50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God (20 page)

How is it that you and I were born sinners, anyway? Christians are
forever telling me that I was a sinner at birth. No matter how good I
might try to be I am bad, they say. It hardly seems fair that being born
means you immediately need saving. What do we have to do with
Adam's and Eve's crimes? I never ate any apples in the Garden of
Eden so why is it on my rap sheet?

Do Christians ever wonder if there might have been another way
for their god to give us a ticket to heaven, some way other than human
sacrifice? Why can't we all just say we are sorry, or pay a fine, or work
it off with community service? Why can't God just forgive us and
leave it at that? I'm sure most of us could think up several ways to
award salvation to humankind that don't require torture and cruci fixion. I wonder how Christians would react to a similar story if it took
place today?

Imagine if the king of a small country announced that he was
going to have his son beaten, whipped, nailed to a tree, and then
stabbed with a spear. During an interview on CNN, the king admits
that he is sad that his son will suffer and die but it must be done
because it is the only way he can forgive the citizens of his country for
their moral lapses and allow them access to healthcare and social services the following year. The king loves the people of his nation and
wants their crimes pardoned, so his son must die. What would you
think of this king? Weird? Cruel? Evil? Insane? But why would you
expect a higher moral standard from the human king of a tiny country
than you would from the god of the universe?

Another challenge to the Jesus story is that it may not be as unique
as most believers think it is. According to scholars, there are several
ancient stories that sound remarkably familiar. Randel Helms, author
of Fiction Gospels, describes one:

In the first century of the Common Era, there appeared at the eastern
end of the Mediterranean a remarkable religious leader who taught
the worship of one true God and declared that religion meant not the
sacrifice of beasts but the practice of charity and piety and the shunning of hatred and enmity. He was said to have worked miracles of
goodness, casting out demons, healing the sick, raising the dead. His
exemplary life led some of his followers to claim that he was a son
of God, though he called himself the son of man. Accused of sedition against Rome, he was arrested. After his death, his disciples
claimed he had risen from the dead, appeared to them alive, and then
ascended to heaven. Who was this teacher and wonder-worker? His
name was Apollonius of Tyana; he died about 98 A.D., and his story
may be read in Flavius Philostratus's Life of Apollonius. (Helms
1988, 9)

Perhaps the biggest flaw with the Jesus story is that it hasn't
worked very well. Christians claim that Jesus died for our sins so that we could all be saved. But the problem is that now, two thousand years
later, most people still aren't being saved each generation. Christians
are a minority worldwide. The majority of people simply don't believe
the Jesus story is true. Today there are about 2.2 billion Christians and
4.5 billion non-Christians. That's an awful lot of lost souls every generation. So, if it really happened, not only was the sacrifice of Jesus
strange and gruesome, it was also a mostly wasted effort that has failed
to save the majority of people.

Harris, Sam. Letter to a Christian Nation. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006.

Helms, Randel. Fiction Gospels. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1988.

Price, Robert M. The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable Is the
Gospel Tradition? Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2003.

Russell, Bertrand. Why IAm Not a Christian. New York: Simon & Schuster,
1957.

Of what use is a philosopher who doesn't hurt anybody's feelings?

-Diogenes

theists have an image problem. Some believers think all atheists are on Satan's payroll. Others imagine that atheists are
immoral frauds who know a god exists but won't admit it for fear of
having to give up their vices. Still other believers see atheists as arrogant jerks who think they know everything. Too smart for their own
good, they say. So stubborn that they won't see the god standing right
before them. Some believers say they would never stop believing in
their god if it meant becoming one of those pompous fools.

Believers may have a point here but they go too far with it. There
are rude and condescending atheists, of course. But aren't some
believers rude and condescending too? It is important to keep in mind
that personalities and attitudes do not necessarily have anything to do
with the existence of gods. Gods still might not exist even if every
atheist in the world were an obnoxious jerk. One could not assume that
gods exist even if every believer in the world were polite and humble.

Much of this negative view believers have toward nonbelievers
comes out of the clash of ideas about the world and universe around
us. For example, it can be a challenge for science-literate nonbelievers
to keep a cool head when in the presence of a believer who insists that the world is flat and ten thousand years old, or that angels and demons
are all around us, or that life does not evolve. But this is no reason to
belittle or abuse someone. Some of the more aggressive nonbelievers
might try having a little more compassion and humility. For example,
I never assume intellectual superiority when talking with a believer.
They easily could be "smarter" than I am, regardless of how absurd
some of their beliefs may be. If I had been homeschooled by Taliban
or Amish parents, I probably would see the world very differently
today. Would it be my fault? Would it be right for a nonbeliever to
view me as a moron who can't think? Of course not. For most people
in this world it all comes down to what your parents believe and which
school district you live in.

The only fault that may be inexcusable is refusing to learn. Some
believers accuse atheists of being stubborn and dogmatic. If they
really are, then I join the believers in criticizing them. All of us,
believers and nonbelievers, should maintain an open mind and be
willing to learn new things, even if it contradicts some things we
thought we knew for sure. I, for example, am willing to believe in a
god, dump the theory of evolution, or embrace the existence of the
Loch Ness Monster if new facts demand it. I just want to be on the side
of reality. Don't you?

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins is one of the world's
most prominent and outspoken atheists. He delivered a powerful case
against belief in his excellent book The God Delusion. I am a longtime fan of his work and I think The God Delusion is a positive contribution to the world. His goal is to encourage more people to think
and stop wasting their time and intellectual potential on religious
beliefs. Clearly, this is a message the world needs to hear. However,
there is a tone that emerges from some of the pages within The God
Delusion that may suggest to some believers that Dawkins thinks they
are all a bunch of idiots and that atheists are a higher form of life.
Although I am on Dawkins's side and I don't think his book was an
all-out and no-holds assault on religion, I do understand why some
believers feel this way.

To be clear, Dawkins believes in freedom of thought. He is not the
atheist version of the Inquisition. He hasn't called for religion to be
made a crime. He doesn't want to see people jailed for praying. His
hope is that people simply will realize that gods are not real so that they
can get on with more positive and productive pursuits. But while his
arguments are direct and powerful, I'm not sure they will hit home with
as many believers as they might have. For example, Dawkins sometimes refers to believers as "faith heads." I'll go out on a limb and guess
that believers don't like that. "Faith head" sounds a lot like an insult.
Okay, maybe some believers' heads are filled with too much of that
intellectual poison called faith, but why call them "faith heads"? It's
counterproductive and, more importantly, it's wrong to suggest that
believers in general are dim or incapable of reasoning. Many of today's
atheists were once "faith heads." There is always the potential for skepticism and reason to sneak in. We can't just give up on people. Yes,
many religious claims are undeniably ridiculous, but one must never
forget that millions of people are herded into holding these ideas
because of the overwhelming power of family and culture. Calling them
names because they have these beliefs is like making fun of someone
because in their society people wear "odd" hats or eat "strange" food.
It's a form of intellectual ethnocentrism sometimes directed against
believers that is unfair. Nonbelievers must never forget how complex
people are. Just because someone has a few potholes in his or her
thinking is not a good reason to declare their mind a dead end. Smart
people can be dumb about a few things and still be smart people.

I don't think that atheists necessarily are superior to believers by
any meaningful measure. Yes, they are not going to hate and kill you
in the name of a god, but there are many other factors that influence
what kind of person the atheist is. An atheist might hate and kill you
based on what sports team you cheer for or which political party you
support. Not believing in a god does not guarantee that a person will
be morally superior any more than believing in a god means that a
person will be an antiscience dolt. As with gender, race, and nationality, it is usually a mistake to generalize.

Dawkins is excellent at dismantling the arguments of believers
who still think they can prove their gods are real. But the way in which
he knocks down their house of cards sometimes warrants a bit of criticism. Although some believers may respond well to being intellectually thumped, I suspect that most who are courageous enough to invest
the time to read The God Delusion come away offended and feeling as
if they had been scolded and maybe even pushed around by a bully.
Again, I completely understand and sympathize with how Dawkins
feels. He obviously is frustrated and irritated by religion because it so
often discourages thinking while encouraging people to do bad things.
But I am not sure that tough talk is an effective way to encourage a
fellow human being to embrace reason and reconsider the validity of
her or his cherished religious beliefs. In my own experiences arguing
over religion, I have won many battles but few wars. The only people
I ever felt that I might have influenced in a meaningful and lasting way
were those who I simply shared a friendly chat with. Battering a
believer with logic and data is usually a waste of everyone's time.
Having a sincere talk with someone you respect as a fellow human
being can change everything.

I don't know; maybe believers are right. Maybe there really is a
shortage of polite and humble atheists in the world today. Regardless of
whether this is reality or perception, atheists need to reach out to
believers and encourage them to rethink their gods in a way that
believers will listen to. I think this matters a great deal because the
world can't take too much more religion. We can't afford to have billions of people loving their gods more than each other for much longer.
Nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and biological weapons hang
over our heads. We are devastating the natural environment that we all
depend on. Half the population is still far too poor. Meanwhile, belief
in gods inspires a constant assault on science and human rights. Religious belief fuels the worst form of terrorism. (Isn't killing and dying
for a god worse than killing and dying for land, money, or a flag? At
least we all agree that those things are real.) Belief turns us against one
another in a time when we need to cooperate more than ever. Religion is too great a threat to the world for it not to be confronted and taken
down a peg or two by those who respect reality and believe in the positive potential of humankind. But how?

If more atheists would stop trying to win arguments and concentrate
instead on offering their fellow humans a hand up from irrational
beliefs, we might actually achieve the progress we need to survive in the
twenty-first century. I am not suggesting that religion must be eradicated
like some disease. There are many good things about religion and it is
too deeply intertwined with human culture to be unceremoniously jettisoned. However, I do believe that atheists can show believers that there
is absolutely no reason to take religion so seriously that it devours
common sense and basic respect for other humans. But to make any
headway, atheists have to respect believers as equals rather than think of
them as a hypnotized subspecies. A popular mantra among believers is
"hate the sin; love the sinner." Atheists might consider adopting a version of that: hate the irrational belief but love the believer. Atheists who
respect life and care about our world have an obligation to share their
wonderful worldview with those who need it most. Otherwise
humankind may never wake up from its ancient dreams.