Is America a Christian Nation Founded on Judaeo-Christian Values?

Time and again, when ostensibly devout Christians here in America want to exercise their right to discriminate against those who do not share their beliefs, they trot out the well-worn nostrum that “America is a Christian nation” or “America was founded on Judaeo-Christian values” as a justification. This “foundation on Judaeo-Christian values” bit is so important, in fact, that some people even think its appropriate to put large stone monuments commemorating the Ten Commandments in courthouses.

But was America or its laws actually founded on Judaeo-Christian values (to the exclusion, presumably, of all other values)?

Well, to start with, we have the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states in part:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…

So, given the fact that the founders certainly could have specifically stated that America was a Christian nation founded on Judaeo-Christian values and instead chose to state that would be no official state religion, it certainly seems as though the founders at least didn’t think that their new country was a Christian nation founded on Judaeo-Christian values. But maybe that was just an oversight on their part.

Well, what about Article Six of the very same Constitution, which states in part:

[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Again, the founders could have stated that only good, God-fearing Christians would be eligible to serve in public office, but instead chose to say that it essentially didn’t matter what religion (if any) somebody belonged to. Still, maybe they just assumed that all Americans would be Christians and this was to prevent bickering between, say, Catholics and Protestants. Hey — it’s possible, right?

And then, of course, we have the famous “Separation of Church and State” as described by Thomas Jefferson:

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

But surely Thomas Jefferson was an outlier, right? One wacky “deist” in a sea of devout Christians, obviously. Surely the rest of the founders and early Americans were confident that America was, first and foremost, a Christian nation and were not afraid to announce this fact openly, right? Well, not according to the Treaty of Tripoli, which was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, received unanimous ratification from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797, and states in part:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

But, hey — maybe they were just lying for the sake of getting the treaty done. Not that lying is exactly a “Christian” value, mind you, but that’s politics for you.

---

OK, so depending on your point of view, it’s either blindingly obvious that the founders of this great country did not think that America was founded on Judaeo-Christian values or else it’s blindingly obvious that none of the facts provided above have anything whatsoever to do with the issue and can be safely ignored (“Nothing to see here, folks, move along”). Fine. For those in the latter camp, however, how about we explore exactly what these supposed “Judaeo-Christian values” actually are and see if they do, in fact, form the foundation of our laws.

First up, of course, is the Ten Commandments, which is seen by many American Christians to be the foundation of U.S. law, to the extent that some would erect statues of the 10 Commandments right in the lobby of courthouses, as mentioned earlier. There are various versions, but here’s the most common list:

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. [Hmmmm… I don’t see that enshrined anywhere in the Constitution or other laws of the United States. In fact, as mentioned above, the First Amendment of the Constitution specifically says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” You’d think that if America were indeed founded on Judaeo-Christian values the first and arguably most important commandment would be called out somewhere, right? Interesting…]
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image. [Hmmmm… Again, I don’t see anything about this mentioned anywhere in the Constitution or other laws of the United States. And it’s kinda ironic that somebody would fight to erect a large graven image of the 10 Commandments in front of a court of law, doncha think?]
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. [Nope, still not seeing it. One could argue, by the way, that putting “In God We Trust” on our money is a direct violation of this commandment. There’s a reason why observant Jews write “G-D” instead of “God”. Ah, well… moving on!]
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. [Ah, yes — this must be why we have all those laws prohibiting football games and NASCAR races on Sundays. Oh wait, never mind. As an aside, did anybody else find it hilarious when, after 9/11, everybody started singing “God Bless America” at sporting events held on Sundays? Just me, huh? OK, fine.]
5. Honour thy father and thy mother. [You know, the Old Testament was really explicit about this one. In fact, Deuteronomy 21:18-21 specifically states that if you have a disobedient child, you need to take them outside and have them stoned to death. Gotta love those old time family values! Regardless, I’m not aware of anything in the Constitution or other laws of the land dealing with this. ]
6. Thou shalt not kill. [Bingo! We have a winner! This one is definitely in the Constitution. Isn’t it? OK, so it actually isn’t. We do have the nifty Second Amendment right to bear arms, though, so I guess it’s OK to kill in some circumstances. But, what the heck — let’s give this one to them, since there are plenty of English common law statutes dating back hundreds of years that prohibit murder.]
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery. [Um, yeah. Sorry, no laws against adultery. Which is good, I suppose, since most of the politicians would be in jail. Remember back in 2012 and the only Republican running for president that hadn’t had more than one wife was the Mormon? Good times, good times.]
8. Thou shalt not steal. [Again, not in the Constitution, but plenty of examples from English common law. So we’ll give it to the Christians. That’s what, 2 out of 8 so far? Hmmmm… In other news, it’s a darn good thing that “steal” doesn’t include manipulating the tax code to avoid paying ones fair share of taxes to contribute to the common good, right? I mean, am I right, or am I right?]
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.[Not really sure about this one, to be honest. Nothing in the Constitution (again), but plenty of laws regarding perjury in a court of law. That probably counts, so that makes 3 of 9 so far. w00t!]
10. Thou shalt not covet (thy neighbor’s house, wife, servants, animals, or anything else).[OK, I’m going to go out on a limb here and call this commandment positively un-American on its face. I mean coveting your neighbor’s, well, everything, is what capitalism is all about and is what makes this country so great in the first place, capische? Well, maybe not quite, but there still ain’t any laws against it, and that’s a fact!]

OK, so the final tally from the Ten Commandments is a pretty poor showing of only 3 out of 10. Maybe. Not looking so good for this myth so far, but let’s see what a selection of values described in the New Testament can tell us:

1. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. [Nope, just a restatement of the first of the 10 Commandments. Nothing to do with the U.S. And remember, according to the Biblical account, Jesus said this was the most important commandment of all, so it seems odd not to have it actually enshrined anywhere in our laws.]
2. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. [Nice enough sentiment (and in no way original to Christ’s teachings), but not really enshrined anywhere or officially part of U.S. values.]
3. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world [Interesting how so many conservative Christians think we need laws to prevent gay marriage and abortions due to “Bible principles” and yet rail against government programs that “force people” (via taxes) to care for the poor, the widowed, the orphans, etc. Suddenly, it’s a bad thing for the government to “force” anybody to follow Biblical principles (when it’s a principle they don’t actually want to follow themselves, of course). I’m just saying…]
4. Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. [Well, seeing as how the United States spends more on its military than, what, the next top ten countries combined, I’m going to give this one a big fat “NOPE!” There’s also that pesky “right to bear arms” enshrined in the Second Amendment to the Constitution to consider. And as for giving people more than what they ask for if they sue you, well, that alone would put more than half the lawyers in this country out of business, wouldn’t it?]
5. Judge not, that ye be not judged. [Well, there goes our entire legal system down the drain…]

And so on and so forth. Yes, one could try to abstract the “Judaeo-Christian values” into some sort of core beliefs like “treat individuals with respect” or something, but that’s just a modern gloss on what the scriptures that form the basis of Judaeo-Christian values actually state.

And please, don’t even get me started on all the other Biblical laws that most modern-day Christians wholly write off as not applicable. I mean, it’s vitally important that gay people not be allowed to marry since the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong, but divorce? Eating shrimp? Owning slaves (OK, sorry, that one actually was in the Constitution to start with until the 14th Amendment came along…)

Analogies Are Not Arguments

Life is like a birdbath. It's made of concrete, filled with water, and uh...birds like to splash in it. Boy, that was dumb. Life isn't anything like a bird bath…

I have noticed a recent trend here on Quora (although it has probably been going on since time immemorial) whereby theists try to prove the existence of God (or, at the very least, justify why it’s rational to believe in God) through the awesome power of analogy. Some examples of this are the following:

• "You can't see the air, but you know its around. Same goes for God."
• "You can't see electricity but you know it's around. Same goes for God."

The thing is, though, is that these are not actually arguments and are instead just analogies. Analogies are wonderful things in that they make it easier to explain and understand complex subjects. But analogies don’t actually prove anything or provide evidence of anything and are really only useful if both of the following are true:

1. The underlying concept the analogy is seeking to explain is actually a true concept to begin with.
2. The analogy is actually a good one, meaning that the comparison it makes is actually relevant (see the Garfield comic shown above for an example of a bad analogy).

The various “God” analogies described above fail for both of these reasons. First of all, they assume that God exists instead of offering any evidence to that effect and then expect the analogy to somehow convince people to accept that assumption. If you can’t first demonstrate that God exists in the first place, using an analogy to explain why His existence can’t be detected doesn’t really get you very far.

Second of all, of course, they are simply bad analogies. For example, let’s look at the “argument” that “you can’t see the air but you know it’s around” (presumably meant to prove that the same is true of God and the fact that we can’t see Him doesn’t mean He doesn’t exist). Let’s see how well our knowledge of air stacks up against theists’ supposed knowledge of God:

• We primarily know about air based on the writings of people who lived thousands of years ago, just like theists primarily know about God based on the writings of people who lived thousands of years ago. Oh, wait — that’s not true.
• We mostly know that air exists because people claimed to have actually seen it thousands of years ago, even though it’s completely invisible today, just like people claimed to see and talk with God thousands of years ago even though nobody sees him today. Oh, wait — that’s not true.
• We have hundreds of different, often conflicting, descriptions today of what air actually is and how it acts, just like theists throughout the world and throughout history have hundreds (if not thousands) of different, often conflicting, descriptions of what God actually is and how He acts. Oh, wait — that’s not true.
• We are completely unable to detect air via any scientific instruments whatsoever and therefore have to accept its existence purely on faith, just like theists are completely unable to detect God via any scientific instruments and therefore have to accept His existence purely on faith. Oh, wait — that’s not true.
• Although we can occasionally detect the effect air has on the rest of the world, we can’t do so in any sort of consistent manner since “air moves in mysterious ways.” So, sometimes when we blow into a balloon it inflates, but other times it doesn’t. And sometimes when we inhale the air fills our lungs, but other times it just refuses to enter. This is just like how theists are unable to consistently detect the effect God has on the rest of the world since “God moves in mysterious ways.” So, sometimes He heals people who pray for healing, but other times He doesn’t. It’s exactly the same. Oh, wait — that’s not true.

So, yeah. Not a particularly good analogy, sorry, and definitely not any sort of argument (valid, sound or otherwise).

Why “I Don’t Believe God Exists” Really Is the Same as “I Believe God Doesn’t Exist”

I have noticed a very odd phenomena while observing theists interacting with atheists. To wit, atheists tend to say they don’t believe that God exists, whereas theists are constantly trying to get them to admit that they actually do believe that God doesn’t exist.

Sure, there are some subtle differences between the two statements. It is certainly possible to have no opinion whatsoever on a subject and, in that case, it would only be accurate to say you don’t believe anything about that subject. After all, you can’t affirmatively believe something is false if you haven’t ever considered it in the first place. For example, you might say that a newborn baby does not believe in God because that baby can’t even grasp the concept, and it would be incorrect to sat that a newborn baby believes that God doesn’t exist.

Similarly, it is possible that there is so little information available to actually form a belief in something — no claims of evidence for or against — that it’s really only possible to say you don’t believe it and not that you actually believe it is false. For example, most people would probably say they don’t actually have a belief that there is a technologically advanced alien civilization on a planet orbiting the star Antares, but wouldn’t go so far to say that they believe there isn’t such a civilization there. There’s simply no evidence one way or another, so the default position is to lack belief without affirmatively disbelieving.

But what about when atheists talk about their lack of belief in God? Is it really any different from having a belief that God doesn’t exist? I would argue that the two statements are functionally equivalent since (a) atheists who talk about such things certainly have an opinion on the subject (or else they wouldn’t be talking about such things) and (b) there are plenty of arguments and claims of evidence used to support a belief in God as well as plenty of counter-arguments and counter-evidence to support an active disbelief in God. So, when an atheist claims that he or she does not believe in God, it is usually because they are aware of the claims for God’s existence and they have actively rejected those claims as lacking in evidence and logical soundness.

So, why do so many atheists hate to admit they believe God doesn’t exist? And why do so many theists desperately try to get them to say that they do? Well, as far as I can tell, it all comes down to a mistaken notion of the burden of proof. As one atheist I had a discussion with recently put it:

[Stating a belief that God does not exist] is a description of a strong or militant atheist, because you believe there are no gods. It is a brave statement. A belief in the existence or nonexistence of something logically requires proof or evidence, otherwise it is subject to contradiction. I am a plain vanilla atheist, one who just does not believe that gods exist. The lack of belief in anything does not require proof or evidence and is not subject to contradiction. [Emphasis added]

So, apparently, some atheists believe that stating they believe God does not exist somehow shifts the burden of proof onto them to somehow justify their affirmative belief in the non-existence of God. And, apparently, this is exactly what theists have in mind when they insist that atheists don’t just lack a belief in God but actually believe God doesn’t exist.

Except, this is not how the burden of proof actually works.

Yes, it is true that the burden of proof lies upon the person making a claim, but it’s crucially important to understand when somebody is actually making a claim in the first place.

For example, if a theist states that she believes that God exists and an atheist responds that he does not believe that God exists (or, if you prefer, that he believes that God does not exist), neither party has any burden of proof whatsoever since neither one has actually made a claim. Stating a belief is not the same as making a claim, and a statement of belief does not require justification (except, perhaps, to validate that you do, in fact, believe what you say you believe and aren’t just lying).

Here’s the thing, though. Many theists don’t just state that they “believe” that God exists. Instead, they claim that God does exist. And, not only that, they have all sorts of “proof” (including logical arguments) to support this claim that God exists. And, since they are actually making a claim, they have the burden of proof to actually provide the evidence and arguments in support of that claim and defend that evidence and arguments against any and all evidence and arguments to the contrary.

Most atheists, on the other hand, don’t ever claim that God does not exist. They claim that they don’t believe God exists, or that they believe that God doesn’t exist, but once again a statement of belief — even an affirmative statement of belief (“I believe God does not exist”) — is not a claim that carries with it any burden of proof whatsoever.

Even when atheists get into debates with theists, atheists rarely assert that “God does not exist.” At most, the atheist will provide evidence and arguments to rebut the claim by theists that God does exist and then conclude that the complete lack of good evidence and sound arguments to support a belief in God should rationally lead to a lack of belief in God.

So the whole idea of atheists who claim that God does not exist is basically a straw man cooked up by theists. But it’s a good topic for discussion, since many theists think that they can shift the burden of proof onto atheists simply by getting them to admit that they affirmatively believe there is no God instead of just that they lack a belief in God. As discussed above, however, it doesn’t matter if you assert a belief or a lack of belief, since neither statement carries with it any burden of proof whatsoever.

---

Having said all that, let me acknowledge that some atheists do, in fact, make the actual claim that God (at least the God described in the holy books of any world religion and actually worshiped by anybody) does not exist. And yes, any atheist making this claim would absolutely have the burden of proof to back up his claim. Fortunately, for these atheists, the burden of proof is actually quite easy to meet, since all one needs to do is show that (a) all logical arguments used to prove the existence of God are unsound and (b) that evidence that should be there if such a God existed is, in fact, not there. See, for example, the following:

Absence of Evidence IS Evidence of Absence

Keep in mind this only applies to the God described in the holy books of any world religion and actually worshiped by anybody. Few, if any, atheists will ever claim that no possible concept of God exists, since there are concepts of God out there that are so amorphous as to be wholly incapable of being proved or disproved. You know, the omniscient, omnipotent, intangible “spirit” God who exists wholly outside of time and space and who created the universe and then does not interact with it in any way. Sure, that sort of God could exist, but who really cares if it does or doesn’t, since it doesn’t answer prayers, doesn’t perform miracles, doesn’t proscribe moral laws, doesn’t reward good deeds, doesn’t punish bad deeds, doesn’t provide for an afterlife or a path to salvation, etc., and really only exists conceptually as a means of plugging current gaps in human knowledge (e.g., “where did the universe come from?”).

Trying to Make Sense of Noah’s Ark

At the time the story of Noah’s Ark was first written thousands of years ago, it actually made some sort of sense to talk about building a boat large enough to carry representative samples of each of the various kinds of animal on earth. After all, the people who wrote the story didn’t actually know about the existence of most of the different species existing on earth. Sure, they knew about camels, horses, goats, cows, sheep, wolves, cats, bears, lions, elephants, etc., but they had no idea whatsoever about, say, kangaroos and koalas, sloths, penguins, opossums, and all the rest of the animals that lived beyond their small universe of experience. So if you’re only talking about hundreds of different species instead of thousands (or millions), then it makes perfect sense to think about somebody building an ark to hold them all.

OK, so maybe not perfect sense, since you’d still have to deal with feeding them all, disposing of all their waste, and constructing such a monstrous and unseaworthy vessel in the first place using bronze age technology, but you get the point. Those are all minor issue compared to the big one of fitting millions of animals.

That was then, though. Nowadays, we are fully aware of the vast number of different animals that exist today across the globe and not even the most die-hard, blinded by faith, Young Earth Creationist would ever consider denying the existence of these animals. Nobody goes around claiming that kangaroos are a hoax perpetuated by scientists the way that they might claim that evolution is a hoax. After all, we can all go to zoos and actually see many of the animals that were completely unknown to the authors of the Noah story. So, given the fact that there truly are just way too many different species of animals that could ever possibly fit onto a single ark, even the most die-hard, blinded by faith, Young Earth Creationists have to admit that it’s just a made up story, right?

Yeah, right. And Flat-Earthers are all going to finally admit the Earth is round because NASA has provided proof that it has satellites and space stations orbiting the planet. Not gonna happen, sorry.

So, how do Biblical literalists still make sense of the story of Noah’s Ark given what we now know about the animal kingdom? Well, first of all, they claim that there were certain types of animals that Noah didn’t need to bring on board. Sea creatures, for example, could all survive in the water and many species of insects could have probably survived by hanging out on mats of floating vegetation or something similar. Forget the fact that the sudden influx of fresh water and the co-mingling of fresh and salt water would have killed off many marine creatures that have evolved to only live in fresh or salt-water environments. It all sort of makes sense, right?

Second of all, Noah only brought juvenile members of each species onto the ark. Little baby animals (even little baby dinosaurs) take up a lot less room and don’t eat nearly as much as full-grown adult animals, right? I mean, ignore the fact that this isn’t actually mentioned in the Biblical account anywhere, since it could have happened, right? Even if it did happen that way, though, we’re still talking about way too many animals to ever fit into an ark. Which brings us to…

Third, and most important of all, instead of bringing two (or, in some cases, seven) of each species of animal onto the ark, Noah brought two (or, in some cases, seven) of each “kind” of animal. Now, “kind” is not a scientific term, but Young Earth Creationists use a sort of “common sense” approach to determining what is and is not a “kind.” For example, instead of bringing representative samples of dogs, coyotes, jackals, dingos, hyenas, etc., on the ark, Noah would have just brought a pair of some “dog-like” creature (perhaps similar to a wolf). Similarly, instead of bringing lions, tigers, jaguars, ocelots, lynxes, etc., Noah just brought a pair of “cats.”

So, yeah — perfectly sensible, right?

Except… no. The problem with this explanation is that it requires the speciation of thousands and thousands of different “kinds” to occur over the last 4000 years at a speed which would make an evolutionary biologist blush in embarrassment and without anybody actually noticing it happening (Young earth Creationists love to attack things like evolution by claiming it has never been observed, but then they are perfectly willing to accept this).

Just to out this into perspective, after the ark landed at Mt. Ararat, the descendants of this breeding pair of “felines” would have had to rapidly speciate to produce all the different types of cats we see today. Yes, one breeding pair of “cat” was responsible for all the Lions, Tigers, Jaguars, Panthers, Leopards, Ocelots, Lynxes (Canadian, Iberian and Eurasian), House Cats (all the different breeds), Snow Leopards, African Golden Cats, Asian Golden Cats, Bobcats, Caracals, Chinese Desert Cats, Clouded Leopards, Fishing Cats, Servals, African Wild Cats, Andean Mountain Cats, Black-footed Cats, Bornean Bay Cats, European Wild Cats, Flat-headed Cats, Geoffroy’s Cats, Iriomote Cats, Jaguarundi, Jungle Cats, Kodkods, Leopard Cats (different from leopards, mind you), Marbled Cats, Margays, Oncillas, Pallas Cats, Pampas Cat, Pumas (a.k.a Mountain Lions or Cougars), Rusty Spotted Cats and Sand Cats. And all this happened in the last few thousand years or so without anybody seeing it happen.

And that’s just cats, mind you. Repeat the same process with horses (zebras, asses, etc.), dogs (wolves, foxes, coyotes, etc.) and every other “kind” of creature for which we now have many different existing species. All of this happening far more rapidly than has ever been observed in nature, and all without a single person in history ever noticing all these new species miraculously appearing overnight (“Hey — that jaguar just gave birth to an ocelot!”).

Oh, and since dinosaurs must have lived at the same time as humans, Noah also had to bring one representative pair of “dinosaurs” on the ark as well, but they were very small. And they died off right after the ark landed. Or else they lived long enough for their offspring to cover the earth with their fossils and then suddenly died off, again without anybody actually seeing it happen even though it would have been happening right in front of us during all of recorded history.

And, of course, not only would this rapid speciation have to occur without anybody ever taking note of it, but you would also need to explain how all the animals managed to travel to all the distant parts of the word where they eventually ended up. How did the Kangaroos and Koalas make it to Australia? How did the Sloths make it to South America? How did the penguins make it to Antarctica?

The only answer to all of these questions that Biblical literalists can provide is, of course, “God did it.” How could Noah build an ark big enough to carry all the necessary animals with only Bronze Age technology? God showed him how to do it. How could such a monstrosity be seaworthy? God performed a miracle and kept it afloat. How could all the different “kinds” of animals rapidly speciate and distribute themselves globally? God made it happen. Etc., etc., etc. If you want to believe this, go for it. God is a god of miracles, after all, and with God nothing is impossible (so they say). But, please, I wish people would stop trying to come up with rational-sounding and pseudo-scientific explanations for how it was all possible or how the story could possibly make any sort of sense. Just admit it was impossible and say that God can do impossible things, end of story. Stop trying to prove that your illogical and irrational beliefs are based in science and just own your beliefs for what they are.

The Demands of Justice and the Mercy of God

Back when I was a practicing Christian, one of the things I had the hardest time understanding was how a loving God could condemn any of his children to eternal torment. The standard explanations I got usually went along the lines that God doesn’t actually condemn anybody to Hell; instead people choose to go there themselves by not accepting and following God’s word. And then there would be some discussion about the importance of free will and how God can’t force anybody to be good.

Underlying this explanation, however, are the core concepts of Divine Justice and Divine Mercy. Divine Justice, it is said, is an absolute principle that demands that a price is paid for every sin. That’s just the way it is. If you sin, you need to be punished for it. However, because God loves us all so very, very much, He decided to come up with a way to let us off the hook. Since the demands of Divine Justice are so incredibly powerful, God figured out that the only way to get around those demands was to have an all-powerful being sacrifice Himself for everybody else’s sake. To, in effect, take responsibility for the sins of the entire world, to take the blame, and therefore pay the price Himself. And that is why He decided to send His only begotten Son (or send Himself, depending on what version of Christianity you adhere to) to suffer and die on the cross for us. And why would He do this? Why, because He is a loving God who believes in being merciful. After all, wouldn’t you spare your children pain and suffering if you had the power to do so?

Of course, this Divine Mercy has a catch to it. God isn’t just going to be merciful to every Tom, Dick or Harry who wants to avoid being tormented for all eternity. No, if God is going to go to all this trouble to sacrifice His Son (or Himself, if you prefer), then the least we can do is acknowledge that sacrifice and do a few small things like be baptized, pray to Him, try to keep His commandments, ask for forgiveness each and every time we make a mistake, maybe donate to His church (whichever one that actually is), etc. No big deal, right? And anybody who isn’t willing to put in that teeny bit of effort in order to be saved, well, they deserve to burn in hell for all eternity for being such ungrateful little pricks, right?

---

OK, so obviously I’m embellishing the explanation a bit. What is typically said is simply along the lines of the following:

Justice demands that our sins are punished, and God’s mercy allows us to escape that punishment if we choose to accept it.

But the implications are all there. And here’s where it all breaks down to me:

• Why does Divine Justice demand that all sins are punished? And who decided that all sins are equally punishable with eternal torment? If God created the universe and is truly omnipotent, then He made the rules in the first place and can change them as He sees fit, right? If cheating on a test warrants the same punishment as committing genocide and the punishment for both is eternal freaking torment, where’s the justice in that (“Divine” or otherwise)? Instead of providing a “loophole”, why wouldn’t a merciful God just not set up a system of ridiculously draconian and over-the-top “justice” in the first place? I’m not even talking about getting rid of punishment altogether, mind you [Christian folk really do seem to love the idea of the guilty getting their just deserts, don’t they?], but simply making the punishment fit the crime and acknowledging that no crime is worthy of eternal freaking torment!
• Even if you want to argue that the draconian justice system is OK since God has provided an easy way to avoid that justice, this ignores the fact that the vast, vast majority of humanity will never actually be able to take part of that mercy. Even if you could figure out which of all the many different Christian denominations is the “right” one to follow, for most of human history Christianity either didn’t exist or was a small minority belief. Even today, there are billions of people who are born, live their entire lives, and die without ever having the chance to hear about God’s merciful offer*. And even if they do hear the offer, no evidence whatsoever is ever provided to convince people to abandon their beliefs and switch over to the correct religion (whatever one that happens to be).

So, the bottom line is that God supposedly set up a system whereby any sin is punishable by eternal torment, and then decided “in His mercy” to create a loophole that the majority of His children would either never have a chance to accept or would have no good reason to accept, effectively condemning the vast majority of humanity to suffer in agony for all time and eternity through no fault of their own.

Gee, what a guy!

---

* I should note, by the way, that the Mormon church has come up with a way to deal with this problem. Or at least to attempt to deal with it. True, not everybody will have a chance to hear the Gospel during their lifetime, but anybody who didn’t will have another chance in the next life. And, since baptism is an absolute requirement for salvation, Mormons therefore perform many thousands of “proxy” baptisms on behalf of all those who might decide to accept the gospel in the next life. Unfortunately for this proposed solution, though, (a) I don’t think they’ll ever get all the billions of people who lived and died without hearing the Gospel and (b) that still leaves all those who heard the gospel in this life and didn’t choose to accept it for whatever reason. Mormons further get around the idea of “eternal torment” by claiming that those who reject the gospel even after hearing it won’t actually be sent to hell but will instead get to live in the “Terrestrial Kingdom” of heaven, which is basically just like earth but without all the disease and natural disasters. So, no eternal glory with God, but not a bad place to be. For all time and freaking eternity!

The Hypocrisy and Hubris of Biblical Interpretation

[Note: The following post deals specifically with the Christian religion and the Bible, since that is what I am most familiar with. Whether it applies to other religions and their holy books — and to what degree — I leave for others to decide.]

First, a few premises:

1. Christianity is ultimately based on the Holy Bible. Sure, you can say that Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ, but those teachings can only be found in the Bible. And Christianity (for most Christians, at least) extends well beyond just the words of Christ and encompasses instead all the moral laws and principles found throughout the entire Bible.
   
2. Christians, on the whole, believe that the Bible’s primary purpose is to act as a guideline to show us the path toward salvation. Only by following the laws and moral principles in the Bible can we learn about Christ, follow his commandments* and be saved. So, obviously, it is vitally important to know exactly what the Bible says and what it actually means.
   
3. Since the time the Bible was first assembled in its current form, some 1700 or so years ago, billions of people have relied on it to show them the path toward salvation.
   
4. God, according to Christian beliefs, is an omnipotent, omniscient and all-loving father who actually wants all of his children (that’s us) to learn and follow the path toward salvation. Sure, we are given free will to choose whether to follow the path or not, but the path should be clear and unambiguous enough to follow if we choose to do so.

OK, assuming those premises are more or less accurate, let’s move on to the hypocrisy and hubris part.

One trend in modern apologetics (“defending the faith” or, as I like to define it, “attempting to logically justify something that is believed for non-logical reasons,” but I digress) is to deal with supposed contradictory, scientifically impossible and/or morally reprehensible passages in the Bible by claiming that one must have special knowledge in order to understand what the passages really mean. This takes many different forms, including the following:

• One must have studied the original languages in which the Bible was written in order to understand what the passage really means.
  
• One must have a deep understanding of the socioeconomic factors that existed at the time the passage was written in order to understand what it really means.
  
• One must fully understand the culture of the people to whom the passage was addressed in order to understand what it really means.
  
• One must read the “forgotten” or “apocryphal” books of the Bible that were not included at the time it was formally assembled, but really should have been included in order to understand what the passage really means.
  
• Etc., etc., etc.

One common example of this approach is when people try to justify things like the approval of keeping slaves as stated in the Old Testament. “No, no,” they will claim, “if you look at the original Hebrew and consider the culture and socioeconomic climate at the time the Old Testament was written, you’ll see that this was actually a very good kind of slavery and not at all like the slavery you are thinking of!” This, despite the fact that these passages were actually used as justification for keeping slaves by Christians in the American South prior to (and, sadly, even after) the Civil War. Gee, what a pity those Christians didn’t have access to the original Hebrew version of the Bible. Or know how to read ancient Hebrew even if they did. Or have any way of knowing what the culture and socioeconomic climate was at the time the Old Testament was written…

Which leads me to the whole hypocrisy and hubris angle.

First, the hypocrisy. On one hand, these apologists believe that an omniscient, omnipotent and all-loving God would require his children to do certain things in order to gain salvation (and avoid eternal torment) and that the only way to learn what those things are is to read the Bible. But on the other hand, they are asserting that is no way for the vast majority of his children to actually know for sure what the words in the Bible actually mean unless they become Biblical scholars, study ancient dead languages, become experts in anthropology, etc. Especially when you take into account that, for the majority of the history of Christendom, believers were actually forbidden to read the Bible (which is why it existed solely in Latin for many centuries). So it is hypocritical to hold people to a standard that they cannot possibly meet while simultaneously claiming that it’s all part of a loving God’s plan for them.

And then, of course, the hubris. Christianity has been practiced in many forms for nigh on two thousand years. Billions of people have been born and died and have failed to understand what the Bible — the one and only guideline toward salvation — actually says. But now, two thousand years later, after all of this, here comes these apologists who are apparently the first and only of all of God’s children to finally understand it all. Just because they are so darn special, of course. And smart. Unlike all those poor deluded saps (e.g., 99.999% of humanity) who got it wrong all these years (oh, well, sucks to be them, I guess!)

OK, so maybe I’m overstating things a wee bit. But the fact remains that any time an apologist claims that they have some sort of special knowledge or training or insight that allows them to know what a Biblical passage really means, in contrast to how the vast majority of Christians have understood that same passage since Christianity began, it is hubris of the highest order. Especially if you think that God actually wanted His children to understand it all along.

---

* Yes, I am aware that many “Born Again” Christians believe that the only thing necessary for salvation is to accept Jesus.

Pascal's Wager

If memory serves, Pascal's wager was essentially as follows:

Assuming there is a non-zero chance that God exists, and assuming that the reward for believing in God (if he exists) is eternal salvation, and assuming that the penalty for NOT believing in God (if he exists) is eternal damnation, and assuming that there is no downside to believing in God even if he doesn't exist, then the only logical course of action is to believe in God.

Now, assuming that I haven't completely misrepresented Pascal's argument, here's my response. Basically, I think that all of his assumptions are false, or at least not verifiably true, To wit:

Assuming there is a non-zero chance that God exists:

Why assume that there is a non-zero chance that God exists? Given the complete lack of empirical data to prove his existence, and given the many counterarguments to his existence (the existence of evil in the world, the fact that different people have claimed to receive conflicting messages from God, the fact that many so-called "miracles" have been proven to be the result of natural forces or merely delusions, etc.), maybe there is only a one in a million chance that God exists, or perhaps a one in a billion chance. Or, perhaps even a zero chance that God exists. Pascal's wager could just as likely be used to prove the rationality of believing that a flock of pink elephants will fly into my window one night and grant my heart's fondest desires. I mean, anything’s possible, right?

Assuming that the reward for believing in God (if he exists) is eternal salvation:

What proof is there that believing in God will automatically result in eternal life, let alone eternal salvation? Different religions have different beliefs, and not all religions believe in an afterlife. Assuming there is a God of some sort, maybe he has simply created us as playthings and has no desire to let us return to his presence. Or maybe the whole purpose of life is to enjoy ourselves fully while we can, since the rest of eternity will be mind-numbing boredom as we sit on a cloud and strum a harp all day long.

Assuming that the penalty for NOT believing in God (if he exists) is eternal damnation:

Who is to say that the penalty for NOT believing is eternal damnation? Again, assuming there is a God of some sort, maybe He really doesn't care what we do here on earth. Claiming that all nonbelievers will have eternal torment and misery is pretty cruel and heartless when you think of all the BILLIONS of people who are raised in societies where a belief in God is not taught (not to mention all the BILLIONS of people who lived on the earth before the Bible was even written). God is the one who decides where and when somebody will be born, so why would he then condemn that person to Hell for never hearing about him?

Assuming that there is no downside to believing in God even if he doesn't exist:

Who's to say that there is no downside to believing in a non-existent God? Perhaps if you are a born again Christian who thinks that it is enough to simply “accept Jesus into your heart" to be saved, then this assumption is valid. The religion in which I was raised, however, taught that God demands a life of self-sacrifice and obedience; no premarital sex, no alcohol, 10% of your income donated to the church, significant amounts of time devoted to performing various tasks (attending meetings, visiting other members, preparing lessons, performing sacred ordinances, etc.). If you believe that all of this is required of you to gain the promised reward and there ISN'T really a God, you will have essentially wasted your entire life to some degree or another. Economists call this “Opportunity Cost.” This isn’t to say there can’t also be some benefits to trying to live a wholly religious life (maybe you get mutual support from other believers, maybe you have an easier time dealing with the death of a loved one, etc.), but these benefits don’t erase the potential costs.

An additional downside to believing in a nonexistent god is the sacrifice of my capacity to rationally distinguish between what is real and what is fantasy. If I'm willing to believe in God simply because it's a "safe bet", then why not also believe in UFOs, psychics, ghosts, etc.? Maybe the UFOs will only rescue those who believe in them when the day or Armageddon is at hand. Or maybe the TV psychics can only convey messages from the loved ones of those who believe in psychic powers. Or maybe ghosts only visit those who are willing to see them? Forcing myself to believe in something for which there is no evidence and plenty of counter-evidence can only diminish my ability to think rationally.

Then the only logical course of action is to believe in God:

Basically, I think the argument boils down to "the theoretical reward is so great, and the cost to play is so minimal, that it is in your best interest to play." I suppose an analogy could be made, perhaps, to one of those multi-state lotteries where the prize has risen to $300 million and the chance of wining is 1 in 100 million. If the tickets are only $1 each, it only makes sense to play, since the potential gain is enormous and the potential loss is trivial.

However, I don't think that analogy is really accurate. For a closer analogy, you would be required to sell everything that you own in order to enter the lottery with the same 1 in 100 million chance of winning. Not only that, but there are 4000 different lotteries to choose from, and — at most — one of them will not be a scam (that is, only one can possible be legitimate, but it’s possible that they are all scams). Oh — and if you lose (which is likely), your whole life would be ruined as a result.

---

To sum up, since there is no way to tell if there is any chance that God exists, and since there is no guarantee that God would reward belief with eternal life if He did exist, and since there's no guarantee that God would reward disbelief with eternal damnation, and since the penalty for believing in a nonexistent God is potentially very high, the only logical thing is to not believe in God.