Correcting misapprehensions

Whenever a Christian festival arises, it seems that the Letters sections of newspapers and the blogosphere begin filling with debates over the relative merits of Christianity and Atheism. At Easter, for example, even a bishop or two got drawn into the debate in one of Sydney's newspapers.

As a "dissenting" evangelical, I belong neither to the atheists' camp nor to that of the bishops. I felt a certain privilege, being able to observe without having to participate. Several thoughts came to me as I watched.

One point raised was that Atheism can lead to systematic and systemic violence and abuse. This argument comes up regularly, and is a poorly-considered reaction to Atheist accusations that religion is divisive, and always leads to violence and war.

Of course, the Pol Pot, Stalin and (perhaps) Hitler regimes were atheistic and few would disagree that they were horrifically violent. Proponents of non-Atheist religious positions should realise that this doesn't, however, mean that Atheism always leads to violence. The error is that of confusing causation and association.

On the other hand, when Atheists make similar charges about religion, they should recognise that they are falling into the same illogicality. Violent people use religion or irreligion to legitimate their violence.

It takes only a little acquaintance with history to show that this is a weak argument.

A second area of discussion was over whether Atheists can be truly moral. I am interested to note that see fewer believers charging that Atheists must be immoral than I see Atheists assuming that this charge is a Christian position.

As I read the Bible, it seems to me that it supports the idea that religious people and irreligious people are roughly equally moral. After all, it declares that humans are created in the image of a moral God. By the same token, the Bible is also clear that we human beings are all equally failures when it comes to morality. This doesn't mean that the crimes of some are not more horrifying than the crimes of others. We generally consider murder a more evil crime than stealing a biscuit from the office jar. However, both acts are moral breaches, and the Bible argues that no one can claim anything like moral perfection.

Those Christians who think that Atheists are immoral are probably influenced by such Biblical statements as, The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' The Psalmist's point, however, is that those who think they can get away with injustice and oppression because there is no God to give account to are fools. This is not quite the same thing as claiming that Atheism necessarily leads to immorality.

A further point of debate is about charities and community service. I suspect that Atheists and Christians may tend to focus on different areas in this respect. Certainly, Christians seem to predominate in welfare-related services and I think that many Atheists are drawn to environmental causes, but I don't know if my assessment is supported by any hard evidence.

What is true is that both believers of various kinds and unbelievers do engage in community service. However, there is evidence that, at least in the case of the young, "...those with serious spiritual and religious beliefs were likely to donate more money, participate more in their communities and be more concerned about their society than their non-religious counterparts." (2007 research by academics from Monash University and the Australian Catholic University, reported in The Sydney Morning Herald, 27 Jan 2008.)

What we don't know is whether this tendency persists into adulthood. I don't think the research has been done in Australia.

A final charge laid by the Atheists was that Christians who participate in charitable works do it only to gain points towards entry into heaven, or to compensate for a fear of judgement.

I have no doubt that even some Atheists volunteer so as to gain a heaven they do not believe in. Everyone acts in large part on unconscious feelings and desires. However it is certainly no part of Evangelical Christianity to believe that good works contribute "points" towards gaining heaven or avoiding hell. The Bible -- particularly the New Testament -- clearly and consistently rejects the value of works done to gain God's favour or out of mere fear of punishment.

In fact, the orthodox Evangelical position is that eternal salvation is only available through repentance, giving up efforts at self-justification and trust in Jesus Christ for the gift of salvation. To seek salvation through our deeds is a rejection of God's loving gift, and, in fact, treats God as a whore who dispenses favours to the best payers.

The corollary of this Evangelical belief is that eternal life is already the possession of those who trust in Jesus Christ, and that working for the good of others is an appropriately loving response to the Christ who loved us and gave himself for us.

I don't think many Christians in other traditions would disagree to far with that position.

Answering the vulture and the earthworm

I was sad to see Senator Fielding on the ABC's Q&A panel together with Richard Dawkins. Senator Fielding does not have a good grasp on matters of fact outside his specific professional training, which clearly has little to do with science.

I was sad, too, to hear Professor Dawkins' cheap shot at the senator, as having the intellect of an earthworm. It is this kind of abusive arrogance which gives him -- and, by association, atheism -- a bad name. Dawkins writes eloquently and ignorantly about religious matters, which reveals, not that he is intellectually defective, but that he is lazy in assuming that a junior Sunday School understanding is sufficient to make him an expert. Not unlike Senator Fielding's position with science, really.

I have a growing concern that we Christians often tackle atheism inappropriately.

If I were a Muslim, I would definitely be troubled by Dawkins and his ilk. If I were a Jew, I would at least be uneasy. Neither religion has strong grounds to argue against atheism except on the grounds which atheism itself defines. It is hard to win an away game.

Of course, Dawkins has a point. Religious people can't provide proof of God's existence in the terms he demands. More accurately, science is incapable of determining whether or not God exists -- much like the question of the Higgs-Boson particle. This does not mean that God does not exit. It only means that God's existence is a question is outside the realm of science.

This is not, however, fatal to the question. There are many areas where science can contribute little. It can't tell us if Julius Caesar existed. At best, it may help sort through the evidence.

So why do Christians try to do battle in areas where Christian arguments tend to be weak, and atheist ones strong, yet ignore areas where the tables are turned?

It seems to me that we need to turn our focus back onto Jesus. Let's develop our arguments from a Christological base rather than a philosophical or a merely scientific base.

After all, there is a strong New Testament theme that Jesus makes the unknown, inaccessible God known.

John 1:18 tells us, No one has ever seen God; but God, the one and only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

In the 12th chapter (verse 41ff) we see that, in respect of his vision of the exalted Lord in the temple, Isaiah saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him.

John perhaps rounds it off with his quotation from Jesus, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father."

Similarly, the writer to the Hebrews tells us (Heb 1:3): The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.

Paul, too, writing to the Colossians (1:15) describes Christ as ...the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

There is therefore a clear New Testament assertion that God the Father himself is beyond our direct knowledge or observation, but that Jesus is the revealer of God.

This suggests to me that teleological, ontological and such arguments are something of a waste of time for those who would convince those who argue that no case can be made for God's existence.

While this doesn't mean that there is no place for philosophical points, they are more of a further hint at God's existence than primary ingredients of a case. If a person wants to "see" or "see evidence for" God, surely the place to start is Jesus.

The question, then, is, "How does Jesus reveal God?"

The answer is that Christians are convinced that the attitudes and actions of Jesus show us something about the attitudes and actions of God. If we would know God's attitude to the outcasts of society, look at how Jesus treated them. If we want to know God's attitude to ethnic outsiders, look at Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well. If we want to know about God's judgment, we will find more when we see Jesus attacking hypocrisy, exploitation and fruitlessness than we will learn merely from reading about the Israelites and the Amalekites in the Pentateuch.

I do not often find comments I find useful to repeat in the writings of Rev Fred Nile, but I believe he hits the mark in a recent newsletter:

"If you want to know if there is a God, start with Jesus Christ, who will reveal the truth about Himself and His Heavenly Father."

I'll say, "Amen!" to that.

Some responses to Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens has recently been in Sydney, appearing on the ABC's Q&A program, and being interviewed in the Sydney Morning Herald, as well as being a speaker in the recent Festival of Dangerous Ideas.

I have responded mainly to the interview in the Herald, addressing some of Hitchens' errors and those of his followers:

ILLOGIC

First, Hitchens argues from particular wrongs committed by some religious people to a general blanket condemnation of religion. This is a breach of simple logic. It is in the same class as the false syllogism, "My dog is black, therefore all dogs are black."

Yes, some religious people do evil. And some doctors are paedophiles. Is medicine evil? Religion is a framework: how people use it varies. Paedophile doctors can use the internet as a framework for a paedophile circle. Is the fault in the framework, or in how people use it?

There is probably some truth in the idea that some religions are more prone to harbouring a particular kind of evil than others are. Catholicism's tendency to attract paedophiles possibly indicates that a celibate priesthood provides a good disguise for such people, while Islam's early spread through military campaigns almost certainly fuels the terrorists who hide within that religion. Some forms of Protestantism are influenced by the belligerence of people like John Knox and are prone to intransigence and argumentativeness. But even these concessions do not demonstrate that all religious people are like that, in fact they weaken Hitchens' arguments even further.

IS ATHEISM A RELIGION?

In the various discussions of Hitchens, debate arises over whether atheism is a religion or not.

As a teenager, I was a theist in that I believed it most probable that God exists, but it had no consequences for how I should relate to him, to other people, or to the environment. Therefore I was a non-religious theist.

So it is true, but disingenuous, to claim that atheism is not a religion, because "Hitchkinsism" - and most modern atheism - is a far more worked-out philosophy than the mere atheist statement, "God does not exist." This is clear from the writings of people like Hitchens and Dawkins (hence "Hitchkinsism"). They believe that atheism is at the heart of saving the world, socially, environmentally, intellectually... They believe that atheism must conquer all other worldviews. They believe that their brand of atheism is the key to unlock world peace, and that believers must be removed in order for this to happen.

LEGITIMATION OF PERSECUTION

It troubles me that followers of Hitchens, Dawkins and other radical atheists push these negative descriptions of believers so fervently. And their leaders don't ever seem to correct their calls for the removal of belief with any kind of appeal for toleration of the kind I regularly see from, say, Christians, when talking of atheists.

I hasten to add that most atheists I know are unlikely to murder believers in their beds. They are, like most believers, moral people. In fact, it is mainly those of a Hitchensesque bent -- strident atheists -- who use against religious people, particularly Christians, similar arguments to those used against Jews 70 years ago. It may seem mere intellectual debate to describe believers as war-mongerers, unintelligent, paedophiles, suicide bombers, circumcisers of females and so on. But it is actually far more sinister.

From a sociological viewpoint, what they are doing is isolating a group or groups in order to define them as non-persons. And history demonstrates that this is often the prelude to violence against the isolated group. Good people will deplore the violence, but, "...after all, these people sort of bring it on themselves." Aggression towards believers is legitimated by this use of language.

The movie, The Fisher King, demonstrates how legitimation works. Geoff Bridges' shock jock character didn't pull the trigger, he just made it possible for a deranged shooter to justify his own actions.

We all must take responsibility for our words and accusations, the more particularly if we have a wide audience.

RELIGION AND ETHICS

Hitchens claims that religious people believe that religion is the sole key to knowing right from wrong.

Contrary to Hitchens, this is actually (from an evangelical Protestant point of view) a mark of false religion and erroneous thinking, St Paul specifically addresses it in his letter to the Romans. Some Jewish Christians in that church considered themselves superior to Gentile Christians because Jews have the law. Paul points out that the law does no more than make us aware of our failure.

Let's think about this false view. If God, the creator of all, is the source of morality, then human beings should have an innate moral capacity. It is part of our human nature quite apart from whether or not a person believes in God. Empirically, we can see that unbelievers mostly act ethically, and so do believers. The reason is that it is built into us. In addition, we know that society goes better if we do right rather than wrong.

So it is in our own interest to act ethically. Doing good is good for ourselves and those close to us, at the very least. And how can self-interested action gain us heavenly rewards? That idea treats God as a celestial whore, dispensing favours to the one who does most good, to the one who is the best payer. Trying to gain heaven through doing good is just plain unethical!

Hitchens should admit, though, that religious thinkers have often been at the forefront of ethical thinking. Jesus, for example, corrected his Pharisaic co-religionists by pointing out that the mere fact of refraining from an evil deed when one really wants to do it does not make a person truly holy. Christianity was moving towards an anti-slavery position even before Lanfranc (Bishop of Canterbury) tried to repress it in around 1100AD, or the Quakers (about 1650) decided to disfellowship any member holding slaves.

But the bottom line is that Christianity is not about doing right to gain points with God. It is about how a loving God has stepped in to rescue from despair, failure and destruction all who, acknowledging their sin and failure, repent and trust in Jesus Christ's finished saving work.

CHURCH, STATE AND ATHEISM

Hitchens is reported in the Herald article as arguing that Church and State must be separated. The link between the Church of England and the English Government is certainly a lot closer than the links between any church and the Australian Government, nevertheless, I mainly agree with him.

I hasten to add that total separation is neither possible nor practical. Believers live within and participate in their States.

To remove their voting rights or to prevent their holding Government positions or being elected to Parliament would be undemocratic and probably lead to civil war.

To prevent religious people from commenting on social and political issues would rob the State of vital information for the running of Government, just because churches, synagogues and mosques are in touch with what people think, what is happening in their communities, what the vital issues are.

To force religions out of welfare, education, health care, and half a dozen other fields would cause the collapse of the institutions in these fields, many of which are run by religious bodies.

However, I point out that the Anabaptists, from their beginnings in 1525, tried to live out radical separation of church and state. In England, the Baptists, in 1612, began campaigning, through pamphlets, preaching, and other methods, while the Quakers (1640s) followed the Anabaptists. That great scholar of The Enlightenment, John Locke, in his post Glorious Revolution (1688) writings perhaps did little more than copy his religious antecedents.