Obvious reasons why not to be a Christian. Requesting a critique of my list and/or any thing I shouldn't leave out.
Offline I have been working on my own list of "Reasons why I am not a Christian". I've been trying to compile the reasons that are blatantly obvious to the extent that even a child could understand them. Here is my first draft:
1) Scientific issues can not be resolved without very loose and questionable interpretation of the Bible - most of which, is misunderstood or taken out of context.
A) Biology - Is the death knell of fundamental Christianity. There is no religious explanation for evolution without an extremely moderate worldview.
B) Geology - Earth strata, dating age of the earth, not one single form of evidence for a world flood, etc.
C) Cosmology - Speed of light issue, existence of other galaxies, etc. There are many.
2) Biblical errancy explained with incredibly vague and disingenuous arguments.
A) Isaiah 7:14 - failure to resolve the "almah" issue of virgin birth and the context of Isaiah 7-8. See Genesis 16:11.
B) Failure to resolve the Line of David issue.
C) Numerous irreconcilable problems between Matthew and Luke (pick a gospel).
D) The circular idea of pretending that the Bible's message is perfect.
3) Christian ideological censorship and interpolation of history.
A) Josephus's forged account of Jesus as the Messiah. (Possibly even Tacitus's)
B) The methods of Constantine and the formation of the Christian Church.
C) Apocrypha: The existence of, the acceptance of, and the rejection of.
D) The Church's (various) neverending stances against science throughout history.
4) Worldwide Delusion.
A) Over 3 quarters of the Earth have different religions. Just like Christians, they all have extraordinary claims; all without extraordinary evidence (or any valid evidence for that matter).
B) Enormous amounts of wealth are still (in our day) swindeled by: Psychics, Faith-Healers, Quack doctors, and other nonsense.
5) Logical Reasoning.
A) Morality does not require God. I hope this is simple enough to understand.
B) "Original Sin" human accountability is ridiculous and there is no justification for it. Sins of the fathers. The bible is demanding undeserved reparations.
C) "Christ's Atonement" is also just as ridiculous. Penal substitution?
D) "Free Will" does not exist in Christian doctrine. There is only dogma and illusion.
E) Pascal's Wager utterly fails. I hope I don't have to explain this one.
Ok, my first question is: Does anyone have any problems with anything I have on my list? Is there justification for these issues that I am not aware of? 2nd question: Is there anything you think I should add to the list? General comments? This is my first post, btw.
~Imperion
My introduction Imperion from Florida
- Login to post comments
I will not attempt to address everything in your list, but I do wonder about what you bring up under points 1 and 2. You bring up certain problems in the Bible, and you are correct that these problems exist. However, these are only problems in the way you frame them if you assume that the bible is inerrant. Although it is common for people to criticize Christians for holding to the position of inerrancy--and indeed, many Christians do hold this view--not all Christians hold this position. Most of the Christians I know do not assume that the Bible is perfect, that there was a universal flood, that the gospels are all the same if you only "resolve" the contradictions, etc. So, although your points may apply to certain forms of fundamentalism and evangelicalism, they would not apply across the board, I think. Of course, one could argue that these other people simply do not take the Bible seriously, that "true" Christianity involves an inerrant understanding of the Bible--Sam Harris seems to argue along these lines. However, such an argument really does not work, since the doctrine of inerrancy, as it is currently presented in evangelicalism and fundamentalism, is a relatively recent phenomenon; it also ignores the different methods of interpretation that have existed in Christianity. John Dominic Crossan, the Jesus Seminar guy, makes a fascinating statement, which I will paraphrase here. We often assume that the biblical authors were stupid, because they thought about things that cannot possibly be believed so simplistically and literally and put all these contradictions into the text; but what if it is the other way around. That is, what if the biblical authors would think we were stupid, because we assume that they actually took such things so literally and simplistically and ignore the fact that they were quite aware of the contradictions and problems.
"The will to revolutionary change emerges as an urge, as an 'I cannot do otherwise,' or it is worthless." --Slavoj Zizek
I am phrasing the list to make an attempt to incorporate the majority of Christian beliefs. The very existence and prominence of fundamental Christianity is a bruise on the entire spectrum. Where I live (Florida), inerrancy and evolution are huge deals and I don't want to miss the chance of mentioning those points as valid objections. As an example, there are far more theists in the world doing their best to think up ways of supporting literal Creationism than there are those who spend time wondering if "speaking in tongues" is actually magic or not.
Regardless, you are right that there are still extremely moderate forms of Christianity that can somehow squeek by, but even they will find objection with at least something I've written there. I'm sure I haven't left them out. However, I wouldn't want to waste our time listing every little thing to accommodate the degrees of moderation. That would be pointless. Eventually, I would end up facing people who are really just following "a way of life", who do not even claim to know or care if there is even a God or not - or if the term if metaphorical. My main targets are the blatant proponents of the supernatural.
I'm not trying to provide a caricature of all of Christianity. I doubt it would even be possible to address every differential aspect of their faith. There are far too many. I am merely listing any major argument, with any obviously irrational form of that belief, that can be very easily understood.
This brings up a really important point. You are NOT indeed trying to make a list of reasons on why not to be a Christian; you are in fact trying to make a list of reasons on why not to take a strong view of knowledge on the supernatural. If we talked more I'd think you would have no problem with liberal christians or moderate christians or even some conservative christians (trust me, I know conservative christians who are agnostic).
The boon you gain from trying to make a list that doesn't target one particular religion and instead a certain type of belief is that it is more general -- obviously. This is what makes a good theory, and it also makes a decent defense, which is what you want to make. You want to defend a certain way of thinking.
As you stated in your first post, you don't need a God(s) to have beliefs/morals. Therefore, if you choose to pull your beliefs from writing about a Christ figure, then who can blame them? Just as no one can blame the 19 year old college student to shift his worldview after reading Karl Popper. So the important thing is to make sure you make good beliefs. If you choose to try and make a list which attempts to define what a bad belief is, then have at it. But really think about what you are defending.