Was pointed to this photo today re Christopher Hitchens' book God is not Great:

Nice job Target employee, whoever you are.

I'm reading through Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion and hopefully will be able to make comments here soon on each of its chapters. I'm making notes as I read, and being careful to note the things I agree with and the points where I disagree. It bothers me when I read a review of a book where the reviewer feels the need to try to refute every single thing the author says. Did they really not say anything of value? It's somewhat disconcerting to say that I disagree with a guy who teaches at Oxford and has a PhD and everything, but as Sideshow Mel said, "My opinion is as valid as the next man's!" 😀 And of course Alister McGrath, holder of two PhDs from Oxford (one in molecular biophysics, the other in theology) who also teaches at Oxford, has already written a book in reply: The Dawkins Delusion?

In the meantime, if you're interested in a short review of Dawkins' book check out Skeptical Christian's review of The God Delusion.

I'd like to begin this short post with an apology: I'd like to apologize on behalf of Christians who have, throughout history, done some pretty rotten things supposedly in the name of Jesus Christ. The Crusades? Witch hunts? Inquisitions? Priests who molest? Televangelists who scam? All sinful and awful, and Jesus is appalled that such things have come to be associated with Him and His church. While some of these sort of tragedies have been exaggerated (most notably the witch hunts, see Six Modern Myths chapter six) that doesn't make them any better, and I wish to say, on behalf of 99% of all Christians who are living today and who have ever lived, that we agree with you that these actions are awful, immoral, and un-Christlike. As trite as it may sound and in fact may be, it pains me deeply when I read about these things, and I am truly sorry.

That said, what do such bad things done by Christians prove about the truthfulness of the Christian faith? The answer is: not much. First of all, Christians do not claim to be sinless; in fact, we recognize that although we become new creations in Christ, we remain fallen people in a fallen world, and therefore the threat of succumbing to temptation is ever-present. Second, there are approximately 2.1 billion Christians in the world. With such a huge sample size, should we be surprised when we learn that a small percentage of them do really bad things (molest children, swindle, etc)? Thirdly, how do the actions of a small portion of Christians which contradict the teachings of Jesus and the Christian faith prove anything regarding whether the Christian faith is true or not? In fact they do nothing to prove that the facts of the Christian faith are untrue.

I know this is difficult to accept if you have been personally wounded by the church generally, or a particular Christian person specifically. But please try to keep in mind that any person who acts contrary to a set of principles maligns themselves, but not the principles that they have chosen to disobey. Does the fact that certain NYPD officers are racist and commit immoral acts mean that all police forces should be disbanded? Certainly not, because their actions are contrary to what a police officer should be.

So please, don't discount Christianity because of the worst "Christians" that you know … or even the best ones! After all, based on Christianity's own teachings, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23) and that "the whole world is a prisoner of sin" (Galatians 3:22), but by God's grace "Jesus came to take away our sins, and there is no sin in him" (1 John 3:5). For more on this subject, please see my post "Good people".

Thank you for your time.

Please indulge me as I proceed to conduct a bit of a thought experiment. Note that if I quote the Bible, I am not doing so in an attempt to prove that the Bible is true (that would be a circular argument) but rather to allow it to speak for itself as to what it really claims.

The question to ponder is: How can Christians claim that all human beings are "sinners"? Isn't that just being unnecessary pessimistic? Aren't people essentially good?

Yes, people are, in a sense, "essentially good". But Christians use those words in a slightly different way. To say a person is essentially good means that since people are made in God's image (that is, resemblance, likeness) we never are able to fully erase that essential quality, regardless of how much we may deface it.¹ Essential goodness in this sense means that we cannot entirely remove or escape our divine worth; since God has given us this worth, it is not within our power to expunge it.

However, a more widespread expression of "essentially good" has a different meaning. What does it mean to be good, in this context? That is, what is the most important thing? It seems that in this popular worldview, the most important thing is that you should be nice to people. In our society (and most churches, for that matter) this is the most important thing. I mean, of course it is … right? What else could be more important … ?

As it happens, Jesus was once asked this very same question by the religious leaders of His time: What is the most important thing?

… but before we consider Jesus' answer, consider this short parable:

A man was walking by a river, when suddenly he heard a splash, and saw a woman flailing her arms in the water. The man recognized that she could not swim. He knew that she would surely drown in the fast moving water. Throwing off his coat, he dove in the river, grabbed her arm, and dragged her to safety.

For saving her life, the man was lauded as a hero, and the tale of his act of valor began to spread. Observers called for the man to be awarded a medal of honor, and a reporter even interviewed the man for the local paper.

However, the next day's newspaper told the rest of the story. When asked why he saved the woman, the man answered "I don't care about the woman herself. I only saved her because she owed me a hundred dollars. I'm an expert swimmer, and I knew that if she drowned she would never be able to repay my money. Frankly I couldn't care less if she drowned." The townspeople were aghast, and no one ever spoke again of awarding him a medal of honor.

Now, why do we react differently to the story after hearing the man's intentions? The act itself does not change, and although the act is not entirely negated, it seems in a sense tainted by the man's motivations. The man could no longer be considered a hero. It seems as though if a person does a right act for a wrong reason, we are innately (and rightly) repulsed by it. Motivation matters. For example, a person who commits manslaughter receives a lesser sentence than one who commits first degree murder; what differs is their motivation. So we can agree that motivation for an act can change the worthiness (or unworthiness) of the act. Let's keep this fact in mind.

Back to Jesus. When Jesus was asked what was most important, He answered by twice quoting the Old Testament:

Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" (Matthew 22:37-39)

Notice what is first: Loving God. This is what Jesus said is the most important thing. Loving God = #1. Loving your neighbors (by which Jesus means all people, even your enemies) is #2. Still important, you understand, but secondary. And according to Jesus, our #2 flows from our #1: our acts made in love for God will likewise be manifest in love for others, but the reverse is not necessarily true. John explains further: "This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome." (1 John 5:2-3)

If Jesus is right (this is how Jesus argued, not me) how can we be "good" if our motivation for acting ignores what Jesus claimed is most important? How can a person be "good" if their motivation is all wrong? How can a person be "good" if they ignore God?

Some will say, "But I believe that God exists. Just not in the Christian God."

Notice how Jesus responded to temptation, by quoting the Old Testament: "Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only." (Matthew 4:10, Luke 4:8) He didn't say to worship any 'ol god, but to worship the Lord. There are many false "gods" in the world, but only one God. I am reminded of James' admonishment: "You say you have faith, for you believe that there is one God. Good for you! Even the demons believe this, and they tremble in terror." (James 2:19, NLT)

Back to our original query: Are we basically good? Generally nice guys/gals? Mostly free from sin? That's like asking if a glass of water that's been repeatedly spit in is still "mostly good to drink". As Paul said, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23) Sorry to be blunt, but sometimes doctors have to be blunt in order to begin a process of healing. Jesus Himself noted "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." (Mark 2:17)

Trying to 'save ourselves' (by our own effort) won't work, either. I know that's counterintuitive in our culture, because we're always told to do it ourselves. But how can someone drowning in quicksand pull themselves out? The good news (that is, the "gospel") is that we don't have to save ourselves. In Jesus Christ, God Himself came into our world in the flesh in order to save us from ourselves and certain death, and show us the way. Paul explains:

You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)

Maybe you've never been inside a church and your life (I know I avoided churches like the plague before I started following Jesus) and have never considered this before. Or maybe you grew up in a church but never heard any of this before. There are a lot of terrible churches out there, but that doesn't affect one bit the truthfulness of what Jesus said and did.

No matter where you're coming from, what you've just read is something worth thinking about. Anyone who says all the religions are basically the same has never really grasped what Jesus was offering: Good people don't go to heaven. Forgiven people do.

All that remains is to accept God's offer of grace.

Thanks for listening. Please feel free to read my story or contact me.

Further reading:

• More about Jesus – Includes a brief Flash presentation and plenty of links.
• Experience forgiveness – Begin your life anew today. It really can happen.
• Just Stop and Think – A 15-minute streaming video with more things to think about. It may change how you look at the world.
• Is the New Testament reliable? – Read some of my previous posts to learn why it is.

1 Thanks goes to Rev Victor Shepherd for his way of stating things so eloquently.
Note: Bible quotations are from the NIV or TNIV unless otherwise noted.

Further to my first post about miracles (wow that was almost a year ago) the following thoughts came to mind today as I was reading In Defense of Miracles: A Comprehensive Case for God's Actions in History, which examines the concept of the miraculous in light of Hume's essay "Of Miracles" (and later works which expanded upon that essay).

The idea that science disproves the possibility of miracles is, IMHO, extremely misguided. Science is able to confirm that certain things are testable and repeatable, that is, empirically verifiable in the present. Miracles, by nature, are none of these things. For example, today as I rode home on the bus I glanced out the window as the bus came to a stop. To my surprise I saw a rabbit sitting on the grass beside the road. I had never seen a rabbit here before (a fairly built-up area along a heavily trafficked road). This event is still not testable (you'll have to take my word for it that I observed a rabbit earlier today) and not repeatable (even if we were to get on the same bus, drive along the same road, etc, the circumstances could never be exactly the same) and yet the event really did occur. There is no reason to claim that this was a miraculous event, but even here science cannot test whether this mundane event occurred.

Therefore it's no surprise that science has not (cannot) confirm (or disprove) the miraculous. Richard R. Purtill notes in his essay "Defining Miracles" (also part of the aforementioned book) that scientists "tend to confine their investigations to the ordinary course of nature and to ignore such exceptions as might be made to the course of nature by God, since exceptions brought about by personal agency cannot be predicted from a study of what normally happens".

Trying to test whether a supposed miraculous event occurred in history using the scientific method is sort of like trying to determine whether a banana is tasty by sticking it in your ear and listening to it. It's inappropriate methodology. There's nothing wrong with the scientific method for testing natural phenomenon. However a miracle is not natural, and therefore it is misguided to dismiss, say, the resurrection by appealing to science that shows that people rising from the dead is impossible. Of course we observe that dead people stay dead, and that's entirely the point. This wasn't lost on first century people either: Jesus' resurrection was a big deal because people knew that dead people are supposed to stay dead.

This does not mean that science has no part in examining the truth claims of miracles, but only that as unique events in history, a miracle claim is more properly investigated as history rather than science.

Further reading: The Facts Concerning the Resurrection: Don't believe the New Testament is a reliable historical source? I'd argue that the NT is historically reliable, but try let's throwing out most of what it contains, and only focus on facts agreed upon by the vast majority of scholars, Christian or not. What we find might surprise you!