Why Faith Fails The Christian Delusion Read online

from contrary evidence. But this also means the external evidence does not have

  to support their faith, so why bother with apologetics at all? Why not just preach

  the Bible, as neo-orthodox theologian Karl Barth suggested?

  Christians have long ago abandoned the horrible and barbaric view of an

  eternal fire-and-brimstone hell (thanks in no small measure to Robert G.

  Ingersoll in the nineteenth century) and replaced it with a metaphorical one

  described as "the absence of God." Now with a globally connected world of

  diverse, sincere religious believers, more and more Christians are embracing

  annihilationism (a la Johnathan L. Kvanvig in The Problem of Hell), whereby

  the sinner simply goes out of existence upon dying. But if this is the case, why

  would Jesus die for us if all he did was save us from nonexistence? And so why

  fear hell at all? How is it any punishment to simply cease to exist? And why

  bother evangelizing if this is so?

  Christians are also embracing "Open Theism" in light of problems with time,

  relativity, and the notion of a timeless God (a la Clark Pinnock, editor of The

  Openness of God). It's now believed by more and more Christians that God

  doesn't have foreknowledge of future free-willed human actions. Still other

  professing Christians go one step further by embracing "Process Theism" or

  panentheism, especially in light of the fact that there is no satisfactory answer to

  the problem of evil for a perfectly good omnipotent God (a la David Ray Griffin

  in God, Power and Evil. A Process Theodicy). Process theists simply deny God

  has omnipotence. He cares. It's just that he can't do much about it but persuade his creatures to do good. But if Christians can deny God has foreknowledge and

  omnipotence then why not also deny God cares for us? A few have done just that

  (a la John K. Roth in chapter 1 for Encountering Evil. Live Options in Theodicy,

  ed. Stephen T. Davis).

  Christians are also arguing that Satan is the reason why animals have suffered

  for millions of years on this planet before the advent of human beings (a la

  Gregory Boyd in Satan and the Problem of Evil). In the past, apologists believed

  animal suffering resulted from the supposed fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden

  of Eden. Now in a post-Darwin world they are laying the blame on Satan's

  activity before a human fall, or by arguing that the fall retroactively caused

  natural suffering (a la William A. Dembski in The End of Christianity: Finding a

  Good God in an Evil World). Others, like R. C. Spoul and Russell Moore, have

  decided that in order to answer this vexing problem they must reaffirm young

  earth creationism.1 And yet other professing Christians have rejected the

  existence of Satan and the historicity of the Garden story altogether (a la Conrad

  Hyers in The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science). But once

  Christians admit there are nonhistorical myths in the Bible, the floodgates are

  open to consider it may all be mythical.

  In light of the effectiveness of the scientific method of naturalism, Christians

  are now forced to defend their faith by arguing that "everything should be fair

  game" for the critical scholar-that scholars need to be open to the possibility that

  any claim, no matter how strange, is, technically speaking, "on the boards" (a la

  Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd in The7esus Legend). But once every claim, no

  matter how bizarre, is truly considered fair game, then what's to stop people

  from believing in, well, anything and everything?

  Then, too, Christians are adopting Preterism (or partial Preterism), which is a

  view of eschatology attempting to answer the problem of Jesus' failed prophesy

  of the consummation of the ages after two millennia. Many Christians are now

  claiming these prophecies were fulfilled metaphorically in 70 CE, with the

  destruction of Jerusalem (a la N. T. Wright in .7esus and the Victory of God).

  But in making this case, they must claim the whole history of theology was

  wrong to say otherwise, and if that's true, then why should we accept anything

  the church has believed from the beginning?

  In light of philosophical problems with regard to personal identity after death,

  many Christians are now claiming Jesus did not bodily rise from the grave. According to them he arose spiritually in some sense. (a la John Shelby Spong,

  Resurrection: Myth or Reality? along with others). But once this is granted,

  what's the difference between seeing spiritual bodies from merely seeing visions,

  which have no objective reality to them? Liberal Christians like these are well

  along the road to atheism.

  Many professing Christians are even embracing the homosexual by arguing

  that a homosexual lifestyle is not a sin. Sixty-eight clergy in Madison,

  Wisconsin, in May of 1997 affirmed that "homosexuality is neither sickness nor

  sin", while the US Anglican

  Church voted to allow gay bishops. Christians have repeatedly reinterpreted the

  Bible on slavery, women, democracy, science, the environment, and animal

  rights, as we became socially and scientifically enlightened. But then, if the

  Bible is this malleable, capable of being interpreted differently in every

  generation, how can exegetes really think they have the correct interpretation of

  it at all? And what's there to prevent Christians from using the Bible to support

  future changes if and when the world embraces socialism, homosexual

  marriages, assisted suicide, cloning, and family planning (like abortion)? Some

  already do.

  The Christianity of the past was different than today's Christianity. Nearly all

  modern Christians would have suffered under the Office of the Inquisition with

  what they believe, it's so far removed. And the Christianity of the future will be

  just as different as the presently accepted one. Shouldn't Christians just walk

  away from their faith and recognize it as the delusion that it is, once it has been

  shown to be false? But that's not what they'll do. Instead, they will reinvent it.

  This happens in every generation, even if there remain pockets of Christians who

  embrace the views of the past. It's too bad, really. Like a chameleon, Christianity

  will always change its colors as the surroundings change with each subsequent

  generation.

  So with a book like this one it'll be no different. Rather than admit the

  arguments contained herein have been successful, Christians will simply change

  what they believe in order to keep their faith. Will existentialism or fideism or

  mindless Pentecostalism be the wave of the future? Probably so. But for

  believers who are intellectually honest with themselves and the arguments, I

  suggest it's time to get rid of the dizziness that swirls in your head by jumping

  off the merry-go-round of faith. Let me finally make a comment on the title to this book. Unlike the bestselling

  atheist book of all time that targets religion in general, The God Delusion by

  Richard Dawkins, this one has a more specific target: Christianity. The word

  "delusion," by my Microsoft Word 2002 Encarta World English Dictionary, is

  defined as: "1. false belief: a persistent false belief held in the face of strong

  contradictory evidence, especially as a symptom of a psychiatric condition; 2.


  mistaken notion: a false or mistaken belief or idea about something." While I

  personally think in most cases people are brainwashed by their culture to

  believe, the title is not meant to convey that believers have any psychiatric

  disorders because of their faith. Just keep in mind as you read through this book

  that brainwashed people do not know that they have been brainwashed.

  The phrase "faith fails" in the subtitle suggests that religious faith does not

  stand up to rigorous scrutiny. Let me provide an example from what one

  Mormon said about the skeptical book.7oseph Smith and the Origins of the Book

  of Mormon:

  I could probably spend a few years of my life trying to find dirt on the

  author of this book and likely, I would find some. The question is: why

  would I? Yes, it's very easy to find dirt on someone, if that's what you are

  looking for, because the bottom line is: people believe what they want to

  believe. If you want to KNOW something, why not ask the only one who

  truly knows: God? That was Joseph Smith's message. That was the message

  of the Book of Mormon. It was also the message of our Savior, who said:

  "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall

  be opened unto you" (Matthew 7:7). Or you can refer to the scripture

  quoted by the prophet himself: "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of

  God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be

  given him.... But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that

  wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let

  not that man think that he shall receive anything of the Lord" (James 1:5-7).

  I know Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. Not because some person

  told me, and not because some man showed inc a book full of evidence

  (there is much evidence for those who want to find it). I know, because like

  7oseph Smith, Igotdown on my knees, in faith, and asked my Heavenly

  Father if it was true. You cannot know anything, but by God. What do you

  have to lose? I'm not giving you my opinions. I only invite those who wish

  to know the truth ... If you want to know, ask God, I prornise you that He will answer if you honestly seek only the truth.2

  This Mormon claims that people who don't believe don't want to. He's not

  offering his opinions either. He knows because he has the inner witness of God

  in his heart. And he claims there is "much evidence" for anyone seeking it. Does

  any of this sound familiar to other believers? That's why faith fails. Faith can

  lead people to justify whatever they were raised to believe-that's why. So in

  order to test one's faith, every believer must subject it to a brutal examination of

  the evidence and the arguments. There is no other way.

  To honest believers who are seeking to test their own inherited religious faith,

  this book is for you. Our contention is that when you subject your own faith to

  the same level of skepticism you use to scrutinize other faiths, you will find out

  why faith fails.

  NOTES

  1. R. C. Sproul, Truths We Confess: A Layman's Guide to the Westminster

  Confession of Faith

  "A Creationist Watches Animal Planet," Southern Seminary Magazine 74, no.

  2. J. C. Gregersen, "Do You Really Want to Know?" review of.Joseph Smith

  and the Origins of the Book of Mormon, 2nd ed., by David Persuitte,

  One of the great mysteries is why, despite the best arguments against it,

  religion survives. After all, every argument in support of religion has been

  shown to be inconclusive or demonstrably false, yet religion persists; of course,

  if the case for religion in general fails, then the case for any particular form of

  religion, like theism or monotheism or Christian monotheism, naturally fails too.

  If religionists/theists/monotheists/ Christians would just be rational, would just

  listen and think, atheists grumble, they would see their error and abandon their

  erroneous ways.

  Ironically (or not so ironically), religionists/ Christians confront the same

  stubborn resistance-and not only from atheists. The problem is especially acute

  for them when trying to "share" their beliefs with members of nonChristian

  religions, both other "world religions" and those "primitive" or "traditional"

  religions against whom Christians relentlessly send missionaries. Why don't

  those people accept Christianity, and why don't they accept it in the form that

  existing Christians practice and teach it?

  I fear that discerning Christian proselytizers, who have been doing this for

  much longer than atheist polemicists, have discovered the answer, and it is an

  answer that those who want to "win" the contest and to influence society must

  heed-namely, culture. From the earliest Jesuits in the Americas to contemporary

  missionaries in remote villages, successful promoters of Christianity have

  realized-and exploited-the fact that religion is not only about, not even mostly

  about, "beliefs" and "arguments" but about a worldview, a way of life, and a

  learned and shared and produced and reproduced regimen of experience.

   In this chapter, I will illustrate how the concept of culture is relevant to the

  understanding, practice, and success of Christianity in particular and religion in

  general and how some cunning Christians know this and have used it to their

  advantage for a very long time. I will further show how the concept of culture

  reduces Christianity into just another cultural phenomenon, operating by the

  same processes and yielding the same results as any cultural phenomenon. One

  of the key qualities of culture is diversity: there is no such thing as "Christian

  culture" but rather "Christian cultures"; indeed no such thing as Christianity but

  rather Christianities. This will also explain, finally, why the efforts to debunk

  and displace Christianity through evidence and logic-the atheist's stock in trade-

  have been and will continue to be largely futile. Christians are not easily argued

  out of their religion because, since it is culture, they are not ordinarily argued

  into it in the first place.

  CHRISTIANITY AS CULTURE

  Culture is the central concept in my chosen profession, anthropology. I could,

  therefore, present an anthropological view of the concept, which I hope that

  readers will seek out, perhaps in my new textbook on cultural anthropology.1

  Instead, I want to demonstrate how professional Christianity has absorbed and

  deployed the concept quite intentionally and remarkably effectively.

  Unbeknownst to most rationalists, atheists, and academic anthropologists,

  Christian missiologists (those who study and teach the ideas and methods of

  mission work) have generated a considerable literature on the subject and

  actively share and perfect their craft.' Whole organizations, institutes, and

  publishing houses (like Orbis Books and Zondervan, to name but two) exist to

  fulfill these functions. The challenge for missionaries is that the groups upon

  which they descend already have their own religions and, more problematically,

  have their own languages and values and institutions
that tend to support those

  religions and to make Christianity strange and incomprehensible or to defy it

  altogether. Smart mis sionaries understand that they must penetrate these barriers

  and invade and co-opt these languages, value systems, and institutions (which is

  why translation of the Christian scriptures into local languages is such an urgent

  goal for them), and, as quickly and completely as possible, either dominate or

  replace these systems and institutions with ones of their own making and in their

  own image.

  In Winter and Hawthorne's Perspectives on the World Christian Movement,3

  which amounts to a guidebook for culture-aware missionaries, many of the

  chapters are dedicated to spreading the message of the critical importance of

  culture. Charles Kraft, one of the leading figures in the project, describes culture

  as "the label anthropologists give to the structured customs and underlying

  worldview assumptions [by] which people govern their lives. Culture (including

  worldview) is a people's way of life, their design for living, their way of coping

  with their biological, physical, and social environment. It consists of learned,

  patterned assumptions (worldview), concepts and behaviors, plus the resulting

  artifacts (material culture)." 4 I think that most professional anthropologists

  would regard this as a workable characterization of culture.

  Kraft goes further, though, to enumerate several more advanced qualities of

  culture:

   • Culture "provides a total design for living, dealing with every aspect of

  life and providing people with a way to regulate their lives."

  • Culture "is a legacy from the past, learned as if it were absolute and

  Perfect."

  • Culture "makes sense to those within it."

  • Culture "is an adaptive system, a mechanism for coping. It provides

  patterns and strategies to enable people to adapt to the physical and social

  conditions around them."

  • Culture "tends to show more or less tight integration around its

  worldview."

  • Culture "is complex."

  Of the worldview central to any particular culture, he makes several assertions:

  • It "consists of the assumptions (including images) underlying all cultural

  values, allegiances, and behaviors."

  • It grounds and explains "ourperception of reality and responses to it."

  • Its basic assumptions or premises "are learned from our elders, not

  reasoned out, but assumed to be true without prior proof. "

  • "We organize our lives and experiences according to our worldview and

  seldom question it unless our experience challenges some of its

  assumptions."5

  The immediate relevance for Christian missionization, and for our eventual

  purposes in this chapter, consists of three points:

  1. Christianity, like any religion, is a part of culture. It is learned and shared,

  and it is integrated with the other systems of the culture, including its

  economics, its kinship, and its politics.

  2. Christianity, like any religion, is a culture. It offers its own worldview,

  specific terms with which to speak and think, and specific symbolic and

   organizational and institutional forms. It is never only beliefs, but as Paul

  Hiebert stresses in the same volume, Perspectives on the World Christian

  Movement, it is also always feelings and values and allegiances and

  standards for judgment and evaluation.6 It is a more or less complete design

  for living.

  3. Christian missionization is a type of cross-cultural communication and