Entry 1583, on 2013-10-26 at 21:15:16 (Rating 4, Religion)
In the comments for a recent blog post I repeated one of my favourite quotes by the famous enlightenment philosopher Voltaire who said "Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities" and my opponent agreed. Of course, I'm sure he only thinks that while most other people's religious views are absurd, his (by some unknown process) are immune and make perfect sense.
So I guess the challenge is to show that Christianity is absurd, surely one of the simplest tasks I have ever set myself! But is it really? The problem is that Christianity doesn't really exist. What does exist are various sects which have split off from the original belief system (the first major split was just a few hundred years after the founding of the church) and now number about 38,000.
That in itself is absurd because many of these sects show massive variations in their beliefs. Some believe in creation, some in evolution, some both. Some believe Jesus was some sort of supernatural god, some think he was a manifestation of God, some think he was just a man. Some interpret every word of the Old Testament literally, some basically ignore it.
So when preparing a case against Christianity it's just too easy for my opponent to claim that I am disproving a version of the religion which he also disagrees with, but which isn't "real" Christianity. And naturally, many people will never explicitly tell you what they believe because that would mean you can disprove that belief.
So I guess I just have to take a few of the more important and widely quoted Christian beliefs and show they are absurd. That's not perfect and those who insist on denying the obvious will still no doubt still find some way to escape but it's probably the best approach I have available.
So let's start at the beginning. Genesis is absurd. Anyone with the smallest amount of intellectual honesty will agree that it simply cannot be literally true. Every branch of science contradicts it and anyone who still believes in creation (no doubt while still accepting the benefits of the science which disproves it) is showing absurd ignorance.
Some people will say it is metaphorical. OK, so what is the deeper meaning? There isn't one because it was clearly meant to be the best explanation of the origin of the universe, Earth, and life that a primitive desert nomad tribe could invent at the time. To pretend that such a mechanistic story is a metaphor is absurd.
Most of the other origin stories in the Old Testament are also absurd. That applies to the Exodus and the Flood which clearly didn't happen. I guess there might be some sort of case to say that these are metaphorical but there are two problems with that.
First, if they are metaphors how do we know? Maybe every story is a metaphor so is nothing in the Bible true? There would be absolutely no way to know. How absurd is that?
Second, what is the metaphorical message here? For the Flood it seems to be that if some people upset God he will kill practically everyone, plus almost every animal and plant as well. So the message is that God is a monstrous, evil tyrant? Somehow I don't think that's what most Christians want to believe.
So let's move on to the more central message of Christianity from the New Testament. Surprisingly, in some ways this is even more absurd.
Maybe the basic belief of modern Christianity (and this is debatable for the reasons I gave above) is portrayed in that most famous Bible verse, John 3:16, which is "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (New International Version).
So what is this all about? Well here's my interpretation (please correct me if I'm wrong). God saw that there were problems on Earth so he sent his son (not really, or was he?) Jesus down to sort things out. But part of this process was to sacrifice Jesus through his crucifixion. This was God's ultimate sacrifice for the good of humans.
At this stage you might guess what word I'm about to use to describe this... absurd!
God is omnipotent, omniscient, and good right? So how did he let this situation get so out of control to start with? And who was Jesus? Some people say he was a manifestation of God. So God sent himself to be sacrificed to himself to convince himself to fix problems that he himself let happen in the first place? Absurd!
And what was the point of this sacrifice? Why not let Jesus stay on Earth a bit longer and spread the message more widely? Was his brutal execution really necessary? What does that tell us about God? That the whole idea of the sacrifice of Jesus is absurd!
I could go on for pages listing absurdities in Christianity but anyone who isn't convinced by the flagrant abuses of logic and common sense I have already listed will probably never be convinced.
Clearly Christianity is absurd and, as my religious opponent agrees, that can easily lead to atrocities being committed. I'm not saying anyone who believes this stuff will become a homicidal terrorist, but it does encourage those who might be a bit unstable to begin with to act on those tendencies.
I'm also not saying that Christianity is all bad. There are some cool stories and some quite positive philosophy there, but there's also a lot of completely absurd nonsense. If we gave it the same respect as a work of philosophy or mythology (Plato's works or the Iliad for example) I think the atrocity aspect of it could be avoided, but I don't think that's likely in the near future!
I am amazed that this post has been up for weeks and no one else has decided to respond yet. What a shame that the topic of Christianity is clearly too ‘sensitive’ for most people, or maybe you are seen as too scary an ‘opponent’ to ‘risk it’. Possibly both. Since I was directly referenced in this post, I thought had better respond. Sorry for the delay – this isn’t the top priority in my schedule.
Of course it will be impossible to answer every challenge you have raised in sufficient detail here – especially since later posts have highlighted a preference to keep it short. So all I can do here is offer a few thoughts on this overall claim of ‘absurdity’, and encourage you to post individual challenges in separate posts if you want them all specifically addressed.
1 - Christianity has of course been around for approx. 2000 years now, and in that time, has been accepted as not absurd by millions of others, some for sound reasons after incredibly careful analysis, and yes - some for less sound reasons. Because you will discount most of those 2000 years as ‘scientifically irrelevant’, in the 200 years many of the most significant contributions to modern scientific study were provided by those who did not find it at all absurd. There is nothing to suggest that subsequent discoveries in science would have changed their minds on this. Most of the worlds great Universities (including Otago) were founded by those who examined the claims of Christianity and did not find them absurd. The point is, that not only that you are forced to label a hugely significant scientific legacy from all around the world as absurd (a pretty bold and weighty claim), but also that it is not unreasonable to suppose that given that illustrious history just maybe for those who care to look both more deeply and more objectively, there are actually satisfactory reasoned explanations available to ALL those challenges you listed, that (I actually agree with you entirely), at first glance can seem ‘absurd’.
Of course the definition of the word absurd is important, but I take your primary definition of the word as indicated in your later comment: ‘flagrant abuses of logic, and common sense’, i.e. Christianity is ‘non-sensical’. While I totally understand the initial impressions and questions, it’s whether you are prepared to even accept the possibility that reasoned answers exist to those qns that is more important.
The worlds libraries (and the internet) are full of good resources in that regard. For example the C.S. Lewis book ‘Mere Christianity’ is a good place to start. C. S. Lewis (Professor of Mediaeval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge University) was for many years an atheist, and described his conversion in his other book Surprised by Joy (Quote: 'In the Trinity term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God. perhaps the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England.' ) Christianity was not a crutch, or forced on him by social pressure etc – he was a happy atheist, until he realized that whether he ‘liked it or not’, Christianity provided the best (most non-absurd) explanation overall, from all the other options.
Remembering too from previous posts that Christianity and all religions in fact, are distinct from most other ‘topics of discussion’ in that they are ‘world-views’. That is, a view of ALL reality, including both our physical and observable reality (accessible to science), but also those other areas that we ‘experience’ every day as a part of ‘reality’ but that science is simply not equipped to address. Questions such as ‘Why is there something (the universe), rather than nothing? What was around (if anything) before the universe ‘appeared’. What was the cause of the Universe, adequately accounting for everything we now see in it? What is a reasonable explanation for ‘consciousness’, or for absolute morality, or even for logic or rationality in the universe, or at least our ability to assess it? Does ‘good’ or ‘evil’ have any real meaning? What happens to me after I die? And many more. And BTW while we agreed in an earlier post that atheism was not a ‘religion’ (using one strict definition), there is clearly no doubt that it (like all religions) has the very same obligation to provide adequate (non absurd) answers to ALL these questions to be a valid truth claim.
This is not a response trying to defend Christianity by attacking atheism by the way. That is obviously not a sound response to your post. I am simply pointing out that when assessing any world view there is nothing ‘instantly’ absurd about any claims, like proposing God, (or a flying spaghetti monster) exists, or proposing they do not - to those tough questions when they involve possibilities that are often outside the realm of science. Some will argue that in the future, science will discover more answers, and that’s absolutely correct to think that, but you’d be wrong in thinking it can ever answer them all. Some questions (like what’s outside the known observable universe), will always fall in this category.
What this means is we need to be careful not to label Christianity ‘absurd’ simply because science doesn’t currently allow consideration for a supernatural cause for the universe, or indeed in light of ANY of the apparent ‘supernatural’ events for that matter). If the premises ‘God Exists and He created the Universe’ is true, then supernatural events within the universe are not at all ‘absurd’ from a ‘logic’ perspective. So, there is nothing logically absurd about God creating the universe or parting the red sea for example. No, these type of events are rightly labeled ‘incredible’ and even ‘really hard to believe’, (for me too) but they are NOT logically or rationally ‘absurd’.
Anyway, to address your first claim of absurdity due to disagreements. By simple logic, there is also no doubt that not all science claims on a single topic can be right, if they include contradictions. Perhaps ALL the presented theses are wrong, but it is also NOT sound logic to conclude that ALL must be wrong, simply because there are disagreements, or an even worse mistake would be to declare that ‘science itself is absurd’.
In that respect, science and religions suffer from the same ‘human’ frailty. Neither can be labelled ‘absurd’ simply because there are disagreements. I do agree though that any world view must provide a reasonable explanation FOR the existence of any disagreements. In the case of Christianity, it does provide that just fine.
Secondly, the complaint that Christianity is too varied to refute is wrong. There are fairly straightforward and accepted basic tenants of classical Christianity. While anyone might ‘say’ their belief (outside of those) is still ‘Christianity’, that does NOT make it so. For example, if you believe Jesus was just a man – (one of the options you gave) you then have a belief that is NOT Christianity, plain and simple. So it is not as difficult to ‘define’ Christianity as you suggest. Nor will I ever knowingly not tell you what I believe, so you can’t disprove it. That’s an unfounded claim for the vast majority of Christians I suspect. Many may be guilty of not being sure what they believe – and that is sad, but has no bearing on it’s truth or untruth, and let’s not pretend that any of us know all the answers! I sure don’t, but if I don’t know what I believe, I will be happy to tell you.
Sure - there are lots of theologically insignificant variations that are included within the ‘pale’ of Christianity, but then God doesn’t insist we all eat Italian either. Multiple choice is great in Restaurants – doesn’t make food a lie. The variety there is a good thing, as it is in Christian churches – they ain’t McDonalds! As above - they can not all be ‘right’ wrt minor theological issues nor do they agree on preferences such as formality of style and music preference etc, but these things don’t actually matter at all to the qn of absurdity.
The rest of the challenges fall pretty much into the general category of ‘If I was God, (as I should be?) I wouldn’t have done it that way, and so I choose to call them absurd’. Ignoring that if in fact God exists, this is itself is a rather flawed way to argue for the point, (i.e. we can’t really expect to make the rules) they too do all have sound reasoned responses that are way too long to provide here. To quote Matthew 7:7 ‘Seek and you will find’ (LOL). Happy to try short responses to short qns in other posts. Cheers, Rich.
Comment 2 by OJB on 2013-11-15 at 21:07:23:
While the logs indicate I get a lot of visits to this blog (about 2 million at last count) few people comment. As you said: maybe they are too scared! Your comment is twice the length of my recent posts! I'll try to keep my response short...
Many beliefs have been around a long time. Many of them are incompatible so they can't all be true. This is largely irrelevant. let's stick to the specific criticisms I made.
Many great people in the past found Christianity credible. So what? Many Greeks (who founded the first universities) found Zeus credible. Again, let's stick to my actual criticisms.
The C. S. Lewis stuff (some of which I have read) is pretty silly. Sorry to be repetitive, but... remember my actual criticisms?
So you think that any question without a simple answer through science is best answered with childish fairy stories? Really? Come on. Let's get real... and stick to my actual criticisms.
I have never said Christianity is "instantly" or "automatically" absurd. I gave some examples of its core beliefs which I think are absurd and which, over half way through your comment, you still haven't mentioned.
If a single branch of science started out with one accepted belief and years later had split into over 30,000 warring (often literally) factions I would label it absurd. But that doesn't happen because you can only get that level of disagreement when the whole belief system is based on fantasy.
In fact there are no basically accepted tenets at all. Whatever branch of Christianity you personally accept (you have never said for some reason) has its beliefs and I'm sure you think they are the "true" beliefs. But so does everyone else.
So I get to the end of your extensive reply and find very little refuting my original post. That's disappointing. Briefly, here are my points again...
Genesis is absurd. It's clearly not literally true yet it has no obvious deep metaphorical meaning either. What's that all about?
The same applies to other stories like Exodus and the Flood. Maybe Exodus could be seen as being a metaphor but what's the message in the Flood story: that God's a homicidal, unreasonable, sadistic bully? Absurd!
That silly nonsense about Jesus being a sacrifice to God is pretty messed up. None of the elements in the story make sense and, yes, there's only one word for it: absurd!
Comment 3 by Richard on 2013-11-21 at 19:30:56:
Did you read my reply at all? I agreed it would be way too long (and you still complained) but I did say very clearly, if you want shorter responses, ask about 'em one at a time in other posts, rather than expecting me to answer them in this one. A bit rough for you to complain on both mutually exclusive counts. :-) Cheers.
Comment 4 by OJB on 2013-11-21 at 21:01:59:
OK, let's start with this: the Christian creation myth is absurd. If it is meant to be true why is it full of errors; and if it is meant to be an allegory, why does it have no obvious great metaphorical meaning?
Comment 5 by Derek Ramsey on 2016-11-02 at 14:59:09:
“Anyone with the smallest amount of intellectual honesty will agree that it simply cannot be literally true…Some people will say it is metaphorical.”
I think you have a category misunderstanding here.
A metaphor to be a figure of speech referencing something else other than that what is described. A metaphor is objectively ‘false’ when interpreted at face value. But it is not the only figure of speech available. We also have hyperbole, personification, idiom, allusion, analogies like simile, etc.
The “literal” (or plain meaning) is not as restrictive as you imply. Truth is not implied by being literal. For example ‘I am the smartest person alive’ is both literal and false. Nor does being literal imply only one explanation. The phrase ‘I am great’ can mean ‘I am fat’ or ‘I am awesome’.
Not only are the individual words taken literally or figuratively, but so are the individual statements, paragraphs, chapters, etc. A paragraph describing a person actually taking a bullet for someone may be said to a metaphor for love in the context of a larger story. This is something literal being taken figuratively.
Knowing whether to take something as literal or figurative is only the first step in determining the meaning of a thing. In the case of a pun, it may be both. A work of fiction may be literal, but we know that it is not to be taken as historical fact because it is fiction. When we read “Romeo and Juliet” literally, we see truths about relationships and love, but we don’t make the mistake of thinking the event actually happened.
We need to perform literary analysis to determine the meaning of a text. The type of writing (narrative, poetry, summary, etc.), the structure (i.e. Chiastic pattern), and the context must be taken into consideration. This literary analysis is arguably more important for determining truth than it being literal or figurative.
Genesis can be taken as ‘literally true’ without falling afoul of any of the objections you raise here or elsewhere. To say it can’t say anything at all that is in the domain of science is completely without justification.
If your objection is actually that the text can’t be taken literally in the sense of a modern historical narrative account, then absolutely that is the case. It is not a modern historical narrative! That fundamentalist evangelicals do this and their detractors accept this in their rebuttals really doesn’t say much for or against the text itself. The whole argument is flawed.
Comment 6 by OJB on 2016-11-02 at 14:59:24:
OK, I’ll ignore the first 6 paragraphs as they seem nothing more than an attempt to confuse the issue and avoid the unfortunate truth. Let’s move on to the specific case of Genesis. It describes a creation event (or a series of them) and it certainly seems like it was meant to be taken literally.
By that I mean that people were really supposed to believe that God did this, and then that, and that explains the universe as we see it today. Remember that until science discovered what really happened most people accepted Genesis as exactly that: a literal description.
It seems just too convenient that now that science has discovered the real “creation” events that suddenly Genesis is now supposed to be interpreted metaphorically. If science hadn’t done that we would still be using it as historical truth, wouldn’t we?
I would also ask, if this isn’t meant to be a description of real events then what is it? And given that literal and metaphorical sections of the Bible are interspersed without any way to identify them, which parts are true and which aren’t?
As I said in the original post… it’s absurd!
Comment 7 by Derek Ramsey on 2016-11-02 at 17:45:33:
The most obvious apparent contradiction in Genesis 1 is that the light is created before the sun/moon/stars (as are plants for that matter). But the text is in a chiastic pattern in the form A-B-C-A’-B’-C’-D:
Day 1: (A) Light
Day 2: (B) Sky and Sea
Day 3: (C) Land and Vegetation
Day 4: (A’) Stars/Sun/Moon
Day 5: (B’) Fish and Birds
Day 6: (C’) Animals and Man
Day 7: (D) God Rested
Day 1: Light goes with Day 4: Stars/Sun/Moon
Day 2: Sky/Sea goes with Day 5: Birds/Fish
Day 3: Land/Plants goes with Day 6: Animals/Man
Day 7: God rests
These devices are used for easy of memorization in an oral tradition and to imply emphasis. The most important detail (D) is the culmination of the story when God finishes his creative work and rests. When we tell a story, we don’t always tell it in chronological order. Sometimes we tell it by emphasis, telling important details out of chronological order (“I’m building my new office on the second floor. Tomorrow they pour the concrete for the foundation.”). There is no reason to say absolutely that this is a literal seven chronologically sequential 24-hour day creation story. It’s not obvious that these are ‘events’ at all. (i.e. Saying God created man is not the same as saying how or when he did it)
I mentioned the Song of Solomon which is in the form A-B-C-D-A’-B’-C’. In that case, ‘D’ is the wedding. The sex happens in other parts, but it isn’t a chronological story. It’s not advocating premarital sex. It’s not even part of the discussion. It’s a celebration of physical intimacy culminated by the joining in marriage.
This type of device is all over the Bible, notably including the story of Noah and the flood. These are not modern historical chronological narratives. Genesis 1 is a literary narrative (not metaphorical poetry!), but not the kind we are used to. We don’t write our narratives with such rigid structure. We reserve that for poetry. The Hebrews did not. They should not be interpreted as strict exact chronological historical events.
This is *just one* of the many issues at play. In my opening comment I listed a number of them. There are many other ways I could take this discussion, including talking about specific verses and how they should be interpreted, but this is a lengthy response already. I reject the fundamentalist ‘literal’ interpretation, not because it couldn’t be true, but because science is much better placed to answer questions of science. I don’t see the point in debating possible interpretations of the creation story that are compatible with science.
Comment 8 by OJB on 2016-11-02 at 17:46:55:
OK, I’ve got to admit it: you creationists are the masters of the post hoc rationalisation! I have never heard that particular excuse before. How widely is this view held?
I mean, even with your arbitrary hand waving explanation it’s still wrong, because humans evolved well after other animals and flowering plants were quite late. Also birds evolved after dinosaurs and mammals but before humans. There’s just no way this makes any sense.
You know what this reminds me of? Trying to find the truth in a child’s nursery rhyme. I mean, like “Jack and Jill ran up the hill to fetch a pail of water”. We know this is wrong because wells are never located on the top of hills. Maybe the hill was a metaphor for the challenges life poses and Jack and Jill symbolised humanity? Who’s to say I’m wrong?
Comment 9 by Derek Ramsey on 2016-11-08 at 23:18:43:
I’m not sure when the term “chiasm” was coined, but it is from the classical Greek. It is millennia old. The structure was widely used in many writings (including the Odyssey and the Iliad). It is widely known by scholars and seminary-trained pastors because it is ubiquitous. Call one up and ask them; it is where I learned about it.
Imagine trying to read and understand a Limerick without knowing the rhyme scheme, meter, and that the content is often humorously obscene? You might read it literally, but you’d miss the intended meaning if you took it for unstructured prose. It’s equally ignorant to read Genesis without knowing this.
You continue to read the Genesis account as if it was written in this century. All of your objections and conclusions reflect this. Saying that interpreting a text in its proper literary context is post hoc rationalization is equally silly. By failing to do this, both you and fundamentalists are necessarily guilty of post hoc rationalization. (Of course all interpretation of historical documents is post hoc by definition.)
You are making the same kind of category mistake that fundamentalists make. You’ve accepted their flawed assumptions and then argued that the conclusions are wrong. Well of course they are!
The text does not say that birds evolved before dinosaurs. It doesn’t say that light was created before the sources of light or that plants evolved without photosynthesis. It’s not saying that birds and fish are not animals either. That’s all nonsense. You come up with strange interpretations and then complain that they don’t make sense.
Interpretation of ancient texts requires a lot of work. You are trying to oversimplify and insist on a particular interpretation. It doesn’t work that way. Your post reflects your ignorance of the topic you are attempting to discuss. If you want to refute views held by fundamentalists and slam them for being inconsistent and contradictory, go ahead. That is low hanging fruit. But if you want to reject the account in terms of a literary work, then you have to argue against it as a literary work.
Comment 10 by OJB on 2016-11-08 at 23:19:32:
I have no issues with accepting Genesis as a literary work, but I got the impression you also thought it had some merit as a true description of the origin of the universe. Maybe that’s where the problem lies. So just to clarify, could you answer two questions: 1, is there any value in Genesis as a source of real information about real events (let’s stick to Genesis 1 and 2 at this stage); and 2, if there is could you describe briefly what it claims actually happened.
Comment 11 by Derek Ramsey on 2016-11-12 at 17:08:40:
I am using the term “literary work” to be a work of literature, that is a work of writing, not as the narrowly defined “imaginative fiction”. All writing, including science textbooks, must be viewed in light of its literary context. It is impossible to fully determine the truth in a writing without first understanding its literary context.
“1, is there any value in Genesis as a source of real information about real events; 2, if there is could you describe briefly what it claims actually happened.”
In short, yes. In long, how many months do you have? I’ll try ‘briefly’, but don’t expect a complete answer.
Genesis 1:1 is quite plain: God created everything and it has a beginning. The steady state theory created metaphysical problems for Christianity. The Big Bang theory caused metaphysical problems for Naturalism. It has always been the case that Christians believed in a beginning to the universe, long before science arrived at that conclusion. So the first primary point is that God is by nature a ‘creator’. It is no mistake that one of the primary attributes of humanity is its creative power.
We know from the literary analysis that the purpose of the creation story is to show that God did it and why: to highlight God’s relationship to man. The second primary point: God created man in his image and his method of communication with his creation is relational. It is no mistake that God sets up marriage as the type to his relationship with mankind. I can’t use science to get know my spouse. I have a relationship where she reveals herself to me. Naturalism explicitly excludes any possibility of relationship with God.
As far as other scientific claims, it is hard to be definitive. God is responsible for the celestial bodies, for the water and the land, the plants, animals, and man. But we don’t know when or how. We can only speculate. There are a lot of hints that could lead to specific scientific predictions, but we are only talking about two chapters. How much could it say about real events?
Comment 12 by OJB on 2016-11-12 at 17:08:58:
I have so many problems with this that I don’t know where to start. There is one thing you say that has always intrigued me though (off topic a bit) and that is what does “God created man in his image” actually mean?
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE