Watch this short clip:
https://screencast-o-matic.com/watch/c0eoDjV4xDd
Now, let’s look under the hood. Remember, reading to death will likely change your mind on what you otherwise believe you know.
Read this, and read this, and read this. Did you find anything that disputes what the pastor claims?
Here’s the link to this article.
I do not consider myself a Christian, or an atheist. If one were to pigeonhole my own personal philosophy with a label, it might be “weak atheist” or “strong agnostic,” because any belief concerning God is completely nonexistent from my mind. However, I don’t reject all religion or spirituality out of hand. Religion and spirituality are an integral part of our humanity. Along with the artistic and intellectual sides of people, they balance our being. The quote by Einstein at the end of my chapter 3 commentary captures the essence of how I feel about religion.
When I began reading Why I Believe, I developed a genuine great respect for the author. I was initially quite impressed with Dr. Kennedy’s intelligence and thoughtfulness. I could understand why a Christian might enjoy his ministry. However, my respect evaporated as I began my quest for further knowledge concerning the subjects on which his book speaks. In this series of essays I discovered some good things in the book, but I have also shown that it overflows with half-truths, misrepresentations, distortions, twisted facts, and outright lies. After researching what Kennedy did not say, I now feel a moral obligation to point out that he appears to be a man whose sources of historical information are unreliable, whose selective pleading cannot be trusted, and who will even lie to promote his religion. I should add that there are many honest Christians who do not make false claims about their faith. One such example I discovered in my search is author Lloyd J. Averill, Professor of Theology and Preaching at Northwest Theological Union in Seattle.
The particular metaphysics of Christianity, whether described in the Bible or elsewhere, is especially suspect in the hands of the kind of Christian who seeks moral absolutism, political authority, and control over other people. Then, Christianity becomes politically partisan and generally dangerous, and its spirituality gets sapped and replaced by an agenda of power. In my view, such Christians are not well-balanced, neither intellectuality nor with their regard for others. D. James Kennedy appears to fit this description.
Is Dr. Kennedy merely ignorant but well-meaning, or is he intentionally deceptive? Regardless of his motivations, I am saddened that many innocent trusting Christians will read his book and accept blindly its contents as fact. Basing your beliefs on such shaky foundations leaves you open to spiritual destruction! If Satan exists at all, he’d probably appreciate this book.
In The Screwtape Letters, C. S. Lewis pointed out that it is on the very altar of God where true believers are most susceptible to Satan. All of the literary stories about the Devil portray him as handsome and smooth-talking, and the people who are blindest to him, to whom he appeals the most, are the most sanctimonious, self-righteous, and self-assured – the leaders of the church!
After all my research, I now believe I have managed to unmask evil masquerading as good. D. James Kennedy, in my mind, is exactly the sort of False Teacher that honest Christians everywhere should rise up against.
Here’s the link to this article.
The remainder of this commentary will touch on a few issues in the remainder of the book. I had collected sufficient notes for a detailed review of each chapter, but these were lost when my computer died forever, before I finished with chapter 7 (though I have a few hand-scribbled notes left). This sounds like a lame excuse for being non-rigorous, doesn’t it? Well, for one thing, I feel I have given a sufficiently rigorous, detailed, and honest commentary on previous chapters to give you a good idea about the intellectual value of Why I Believe; more of the same would only belabor the point. Furthermore, as I approach the end of the book I find less and less material to argue about, for it relies more and more on Biblical interpretation (and more rhetorical fallacies) than rational argument. Lastly, I am tired. This project was a formidable effort for me, albeit enjoyable (learning new things is always enjoyable).
Dr. Kennedy spends much of this chapter on the question of the existence of Jesus. For me, this is a non-issue. I do not deny that Jesus existed. I believe he did. Even if he didn’t, he might as well have, given the profound influence he has had on Western civilization!
This chapter contains some distortions of fact also. Dr. Kennedy claims that Christianity is the world’s largest religion. Perhaps in 1980 when the book was published, yes. Recently I heard from a Christian professor of religion that Islam has caught up, if not surpassed, Christianity in its number of followers. This is impressive given that Islam got started centuries after Christianity. Islam is one of the world’s fastest growing religions.
Dr. Kennedy also makes heavy use of the argumentum ad numerum fallacy in suggesting that the validity of a concept is related to the number of people who believe it (remember, millions of people once believed the Earth was flat), and he makes numerous appeals to authority by quoting the opinions of famous people, in effect saying “I believe this because so-and-so does.” Why does he think this means anything?
Why I Believe hardly touches on the Messianic prophecies concerning Jesus. The chapter 1 Appendix dealt with Messianic prophecy. The efforts in the New Testament to demonstrate that Jesus Christ was indeed the Messiah rely on a number of Old Testament quotes, quotes that are typically out of context. For example, Matthew’s quote of Isaiah 7:14-16 ignores the fact that Isaiah was referring to some would-be contemporary king. And Micah 5:2, which describes the origin of the Davidic dynasty in Bethlehem, is quoted out of context to sound like a messianic prophecy. In reference to Herod’s massacre of baby boys, Matthew quotes a lament in Jeremiah as a prophecy; the original had referred to the exile of Israelites by a conquering king. And Hosea 11:1 was used to demonstrate that Jesus Christ would be taken to Egypt and back, even though it was really a complaint about worshipping other gods rather than the one who aided the Jews in their exodus from Egypt.
Finally, I must mention something about the idea that Jesus is God, an idea considered blasphemous by Muslims, who also believe in Jesus. As explained in one of the arguments in the chapter 3 commentary, Jesus never actually claims this. Our records show that he was given God-status decades after his crucifixion and the deaths of his apostles. In fact, the records were actually altered! From 325 to 381 AD, the Council of Nicea was hard at work on the Bible, tampering and filtering, partly to give the rule of Constantine (Rome’s first Christian-convert emperor) the authority of divine will, but mostly to define the tenets of Christianity as we know it today. In particular, the Nicene Council defined the Trinity – the relation between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
However, the Council of Nicea probably didn’t go so far as to turn Jesus into God. That was finalized in 451 AD by the Council of Chalcedon. The most significant product of this council was the formulation of the two natures of Christ; the relationship between his humanity and deity. My Last Appendix is an interesting parable on this subject of Christ’s deity.
This is a subject I really have no opinion about (although not counting chapter 4, it was oddly one for which I had collected the most notes – see “The Historicity of the Resurrection: The Debate Between Christians and Skeptics” by Jeff Lowder for a much more detailed treatment). However, I can, as before, make some comments about what Kennedy writes on the subject. In particular, he offers as evidence a stream of non sequiturs, such as the Easter holiday, Christian art, and hymnals, to show why he believes Christ was resurrected. Kennedy shows us a good example of argumentum ad antiquitatem; that is, arguing that something must be right because it is established by ancient tradition.
The evidence is based on myth. People want to believe some amazing things. For example, I recall an experiment where a magician performed in front of a classroom of college students. The performance was designed to give the magician the appearance of a person with occult abilities, who could talk to spirits and demons and read minds. Most of the class, when surveyed, fearfully believed his occult abilities were legitimate. Another class was shown the same performance, and then shown how each trick was done, and still most of the students reported in their questionnaires that they believed the performer had occult abilities, in spite of being shown that the performance was nothing more than simple tricks! Many people will believe what they want to believe, and their convictions will not be changed by facts. Similarly, I suspect that nothing could possibly sway Dr. Kennedy from his preconceptions.
Similar to C. S. Lewis’s “trifurcation” argument described in the chapter 3 commentary, Dr. Kennedy gives us another one concerning the resurrection. He says there are only three alternatives to choose from: the apostles lied, they were deceived, or Jesus did rise from the dead. I have already described a fourth likely possibility: that reports of the resurrection were after-the-fact changes to Scripture. Add to that the fact that all four gospels contain contradictions of the events of the resurrection (see the contradictions in the chapter 1 commentary), and one finds that Dr. Kennedy’s belief rests on quite a shaky foundation indeed.
This is the book’s second weakest chapter, next to the one on creationism. I say this because, while the chapter contains some truth, Dr. Kennedy has to lie to support his thesis. Specifically, he asserts that Christianity has had only positive influences throughout history, and is responsible for women’s rights, the end of slavery, and scientific progress! He also lies about the religions of Islam and Buddhism. Let’s examine these issues.
Kennedy dismisses the Inquisition by claiming that the perpetrators were “not true Christians.” I think he’s probably right, although this is known as the “no true Scotsmen” fallacy. Using it makes one’s argument totally unassailable (and uninteresting). For centuries, people claiming to be true Christians have been using their religion to justify all manner of atrocities. As mentioned in the chapter 3 commentary, Hitler had similar justifications to those employed by perpetrators of the Inquisition: “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” (from Mein Kampf). And he certainly believed he was a Christian! Pulitzer Prize winner John Toland wrote in Adolf Hitler:
The Fuhrer made it known to those entrusted with the Final Solution that the killings should be done as humanely as possible. This was in line with his conviction that he was observing God’s injunction to cleanse the world of vermin. Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy (“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so” [quoting Hitler]), he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of God. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of God – so long as it was done impersonally, without cruelty.
Even today, people who consider themselves true Christians continue to use their beliefs to rationalize any act, for God’s will must be moral and right! Examples today are given by religious fundamentalists wanting to pass laws proscribing private consensual behavior, or murder doctors who perform abortions. An outsider like myself looks at all this, and, seeing both the Good and the Evil affects of Christianity, observes that anything can be justified within the bounds of its ethical system, and I must conclude that Christianity cannot possibly be the wonderful entity that Dr. Kennedy claims it is.
Kennedy credits Christianity with the abolition of slavery. In the Bible, God found slavery acceptable, and indeed, the whole Bible takes slavery for granted as part of human civilization. Dr. Kennedy forgets that the same Civil-War-era Southern Christianity, in which Kennedy’s own denomination has its roots, was the glue that bound together the whole culture of the South, in which slavery was an integral part. It’s a good thing our country grew out of it, although the religion from that dark time still persists in the various forms of fundamentalism.
Incredibly, Kennedy also claims “Christianity has brought to the world liberty and freedom.” Does he know nothing of history? Let’s take a brief look at the freedom of men and women from the beginnings of Western civilization onward:
Maximum| m = men Freedom| w = women | | mm | mmm wm | mmmmm mm w w +mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm m m ww w |wwwwwwwwwwwwwww wwww m m w w | w w w mm mmmm m w | wwwwwwwww w m m m m w | ww m m wwww mm w Maximum| w mmmmmmmmmm w w w Oppression| wwwwwwwwwwww ww -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | | | 1300 1000 500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 BC --d-- AD Periods: -------a------- ----b---- ---c--- -----e------ --f-- -g- -h- ijklmn
Description of each period:a. 1300 – 450 BCAncient Greece. Women are relatively free and exercise influence over men, but are subject to legal and sexual double standards.b. 450 – 27 BC:Enlightened Greece. Courtesans hold the highest positions of individual rights available to women. High-class prostitutes are held superior to wives, who are considered as housekeepers with few rights.c. 27 BC – 385 AD:Roman Empire. Increased economic freedom and a drive for individual freedom brings new rights and respect for women. Double standards are diminished with a drive for women’s liberation and equality.d. 200 – 385 AD:Christianity established. As Rome surrenders to this new religion, it plunges into altruism and asceticism, causing massive destruction and suffering. The high standard of living enjoyed by the Romans gets wiped out. Women lose almost all rights as Christianity rises in power, subjecting them to new, heavy oppression. Ominous parallels are developing today with rising fundamentalist, born-again, and anti-abortion movements.e. 385 – 1000 AD:Dark Ages (the unhappiest period in history). The rise of Christian power increases emphasis on self-torture and denial. Marriage comes under Church domination. Christians become more preoccupied with sex than ever as they struggle against lust (for example, by burning off fingers to resist temptation).386: St. Augustine converts to Christianity; promotes guilt through books like Confessions (criticizing his youth), and The City of God, his major work which states we are born between feces and urine, speculates how babies might be born from women “uncankered by lust and sex,” and generally displays passionate hatred for human life.By 585, Christians argue that women do not have souls and debate if women are even human beings. Sex is reduced to an unromantic and ugly act with penance granted easily to men whenever required. Women become pieces of disposable property.By the 9th century, Christianity dominates everyone’s lives. Women are considered the property of men. The Church sanctions wife-beating. Men are merely fined for killing women. Noblemen have a “natural right” to rape any peasant woman and deflower the brides of their vassals. Sex without values (rape, prostitution, sadistic sex) is not a serious offense, but sex with values (with love) is sinful: St. Jerome states that he who ardently loves his wife is an adulterer. However, the major Christian sin is not sex, but pleasure.f. 1000 – 1300:Pre-Renaissance. Courtly love challenges Christianity, elevating women to more equal partners with men, and generally reflecting happiness and countering religion’s malevolence. The Church fears and fights courtly love; for example, St. Thomas declares it a mortal sin to kiss and touch a woman with delight, without the thought of fornication. The primary struggle is between oppressive religion and Renaissance free-thinking.g. 1300 – 1500:Renaissance. Truth and Renaissance weaken Christianity. Growing enlightenment with spreading economic freedoms begin liberating human minds and reason from the dark, brutal mysticism of Christian theology. The Church develops an ominous interest in witchcraft and exorcism, and fights back the Renaissance with witch trials, killing, torturing, and burning women to death.By 1450, the Catholic church, losing its power, establishes the dogma that all physically desirable women are evil witches as a means to fight the rediscovery of human joyfulness brought on by the emerging Renaissance.In the 15th century, Renaissance nobleman equate beauty to good, the Renaissance enlightenment makes sex seem not so sinful, and the middle class begins to associate sex with love. The Church counters this trend by releasing heretofore unknown malefactors, the inquisitors, backed by papal pronouncements and bulls, leading to horrible tortures, primarily against innocent women.h. 1500 – 1700:The Puritans. This is a mixed period of Reformation, combining the enlightened Renaissance with the malevolent Christian position that continued to burn women as witches. On one hand, Martin Luther fights Rome, claiming that marriage is a civil matter, not a sacrament, that sexual impulses are natural and irrepressible. John Calvin, however, sets up a brutally strict theocracy in Geneva, even stringently regulating legitimate love.By the 16th century Puritans fuse the ideals of romantic love with the normality of sex in marriage. Women’s status improves, as do property rights and inheritance laws. Marriage becomes a civil contract.i. 1700 – 1800:Age of Reason. Rationalists of this new age reject Christianity’s gloom, abandoning the portrait of women as evil. Although men respect women for their minds, women are often considered as toys or ornaments, and the status of women declines slightly as sex becomes reduced to sensuality and pleasurable sport (probably as a backlash to past suppression). However, the rise of suppressive religious Victorianism results in increases of flagellation, pornography, and prostitution.j. 1800 – 1850:Victorianism. Freedom of women declines further as Victorianism gains strength. Men seek shy, virginal women. Women are glorified and idealized, but this is only a new pretext for their continued subjugation. Many doctors consider sexual desire in women to be pathological. Women begin revolting against their “pure” and “glorious” status.k. 1850 – 1900:Decline of Religion and Victorianism via the Rise of Capitalism and the Emancipation of Women. The rise of capitalism accelerates the dissolution of medieval religious ties along with their unjust social customs and racism, crippling the influence of the Church, and creating the atmosphere and pressure for female suffrage, individual rights, divorce reform, and equal legal and economic rights. Capitalism breaks the stifling, unjust religious/feudal class patterns. Women gain significant economic rights for the first time since the anti-Christian, pagan Roman Empire. Religious Victorians try to fight the inevitable changes brought on by the new industrial civilization, via religious coercion, government force, and police activities.l. 1900 – 1960:Rise of Romantic Love and women’s rights are still opposed by Christianity; for example, Catholic elements arrest and jail Margaret Sanger after she claims that a woman’s body belongs to her alone, publishes birth control information, and opens clinics. Women increasingly become equal to men in romantic relationships. A product of capitalism, the modern sexual revolution demolishes most of the Christian-Victorian patterns of anti-sexual, patriarchal oppressiveness.m. 1960 – 1980:The sexual revolution toward openness and honesty cause Christianity’s malevolent influence over sexuality to wane.n. 1980 – present:An ominous rise in fundamentalist religions, spread via electronic media, signal a turn back toward the malevolent views of life, love, sex, and individual rights.
Kennedy believes, correctly I think, that the Inquisition consisted of persecution of true Christians by others who followed a perverted form of Christianity. The efforts of Martin Luther, resulting in Protestantism, accomplished much in the way of assisting Western civilization’s escape from the clutches of an organized religion that had grown too powerful. However, as you can see from history, the Inquisition was but a small black mark in a much longer history of oppression.
How can a non-Christian know who is, or who is not, a true Christian? Dr. Kennedy obviously believes he is, but in his book Why I Believe, he is not only passes judgments on both honest Christians and non-Christians (see chapter 4), but he employs many dishonest tactics throughout the book to support his convictions. Is this the work of a true Christian? And if not, why should we trust anything he says about Christianity?
Kennedy writes, “Freedom is one of the gifts of Christianity.” History shows this to be mostly false. Even though the prevalence of Christianity has been highly correlated in history with human misery, Kennedy is correct in saying that Christianity has been greatly beneficial to many people and cultures. Indeed, many people need it. I recall a survey in a Christian discussion group on the internet, in which participants were asked how they would react if they lost their religion. By a 2 to 1 margin, respondents said they would abandon all pretense of morality. Christianity, and religion in general, does serve a useful function in instructing people how to get along with one another. Not all of us need a religion for this purpose, however.
Dr. Kennedy’s most outrageous lies concern other religions. He claims that science could not have originated in the Muslim culture because of its belief in fatalism. This is ridiculous on two counts. First, Islam is no more based in fatalism than Christianity; Muslims believe in free will. Second, much of our science has roots in Muslim culture, especially medicine and astronomy. We use an Arabic number system, and many terms (like algebra) have Arabic roots. Furthermore, in chapter 1, Dr. Kennedy lies about the Qu’ran not containing specific examples of fulfilled prophecy. Muslims will tell you that the Qu’ran is not a book of prophecy (they have other books for that), but nevertheless they can point out specific examples, just as Kennedy can with the Bible. I was appalled to read his lies about Islam. To cure his inexcusable ignorance, all he had to do was ask a Muslim! It’s so simple. He didn’t have to invent falsehoods.
He also lies about Buddhists and Hindus in stating that they believe that “the physical world is not real, that nothing exists but God and all this is merely imagination.” Buddhist teachings and philosophy contain no instructions to worship any gods – Buddhism is essentially an atheist religion! And the Hindu concept of God is obviously beyond Kennedy’s capacity to contemplate. To learn the truth, all he had to do was ask a follower of any of these religions. Dr. Kennedy, however, has no choice but to lie if he wants to make Christianity look like the sole source of scientific achievement.
Finally, he lies in saying that only through Christianity could education come to the world. This is true in some countries, but false in others, such as Asian countries like Japan, where Christianity has little, if any, influence, where the level of education is among the highest in the world. It is interesting that in the absence of Christianity, Japan also does not have many of the civil problems that plague Christian countries in Europe, North America, and South America.
These chapters describe more “what” than “why,” so I will not comment at length.
I find myself in agreement with Kennedy’s exhortation to be born again, but not in the sense he means. I have met several born-again atheists, who became happier people by shedding the chains of religion from their lives. If becoming a born-again Christian brings a person happiness and fulfillment, I am all for it. Likewise for being born again into Buddhism, Islam, Shinto, Taoism, New Age thought, or anything else that brings fulfillment and growth. Anything that brings spiritual and intellectual stagnation, however, must be rejected. Unfortunately, it seems that many Christians succumb to this stagnation after being born again. Why I Believe, which does more to demonstrate Kennedy’s ignorance than to provide a rationale for a belief system, is evidence of that.
The chapter on the Holy Spirit was, to me, one of the most interesting, because it dealt with a concept difficult for Christians and non-Christians alike. This chapter is more of a theological discussion than an answer to challenges from nonbelievers.
The only thing I can say about the chapter on the return of Christ is “we shall see.” Ever since Revelations declared that the events described would happen “shortly,” Christians throughout history have been trying to fit the situations of their day to Biblical prophecy in an effort to convince others that the Apocalypse is at hand, and Dr. Kennedy is no exception.
Here’s the link to this article by Bart Ehrman. It covers something I’d never really thought about. Interesting. Makes sense that it’s non-sense to believe that a Bible with errors precludes someone remaining/becoming a Christian.
May 15, 2017
I have recently received a number of inquiries about why realizing there may be mistakes in the Bible might lead someone to become an agnostic. Here is one that came a few days ago:
QUESTION:
I want to thank you for your extensive work in explaining … your journey from believing that the bible contained no errors to proving the bible is not inerrant and simply the work of human writers. What I would like to be explained is the necessary logic to go from believing that the bible is not inerrant or the “word of God” to believing there is no God.
RESPONSE
My view of the matter may seem odd to a lot of people, but it is nonetheless held by most critical scholars of the Bible and trained theologians. What is the “necessary logic to go from believing that the bible is not inerrant … to believing there is no God? There is no necessary logic at all.
I have never thought that …
To See The Rest of this Post you need to Belong to the Blog. If you’re not a member, JOIN! It won’t cost much, you’ll get a lot of bang for your buck, and every buck goes to fight poverty. So no one loses and everyone wins — including you. So JOIN!I have never thought that recognizing the historical and literary problems of the Bible would or should lead someone to believe there is no God. The only people who could think such a thing are either Christian fundamentalists or people who have been convinced by fundamentalists (without knowing it, in many instances) that fundamentalist Christianity is the only kind of religion that is valid, and that if the assumptions of fundamentalism is flawed, then there could be no God. What is the logic of that? So far as I can see, there is no logic at all.
Christian fundamentalism insists that every word in the Bible has been given directly by God, and that only these words can be trusted as authorities for the existence of God, for the saving doctrines of Christianity, for guidance about what to believe and how to live, and for, in short, everything having to do with religious truth and practice. For fundamentalists, in theory, if one could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that any word in the original manuscripts of the Bible was an error, than the entire edifice of their religious system collapses, and there is nothing left between that and raw atheism.
Virtually everyone who is trained in the critical study of the Bible or in serious theology thinks this is utter nonsense. And why is it that people at large – not just fundamentalists but even people who are not themselves believers – don’t realize it’s nonsense, that it literally is “non-sense”? Because fundamentalists have convinced so much of the world that their view is the only right view. It’s an amazing cultural reality. But it still makes no sense.
Look at it this way. Suppose you could show beyond any doubt that the story of Jesus walking on the water was a later legend. It didn’t really happen. Either the disciples thought they saw something that really occur, or later story tellers came up with the idea themselves as they were trying to show just how amazing Jesus was, or … or that there is some other explanation? What relevance would that have to the question of whether there was a divine power who created the universe? There is *no* necessary relevance. No necessary connection whatsoever. Who says that God could not have created the universe unless Jesus walked on water? It’s a complete non sequitur.
The vast majority of Christians throughout history – the massively vast majority of Christians – have not been fundamentalists. Most Christians in the world today are not fundamentalists. So why do we allow fundamentalists to determine what “real” Christianity is? Or what “true” Christianity is? Why do we say that if you are not a fundamentalist who maintains that every word in the Bible is literally true and historically accurate that you cannot really be a Christian?
Suppose Jesus did not walk on water. Does that lead to the conclusion that he must not have died for the sins of the world? Why would it lead to that? The only connection you can make between the two assertions – Jesus walked on water; Jesus died for the sins of the world – is extremely torturous. Sure, there are people on the blog right now who are probably concocting some kind of logical connection between these two statements. But think about it for a second. What is the necessary connection? There is none.
If Mark made a mistake when he said that Abiathar was the high priest when David and his men ate the showbread in the Temple, that has absolutely no bearing on the question of whether God exists as a Trinity. No connection.
You should not think: yes, but the only reason we believe that God is a Trinity (if “we” believe that) is because it’s what the Bible says, and if the Bible contains errors, then it must be erroneous in *that* as well. Here are several key points:
First, of all, there is no necessary reason why if the Bible makes mistake about one thing it is mistaken in everything. Even if there are mistakes in the Bible (there are) that doesn’t mean that everything in it is wrong (it is not).
Second, the doctrine of the Trinity is not actually taught in the Bible in the form that theologians came to develop it later and that is believed on by people today.
Third, in fact there are non-trinitarian ways to read the entire Bible, including *all* of the Old Testament and *most* of the New Testament. What we think of the doctrine of the Trinity was developed on the basis of logical, philosophical argumentation that used scattered verses of the Bible as proof texts for views that developed on other grounds. There were, and are, non-Trinitarians who base their views on proof texts as well. It is not a necessary teaching of Scripture.
Fourth, there were Christian believers for centuries before we even had a Bible (the 66 book canon we have today). Were they not believers because they did not believe in the Bible? They didn’t have a Bible. In fact there are millions of Christians in the world today who don’t have the Bible.
Fifth, more important, there are all sorts of Christian denominations, Christian theologians, and just regular ole Christians – in fact, the majority who are walking the earth – who do not think that fundamentalist Christianity is right, or anywhere near right.
So, is there a logical and necessary connection between the idea that there are mistakes in the Bible and the belief in God. No, no necessary connection at all.
So why did I become an agnostic once I came to think there are mistakes in the Bible. Short answer: I didn’t. Realizing that there are problems in the Bible had almost nothing to do with my becoming an agnostic. I’ll explain all that in later posts.
Here’s the link to this article.
Note: At this point, my hard-working little laptop computer died for good. Fortunately, I had backups of my finished work (chapters 1 through 6 and the Appendices), and work-in-process (chapter 7). However, all of my references and my collection of notes covering subsequent chapters, painstakingly gathered over four months, were lost. I will combine into a single essay the chapters remaining after this one.
This chapter of Why I Believe is probably the strongest one in the book. Dr. Kennedy does a decent job describing various moral systems, and he makes a fairly good case, with only a few glaring weaknesses, for the moral system offered by Christianity. He is right to criticize Christians for failing to bother their heads with an understanding of various moral philosophies, including their own. I would recommend a study of diverse philosophies to anyone, especially nonbelievers, for such a study provides firm ground to stand on when confronted by the onslaughts of fanatical religious zealots.
Kennedy gives adequate, if brief, descriptions of some of the prevalent ethical systems, but his interpretation of them leaves something to be desired. He rails against astrology and behavioristic psychology as being deterministic systems, without realizing that his own ethical system includes an omniscient god, which arguably makes his system deterministic by setting up God as an outside controlling force, trivializing the free will Kennedy venerates. In his description of the teleological ethical system (which emphasizes the goodness of the end result of an action) Kennedy blames evolutionary thought on a Christian giving Darwin a geology book (implying, essentially, that learning science is somehow evil). Evolutionary thought was prevalent before Darwin, and his conclusions were based on evidence collected during his voyages, not from a geology book. Kennedy also shows he misunderstands situational ethics with his example that equates a motive of love with a casual affair calculated to improve the emotional well-being of a lonely woman.
I was happy to see that Kennedy seems to hold a low opinion of altruism, a practice which many Christians believe should be an integral part of their lives. He rightfully recognizes altruism, which is seeking the good of others through self-sacrifice, as a basis for communism and socialism. Nevertheless, Christians practice altruism because this was also an element of the teachings of Jesus. Altruism is a basis of many religions, including Christianity. It is an evil system embodying the concept of human sacrifice. The altruistic ethics of giving value through sacrifice contradict the moral ethics of providing value to others through productivity.
Having touched upon different ethical systems, Kennedy then gives the reader three flawed items of cautionary advice, which I will address here:
1. Speculative, rationalistic systems reject revelation and base the weight of their support upon the conceptions of the human mind. Therefore, their limitations should be obvious at once.
My response to this is, “Revelational systems reject reason, and base the weight of their support upon divine enlightenment from some mythical being. Therefore, their limitations should be obvious at once.”
What else is there besides the human mind, if we are unconvinced of God’s existence? Morality results from objective reasoning that determines whether a given thing is either inherently good for the conscious human organism or inherently bad for the conscious human organism. A truly complete rational system automatically takes into account the universal interconnecting relationships between all humans in their social organism to arrive at mutually beneficial ethical decisions.
2. Rationalist systems are all man-centered. God is banished from his universe and has no right to tell his creations what to do.
That sounds like a Good Thing to me. Besides, rationalist systems don’t “banish” God anywhere. How can you banish something which is either nonexistent or irrelevant?
3. All human ethical systems are willful rebellion against the Almighty God.
This is redundant. Again, one cannot rebel against something whose existence is questionable or irrelevant.
Kennedy also divides, wrongly, the whole matter of ethics into two groups: speculative and revelational. He completely ignores objective ethics. The philosophy of Objectivism, conceived by Ayn Rand, is a strict, logical, moral system that gives meaning and fulfillment to the lives of many people, meeting all human needs without requiring a god, and without the internal contradictions and conflicts associated with religious systems. Much literature has been written by and about Ayn Rand and Objectivism. For a rewarding background study of this philosophy, read one of her novels, notably the literary classic Atlas Shrugged.
In this chapter, Kennedy makes the following incredible declaration: In the Scriptures we have a perfectly balanced ethical system that meets all human needs, and in the Hebrew-Christian tradition, good is inevitably connected with God. These are lies. Human needs do not include, for example, sex with guilt, or the threat of damnation. And for God’s goodness, refer back to the section on God’s moral’s and manners in the commentary on chapter 3. We can look at what Christians call morality, based on the edicts from their God, and then ask “Are the actions of God consistent with the morality that he prescribes?” and we find that the answer is no. The usual argument from Christians is: “We cannot understand why God appears to be inconsistent with his morality, because we are finite beings, incapable of God’s infinite understanding.” This strikes most nonbelievers as a convenient excuse for not having a good retort.
Why assume God has a higher claim to morality? Christians make that leap by assuming he has more knowledge. Let’s examine an analogy. We could assume that Newt Gingrich has more political answers than we do, since he has spent his whole life immersed in politics. We could assume the same of Bill Clinton. Yet, the answers they provide do not match up, and are on occasion wholly contradictory. It therefore falls upon each individual to examine what is truly right and wrong, and not take the word of any one being just because he is a self-described expert. The Bible portrays a God who acted as a moral judge, yet found such things as slavery, racism, genocide, rape, and xenophobia occasionally acceptable. Humanity has since decided otherwise, and in a similar fashion will probably even change God’s mind regarding homosexuals over the next several decades.
If one considers that we seem to have evolved as social creatures, then many of those behavioral norms that Kennedy attributes to Christianity are actually biological imperatives. Imagine how long a social species would survive if its members were free to kill each other at will. Not long! Animals do compete with each other, in limited ways, and within set rules – those who willfully destroy their rivals find themselves ostracized.
It is likely that the capabilities of the human mind actually result from natural selection developing our ability to distinguish others’ intentions, good from bad. Evidence for this can be found in a study (from Scientific American) in which subjects were asked to solve two comparable sets of logic/math problems, one in pure, abstract form and the other within a social context. Guess which ones people found easier? Our brains are designed to solve problems within contexts, especially the social context in which we evolved.
Morality does not have to derive from God. The source of Christian ethics, now as always, is the ethical/moral system of the society in which we live. These values have evolved along with society. They’re simply the rules that have enabled our society to survive. Our comprehension of Revealed Truth guides our reactions and modifications to the Christian ethical system, which is rooted in human nature, society, and history. Except for the possible role as creator of human nature, God is quite unnecessary in this scheme as a “foundation” of morality.
You don’t need religion for a complete ethical system. Ethical values should not rely on belief in mythical beings. The supposition that you must act ethically to please some invisible, unknowable God is a pretty weak basis for “morality,” especially since the supposed God’s moral codes are not only provided indirectly through handed-down legends, but are also of questionable value, considering his behavior as described in the Bible.
In the absence of religion, we form a moral belief system by opening our conscience to the needs and desires of others. A Christian acts according to the demands of his or her deity; a nonreligious person acts out of compassion. Remember the empathy principle? Feel as others feel in response to your actions.
Atheists, humanists, or nonreligious people in general, have ethical systems based on relationships with people. That’s pretty absolute. No one out there will come and save us; we need human solutions to human problems. No mythical being is out there to “love” everyone; we need to care for ourselves.
Take a morality from God. Why act in a particular way? “God said so.” This is morality from authority. Dr. Kennedy believes in moral absolutes, but authority is, of course, relative, not absolute! Stanley Milgram’s experiments demonstrated this quite well. Participants would accept the authority of the “experimenter” and promptly 42% would shock an unwilling “subject” (actually an actor) screaming in pain, pleading to be released and eventually not responding. Those who accept morality from the authority of God, over the connections between them and other human beings, may form immediate followings behind any alternate authorities, because they don’t understand morality and how it relates to other people. So, if the leader of a country says that certain people are sub-human vermin, they follow the leader. Just like God, he must be right. He’s authority.
Let’s look at a few moral absolutes that don’t require religion. These are things I consider to be black-and-white absolutes. Everyone has unique values, but certain basic actions never change in terms of rightness or wrongness; they do not vary according to opinion, personality, age, or culture. Objectively good or bad actions are definable in absolute terms; other actions cannot be judged as good or bad because they are determined by individual personal preferences or feelings. As with actions, objective morals are also independent of anyone’s opinions or proclamations. They are not created nor determined by anyone. It is important to remember that a person’s feelings, lifestyle, desires, and needs can vary greatly without altering that person’s character. Objective, natural moral absolutes exist according to the following criteria:
Note that “human organism” does not necessarily equate to “self.” This is important. These criteria lead to the following basic moral absolutes:
Throughout human history, ethical systems based on religions have been oriented against some or all of these absolute moral principles. Many find that adhering to these principles requires liberating oneself from religious binds by casting religious dogmas out from one’s life.
The Bible does not present a highly advanced moral code. In fact, despite positive aspects, it presents a primitive, crude, suspicious, sexist moral code that is becoming, to the dismay of fundamentalists, ignored more and more in modern society, and for good reasons. Perhaps this ethical system suited people in Biblical times; but they were mistaken. Sexism, racism, slavery, genocide, and superstition are always immoral tools with which to run a society. We’ve had the benefit of history and fine examples of poorly-run societies (the rise of Christianity coincided with the decay of the Roman empire, Christianity reached its peak of power in the Dark Ages, and today we see religion-controlled governments, like Iran, floundering with unhappy and disturbed populations); we should know better than to follow a failed moral code.
In my view, faith constipates the mind. It restrains people from much cerebral activity they might otherwise be capable of. You don’t need a God for an ethical system. In the end, the answer is simple: You should be good because it is good to be so.
Here’s the link to this article by Hemant Mehta.
This Substack newsletter is free, but it’s only able to sustain itself due to the support I receive from a small percentage of regular readers. Would you please consider becoming one of those supporters? You can use the button below to subscribe to Substack or use my usual Patreon page!
Republicans in Oklahoma had the chance to ban corporal punishment against students with disabilities… but failed to pass the bill today, in part because one legislator said beating kids with special needs was biblical.
Oklahoma currently permits corporal punishment in public schools. That’s a problem in and of itself, but the law at least has a carve-out exempting students with “the most significant cognitive disabilities.” Teachers can theoretically spank kids but a handful of students are off-limits.
House Bill 1028, sponsored by Republican State Rep. John Talley, was designed to broaden that exemption so that it applied to all students with disabilities. GOP State Rep. Anthony Moore signed on as a co-sponsor of the bill specifically because he thought this would be an easy vote. “There’s going to be nobody who’s for corporal punishment on students with disabilities,” he said.
He must have forgotten that he’s surrounded by other Republicans from Oklahoma.
They will always find a way to defend abuse in the name of Jesus.
State Rep. Jim Olsen argued earlier today that the Bible permits hitting a child as a form of discipline—therefore that option must be available to teachers.
You know, several scriptures could be read here. Let me just read just one: Proverbs 29: “The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself bringest his mother to shame.”
So that would seem to endorse the use of corporal punishment.
So how would you reconcile this bill with scriptures…?
Who cares. It’s the Bible and he’s a legislator. We don’t need to run policy ideas through his favorite book.
Olsen later cited Proverbs 13:24, the infamous verse that gave us, “Spare the rod, spoil the child.” Kudos to the Tulsa World for including this line in its article:
Olsen did not turn to Deuteronomy 21:18-21, which is usually translated as God ordering that “stubborn and rebellious” sons be stoned to death.
And what about the American Academy of Pediatrics, which supports banning any form of physical discipline against children because there’s plenty of evidence showing the harm it causes in the long term?
Olsen didn’t care.
“God’s counsel is higher than the American Academy of Pediatrics,” said Olsen. “God’s word is higher than all the so-called experts.”
To paraphrase a famous line, Olsen acts like he placed his hand on the Constitution and swore to uphold the Bible. It’s supposed to be the other way around.
But the Bible wasn’t the only way a Republican defended hitting kids with disabilities. Another one said teachers needed the threat of discipline in order to coerce kids to do their bidding.
Rep. Randy Randleman, R-Eufaula, made a different argument from Olsen’s against HB 1028. A child psychologist who often infuses religion into his medical opinions on the House floor, Randleman this time said spanking is almost always inappropriate but is sometimes called for. And he said teachers need the threat of corporal punishment to maintain classroom order.
“‘You can’t touch me.’ I hear that over and over. I don’t want to hear that in school,” said Randleman.
If your classroom is so chaotic that physical discipline is your only solution, you shouldn’t be a teacher. And if you’re someone who thinks threatening children—special needs children!—with abuse is the only way to maintain order, you shouldn’t be anywhere in a position of power. Yet here we are.
Today’s vote in the House was 45-43 in favor of exempting kids with disabilities from physical punishment in schools. That sounds like good news… but because there are 101 members of the State House, 51 votes are needed for a bill to pass. That’s why the bill was technically defeated. More than a dozen legislators were absent for the vote.
Because neither side had the majority, the bill may come up for a vote later in the legislative session. 10 Republicans have yet to cast a vote on this matter. At least a few of them would have to do the right thing for the bill to pass.
Democratic State Rep. Forrest Bennett put today’s vote bluntly:
Forrest Bennett @ForrestBennett
Good morning from the Oklahoma House Chamber, where a pastor and a psychiatrist (who are also legislators) are fighting *AGAINST* a bill that would ban corporal punishment for students with special needs. It’s 2023 outside; it’s 1880 in here.2:45 PM ∙ Mar 14, 2023872Likes211Retweets
“It’s 1880 in here” should really be Oklahoma’s State Motto.
Incidentally, hitting kids has long been a core belief among fundamentalist Christians. Years ago, Michael and Debi Pearl wrote an infamous guide to faith-based abuse called To Train Up a Child. It’s a book that tells adults how to properly hit their kids, and it’s as awful as it sounds, recommending that Christian parents physically discipline kids as young as six months with “the same principles the Amish use to train their stubborn mules.”
In Oklahoma, this isn’t just theoretical. Corporal punishment is legal in the state and school officials take advantage of that:
Oklahoma educators reported using physical discipline 3,968 times during the 2017-18 school year, according to the most recent federal data available from the Office of Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education. The federal government reported that corporal punishment was administered at more than 1,800 Oklahoma schools.
Ultimately, the Sunday School teacher who routinely cites the Bible to defend horrible policies used his power to defeat a bill so that more vulnerable students could be hurt just a little more. He’s the sort of guy who wants to protect kids from learning about systemic racism while making sure teachers have the option to beat students with disabilities.
All because his Christian faith taught him that abuse is more important than compassion.
Watch, listen, think.
Richard L. Fricks 