Religion Explained?

British comedian and avowed atheist Ricky Gervais offers a concise albeit cynical explanation of religion.¹ He argues that early childhood conditioning accounts for widespread faith in God and is comparable to believing in Santa Claus and fairies. “I think there would be more atheists and less faithful,” Gervais opines, “if you weren’t allowed to teach anything, you weren’t allowed to mention any gods or any beliefs or atheism until they were 20.” He reasons, as the myth of God is ingrained in impressionable minds, “if you’re born in India you’re probably a Hindu, if you’re born in America you’re probably a Christian, if you’re born in Pakistan you’re probably a Muslim. That’s a coincidence, isn’t it—that you’re always born into the right god … into the right religion?” He thinks it strange that people still hold onto the medieval belief that God made the universe, so he asks, “Who made God?” If the assumption is that God has always been, then Gervais responds, “Let’s just say the universe has then. Let’s just cut out the middle-man; it saves time.”

An Eternal Universe?

This overly simplistic scenario generates more questions than answers. Gervais is merely repeating what astronomer Carl Sagan said back in the 1970s about a timeless universe,² one of the most unscientific assertions that can be made! The very year Sagan died, renowned cosmologist Stephen Hawking affirmed: “All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning …. probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology.”³

If the ultimate cause of the universe is God, where did God come from? The question assumes our limited naturalistic environment can adequately explain an unlimited supernatural creative force, even though the evidence points to a source of the natural world beyond nature itself.⁴ It was at the beginning of the cosmos that time, space, matter, and finite energy all came into being. The ultimate cause of the physical world is thus outside of time (eternal), outside of space (omnipresent), outside of matter (immaterial), and outside of finite energy (omnipotent). The God of the Bible is the infinite, independent, supernatural primal cause of the finite, dependent, natural world (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 3:4).

Childhood Conditioning?

Where one is born and the environment in which one is raised may account for nominal faith (including atheism), but this ignores so many factors inexplicable from a purely naturalistic worldview. Childhood conditioning does not explain why adult atheists become believers, like William J. Murray, son of militant atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hair, or Oxford professor C. S. Lewis, biochemist Alister McGrath, geneticists Francis Collins and George R. Price, astrophysicist Hugh Ross, astronomer Allan Sandage, philosopher Nina Karin Monsen, Nobel Prize winner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, journalist Lee Strobel, MIT professor Rosalind Picard, et al.⁵ Apparently how the evidence is interpreted and the conclusions drawn therefrom are not simply a matter of the mind but of the will.

Christianity originated in the Middle East, yet there are followers of Christ not only in America, but in Pakistan, India, and all around the globe. The Christian movement emerged in a hostile Jewish environment and spread throughout a resistant polytheistic world. These early believers did not choose their religion because it was familiar and popular. They embraced the Christian faith as true, irrespective of cultural conditioning and geographic location.

The sarcastic characterization of one conveniently “born into the right god … into the right religion” is a straw-man argument that miserably fails. Former atheist turned Christian apologist, Forest Antemesaris, reasons that if 1,000 people stole his identity and claimed to be Forest Antemesaris, this would surely not prove his nonexistence. “If the God of Christianity exists, the claim of other gods existing does not affect His existence.”⁶

J. Warner Wallace, the son of a devout atheist, was not raised in a Christian home. In his mid-30s, having examined a wide range of philosophical and religious worldviews, he began an investigation of God’s existence and the claims of Christianity. He writes, “Like so many others, I came to believe Christianity is true, not because of my surrounding influences, but on the strength of the case itself.”⁷ Wallace notes further that Christians continue to be the most persecuted religious movement worldwide, especially in Islamic and communist nations. “These suffering believers did not become Christians because Christianity was the default religion of their region or culture.”

Wissam Al-Aethawi, a former Iraqi soldier and engineer who grew up in Baghdad, was disillusioned by a religion that taught hate. He purchased a Bible, was convicted by its message, and obeyed the gospel. He now works with Arab immigrants in the USA, using the New Testament to teach them English, large numbers of whom are experiencing religious freedom for the first time and coming to faith in Christ. You can read Wissam’s story here: <Link>.

Conclusion

Michael Patton observes, “Christianity is the only viable worldview that is historically defensible. The central claims of the Bible demand historic inquiry, as they are based on public events that can be historically verified. In contrast, the central claims of all other religions cannot be historically tested and, therefore, are beyond falsifiability or inquiry. They just have to be believed with blind faith.”⁸ The Christian movement began and flourished, not in a vacuum, but among real people in the first century world who could readily test its claims (cf. Acts 26:26; 1 Cor. 15:6). The credibility and tenacity of the Christian faith, void of violent threats and coercion, better explains why it continues to thrive worldwide.

The geographical location of one’s birth and cultural environment of one’s upbringing is a weak rationale for religion in general and Christianity in particular. Since the creation of the world the evidence of God has not been hidden, and to stubbornly ignore it is inexcusable (Romans 1:18-22). May the entire human creation hear the words of God's revelatory vessel: “He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day” (John 12:48).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Ricky Gervais, “Religion Explained in 2 Minutes,” YouTube video clip posted by Mike Panagopoulos (25 March 2018), <Link>.

     ² Carl Sagan, “On God and Creation,” YouTube video clip posted by angryatheistdotnet (13 Dec. 2009), <Link>. For a good response to this question, see Kent Hovind’s reply to Reinhold Schlieter, <Link>.

     ³ Stephen Hawking, “The Beginning of Time,” 1996 lecture, <Link>.

     ⁴ See K. L. Moore, Are You Sure About God? Part 1 and appended links. 

     ⁵ This extensive list would also include Emory professor Mark Bauerlein, biologist Alexis Carrel, physicist Russell Humphreys, Harvard law professor Simon Greenleaf, et al. Though certainly not exhaustive, for the names of other prominent figures, see “List of former atheists and agnostics” <Link>.

     ⁶ Forest Antemesaris, “Five Bad Reasons to Reject Christianity,” Apologia Institute (21 May 2018), <Link>.

     ⁷ J. Warner Wallace, “Am I a Christian Simply Because I Was Raised in a Christian Culture?” Cold Case Christianity (31 Jan. 2018), <Link>.

     ⁸ Michael Patton, “Christianity, the World’s Most Falsifiable Religion,” credohouse.org (07-08-2013), <Link>.

Related Posts: Where's the Proof of God?, Does the Bible Condone Sexual Assault and Rape?

Related articles: Rosalind Picard's MIT Professor Meets Author of All Knowledge, Michael J. Kruger's Can We Believe God's Word is True Because Our Parents Told Us?, Nathan Liddell's I Was Born This Way (a Christian)? 

Related Videos: Cancel Culture & Christianity

Image credit: https://www.on-magazine.co.uk/arts/comedy/live-review/ricky-gervais-sheffield-city-hall-humanity/

Relativism Vs. Objective/Absolute Truth

     It has been estimated that about 70% of Americans do not believe in absolute truth, and as few as 38% of those who attend what is perceived to be conservative Christian churches believe in absolute truth.¹ Only 9% of American adults hold a biblical worldview, whereas less than one half of one percent of those aged 18 to 23 do.² The majority seems to favor an open, tolerant, pluralistic society, where individual choice is more important than absolute standards. Relativism currently reigns as the non-standard standard: “What I consider right and wrong is true for me, and what you consider right and wrong is true for you.”

     The “politically correct” agenda, as advocated by media outlets, politicians, the entertainment industry, and other secular entities, has consistently indoctrinated impressionable minds with ideas such as: (1) the supremacy of individual choice as the ultimate criterion; (2) personal feelings and opinions as the primary basis of morality; (3) truth is subjective and relative to circumstances; (4) diverse viewpoints are equally valid; (5) unconditional acceptance, inclusiveness, and tolerance; and (6) the demonization of making negative judgments about others.³

Relativism in Religion

     Postmodernism is a popular model of thinking that affirms there is no real knowledge or facts or truth in the objective sense (only subjective interpretations); no uniform or universal reality.⁴ And postmodernistic relativism is not limited to atheists, agnostics, humanists, and skeptics. Universalism is the belief that all people will ultimately be reconciled to God. Syncretism is the combining of different religious beliefs, asserting unity and the inclusion of diverse faiths. Pluralism is accepting all religious paths as equally valid and promoting coexistence. It is all too common to hear the adage, “One religion is as good as another.”

     For professing Christians who at least pay lip service to the exclusiveness of the Christian faith (see John 14:6), alternative slogans include, “One church is as good as another,” “Join the church of your choice,” and “It doesn’t matter what you believe, as long as you’re sincere.” Now that Christianized Relativism is so commonplace in our society, who can be surprised by messages like that of Victoria Olsteen? She announces to the world: “just do good for your own self. Do good because God wants you to be happy. When you come to church, when you worship him, you’re not doing it for God, really, you’re doing it for yourself ...”⁵

Relativism in Churches of Christ⁶

     With the inroads of relativism and the denial of absolute truth, we are witnessing among churches of Christ a rejection or compromise of fundamental tenets such as biblical authority, the restoration plea, the distinctiveness of the church, worship guidelines, doctrinal integrity, and a strict moral code. Teachings regarded as harsh or unpleasant or inconvenient are diluted or changed. Grace and unconditional acceptance take precedence over repentance, accountability, and obedience. Rather than appealing to Bible authority and what we know pleases the Lord, greater emphasis is placed on what interests members (felt needs) and/or what attracts people in the community. Doctrinal and procedural change is hailed as essential to salvaging or transforming what is perceived to be an antiquated and dying church.⁷ Then there are the catchphrases that prematurely end dialogue: “Everyone’s entitled to his/her own opinion.” “That’s just you’re interpretation.” “We’ll just have to agree to disagree.” “Who are you to judge?!”

The Biblical Perspective

     The Bible addresses two types of human judging; one is condemned, while the other is enjoined. (1) Wrongful judgment (Matt. 7:1-5; Rom. 2:1-3; 1 Cor. 4:3-5) involves hypocritical assessments, or trying to discern another’s intentions and motives, or drawing conclusions without having all the facts, or making judgments based on misinformation, or using oneself as the standard. (2) Righteous judgment (John 7:24; 1 Cor. 2:15; 5:3, 12; 6:2-5) relies on God’s word as the standard, evaluates observable actions and substantiated facts, and sincerely has the person’s best interests at heart.⁸

     If the Bible is to be taken seriously, the following affirmations must be conceded:

·      There is an objective body of spiritual truth (John 4:24; 8:32; 17:17; Rom. 1:25; 1 Cor. 15:1-4; 2 Cor. 6:7; Gal. 2:5; Eph. 4:21; Col. 1:5; 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Tim. 3:15; 2 Tim. 2:15; Heb. 4:12; 11:6; Jas. 1:18).

·      Truth is attainable (Mark 12:32; John 4:23-24; 16:13; 17:20-21; Eph. 5:17; 2 Pet. 3:9).

·      Truth is knowable (John 1:14, 17; 8:32; 14:6; Rom. 2:2; Col. 1:6; 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Tim. 3:7; Heb. 10:26; 1 Jn 2:21; 2 Jn 1).

·      Truth is mutually understandable (Matt. 13:10-16, 23; Mark 7:14; Eph. 3:3-4; 5:17; Col. 1:9-10; 2 Tim. 2:7).

·      One may err from the truth (John 8:44; Rom. 1:25; Gal. 2:14; 3:1; 5:7; 1 Tim. 6:5; 2 Tim. 2:18; 3:8; 4:1-5; Titus 1:14; Jas. 3:14; 5:19; 2 Pet. 2:2; 1 John 1:8; 2:4; cf. Rom. 1:18).

·      Truth is to be believed (John 8:45-46; Eph. 1:13; 2 Thess. 2:10-13; 1 Tim. 4:3; 2 Tim. 2:25).

·      Truth is to be obeyed (John 3:21; 8:47; 18:37; Rom. 2:8-9; 6:17-18; Gal. 5:7; 1 Pet. 1:22; 1 John 1:6; 2:4-5; 2 John 4; 3 John 3-4).

·      Truth is to be defended (Gal. 4:16; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Pet. 3:15; Jude 3; cf. Acts 9:22; 18:28).

·      Truth is to be proclaimed (John 5:33; 8:40, 45-46; 18:37; Acts 26:25; Rom. 9:1; 2 Cor. 5:10-20; 7:14; Eph. 4:15; 1 Tim. 2:7).

Conclusion:

     Moral relativism is the necessary consequence of rejecting God and his word in favor of individual preference (cf. Rom. 1:18-31). But history has proven many times over that fallible human beings are an inadequate standard (cf. Prov. 14:12; Jer. 10:23). Without divine guidelines, there is no such thing as absolute truth, absolute evil, or absolute good, and everyone does “what is right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6; 21:25). One of the best arguments against relativism is the sad state of our society and world and the turmoil and disunity in religion, including the Lord’s church. An objective standard of truth that is mutually accepted, understood, and obeyed is a logical necessity. “Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue” (2 Peter 1:2-3 NKJV).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ “Religious Beliefs of Americans: Does Absolute Truth Exist?,” Religious-Tolerance.org, <Link>.

     ² “Barna Survey Examines Changes,” The Barna Group, <Link>. Alvin Kernan observes that modern education has taken “uncertainty to its nihilistic extremes in the humanities and social sciences, 'demystifying' traditional knowledge, replacing positivism with relativism, substituting interpretation for facts, and discrediting objectivity in the name of subjectivity” (In Plato’s Cave xvi).
     ³ In reality, it would appear that all are exempt from criticism except those who espouse conservative Christian values.

     ⁴ See Postmodernism and the Homosexual Christian Part 1.

     ⁵ “Bill Cosby's response to Victoria Olsteen,” YouTube, <Link>. Conversely, see K. L. Moore's “What Are You Getting Out of Worship?” <Link>.

     ⁶ See Phil Sanders, Adrift: Postmodernism in the Church. Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 2000; and the sequel, A Faith Built on Sand: the Foolishness of Popular Religion in a Postmodern Age. Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 2011.

     ⁷ See James Norad’s “Why are Churches of Christ Shrinking?” <Link>; and K. L. Moore’s response, “Musicals, American Football, and Folks Leaving the Church,” <Link>.
     ⁸ “The truth of the gospel is uncomfortable precisely because it is true. The truth of the gospel shows us the strength of self-denial rather than the indulgence of self-affirmation. Clearly stating the truth of the gospel, we have a message with substance and relevance for all of life. It is the way of salvation” (Gregory Alan Tidwell, “The Splendor of Truth,” <Link>).

Related Posts: The Inconsistency of Relativism

Related articles: Dave Miller's “Political Correctness and 'Bashing',” <Link>; Steve Higginbotham's “Religious Tolerance,“ <Link>; Eric Metaxas, “The new normless: the toll of relativism on our kids,” <Link>. For an interesting comparison to the history of art, watch this video from Prager University.

Image credit: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNZE6EobrvxFCRbr4nhzIvz-Wi8OyBG0TFLyq5pcdhXC6lYURBSFvgAvp_ikdABeCaRNsVOoDhE4aghODKKKTG25s1iQcjhqhVvdsEOx-RfNCE5Py3Yx3i6kvaFe6OysDDMmuEQu85WtfE/s1600/question_clipart.gif