“NO RELIGION”: AMERICA’S FASTEST GROWING RELIGION – PART 2
Recap
Based on some of the feedback from last week’s, “No Religion”: America’s Fastest Growing Religion – Part 1”, I think I need to be more clear about my reasons for writing this post.
40% of American Millennials identify as “No Religion”[1]. 89% of these Millennials believe that life evolved undirected[2]. In other words, they believe that faith in God is unnecessary to explain our existence – irrational even, relegated to children and old people.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
When it comes to how life first emerged, atheists and Christians are on level ground. Whether you believe that life is proof of the divine hand of God acting upon the created order or you believe that life sprang from nothing via the “primordial ooze”, you have no more proof for your faith than the next guy.
Christians have ceded the intellectual high ground for far too long.
It is time we pushed back on the narrative that belief in God is for the dimwitted. Smart people know that science has all of the answers.
It is simply not true.
Back to the Post
I listed the 9 characteristics of religion last week, but just in case you missed it, I have listed them again. We spent a lot of ink (or is it “bits” on a blog?) last week talking about characteristic #1. This week, I’ll try to employ a bit more brevity and get through characteristics 2-5.
9 Characteristics of Religion[3]
- The notion of a deity or absolute that which is of ultimate concern or import
- Concept of Human Nature
- Concept of Divine Providence
- Concept of Human History
- Problem of Evil
- Description of the Central Problem with Human Life and Suffering
- Idea of Afterlife
- Idea of Human Community and Ethics
- A Concept of the World
Concept of Human Nature
According to famed atheist, Christopher Hitchens, “Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.” On this point, we weirdly seem to agree. Although, I doubt Mr. Hitchens would see it this way.
Instead, what I believe Mr. Hitchens was trying to say is that morality is nothing more than a social construct that – like man – has evolved over time. Our ideas of “right and wrong” are different today than they will be tomorrow or were yesterday. We are but slaves to our self-serving genes and adjust morality over the course of time to fit our own purposes.
For atheists, this is the only logical conclusion. If you believe life arose from nothing and we are just a genetic accident spurned forward by natural selection, then Mr. Hitchens sentiment is correct. We are all just wandering balls of meat making it up as we go.
But I agree with Mr. Hitchens on what he actually said. Objective morality did not become objectively moral because it was codified in religious texts. As the Apostle Paul indicates in his letter to the Romans, “They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.” (Romans 2:15 NIV)
Because we are created in God’s holy image, we are imbued with a natural ability to distinguish between objectively right and wrong.
Concept of Divine Providence
Atheists do not believe in Divine Providence in the traditional sense of an all-powerful God with an eye on human history and the course of human events. This is an area that rests firmly with the theists. And it makes sense, you can’t have Divine Providence if there is no Providence.
But I do think there are a few modern tactics that aim to provide the comfort traditionally found in faith.
It is natural for humans to seek to control their lives. For millennia, this was done through the offering of prayers and sacrifices to the gods.
Not getting enough rain for your crops? The gods must be angry. You should offer sacrifices.
Getting too much rain? Again, what did you do to irk the gods? You should offer sacrifices.
In the 20th century, people have turned to science and statistics for protection.
You want to live to be 90? 3 out 5 doctors say you better commit to exercising every day, consuming only organic vegetables, and for goodness sake, stay away from that high fructose corn syrup!
Concept of Human History
American Atheist founder, Madalyn Murray O’Hair, once said, “Religion has caused more misery to all mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea.”
To the atheist, human history is the story of religious zealots oppressing the professor and the proletariat. It is the story of war after war waged by popes and potentates yet fought by farmers and field-hands in a desperate attempt to impose their set of beliefs on another.
Modern civilizations could only emerge after the Enlightenment loosed the ties that bound western societies to the religious doctrines of the Middle Ages.
Anybody who has spent more than 5 minutes with a history book knows this is a great misrepresentation of the facts.
Were there religious wars? Of course.
Were there also wars over land and resources and a litany of other petty offenses? Of course.
In 1925, the Greeks invaded Bulgaria after the Bulgarians shot a Greek soldier for chasing his runaway dog across the border.[4] Was this somehow the Pope’s fault?
The Catholic Church also happens to be responsible for the first hospitals and universities in the western world. They were among the earliest promoters of the sciences. They believed that man, with his God-given ability to reason, was capable of better understanding God’s ordained order through the study of the natural world.
Where Christians look to history and see God working to constantly improve the moral state of first, the Israelites and later, the Christians, Atheists look and see nothing but oppression and cruelty inflicted by religious leaders on the poor masses.
Problem of Evil
This is a significant sticking point for most Atheists. If an all-powerful, all-knowing, perfectly moral God does exist, why then does he allow evil to exist? Why doesn’t He stop it? There is a quote that sums up the argument nicely:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Unknown
While search engines and online blogs often attribute this quote to the famous Greek philosopher, Epicurus, this is highly disputed. It likely came from another source, but I still find it to be a precise and succinct argument.
But there is one problem.
If there is no God, by what standard are you calling something evil? As C.S. Lewis put it in his book, Mere Christianity[5]:
“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?”
C.S. Lewis
Christians view evil through the lens of God’s perfect goodness. To put it simply, evil is the absence of God. God didn’t create evil. Evil reigns when humans use their divine gift of free-will to act against the will of God.
Conclusion
I have had some spirited exchanges with more than a few atheist readers this week. Each of them took umbrage with my suggestion that atheism is indeed an act of faith. They seem to think that their beliefs are somehow “truer” than Christian beliefs, and they get very upset if you state the obvious to them.
Namely, beliefs are beliefs. If they were facts backed up by evidence, there would be nothing to discuss.
I stand by my earlier statement, “We are all people of faith.”
If you enjoyed this post, check out our other blog posts on the ontological, cosmological, and moral arguments for God. If you’re interested in learning more about how A Millennials Divine Defense came to be, click here.
If you would like to join in the campaign to bring Millennials back to the faith, SUBSCRIBE TO OUR BLOG!!!
[1] In U.S., Decline of Christianity Continues at Rapid Pace. (2019, December 31). Retrieved March 2, 2020, from https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/
[2] Younger Millennials who say they do not believe in God – Religion in America: U.S. Religious Data, Demographics and Statistics. (2015, May 11). Retrieved March 9, 2020, from https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/belief-in-god/do-not-believe-in-god/generational-cohort/younger-millennial/
[3] Pecorino, P. A. (2001). What is Religion? Retrieved March 4, 2020, from https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_1_OVERVIEW/What_is_religion.htm
[4] Andrews, E. (2013, December 31). 6 Wars Fought for Ridiculous Reasons. Retrieved March 10, 2020, from https://www.history.com/news/6-wars-fought-for-ridiculous-reasons
[5] Lewis, C. S. (1998). Mere Christianity: the case for Christianity, Christian behaviour, and beyond personality. London: HarperCollins.
11 Responses
A. https://www.facebook.com/notes/chrys-george/ballistics-any-long-gun-is-fairly-accurate/1757808107587854/.
A young Virginia Royal, at the time; aide-de-camp to General Braddock. At the British defeat in the Battle of Monongahela near French Fort DuQuesne—now Pittsburgh—and how the Indian Chief Red Hawk claimed to have shot at Colonel Washington eleven times,[flintlock musket] but did not succeed in killing him.
Being preserved in battle (Battle of the Monongahela; a Lt.–Col.) at his 23-years-of-age made General George Washington this praying Deist.
One would think this strange, a praying Deist; but, is this Washington returning to his cradle Christianity?
B. In the mainline Protestant Churches—the slim majority within the nation; old-Earth creationism—there is not a Hell, per se; are there levels of reward awaiting us in the everlasting life?
1. Jesus Christ is called the First Fruits of the (general) resurrection. Heaven, is a holding place; then a new body, with eternal life on a New Earth. 1 Corinthians 15:20; 2 Peter 3:13.
2. A fiery Hell in Scripture, is figurative. Hades in the Bible is a place where hard-unbelievers are destroyed; or, some say, the feeling of being separated from Unconditional Love God.
a. The / My Orthodox Church; And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch (Acts 11:26), Greek west Syria.
b. A metaphor. We are taught that the original Bible Greek (Mt 6:13; the Lord’s Prayer) ‘τοῦ πονηροῦ,’—‘evil one’ (Satan; the devil) is meant in most fundamentalist-Christian translations—is more correct to say ‘the evil, that is in the world;’ institutional disorder, dysfunction. Yes, there are fallen angels, demons. [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+6%3A13&version=KJ21.]
Well, I can’t stop you from using the words ‘religion’ and ‘faith’ for people of no religion and of no faith, but IMO it’s a pretty clear misuse of the English language on your part. So, I’m not going to follow you down that road.
Of course, semantic disputes aren’t usually very interesting. So, what is the actual substance of what you’re arguing in this blog post? Well, judging from what you wrote in the conclusion, your main point seems to be that atheism isn’t backed up with very good evidence, to say nothing of proof.
And I’m willing to grant that point, to a limited extent anyway. I can’t disprove that some deistic, “hands-off” type God exists. Even when it comes to full-blown Christianity, I suppose *anything* is possible.
I myself am a naturalist, which is to say I believe natural laws govern the operation of the universe. Christians on the other hand think God can violate the laws of nature. Fair enough; I can’t disprove that kind of hypothesis. But I’m still going to be a naturalist, because the alternative just seems so fantastic and implausible to me.
Hi Ben,
Thanks for taking the time to provide feedback. I appreciate your position and your openness on this topic.
As a Christian, I feel that we have not done a great job of pushing back on atheists regarding the rational case for a Creator. Because of this, almost half of the Millennial generation identifies as “no religion”. My goal is to first show that when it comes to proof for or against God’s existence, we are all on level ground – both atheists and Christians have a non-falsifiable belief system. From there, it is my goal to show that Christianity is a logical and more meaningful worldview and should be preferred.
Regarding the issue of natural vs. supernatural, I discuss my position on that in the next post. I know you said you wouldn’t be following me, but I hope you will do me a favor and at least follow me for one more week!
Again, thanks for taking the time. I always appreciate discussion with those that disagree.
Thanks again,
Justin
I wouldn’t say we’re both on level ground. Neither side can disprove the other, granted. Nevertheless, naturalism seems to have a far better track record than religion when it comes to learning about the world around us. Ever since the enlightenment, religion has been in retreat as we learn more through the natural sciences.
It’s not just science, either; we’ve grown as a cooperative society too. No longer do we ostracize, chemically castrate, or otherwise punish homosexuals. And we sure don’t bludgeon them to death with rocks, as God supposedly once wanted us to do! We now recognize that women should be treated as equals, and have pushed back against the Islamic religion for trying to say otherwise. (Although Christianity doesn’t exactly have a spotless record for respecting the fairer sex, either.)
Is this evidence for naturalism? I don’t know—maybe not. But under the circumstances, there seems to be something highly inappropriate about saying that religion and naturalism are on equal footing.
It’s interesting that you point to the Enlightenment and science to support naturalism. Most of the brilliant minds of the early scientific revolution such as Sir Isaac Newton and Galileo Galilei believed that the natural order of the physical world could only be the result of an intelligent designer. They owed their very ability to understand to an unknown agent with the ability to make it understandable. Would they have pursued their scientific interests without these beliefs? Maybe, maybe not.
Also, I find it interesting that the Enlightenment started in Western countries such a France and England and not the Far East. I would say that 1000 years of Judea-Christian teaching that we are created in God’s holly image coupled with Greek reasoning are two fundamental principles undergirding the Enlightenment. Without both, I don’t think it could have happened at all.
As for the Church’s failure to recognize our modern sensibilities concerning equality and sexual identity, I don’t find that to contradict the Church’s fundamental teaching on objective morality. The fact that we are all created in the image of God seems to undergird both of these concepts as well.
I find that most folks that identify as atheist give short shrift to the Christian principles that have led us here. Instead, they point to evolution as the great cause for our moral maturity. However, I can’t understand the logic that accidental genetic mutations convey value to anything, much less our own lives.
Newton and Galileo were both religious men, and I’m sure their religion did influence their thought. Whether for better or worse is harder to say. Perhaps a more interesting question is why it took the Western Christian world more than a thousand years to produce a Galileo. But that too is a matter of speculation.
One thing that’s clear is that religion is by no means a necessary ingredient for technological, scientific, and social progress. And on more than one occasion we’ve seen progress slowed or even reversed by religion. You yourself gave the example of Galileo, who is probably the poster child for the dispute between science and religion.
Indeed, it seems like every time science and religion come into conflict, science wins out. Why wouldn’t it, since it’s based on evidence and reason, whereas religion is based on tradition and faith? If there are any exceptions to that trend, it’s surely a matter of accident or coincidence.
And it’s not evolution that gives us our “moral maturity,” as you put it. Natural selection is a ruthless, pitiless mechanism that functions without any regard for its effect on human society. Rather, it’s up to us to navigate this harsh world we live in, and try to make it a better world as far as we’re able. Religion, historically, has been of little help in doing that.
Hi Ben,
Thanks again for taking the time to reply and keep the discussion going.
I disagree that “religion is by no means a necessary ingredient for technological, scientific, and social progress” in the sense that it was religion that kicked off the revolutions in each of these fields with the notions that we are created in God’s image and the universe has order because of an intelligent designer. Now, I agree that you needn’t be a theist to be a qualified scientist or engineer. This is, of course, true as well.
It’s interesting that you bring up the point that religion has been counterproductive to scientific advances. In Galileo’s case, this is certainly true. However, the church was also the first to establish the university system. In part because they believed that the universe was understandable because it had been created by an intelligent agent, i.e. God.
That’s not to say the Church hasn’t played the part of antagonist to certain scientific advances. It certainly has. But does this speak to some hidden malfeasance contained within the scriptures?
I would answer no. The fact that man has misused religion to achieve his own selfish ends says no more about religion than the creation of the atomic bomb says about science as a force for tremendous suffering.
The point I would like to make is that Christianity offers us an opportunity to understand what lies at the root of all of this suffering. Namely, the fallen and sinful nature of man will always lead to his own demise. This is why God revealed Himself through His incarnation as Christ and suffered as a man to reconcile us to Him. Through His actions, we are able to come to know His nature and, by trying to emulate it, improve our own existence.
Naturalism offers nothing on this point. It simply states that we are all products of our own neuro-systems and chemical reactions. The fact that some folks have firing synapses that lead to the annihilation of entire races is just a matter of chemical happenstance. Why would we even think ourselves capable of making a better society?
Also, I disagree that “every time science and religion come into conflict, science wins out”. I don’t think they come into conflict at all because I don’t think they are discussing the same point. Science searches for explanations of mechanisms. Religion seeks to explain the agent behind the mechanism and His role in the present. Conflating these two goals is the mistake of man, not of religion or science.
Science and religion clearly have come into conflict on a number of occasions. In Genesis, the origin of language diversity is explained by God getting worried that humans were cooperating too much. Striped and speckled sheep and goats were said to be made by putting striped and speckled tree branches into the watering troughs of the parents. Biblical literalists have variously thought the earth was flat, and that it’s the center of the universe. I mean, this is all clearly in conflict with science, and it’s only thanks to scientific inquiry that we now know it’s all nonsense.
Now, you claim that it’s the belief in an intelligent designer who created us in His image that kicked off scientific progress. The idea, here, I suppose, is that while some religious beliefs are anathema to science, the *right* ones aren’t. But even that’s clearly false, since people had believed that way for over a thousand years before the scientific revolution, Enlightenment, or even just the Renaissance. Nor does there appear to be any reason to suppose religion of some kind was even a necessary ingredient to those movements.
Naturalism hasn’t stood in the way of progress like religion clearly has. And that’s why, again, I think it’s very inappropriate to say that religion and naturalism are on the same footing.
First, I think we have to understand that the Bible was not intended to be read as a book of natural history. It is a book of theology intended to reveal God’s nature to us and provide instruction for how to live in a right relationship with Him. I understand that some do, but I do not read the primeval histories in Genesis literally. Again, I think they are intended to serve as revelations of God’s nature – from their first audiences all the way to present.
For example, the story of the Tower of Babel is intended to show that all people under Heaven are subject to their sovereign Creator. In other words, God didn’t just create the Jews. He created all peoples and all nations. Could this story have served a dual purpose, i.e. to explain the origin of language? Maybe. Does that negate its theological message in any way? I don’t see how.
As far as the earth being flat or the center of the universe, I have read the Bible cover to cover several times, and to my knowledge, I don’t know of a verse that makes this claim. I feel that you are conflating man’s iniquities with his Creator.
Why is the idea that God would reveal His nature to us bit by bit as we mature any different than our understanding of the natural world increasing in the same manner over time?
To be clear, I am claiming that early scientists’ belief that the universe could be understood stemmed from their belief that it was an intelligent Creator that made it understandable. I don’t see how God is in any way an anathema to science. Perhaps, men in their quest to better understand the nature or will of God have misused His Church to interfere with science, but their core beliefs in him have certainly improved science not diminished it. Why do you think that the first universities were the product of the Catholic Church? Or why would a Belgian priest be the father of the Big Bang Theory?
At its inception, the Big Bang Theory was largely derided by mainstream scientists of the day as overtly religious. So who was standing in the way of whom?
You are correct in saying that naturalism and Christianity aren’t on equal footing. While naturalism requires as much faith as Christianity – i.e. faith that the complex sprang undirected from the simple and faith that our ability to understand the natural world is the result of mere chemical happenstance – it offers nothing in the way of hope or meaning. It says nothing to the question, “Why do we suffer?”. The best it can do is say that it is inevitable that we suffer so we might as well accept it.
Again, I appreciate the discussion. Thanks for sticking with me long enough to have it.
Justin
I’m having fun too : )
You have said a lot, so permit me to focus in on the points I think are most important. (If I responded to everything you said, that would take a long time.)
So, I fully understand that you don’t share the religious views of Bible-based geocentrists. So too with flat-earthers and other Biblical literalists who thought the Tower of Babel story was historical rather than allegorical or something. And that’s good—I’m very glad that Christians nowadays have largely backed away from those things.
But surely you don’t deny that those were genuine religious views held by real people, do you? I get that you disagree with those views, and that the distinction is very important to you personally, as a religious believer. But from my perspective, it’s just not relevant—it all goes to the retreat of religion in the face of scientific discovery and social progress.
As for your claim that some scientific discoveries have been motivated by religious doctrines, well, sure; that may very well be true, especially in the case of Lemaître and the Big Bang. I’m not really sure how that makes your religion more likely to be true, though.
I’m willing to agree with you that naturalism can’t be proved, but for all the reasons I’ve been discussing, that doesn’t mean it’s on equal footing with religion. Naturalism has an excellent track record of helping us learn about the world. Religion’s record, in contrast, has been decidedly dismal. You may think that your own religion is special, but I don’t see how you can reasonably deny that religion *in general* has been downright terrible in this regard.
HI Ben,
Sorry it took so long to get back to you. We just welcomed baby #2 in the midst of this worldwide pandemic. To say that it has been a bit hectic would be an understatement. 🙂
I feel like we are trying to compare apples and oranges. Of course, I wouldn’t send anyone to the pages of Genesis to better understand why French, Spanish, and Italian are considered romance languages while English and German are not. Nor would I send someone a natural history textbook to help them determine how to live a fulfilling and meaningful life.
I can’t deny that there has been and continues to be Christians that read the Tower of Babel story literally. As I said, I think this is a mistake, but I don’t see how this cuts against religion anymore than the fact that scientists thought the universe had existed for eternity up until Lemaitre and the Big Bang. I’d even bet there are still a few physicists out there that subscribe to Hoyle’s “Steady State Theory”. Does this reflect poorly on science? Of course not.
Man has continued to use his God-give gift of reason to expand his understanding in every corner of knowledge – from the humanities to the sciences.
At its core, I think that naturalism is interested in the mechanisms that explain why the natural world is the way it is. Christianity seeks to better understand the agent or “prime cause” of these mechanisms.
Comments are closed.