Abstract

© Dr M D Magee
Tuesday, January 23, 2001
Contents Updated: Tuesday, 17 October 2006

Christian religious leaders practised the arcane arts of apology, denial and polemic long before modern politicians discovered them. Apology was originally a legal defence and “apologetics” is the methods used to prepare an apology. Apology is now the defence of Christian belief, or as one authority calls it, Christian truth, against secular truth, particularly science and history. As that devout Christian, Kierkegaard, said in On Absurdity:

Faith is the holding of a belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

So, apology is not meant to be fair, any more than the prosecution or defence lawyers in a court of law try to be fair—it is distinctly lop-sidedly pro-Christian. No Christian will allow themselves the luxury of being fair or honest because no modern Christian is able to show their belief is true in any historical or scientific sense. What is wrong with research into the facts, presented honestly, warts and all? In other words, accepting the facts instead of trying to force them selectively into the Christian bucket. Apologists try to buttress belief rather than honestly testing criticism by considering all the relevant data without fear or favour. Apologists seek to impose a dogma rather than seek a truth. A Christian apologist, Mark McFall, online tries to be more honest than most. He cites Brian Lawson, a fellow Christian:

All too often, Christians (including myself) are too eager to accept a fine sounding idea from one of our fellow Christians without really putting it to the test. We think, “It is from a Christian (perhaps a popular teacher or preacher), so it must be right”.

Brian Lawson, Thank God For The Skeptics! online

It is an admission of the gullibility and naïveté of Christians. These days their claims can so easily be checked on the internet that Christian hyperbole can easily be dragged back into reality:

Information is religion’s greatest enemy, and in an age when information is just a few keyboard strokes away from anyone with a computer, this is going to pose a greater threat to Christianity than anything it has yet “survived”.

Former Christian minister, Farrell Till

McFall wants apologists to note such warnings but adds wishfully that skeptics should remember that information can be used both ways, and has no favorites. That is absurd. Taking the word “information” to be something accepted as true, inasmuch as it is true, it supports those who accept it and refutes those who do not. If Christianity were an almighty God’s chosen instrument, then it could not be wrong, and if Christianity were true, then information would support it and would refute the skeptics. It is the reverse in reality. That is the problem apologists for Christianity have to contend with, and obviously cannot without being economic with the truth. Why does Christianity need excuses, for that is what apologetics descends into?

A trite and untruthful book, like any of those by Josh McDowell, cannot help Christians. It will offer evidence, sometimes exaggerated, only for Christian faith. To read McDowell, there are no arguments against Christianity. Confronted by serious criticism by informed skeptics, Christians depending on McDowell soon find themselves inadequate. As Jeffery Lowder of the Secular Web says, McDowell deals only with evidence of certain types, and his disciples will be wrong-footed when they come up against other types of evidence. They are soon forced to realise that McDowell never tried to face up to all the evidence because he could not. And many Christians never actually meet any serious criticism of their views because of the Christian circles they move in. Everyone in them are trying desperately to buttress each others’ faith against their doubts not condition them to serious argument.

Essentially Christianity keeps Christians ignorant. They are not encouraged to read biblical scholarship, and often are amazed that things they take for granted are not true. McFall gives the instance of the gospels. The uncritical Christians simply takes their names for granted, never suspecting that the names attached to them are pure conveniences, with no historical foundation. They are called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John by traditon, and nothing more, so the Christian has to make another leap of faith in believing that the tradition must have some foundation in history.

Moreover, apologetic books often contain pure exaggeration, wonderful for impressing believers, but useless for argumentation with skeptics. Yet the Christian scholars are ignored, by clergy and laypeople alike. McDowell is fond of hyperbolic headings to his chapters in Evidence That Demands A Verdict such as “The Incredible Accuracy of Luke”. McDowell makes Luke into a “super-hero” “among ancient historians”. Perhaps Luke was a good historian, dependent like any historian upon his material, and no worse than his contemporaries like Josephus, but it is the childish Christian demand for Christianity to be supernaturally founded that makes Luke into some sort of god himself—a god among historians. If Acts is considered to be supernaturally accurate then Paul’s own letters are in error, and vice versa because in places they are incompatible.

McFall thinks Christian apologists should be more familiar with biblical scholarship, and should use it more, but the problem with it for apologetics is that it often negates the traditional Christian story. That, of course, is exactly why clergymen will learn all about it at a seminary, but will not pass it on to their flocks in Church. They risk sending the flocks off to some more fundamentalist church that does not do anything so silly as to believe objective scholarship. Belief has to expand into accepting that even Christian scholars are liars or fools. Indeed, it is the skeptics who are trying to persuade Christians to use such boring things as science and evidence who will use the biblical scholarship rather than the Christian.

When the Christian apologist does appeal to scholarship, they ignore modern discoveries when they do not suit them. In other words they lie. McDowell somewhere quotes an early source on the events of the death and burial of Jesus, S Ignatius (c 50-115 AD). Yet of the extended works of Ignatius, many are now known to be spurious, and it is from this spurious work that McDowell quotes. Needless to say, the believer does not care because it says what he believes and that is sufficient, and he also knows that whoever he is arguing with is unlikely to be able to contradict or question the citation. Another Christian liar is N Geisler, a man who is a professional apologist, being entitled the professor of theology and apologetics of some evangelical seminary. According to McFall, he writes:

Historical evidence that Jesus was supernaturally conceived of a virgin is more than substantial. Indeed, there are more eyewitness contemporary records of the virgin birth than for most events from the ancient world.

N Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics

.

McFall frankly admits that, though Christians accept the evidence presented in Matthew and in Luke concerning the Virgin Birth, there is no contemporary eyewitness evidence of it. Geisler is using sophistry, if he is not plain lying. Most events of the ancient world happened so long ago, and before many things were recorded at all, that it might be true to say that, in that it was recorded however inadequately in the gospels, it has more contemporary records than most ancient events. So, at best it is sophistry and at worst a lie, but either way it was intended to mislead, and that illustrates the level of these people called apologists for Christianity. They are dishonest, and no one should be taken in by them.

McFall recommends to young evangelists not to engage in critical discussions before checking all possible angles to the claim and its rebuttal before going into print. No one should rely on quick-fix apologetic books that proffer only lies or incomplete answers. The trouble is, of course, that any such research will lead the novice apologist into deeper water because so little of it supports belief. Ultimately the basis of Christian belief is utterly inadequate because it is nothing other than faith, and faith is the basis of the Christian fraud. Faith is believing despite the evidence, and is supposedly rewarded by the same God that gave us brains. That the Christian has to eschew the use of their brains and instead accept something on no evidence at all, simply to believe—that is faith—surely proves that faith is no criterion of God’s. If supernatural forces for Good and for Evil are believed, then the one that wants us not to use the brains God, the force for Good, allegedly gave us must be the force for Evil. If supernatural forces are ignored as inventions of wicked control freaks for their own unsavoury ends, then it is plain they are the ones who want to persuade people not to question the scam.

An ex-Christian, Steve Locks, cannot find faith as responsible or virtuous at all compared with getting to understand things through hypotheses open to refutation. In short, using your brain. Religious faith “stultifies examination of one’s beliefs and experiences”. The Christian always rejects evidence and logic over what he is always ready to call the Holy Ghost—whatever the church declares as true, or any abnormal psychological experience deemed to be “spiritual”. Moreover, unquestioning faith is dangerous. Suicidal sects like the Heaven’s Gate sect and suicide bombers like those who brought down the twin towers had an abundance of faith, Locks points out, and both led nowhere pleasant. Faith to a greater or lesser degree puts your life and destiny into someone else’s hands. You can easily become cannon fodder in religious strife.

So, McFall urges his audience to view criticisms aimed at them by critics of Christianity as constructive. Essentially facing such critics is beneficial, and if doubt arises God may have planned it so that the evangelist will be a more understanding witness to Christ. It is a brave stance that any skeptic must applaud, especially in the face of the typical Christian sophistry—doubt is a weakness that can be fatal to belief, and must be resisted, but with the knowledge that it is normal and when suppressed will strengthen faith! If Christianity is to be presented intellectually, then it must stand up intellectually. If it does not, then it must fall, and in that case the Christian should be grateful they have been saved by their brains from being led into a dark night for the soul orchestrated by the Devil or devilish people on earth. Then they might seriously begin to look for the truth they constantly spout about as Christians while spreading manifest lies and dishonest sophistry.

The aforementioned Brian Lawson has a similar approach to McFall if one that seems more patronizing of the poor folk who criticize Christianity. It seems they really want faith but their intellects stand in the way. It is something you cannot say about believers, that is true. Always finding strength in each other, Lawson cites someone called L Strobel who apparently converted from atheism. This man writes:

I need a faith that’s consistent with reason, not contradictory to it; I want beliefs that are grounded in reality, not detached from it. I need to find out once and for all whether the Christian faith can stand up to scrutiny.

The reader is presumably supposed to deduce from these pleas that he has found all this in Christianity. It is, of course, another apologetic trick. Indeed, it is a common trick for Christian apologists to claim that they found the “truth” from atheism. Frank Morrison, author of the book, Who Moved the Stone?, was the same, and McDowell himself apparently makes the same claim. Everyone must have begun their life as an atheist, so it is again sophistry. It is hard to believe that any of these people were ever atheists by choice, and, if they were, they were among the tribe of “joiners”, a term for people who join a succession of religious or social groups. Many find satisfaction as Christians, whose god appropriately was a carpenter! Were they genuine seekers after truth or simply looking for the club with the easiest prospectus or the best career prospects? Christianity is neither consistent with reason nor does it stand up to scrutiny, and it certainly is not grounded in reality since it demands belief in the most incredible and impossible supernatural beings and events.

Anyway, the critic of Christianity does not always have ill-motives, our patronizing Christian informs his readers. Lawson agrees that critics have a right to ask hard questions and point out inconsistencies. He accepts that many of them know the bible better than many Christians, but he was surprised and depressed in entering debate on the internet on a skeptical list that he was mocked and belittled by skeptics not simply for his faith but as a thinking person. The fact that this surprised him rather confirms the skeptics’ judgement. Why should someone who simply believes as a matter of principle be regarded as some sort of intellectual whiz? Someone who just believes is obviously anything but an intellectual. Just believing is an abrogation of all intellectual faculties. Needless to say, the experience did not teach Lawson any sense. Rather it buttressed his flagging belief! He lists some ways in which it did this such as testing his own belief, showing that he did not know as much as he thought, facing up to doubts, and getting nearer to God in asking Him to sort them out. He does not give a single concrete example of any doubt highlighted by a skeptic that God had removed, so the reader has to take his generalities at his word. Maybe it is because God did not give him the answers, but his faith was thereby strengthened because he still had to believe!

Overall, in the face of objections, questions, and many criticisms that have promoted doubt in my mind and heart, my faith has grown because it has been tested under a lot of fire. God has used the skeptics and all of their doubts to increase my faith and help me see that it is on solid ground.

Brian Lawson, Op Cit

You get more faith from the god who is not there because he is not there to answer your doubts. Quite remarkable. What a laugh these people are.

Meanwhile McFall, having told us he wants more responsible apologies by Christians, elsewhere apologises for the ending of Mark. He admits the author of Mark did not write verses 16:9-20, but objects to a critic saying they were added “much later” because bishop Irenaeus (130-200 AD) mentioned Mark 15:9 in Against Heresies (3:10:5), and it perhaps appears too in Tatian’s Diatessaron, c 150-160 AD. If these references are not later interpolations, and it is assumed that Irenaeus did not write any works as a child, they must date to about 160 AD, give or take about ten years, a date around a century after Mark was originally written. It was long after the synoptic gospels Matthew and Luke were available to Christians—sixty or seventy years after.

Yet, the Christian who calls for honest apologetic infers from this that the author of the end of Mark was another independent source of the resurrection and appearances! It is “a so-called, fifth account if you will”. Er, no I will not! It can only be a fourth one since the original Mark has no such account, but it appears so much later than the other synoptic gospels, there is no way it could be considered independent of them. McFall ignores his own advice. He indulges in hyperbole in response to a legitimate question, and gives gullible sheep false hope that a problem has been solved to the benefit of Christian faith.

He sees this obvious rejoinder and glosses it over with a few quick references to scholarly studies, but they are irrelevant. The passages at the end of Mark, on the best estimates, could not be dated before the remaining gospels had been written and popularized among literate Christians. Indeed, they can be reliably dated only to half a century after them. They must have been added in the knowledge of the contents of the other gospels and can hardly be considered to have been independent of them. Rather, the passages were added precisely to harmonize the early Mark, which had no such accounts, with the later gospels of Luke and Matthew which had expanded the original simple story to offer a record of the supposed resurrection and appearances. That is the straightforward interpretation of the facts and McFall is trying to obfuscate it in an apology that ignores his own advice. So much for honest apologetics.

McFall does accept that the bible is no proof of the existence of God. He frankly admits that God is assumed throughout the bible, and so requires no proof in it. So, he is showing that all of those other Christians who claim the bible is proof of God are liars or are deluded. God has to be assumed, if the bible is to be understood. Christians therefore have to come to the bible already with the idea of God in their heads. All McFall can offer is:

It is beyond me, why anyone, given the unknowable vastness of the universe and the uniqueness of the earth within it, would be so sure that there is no God.

Here the Christian seems to think the universe is greater than God, since he seems to suppose that God can hide in it, and his anthropomorphism outs itself in his supposition that the earth is unique. They simply cannot understand anything, poor souls, even their own beliefs. To recapitulate, the atheist is not making any assertion about God. He is denying an assertion about God. He finds the hypothesis of God to be superfluous to the functioning of the universe, and so unnecessary. In short, there is no need for God. Everything can be explained better, more parsimoniously and more fruitfully without God. God is just a comfort blanket for those who cannot bear to die.

Steve Locks, the lapsed Christian, pointed out that Christians cannot understand that those who lapse have perfectly good reasons for it. In particular, they come to the conclusion, having checked the sources and history of Christianity, that the supernatural content of it is untenable. Rather than being a rational decision, Christians think apostatizing must have been because the ex-Christian had some untypically bad experience at the hands of a Christian, or Christian organisation. It could never be because of the wickedness and corruption of the churches and their leaders, but must have been something resolvable with the right apologetic approach.

Christians delude themselves into thinking that it is only their faith that stops them from descending into wickedness and despair. Those who lapse are therefore opting for wickedness and despair instead of the supposed bliss of the Christian state of mind. Yet non-Christians, whether people of other faiths or none, do not generally live in a state of wickedness and despair. Often it is quite the reverse, because Christianity has placed such a misplaced emphasis on guilt and the sinfulness of natural behaviour, that they feel utterly relieved of a great burden, an imaginary one in reality, but still thankfully removed. Suddenly they can actually look at the world and at science with the wonder that they deserve in their own right, without any fearful God or His agents, the clergy and pastors, frowning on every disapproved thought.

Lapsing is not something that Christians choose to do. If anyone chooses a belief, then it is not really believed. A belief can be mistaken, like the Christian belief, but those who profess it honestly, do it on what they think are secure grounds, even if they turn out not to be. Doubtless many of the Christian shepherds did indeed “choose to believe”, because they chose a career path. They did not choose the belief but saw that it offered a good opportunity for a comfortable life, and even a prosperous one. The sheep, on the other hand, usually believe because parents or perhaps a cynical shepherd convinces them. They are compelled to believe either under the authority of their “betters”, or because they are given what is to them a convincing reason for it. Simple people can respond best to simple emotive messages, and they are at the core of Christianity. Their betters ought to know better, and often do, but have their own motives for bringing more gullible sheep into the fold. They ought to be encouraging the sheep to examine their beliefs, but they will not.

Locks is stern with the whole notion of apologetics—excusing Christianity. He asks McFall to consider the situation of the Christian if Christianity were false. He believes a false belief, so would he not want to know it and have the chance of finding a true one? The art of apologetics assumes the truth of Christianity and finds ways of upholding it as best it can in the face of criticism, “rather than giving equal weight to the possibility that the critics might be right”.

Yet the Christian will apply all the skills and methods of criticism available in criticizing the sacred texts of other religions, and in attacking aspects of science that do not concur with the bible. Plainly the Christian has no problem with the methods of criticism, science and debate except when Christianity is under scrutiny. Then Christianity has special treatment. It is the fallacy of special pleading. Apologetics is special pleading, placing your own belief in a favoured position vis-à-vis criticism. How can it ever be honest?

Here are some of the techniques apologists use. Take note. When appearing in public, apologists do so only on carefully prearranged terms, usually such that there can be no counter questioning or free discussion, and preferably with a sympathetic person in the chair. These days Christians set themselves easier tasks than of old. They are content to attempt to show that their belief is not at variance with secular knowledge, an implicit acceptance that secular knowledge is superior whatever their beliefs might be. If confounded, they will say that religious subjects cannot be investigated by standard methods. Thus lawyers can judge legal matters and scientists can investigate natural phenomena, but neither are competent in God’s realm.

Clerics would refuse to consider counter evidence as if it was tainted with a smell of sulphur. The Pope’s inquisitors would not look through Galileo’s telescope in case they saw the Devil or his works. When apologists state confidently “I have seen no evidence to uphold these assertions”, they might well be speaking the truth, because they have refused even to look at the evidence offered. It is the sophistry that Christian apologists are fond of.

Their most popular technique is obfuscation. They will keep their arguments abstract and theological in the belief that their theology will seem to transcend any counter-arguments and refute any contrary evidence. Because churches are rich institutions they publish endless books aimed at confusing the already confused and giving an impression of vast amounts of evidence, but all of it is empty. Theology is purely to bury proper evidence in truckloads of spurious waffle.

The ultimate obfuscation is lying, a hugely successful technique for Christians because they have created a popular illusion that they are honest. It is important not to be beguiled by Christian pretences to honesty. They are not and never were, even when secular knowledge was less well founded. Since ultimately they consider that they are engaged in a holy war against the Devil and his hordes of unbelievers, they will use any method fair or foul to justify their holy view. A lie is merely an untruth to the glory of God and His church.

Apologists will patronize any critic on the grounds that they are poor fools lacking the sense to understand that Christians are speaking for and with the authority of God. They will chuckle as if you are a child asking something vaguely embarrassing out of your naïvety.

They will imply that the critic is lacking something or is malicious in bringing forward their criticisms. They will use dismissive words like “dogmatic”, “confused”, and “erroneous” aimed at suggesting that you are empty headed or out of your depth in this company. They will accuse them of not themselves considering religion either from some fancied inadequacy, bigotry or hatred. If they have written a book expressing their views, they are profiting or seeking publicity. These are ad hominem arguments, or personal attacks that quite often impress unwary listeners.

They depend greatly on people being predisposed, by the continuing weight of Christian propaganda even in our secular societies, to believe what they say and not to be familiar with the counter arguments. Apology cannot work against people who are widely read and have concluded that Christianity is a delusion. Such people are disdained by apologists as “dogmatic secularists”, an example of their ad hominem technique.

They will try to discredit religious skeptics as zealots when they are the real zealots, and the descendants of zealots in fact, and anyone who concludes that Christians are wrong or deluded are “dogmatists”—phenomena known to psychologists as projection—attributing to your opponent your own faults.

They will accuse their opponents of being skeptical about everything, or that they are too material and do not make allowance for the spiritual, another way of saying that you do not agree with them because “the spiritual” means their viewpoint. Instead of spiritual, to give a less ecclesiastical and more philosophical flavour they might say “metaphysical”.

Clerics always demand as proof of criticism far more evidence than it is possible to give, and therefore they can dismiss any evidence offered as inadequate, ignoring the fact that they believe without evidence at all. Proof is difficult to find except in formal logic and bottles of that other kind of spirit. Since no evidence is proof enough, they can always claim there is no proof, and will extend it to mean there is no evidence. Or, if feeling oppressed by substantial evidence, they will boldly state that evidence proves nothing. Nor does it for them. Their belief is the only proof they will accept. In real life, matters are mainly judged on the balance, or weight, of evidence, and all evidence depends on the world being natural and orderly, not capricious and supernatural. Acceptance of the supernatural is equal to denying real life evidence, as apologists know full well.

The religious apologist is always impressed by authority because he has God’s own authority through the bible, and he therefore assumes that others are just as impressed. They therefore will quote biblical texts as though they automatically end the argument and will extend this to quoting prominent co-religionists, hoping for the same result.

They will always call criticisms of their view “claims”, as any view contrary to their own is unfounded whereas their own is unquestionable. They will try to counter scientific argument by accusing their antagonist of being “reductionist”, a common insult used against scientists who they want to depict as believing that the whole is no more than the sum of its parts, whereas they pretend they know of parts that scientists cannot find.

“Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence” is a common sense truism. Essentially it means that extraordinary claims will not be believed. Jasper tells us he caught a fish and no one is inclined to disbelieve him because it is not an extraordinary claim. No one would believe him if he says he caught a mermaid unless he produced her for us to inspect.

Nevertheless, clerics assert that their own “evidence” is sufficient for faith and therefore sufficient. They will always insist that their critics will make no allowance for the miraculous, yet they are invariably selective in what they accept as proving it. So, they will quote instances of miraculous cures or faith healing, but will ignore the untold numbers of people who were not cured or even died as expected, despite the supposed miraculous procedure.

So, they insist that religious phenomena have to be considered by separate rules from natural phenomena, hoping to avoid any sort of skeptical investigation. Only the religious will be allowed to investigate religions because, to be effective, the investigator must first believe absolutely. Of course, the believer would not want to investigate critically the religion that he already believes.

Anything unusual they want to try to reserve as a possible miracle, and will accuse those who suggest scientific explanations as “explaining away” or “rationalizing”. In other words, they want everyone to accept the supernatural because religion depends on its acceptance. They will therefore keep it in the news by issuing warnings from time to time about the dangers of Satanism, or the occult, as if such superstitions were dangerous, while doing little or nothing to oppose other popular fancies as astrology, though they have opposed this too in the past.

They will dismiss or distort the bulk of history that refutes their views while highlighting any tiny nugget that can be presented as upholding them. Much of our history is propaganda, but even when the propaganda is exposed, Christian clerics, teachers and journalists continue to teach it, and so it persists. They habitually refer to historical periods with biblical references, like the “time of Christ” and the “time of Solomon”, maintaining the popular feeling that there was a god called Christ and a mighty king called Solomon in history, and it is accepted by all.

They will try to suggest that critics are idiots unaware of the most obvious things, such as that archaeology does not permit the examination of the corpse of Jesus, as if the critics really thought it did. By making suggestions like this, they hope to discredit the evidence that critics have produced.

In the face of the flimsy basis of Christian belief, they have the gall to criticise their critics for using the “argument from silence”. They love the mantra, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”, as if absence of evidence was a virtue. Of course, it is when their flocks believe even in the absence of evidence, but the absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence.

An argument is more persuasive if it appeals to something that the audience already happily accepts, as those who have been teachers are always taught. Paul would not have to work so hard making his case if he appealed to the presumably already accepted teaching of Jesus. That he does not either means he did not know what Jesus taught or he did not want to use it.

If something fails to be present in a place where it should be if it existed, it may not exist at all. Of course, it does not prove it does not exist, and Christian apologists are always demanding proof of others that they cannot offer themselves, but it is evidence. If a writer is making a case but fails to use some well-known fact that would serve him well, then it is fair and logical to deduce that the author did not know of it. Admittedly a single omission might be an oversight or deliberate for some reason, but a profound continual silence must imply that the event or fact was not known to the writers, or they had reason not to speak of it. The same is true in archaeology. While the utter absence of anything that can be identified with a tenth century Jewish empire does not prove that David and Solomon are mythological, it is such a profound silence that it strongly suggests it.

The Egyptologist, Kenneth Kitchen, of Liverpool University is fond of chucking the phrase at those who suggest the curious gaps that occur in the archaeology of various regions are imaginary ones caused by faulty chronology. It is a faulty chronology that is particularly defended by biblicists because it leaves room for Moses, Joshua, the Judges, David and Solomon where otherwise there would be no time to fit them in. The fact that it creates huge gaps in the archaeology of places like Greece and Nubia, is of no concern to those who believe that God wants his bit of free time for his most glamorous prophets and kings.

David Rohl, who is an Adam-and-Ever himself, says that according to Kitchen, “just because there is no archaeological evidence of something it should not be assumed that that something did not happen”. So, the suggestion that primitive men travelled around in spaceships, according to Eric von Daniken, cannot be dismissed merely because there is no evidence for it! Nevertheless, when Thomas L Thompson declares that there is no evidence for all the biblical heroes just cited, Rohl takes the same view as Kitchen. They existed because they are God’s heroes, so the evidence will turn up. And indeed it does, but no one except the biblicists accept it as genuine. Devotion to a God has always led to pious forgery, and it remains true today, adding to the difficulties of genuine archaeologists.

When Christians have somehow been obliged to consider proper evidence or it has been well publicised, they will attempt to disparage it, telling you it is no more than what so-and-so said 200 years before, or that it is “misleadingly impressive”, but is not dissimilar to what so-and-so claimed, and that is now forgotten. If a claim having some similarity to the case being presented has been discredited, then, for them, it proves that similar cases are equally invalid.

In the ultimate case of some element of biblical history having to be conceded, they will take the credit as the work of biblical scholarship!

In short, they have double standards—they are dishonest—but pretend otherwise. So, they will use rational arguments if they think they will persuade someone to join their church, but they dismiss them if critical.

“Can any pious Christian be honest?” It is a question that necessarily troubles the uncommon thinking Christian more than the common unthinking flock of them. The theologian, Donald MacKinnon did ask, “Can a Divinity Professor Be Honest?”. It was uncommonly honest to ask it, and that shows the need for the question. Hardly any simple believers ever do, and even fewer theologians. How can a scholar, who must “follow the argument whithersoever it leads”, remain faithful to Christian dogmata, especially, crook in hand, as a noble shepherd? The Christian bias inevitably threatens objectivity of judgement. Attempting to tell only the truth in such circumstances must lead to realising faith cannot honestly be held. The Christian is always forced into the Christian sophistry called apologetics, when Christian practitioners of this ignoble art are intent both on being false and on giving a false impression.

Christians are fond of decrying ideologies—that of Communism, or of scientism, their pejoratively ideological name for science. “Ideology” is the name for other people’s beliefs not one’s own. Belief systems are always learnt but seem inborn or gifted to the believer. Christian belief is the Christian ideology, and always seems so necessary and natural to them that it ought not be questioned. The Christian thinks their own narrative is the only one worth uttering because it is so much more right than the others, yet such certainty is self defeating, especially if Christ, the Christian God on earth, was speaking what Christians ought to believe. The Christian had to be, above all, humble. Certainty is not a humble condition, and certainty always hides falsehoods. If red is the truth to a Christian then all their own lies become red to them, and lies and truth are indistinguishable in the redness of the Christian consciousness. Both have been collected together in the growth of the Christian’s thinking.

The archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, thinks claims to comprehensiveness and finality constitute “the tyranny of a total perspective”. He means ideas thought infallible that cannot therefore be self-critically tested. It is the way of thinking of many Christian sects and sub-cults, including the one that is wrestling traditional Anglicans for control of their Church. Such Christians cannot question or learn from anything not stamped with the kitemark of Christianity, which is final and binding. As Barth put it, the “ideal becomes an idol”, possessing and dictating. Ideological beliefs have to promote their own excellence and usefulness, and show how utterly valueless and damaging their rivals’ and opponents’ are. MacKinnon argued, as Dr John C McDowell explains to us, the price paid for honesty was being exposed to criticism, precarious and vulnerable though it was. Yet Christians habitually avoid it by dishonestly taking refuge in claims to an infallibility of thought and a finality of debate that simply is self-deceit.

External criticism has the benefit of forcing Christians to stop hiding behind false or forgotten history. McDowell says that Christian disdain for “external” or “outside” criticism is itself using “sloppy talk” as a defence, for there is nothing outside “grace” except sin, and no church even is free of it. Moslems have been ultra sensitive to criticism in the western press recently, and fundamentalist Christians think it is a bandwagon they should join, but MacKinnon thinks religions must be the first to accept, not only criticism, but also biting satire. Rowan Williams explains:

God is to be sought and listened for in all occasions.

These clerics realise that religious people, Christians as well as Moslems, are sounding hysterical. Believers should learn by criticism, and respond with debate in an honest and dignified way rather than in horror and pleas for special treatment. Humility is accepting that one can never know one has escaped from the mental distortion and illusion garnered throughout life, but constant self questioning, rather than smug self-certainty, would be a start.

Thinking Christians accept the greatest falsehood, red and invisible against the vermillion Christian mental wallpaper, is the belief that the Christian journey has ended, that to be born-again is to be saved. That will only be known at the time of judgement, and meanwhile it is not a good assumption to make. The Christian journey ought not to be presumed ended prematurely. Those who think it has ended have probably not started on it. As the Christian incarnated god repeatedly personally emphasised, temptations litter the easy path.

No one knows, McDowell points out, what the end of the story looks like. It follows that those who do, are liars, or are at least self-deluded. His final sentence is inspired by Karl Barth—“Jesus Christ is still on his way with us”. Any hope that stands still to contemplate that fact will miss his passing by. And this indeed reflects the humility Christ spoke of constantly, and which modern evangelical Christians mainly do not possess.

Mutual Affirmation Methods

Glen Miller, a Christian apologist famous for his Christian agony aunt blog, Christian Thinktank, critises Christians for their ignorant mistakes in argument when they indulge in online apologetics. It is embarrassing, that is true, but it is because many Christians, if not most are simple, and think they speak for God when they come out with their irrational thought. Among the problems are:

• Cristians are uncritical of the beliefs they have been taught, many of which are not held by Christians trying to be more intellectually sound:
  • primarily, being unable to read and understand the bible themselves, they accept what their parents, pastors and priests tell them, and it is often just wrong
  • their interpretations of biblical texts is often quite impossible to accept from the time they were written. Modern politically motivated interpretations are put on texts that could not have had any such original meaning
  • interpretations they get as children in sunday school also cannot bear the burden of interpretation put on them. Simple interpretations might be suitable for children and are meant to be revised when they are more mature, but they never get out of their childish ways of thinking
  • related to this is the tendency of believers to imagine a story and in so doing add into it what is not there but that they want to be there. Just listen to any convinced Christian explaining a biblical story, and they will embellish it in many ways. Often they are astonished to have it pointed out that the bible does not say what they thought it did. Much of this is innocent, but they are also taught less innocent things by their indoctrinating pastors and priests, whom they believe, but often have their own agenda
  • nor will they accept, or often even consider, that the bible did not come to us without the possibility and even probability that parts were changed for spurious, certainly not divine but purely practical, reasons. It is not inerrant, and besides deliberate tampering, it contains bias appropriate to its age, and now utterly inappropriate. Scholars know it, priests mainly know it, and a few evangelical scholars even accept it, but they will not tell their flocks for fear of losing them to some sect with a harder line
  • in summary, their exegesis of the bible and historical works is too often superficial or politically motivated
• Related to the lack of critical ability is the Christian predilection for only considering data in favour of their view and brushing aside objections. It shows they do not understand debate, evidence or the logic of justice
• The bible is full of incongruities and inconsistences, and evangelical pastors in particular are masters at negating one part of the bible with another. Thus they can persuade the simple of anything they choose, calling it harmonization, clarification and exegesis. It satisfies the uncritical churchgoer but many such interpretations are possible. Because they sound suitable—they are plausible—does not mean they are right. Most often they are being manipulated by the minister, and, though the exegetical problem remains, the doubts of the flocks are satisfied
• Apologists like to use character assassination and ad hominem arguments. Website discussions are full of them, on both sides, invoked when somone contradicts a treasured belief considered unarguable. Calling people names because they disagree is childish, trying to discredit them by character assassination to prejudice the audience against somone’s viewpoint is ad hominem and considered poor debating technique that will alienate the educated listener, but having spent time trying to put over a generally accepted basic step in an argument that someone simply refuses to consider is a proper basis for concluding that the opponent is an idiot. In other words no one should presume their opponent is an idiot for the sake of the debate, but one can, and often has to conclude from the debate that the opponent is an idiot.
• Special pleading is an error that Christians are fond of. They seem to believe that because they define their beliefs as divine, any rules that apply generally do not apply to Christianity and to Christians.
• Often Christian amateur apologists get into a tangle because they are out of their depth. They simply do not understand the question under discussion, and often will not listen to attempts to clarify it, either out of more ignorance or because they know they are heading for a defeat. Knowing how to concede gracefully is important to all debaters, but Christians will not lose face because they think they are defending God
• Nearly all Christians, who are so used to accepting the authority of the bible, think that arguments from authority carry weight. Naturally some authorities carry more weight than others, but no critic of of religion will accept the authority of holy books that are centuries out of date as being at all authoritative, and Christians think that citing any scientist that agrees with them as valuable, when any scientific argument is only valid as science, not as the opinion of a scientist, especially if he is a Christian. The authority of minor figures has itself to be justified
• Christians are brought up to think that the bible is true, and so they will not consider any evidence that might show it is false. Much of ANE archaeology simply does not back up the bible’s accounts, and citing discredited ancient works and authors just shows ignorance and desperation. Nor does citing other Christian apologists carry any weight, because they are all forlornly trying to uphold each other in a mutual affirmation society. The bible, especially the Jewish scriptures are full of genuine problems, and ignoring them and trying to explain them away does not make the Christian or Christianity right

Skeptical Resources—Internet infidels | Jesus Never Existed | Steven Carr’s Website | Christianism | Early Christian Writings | God is Imaginary | “Religion Detoxification” | Our Judaio-Christian Heritage | Archaeoastronomy | No Deity | No Beliefs | Evil Bible | Bible God | ex-Christians | Jesus Police | Islamic Faith Freedom | Atheist Experience | American Atheists | Jovial Atheist | Askwhy! books
Other Resources—Early Christian Docs | Resources for Study | Traditional Bible-History | Traditional Bible World History | Traditional Bible History | about.com biblical history | Apologetics web sites | Advent Ch Fathers | Orion center links | Wikipedia | Traditional Jewish History