Secular logicians sometimes perceive a dichotomy between faith and logic, but theologians don't share that opinion. Indeed quite the opposite. I suggest reading some Christian philosophy for clarity. Chesterton might do the trick.

That biology student from Liberty University I saw on the recording of Dawkins' recent reading at Randolph-Macon, the one who was baiting Dawkins by opening with that blatant booby-trap about blind and reasonable faith, was trying to present a philosophical argument with roots as old as Aristotle. His teachers truly believe that scientific logic is just as unjustified as this crowd believes religious logic to be, and some of them are equally haughty about it. So now what?

An omnipotent being must be able to do anything it wants but either answer contradicts this - if you say yes then it can't lift the rock, if you say no then it can't create the rock.

Ah, logic. This argument is simply a harmless parlour disagreement about the term from human language most appropriate to apply to God. I've had some fun with this chestnut at the occasional party, but it has limited application to sober discussion.

If your response is going to be to claim that God allows suffering for some higher purpose (e.g. free will)

I wouldn't presume to explain God; a concept beyond my comprehension by definition. Old Testament God rained a lot of pain on people, and his reasons are often unclear. He seems cruel to me, but maybe that's a fault of my own inappropriate perspective. Maybe God is cruel, simple as that, and you'd better use tongue if you'd like him to kindly not drag you back from the dead and ceaselessly smack your mortal gob for the duration of his entire life, just because you upset him once.

The arguments on this page are designed to encourage the atheism of atheists, but as always there's nothing here that won't wash harmlessly off the backs of the religious.

Other Comments by Cable

9. Comment #13869 by John Phillips on December 19, 2006 at 10:14 pm

I think the argument that Sam Harris is making though obviously not clear enough for many here, is that if the bible really is the word of god one would expect there to be more clarity, not forgetting the myriad contradictions to be found in it. He used mathematics as one example, especially as one of the only pieces of maths in it, i.e. pi=3, is so obviously flawed, even more so when the actual value of pi was already known with some accuracy prior to the bible being written but perhaps not known by the humans writing the relevant verses. As to Nick's interpretation of this as being rounded to the nearest cubit, I simply find this rationalisation after the fact.

As to other questions Sam Harris raises, such as prophecies, again the point is why are the ones that are made so lacking in clarity with none that actually match the reality of the world since. As one would assume that it would be simple for a god to phrase them in such a manner that both the society in existence at the time as well as future societies could understand them. Yet all we find in prophecies is at the best obfuscatory, a method we know that humans have practised for millenia, and still do, to try and increase their prominence in the eyes of their followers.

As to Nicks proof or evidence based on history, using this argument perhaps one could argue that islam is more likely true than xtianity. As we know that Mohamed did actually exist and that he did carry out many of the actions credited to him. This is in comparison to a number of contradictory tales written at least a hundred years after his supposed existence about Jesus. Not that I make any claims for islam based on this distinction as I look at the evidence for both religions and find it wanting, to put it mildly.

The problem from my point of view with both religion, as well as others, is that however you argue it, without faith there is no religious belief. For Nick may try to define faith any way he likes, but many important religious people have essentially said faith is belief without rational evidence and make a great virtue of belief based on faith. E.g. St. Augustine said "Faith is to believe what we do not see; and the reward of this faith is to see what we believe", sounds delusional to me, but then I am picky like that and St. Thomas Aquinas said "Faith has to do with things that are not seen". Thus if there was rational evidence, i.e. the things unseen could be seen, there would be no need for faith as the seeing would be the evidence.

Therefore, until someone actually provides more than hearsay to support the existence of a god or gods then I shall remain an atheist. However, that is the difference between the atheist and the believer, the believer is happy with belief based on, what we see as simply no more than hearsay, whereas the atheist requires actual evidence and on presentation of such evidence would change their position. Tell me, what would change the mind of the believer?

Other Comments by John Phillips

10. Comment #14332 by jeffreyg on December 22, 2006 at 4:25 am

Arriving late to the party, I've got to say that I think John's really summed this up, dragged us back to topic and brought the whole thing to a proper conclusion.

And that Nick with his "faith"? Just priceless.

Other Comments by jeffreyg

11. Comment #15436 by Cable on December 31, 2006 at 9:41 am

John#46, I think your post is an interesting demonstration of my point from #45. Both sides can look straight at an argument for the other side and utterly miss its import. It's incredible to see.

That thing about believing that the Christian bible should report facts more accurately, it's interesting, but only to a non-believer. It's rather like the creationists' claim that evolution should be more transparent. Evolution doesn't conform to Christian ideals, and the Bible doesn't conform to atheist ideals. Both arguments are designed to reinforce the opinions of people on the side that hatched them, but neither is applicable to the opposing camp.

Other Comments by Cable

12. Comment #35383 by coolwainy on April 27, 2007 at 3:28 am

'Why doesn't the Bible say anything about electricity, about DNA, or about the actual age and size of the universe?' The purpose of the Bible is not to explain these things. It provides a guide for how best to live our lives, and provides us with a perfect example in human form of how to do so, which no other religion does. (I understand what Mr Harris is saying about how Christians would perceive other religions, but we have very good reasons for discrediting other religions, reasons which other religions cannot in turn use to discredit Christianity. There is not nearly enough room to go into these here, but there are enough books which explain these reasons).

'...imagine how good a book could be if it were written by the Creator of the universe. Such a book could contain a chapter on mathematics that, after two thousand years of continuous use, would still be the richest source of mathematical insight the earth has ever seen.' This again is completely missing the point - Mr Harris obviously does not understand what the Bible is if he thinks it should contain a section on maths. How does maths explain how to treat our brother or sister as we would treat ourselves, or how to forgive or how to love or lead a selfless life or how to give what we have to the poor?

Other Comments by coolwainy

13. Comment #35385 by BaronOchs on April 27, 2007 at 3:38 am

 avatarI see your point coolwainy. But the bible is willing to use miracles to demonstrate (or attempt to demonstrate) its truth. I think I recall when Jesus heals a paralysed man he forgives his sins first then just to show he has the necessary powers also allows him to walk.

Given the fact that even if those miracles did happen they are extremely trivial events (whats 5000 people fed for one meal when uncountably many have and are starving to death) might he not as well have showed his worth by proving Fermat's last theorem (Jesus' last theorem rather!) or something?

Other Comments by BaronOchs

14. Comment #35391 by coolwainy on April 27, 2007 at 3:51 am

Mark, there is an excellent book entitled 'The Case for Christ' in which an atheist sets out to disprove that Christ existed and was who he said he was and ends up coming up with the opposite conclusion through careful study of the evidence.

Other Comments by coolwainy

15. Comment #35400 by Philip1978 on April 27, 2007 at 4:09 am

 avatarcoolwainy,
I agree with you on the maths front, but I think it stems from my ineptitude at it! hehe

A couple of things I would like to discuss, if you want
I think Sam Harris was making the point that only a 1st century group of people could ever have written the bible and it not really looking like the work of an omniscient deity. It seems odd that there are so many discrepancies and different points of view in the bible that no god could ever have had a hand in it or am I defining your god in the wrong manner?
Isn't it also a little weird that it was decided in 325 AD at the Council of Nicea what should go in the bible including which gospels to eject, that jesus should be the son of or a diety etc I can't help but feel that it was in fact man that created his gods and not the other way around.

Good example of this is Norse Mythology, Snorri Sturluson wrote a poem in 1222 and that is considered a good authority on the gods that have now become legend. Can you tell me if I should believe that Odin, Vile and Ve created the world from Ymer's body based on what Snorri says or should I base my beliefs on the bible? I cant see the difference in either of those two or again am I reading things wrong?

The stories from the bible also seem somewhat suspect, take the story of Jesus, isnt that simply a reiteration of the Egyptian Book of the Dead's god Ossiris? They are strikingly similar stories, indeed almost identical.

I am not looking for a fight on this, more of what your points of view on this matter are, I am simply interested in what you have to say, be good to hear from you,
Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

16. Comment #35401 by coolwainy on April 27, 2007 at 4:20 am

BaronOchs, I agree in a way that some of the miracles that Jesus is said to have performed may be considered to be trivial by the fact that they only affected a handful of people, but surely his reasons for doing so were to provide an example of how to treat others? By feeding the 5000 he was demonstrating that we should look out for our fellow human beings when they are in times of need and give to those less fortunate. A selfless being would not perform a miracle to show off or prove his divinity after all.

I would argue that Jesus proving Fermat's last theorem is far more trivial than feeding the 5000 or indeed any of the other miracles he performed - how would that in any way benefit humanity? This touches on the excellent points that Nick makes in comment 16. on here.

Other Comments by coolwainy

17. Comment #35404 by daveadams on April 27, 2007 at 4:25 am

John Phillips, some of your comments are incisive, but others are just plain inaccurate. I presume by "a number of contradictory tales" about Jesus you are refering primarily to the gospels. Are you aware that it is generally accepted in academia that the gospels were written within 50 years of Jesus' death? If someone was to write a first-hand account of the Holocaust now, would you take it to be accurate? I suspect you would, and that was over 60 years ago. 50 years is not actually a long time for first-hand accounts of events.

Secondly, refering to Mr Harris' article, I can't help but get the feeling that he misenterprets what real virtue is. Would a creator see the greatest virtue in human beings as being intelligence? Or do you think he would prefer his people to simply love and worship him, and to treat each other with love and respect? Why, then, would the creator include a chapter in a book on mathematics? The purpose of the bible is clearly to teach about God and how he wants us to understand him - teachings that do not require a deep understanding of mathematical theorems or quantum physics.

Let's face it, intelligence is not the highest virtue. What kind of set of beliefs (including atheism) would see it as such?

Other Comments by daveadams

18. Comment #35408 by BaronOchs on April 27, 2007 at 4:40 am

 avatarcoolwainy I recall the theologian William Barclay suggested that rather than being a feat of physics, numerous of the 5000 had food in their possesion from the beginning. But only at Jesus' inspiration did they become willing to share it with the others, upon doing which it turned out there was in any case a surplus of food.

I've no idea whether it is true or not but I think this non-miraculous account is of greater significance than the notion of loaves and fishes popping out of thin air.

If their had been some maths or science in the bible it might have greatly helped the status of these in medieval europe, where knowledge fell well below that of the greeks. And I think that would have been beneficial for humanity.

Intelligence is not the highest virtue (I don't know that there is any "highest virtue") but it is a virtue, and one that the bible could do with giving a bit more time.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

19. Comment #35414 by gcdavis on April 27, 2007 at 5:05 am

 avatarFor much of human existence there has been certainty. The certainty of hunger, poverty, subservience, disease and death.

But now, at least for the developed world and despite our wealth, there is increasing uncertainty about jobs, how to raise kids, relationships, sexuality, security, trust.

In our uncertain world many people still crave certainty. Religion gives it to them.

Other Comments by gcdavis

20. Comment #35434 by SRWB on April 27, 2007 at 6:29 am

"Are you aware that it is generally accepted in academia that the gospels were written within 50 years of Jesus' death? If someone was to write a first-hand account of the Holocaust now, would you take it to be accurate? I suspect you would, and that was over 60 years ago. 50 years is not actually a long time for first-hand accounts of events."

I'm not sure that we can draw a valid comparison between accounts of Jesus' life and the holocaust as you have suggested. For one, those who wrote the gospels had an agenda (political, faith-driven, etc) to pursue, so might have succumbed to a little bit of propagandizing and deliberate distortion to further that agenda. Second, levels of literacy in the ancient world were unlikely to be as high as they are today. Spreading stories by word of mouth is notoriously inaccurate even within a small group (games like telephone or Chinese whispers) let alone over a relatively short span of 50 years. Coupled with high illiteracy rates was the almost total lack of media capabilities, i.e., newspapers, newsreels and radio, etc., to corroborate the details like with the holocaust.

Other Comments by SRWB

21. Comment #56184 by lostn on July 14, 2007 at 10:48 am

Not at all, using just the attribute of omnipotence, God could create prevent all evil and suffering, but could have no desire to. Not that this is my belief, but your assertion doesn't establish a contradiction against the concept of omnipotence.

Ahh! But that creates more problems, for you see, God is also attributed as being Benevolent or All-loving, All-good, whatever.

Evil and suffering exist, and he may have the power to end it but not the desire to. If he has no desire to do so, then he isn't benevolent at all.

Epicurus said it best:

"Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"

Mark, there is an excellent book entitled 'The Case for Christ' in which an atheist sets out to disprove that Christ existed and was who he said he was and ends up coming up with the opposite conclusion through careful study of the evidence.

That book doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The author claims to have been a skeptic to give himself more credence to other skeptics, but was always in actual fact a believer masquerading as a skeptic. You can tell by his flawed investigation. All of his 'sources' were christian sources, and not one did he seek out someone from the other side of the fence. The book is so full of problems that another author wrote a follow up book debunking it, called Challenging the Verdict. It points out just where the author's logical problems lie. I recommend YOU check out that book.

Other Comments by lostn
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: