Let's start with the realization that kick-started my deconversion process. There is not a single, good reason for calling the Bible "God's Word". Even though I was indoctrinated from infancy on up through high school that the Bible was inspired by God I was never given a good reason for it. Many religions want to claim that they have scriptures that were sent down from heaven. The only way to know if they are or not is to examine them critically. If you study how the Bible was formed you'll see that it was put together over a long period of time and that several books were added or removed at different times. The New Testament epistles started out as regular letters, then they got passed around, and then as time goes on they were regarded as sacred. Centuries after they are written the orthodox church selects a canon of books which would eventually be known as the Bible. It was the same for the Old Testament. The Old Testament canon was made centuries after the books were actually written. Rather than having divine instructions to create the Bible, it all happens rather haphazardly for various reasons. Even today there are still different versions of the canon because some books (the apocrypha) could not be agreed upon. Why couldn't they agree? Because God was not telling them what to do. Men have done this all on their own (and it's been done many other times in other cultures / religions). We are left with an "orthodox" canon because the minority "un-orthodox" groups (such as the Gnostics or Ebionites) were wiped out and only some of their writings have survived. We are left with a book that contains supposed scientific insights (read and decide for yourself), but also contains scientific errors (which, conveniently, we should read as non-literal). To this day we don't know who some of the books authors are and there is also continuous debate on whether some books are written by who they say they are. We are left with an assortment of various writings which should not be called a Bible, but should be called a collection of religious texts.
Another realization I had was that Christianity has no more claims to evidence than other religions do. When I was a Christian I assumed that Christianity was profoundly superior to other religions. Reading through apologetic material by Muslims, I found that they make claims about the Koran that are just like what Christians claim about the Bible. They claim it contains prophecy and scientific facts. They even have a consistent author. Muslims, like Christians, can also claim to have explosive growth and vast numbers of followers. And Muslims don't have the problem of trying to explain something illogical like a three-in-one god. Even Judaism makes more logical sense than Christianity. What about the prophetic claims of Christianity? They may seem like pretty good evidence if you are a Christian, but what happens when you examine them critically? Again, you should read and decide for yourself. To me the prophecies are just not clear enough. They seem like they are taken and used out of context. Another toted evidence for Christianity involves life transformation which I wrote about in a previous post and this is also mirrored in other religions. I don't think it's asking too much to see some concrete proof that is superior to what any other religion has to offer. I have not seen this in Christianity.
I also realized that I did not have any good reasons to believe in Christianity. I think that someone should only believe in something if they think there is a good probability that it is true. So I'll just list a bunch of reasons that don't meet this criteria and, yes, I used to hold on to some of these reasons.
- Believing because everyone else does
- Believing because it makes you feel good
- Believing because you trust in the authority of other people
- Believing because you want to live forever
- Believing because that's how you were raised
- Believing because you're afraid of going to hell
- Believing because you're afraid of social rejection
- Believing because you're unwilling to think about other perspectives
- Believing because a large number of other people believe
This next realization took some research. I realized that what I thought were good reasons for being a Christian were not backed up by solid evidence. These include:
- Believing because the disciples were martyred for what they believed in
- Believing because there is overwhelming evidence for the resurrection of Jesus
- Believing because God speaks to people through the Holy Spirit
- Believing because God answers prayers
- Believing because of miracles
I used to think that the first two were a given, but I found that was not the case. Obviously it is hard to imagine someone dying for something they knew was a lie. From all I've read so far here is my understanding: No one knows how any of the disciples died and whether or not they died for their faith. There are three disciples who have traditions of martyrdom one of those being Peter who is said to have been crucified up-side-down. We do know that the Jews did not like the Christians because Paul (Saul) was one of them. I've read that Roman Emperor Nero needed a scapegoat for the Roman fires in AD 64 because he was in danger of being blamed for them. He chose to place the blame on the Christians because no one liked them and they were an isolated group. This gives a natural account for a widespread phase of Christian persecution in the 60s. I don't think Christianity is an outright lie. I think it evolved naturally with natural human tendencies. I think the earliest Christians were the Ebionites and were an offshoot from the Essenes. They were followers of Jesus (a Rabbi) in Galilee and they believed that the apocalypse was close at hand. They believed that a new Kingdom of God would be established within their lifetimes. This led to them living like socialists selling and sharing what they owned since the world would soon end. I think the Jewish authorities (big-wigs) did not like this one bit because they wanted to be in control of all religious movements including the movement of money to the temple. Jesus was probably crucified for inciting a riot when he did the temple clearing (or any other reason involved with being a zealous religious leader) and his closest followers hid themselves, Peter being one of them. The disciples were so distraught over the death of their friend Jesus that they became very likely candidates for having a vision. This is a scientifically documented occurrence called an After Death Communication (ADC) and is more common than I realized. Rather than actually seeing Jesus physically they saw him in a dream or vision and he told them to preach the good news of the kingdom. So in this theory they are not spreading a lie they are sincere believers with a sincere cause. This also explains why the earliest writings we have (Paul's letters) do not mention any physical appearances or an empty tomb story. I think Jesus was buried in a common grave like all the other men whom the Romans crucified. These earliest followers spread the original teachings of Jesus which are now lost to us (possibly the Gospel of the Hebrews). Along comes a zealous Saul of Tarsus who has both a Jewish and Hellenistic background and persecutes the Christians because he was a devout Pharisee. At some point he comes to his senses and has a "brainstorm". I believe that Paul is the real founder of the Christian religion. What he knows about Jesus is from the people he was killing. Jesus was the messiah and was crucified by the Roman / Jewish authorities. Paul invents the idea of Christ being the final atonement for our sins and putting an end to animal sacrifice. Since Paul was from Tarsus he may have been influenced by any number of Hellenistic / pagan beliefs. Paul claims in his letter to the Galations that what he preached he received by divine revelation and had a three year ministry before going to Jerusalem and meeting with Peter (See Galations 1). I think that the followers of Jesus of Nazareth and Paul were all dead by the time the gospels were written. The first one written is Mark and I think it was shortly after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. There are a lot of theories about where Mark got his information, but it's important to note that whoever wrote Mark did not give his name (this goes for all the gospels). My theory is that Mark is written by a Greek writing Gentile convert and is a mixture of religious propaganda and story telling mixed together with verbal narratives passed down through the decades. Another important thing to note about Mark is that the ending was added at a later date, a fact which you will see mentioned in any copy of the New Testament. About ten years later someone wrote Matthew, which, if he was a first-hand witness, would not have borrowed so much of his story from Mark. Most people realize that there are plenty of discrepancies between the four gospel accounts. Some Christians say that this makes it more realistic as if the eyewitnesses writing the gospels are relaying the facts according to their own recollections. The problem with this idea is that the gospels are not written as if they are an eyewitness account. They are written like stories and there are many instances that could not have been witnessed by the disciples (To name a few: Herod's meeting with the magi, Pilate speaking with Jesus, Satan tempting Jesus, Jesus praying alone, Jesus with the Samaritan woman, the angels and the shepherds, Judas and the chief priests, etc.). One way Christians can answer this problem is by simply claiming that the Holy Spirit told the writers about all of these private events. But once you are committed to the inspiration claim then you have the problem of the discrepancies, and around it goes. In summary, the gospels appear to me to be embellished stores written decades after Jesus died. I do think Jesus was a good teacher and that some of his sayings remain within the gospels, but I think Paul and later Gentile converts put a different spin on it. I don't think the original Jewish followers of Jesus would have approved the new testament. *Disclaimer* The above theory is just a lay-mans attempt at piecing something together, I expect it has some problems since I am not a scholar by any means. In the end it all comes down to possibilities and opinions. The point I'm making is that the evidence I thought was sound turned out to be very poor.
What about the Holy Spirit, answered prayers and miracles? These would be supernatural reasons for being a Christian and although I've never experienced them I won't say that no one else has. If you have truly experienced one of these supernatural events then I will submit that you have a good reason to be a Christian. For me, I cannot accept third-hand accounts - I need to experience them myself to believe in them. It is well-known that humans are prone to exaggerate and make things up. Telling me about a miracle that happened and was told to you by someone who had it told to them by someone who heard it from an eyewitness who was there does not impress me at all. While deconverting it did not take me long to realize that I had no idea if there was a Holy Spirit inside of me or not. There is no way for me to distinguish between my own thoughts and those of another. It could all very well be my own thoughts. Believing that another mind is feeding thoughts into my mind is not something that I would have thought of on my own.
Answered prayer and a miracle could probably be in the same category. I've never seen a miracle. That does not mean they don't happen, I've just never seen one. Basically it would be something that has never occurred before and defies a natural law, such as gravity or death. I find it interesting that stories of miracles were so prevalent in ancient times and have become more scarce in modern times. How can we be expected to trust ancient miracle accounts when people used to be so superstitious and gullible? (Actually even in modern times people report and believe ridiculous things.) Most of the ex-Christians I've come across have admitted that if they witnessed a genuine miracle they would have to re-think their positions and I would do the same.
Let's squeeze one more realization into this post. It took me a while to grasp this one. Faith is not a good character trait to strive for. Just so we're clear I'm talking about the kind of faith that expects us to believe something against the odds. Let's say I told you that aliens had spoken to me and told me that the earth would be obliterated in three days if we did not all wear green hats. Would you believe me? Would you have faith? I hope not. If something sounds like a tall tale it probably is. I think the writers of the Bible included a lot of tall tales in their writings. Asking me to accept them on faith as if faith were some kind of virtue is preposterous. If faith is a virtue then why not believe in all kinds of things? Why not believe that the angel Gabriel revealed God's will to Muhammad? You must have faith! Why not believe that Joseph Smith discovered God's will? You might as well have faith in Santa while you're at it. I think that reason (using our brains) trumps faith all day long. If you are committed to finding truth one of the best tools you can use is being skeptical. Ask hard questions and weigh the evidence. Remember, it was men that told you faith was important, not a divine being.
To read some of the reasons for why I am no longer a Christian, click here.
