Chapter 6: The Secular Jesus
10/20/2008 ©Charles Germany

We have questioned the real Jesus. We went digging through the sands of the past looking for evidence of the historical Jesus. We have observed that the idea of God and science are not at odds in the scientific Jesus.  We looked at the present and from the past towards the future in the prophetic Jesus. We uncovered the offending nature of Christ. What of a secular Jesus? Is there a Christ apart from his divinity - a Messiah without supernatural substance?

According to Jesus' own words in the previous chapter this can not be. Secularists agree, there can be no peace - it is impossible for the perspectives of the real Jesus and skeptics to unite. French biologist and evolutionist Jacques Monod maintained that:

"It is absurd for a Christian to believe that God would use evolution to create life. It is inconsistent with the Christian view of God that he would allow trillions upon trillions of creatures to live, suffer and become extinct only to develop more complex creatures." (Henry M. Morris. The Troubled Waters of Evolution. SanDiego, California. Creation-Life Publishers. 1974. 58.)

In the last chapter we examined the words of Christ that have offended so many and perused his incredible claims with a critical eye. It would be unfair and biased not to also examine the statements of agnostics and skeptics and apply the same scrutiny to their words. One will find that their statements have been as bold, audacious and offensive as those made by Christ.

Once again we must observe that God has not vanished in a poof of logic. The British historian Paul Johnson made the observation in “The God Who Would Not Die”:

“…the most extraordinary thing about the twentieth century was the failure of God to die. The collapse of mass religious belief, especially among the educated and prosperous, had been widely and confidently predicted. It did not take place. Somehow, God survived, flourished even. At the end of the twentieth century the idea of a personal, living God is as real as ever, in the minds and hearts of countless millions of men and women throughout our planet. ” (Paul Johnson. The Quest for God. 6.)

Is belief or the lack of belief in a Creator really that important? Does it really matter? Dr. Mortimer J. Adler, editor of “The Greatest Books of the Western World”, in referring to some of the greatest works of literature in Western civilization said:

“More consequences for thought and action follow the affirmation or denial of God than the answering of any other basic question. The whole tenor of human life is affected by whether men regard themselves as the Supreme Being in the universe, or acknowledge a superhuman being whom they conceive of as an object of fear or love and a force to be defied, or a Lord to be obeyed.” (Mortimer J. Adler. ed. The Great Ideas: A Syntopicon of the Great Books of the Western World, 2^nd ed. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1990. 1:433.)

Gullible Skepticism

One of skepticism's greatest virtues is that it demands proof, preventing gullibility by seeking empirical evidence. There are none so gullible as those who will believe something without evidence or observation. Christ warns his followers against accepting things without proof and following false prophets. Christians are told to "test the spirits" (1 John 4:1). Many poor, hapless souls in suicide cults would not have been led to their deaths if they had been a bit more skeptical. Having faith in something doesn't mean we must shut down our reasoning facilities. Yet is there a darker side to skepticism?

One of skepticism's greatest weaknesses is that it sometimes associates disbelief in something with intelligence. Like those who exercise "blind faith", a skeptic sometimes makes sloppy assumptions that are not based on evidence but rather emotional opinions and personal prejudices. Simply doubting something doesn't make one's beliefs about that thing authoritative. Throughout history that has been the position of the fool as well as the wise man. Skeptics doubted the earth was round. Skeptics doubted that the earth orbited the sun, advocating geocentricity. Skeptics doubted we could ever travel faster than the speed of sound.

A skeptic worth their salt has to truly know what they are doubting. They must be willing to collect hard evidence to support their claims - willing to examine alternatives that contradict premature conclusions. If they are searching for the "truth", they must be willing to admit weaknesses in their perspectives and entertain competing theories contrary to their own - otherwise they are practicing pseudoscience. As an example of this, let's look at the following historical interaction between Newton (a futurist) and Voltaire (a skeptic). A little over 200 years ago, Sir Isaac Newton made the comment:

"The time is coming when men will travel 50 miles an hour." 

Newton had begun to study the Bible in his old age and was speculating about the fulfillment of the prophet Daniel's prediction of "ever increasing knowledge and men traveling at high speed to and fro across the face of the earth". This prediction is known in today's terms as "Moore's Law". Voltaire, ever the skeptic, ridiculed Newton's prediction and responded:

"Now look at that mighty mind of Newton who studied gravitation.  When he became an old man and got into his second childhood, he began to study the book that is called the Bible.  And it seems in order to credit its fabulous nonsense we must believe that the knowledge of mankind will be so increased that he will be able to travel at the rate of 50 miles an hour.  The poor dullard!  No man can travel at the rate of 30 miles an hour and get his breath!" (Benson J. Lossing. The American Historical Record And Repertory Of Notes And Queries : Concerning The History And Antiquities Of America And Biography Of Americans. Kessinger Publishing Company. 2006.)

History has vindicated Newton - NASA's Space Shuttle routinely travels with astronauts aboard at an orbital velocity of between 17,323 and 17,440 miles per hour (approximately 22.7 times the speed of sound). That's a bit faster than Voltaire's maximum speed limit. If only he could have known! Before Newton claimed to believe in the Bible, Voltaire had often vigorously defended Newton's theories on gravitation and wrote of the episode of the falling "apple" that had given Newton his inspiration in "Essay on Epic Poetry " (1727).

However in this instance, Voltaire's skepticism did not amount to an intelligent understanding of the possibilities allowed by physics and the effects of exponentially increasing technological knowledge - it was merely the feeble justification of his personal prejudice. Skeptics often accuse those who believe in God of being attracted to such beliefs because they are narcissists and want to believe that they have "special knowledge".

As we can see, the same argument can be made for the skeptic that lacks empirical evidence. Like other skeptics who jump to conclusions, Voltaire, a writer and a philosopher, arrogantly assumed he had "special knowledge" superior to Newton's - who was a pioneering physics genius.  Voltaire assumed by his own personal prejudice that since Newton had begun to study the Bible and believe it, he must therefore be a complete idiot. This is arrogance on Voltaire's part, not Newton's.

Voltaire himself was not an atheist, as many atheists claim, but a deist. He wrote:

"What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason." (Voltaire. W. Dugdale. A Philosophical Dictionary ver 2. 1843. page 473 Section 1.)

The Philosophy of Meaninglessness

The author of one of my favorite books, "Brave New World", published in 1932, was the humanist Aldous Huxley. In his novel he predicted a future of eugenics, genetic engineering and pharmaceutical dominion that, for something written 70 years ago, was a remarkably accurate description of modern life as we now know it. He admits his own personal prejudices when he writes:

“…the philosophy of meaningless was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust. The supporters of these systems claimed that in some way they embodied the meaning (a Christian meaning, they insisted) of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and at the same time justifying ourselves in our political and erotic revolt: we could deny that the world had any meaning whatsoever.” (Aldous Huxley. Ends and Means: An Enquiry into the Nature of Ideals and into the Methods Employed for their Realization . 1937. p273.)

Let's look at some other assumptions, confusion, uncertainty, personal prejudices and opinions made by skeptics who reject the idea of an intelligently engineered universe and yet are experts in their fields:

The Physicist H.J. Lipson said "I think however that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is Creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." (H. J. Lipson. F. R. S. A Physicist Looks at Evolution. In Physics Bulletin 31. 1980. p. 138.)

Biologist Dean H. Kenyon testified before congress: "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." (Dean H. Kenyon. Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University. Affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513. In Brief of Appellants prepared under the direction of William J. Gusto, Jr. Attorney General of the State of Louisiana. October 1985. p. A-16.)

"Now of course such claims are simply nonsense. For Darwin's model of evolution is still very much a theory and still very much in doubt when it comes to macroevolutionary phenomena. Furthermore being basically a theory of reconstruction, it is impossible to verify by experiment or direct observation as is normal in science." (M. Denton. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. 1985. p. 75.)

"[Darwin's theory that all evolution is due to the gradual accumulation of small genetic changes] remains as unsubstantiated as it was one hundred and twenty years ago. The very success of the Darwinian model at a microevolutionary [subspecies] level . . only serves to highlight its failure at a macroevolutionary [above species] level." (Michael Denton. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. 1985. p. 344.)

"The records of rocks do not indicate a smooth progression by minute stages up the ladder of complexity. They do not support the idea of 'gradualism' so much favored by the Victorians, which also underlies the mathematics of population genetics. The difficulties are so great that there is at present no general agreement amongst zoologists about the ancestors of any of the major invertebrate Phyla." (Edmund J. Ambrose. The Nature and Origin of the Biological World. 1982. pp. 117-118.)

"If complex organisms ever did evolve from simpler ones, the process took place contrary to the laws of nature, and must have involved what may rightly be termed the miraculous."
(R. E. D. Clark. Victoria Institute. 1943. p. 63.)

Professor Louis T. More, a brilliant physicist wrote: “The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone”. (Louis T. More. The Dogma of Evolution. Princeton: University Press. 1925. p160.)

Zoologist D.M.S. Watson stated that evolution is accepted “not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logically coherent evidence, but because the only alternative – special creation – is incredible.” (Henry M. Morris. Scientific Creationism. Creation-Life Publishers. San Diego, California. 1974. 8.)

The British surgeon, writer and evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith strongly supported belief in the Piltdown Man, which was later discovered to be a hoax and exposed as a forgery in 1953. He wrote, “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable.” (Sir Arthur Keith. Foreword to Origin of Species (100th edition).)

Charles Darwin himself - the father of the theory of evolution, said "When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution]." (Charles Darwin, in Francis Darwin (Ed.). The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin. Vol. 2. 1898 p. 210.)

In his book, “Evolution and Adaptation”, evolutionist T.H. Morgan writes “Within the period of human history, we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of once species into another one… It may be claimed that the theory of descent is lacking, therefore, in the most essential feature it needs to place the theory on a scientific basis. This must be admitted.” (T.H. Morgan. Evolution and Adaptation. p. 42.)

"Indeed, the isolation and distinctness of different types of organisms and the existence of clear discontinuities in nature have been self-evident for centuries, even to non-biologists."
(Michael Denton. Evolution: Theory in Crisis. 1985. p. 105.)

These are just a few of the comments of skeptics and evolutionists who are experts in their fields. It seems highly biased that skeptics are willing to ignore the lack of proof of their perspectives and accept a universe without an engineer. It is illogical that skeptics ridicule those who believe in an intelligently crafted universe when they themselves exercise blind faith to believe in one that magically created itself. This bias is made most evident when skeptics defend their theory and attack equally plausible ones, not because they have superior evidence but merely that they find the alternative to their theory distasteful. In this way skeptics exercise the same "faith" to believe in nothing that others use to believe in a Creator.

It would be both prejudiced and unscientific to ignore the volume of evidence in favor of this universe having an intelligent beginning as discussed in these last four chapters . An honest skeptic must at least consider the possibilities. In light of these discoveries, many scientists are becoming “rebels”, lashing out against the evolutionary dogma they have been forced to swallow and prevented from questioning. They are openly beginning to reject the philosophy of meaninglessness.

Faith In the Unseen and Improvable

The Evolutionist Thomas Huxley once said, “The primary and direct evidence in favor of evolution can be furnished only by paleontology… If evolution has taken place, its marks will be left; if it has not taken place, there will be its refutation.” (Enoch. Evolution of Creation?. p22.) In the Cambrian strata of rock, invertebrates appear suddenly as intricate and complex animals with no predecessors or ancestors coming before or leading up to them. This presents a dilemma to skeptics and evolutionists.

Harvard educated evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson said, “In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” (Morris. Troubled Waters. p91.)

Scientist Richard Goldschmidt maintains that it is impossible to form a new species of life through micro-mutations. He writes “It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species, or genus, etc., by macro-mutation. It is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micro-mutations.” He proposes instead the “hopeful monster theory” - that one species can mutate and give rise to another near instantaneously.  As unlikely as it sounds, if this theory can be proven, it would establish probable cause for the huge gaps that exists in the fossil record where species appear from nowhere and there is no gradual evolution from one species to another. Meanwhile, in the pandemonium and confusion scientists like Geoffrey Bourne have declared that apes evolved from men, not men from apes. Scientists like B.C. Nelson argue that by blood, the pig is the closest animal to human beings, not the ape. (Enoch. Evolution or Creation? 67.)

An Indian zoologist who served for 30 years at the University of Madras, Professor Hannington Enoch, declared “The facts of paleontology seem to support creation and the flood rather than evolution. For instance, all the major groups of invertebrates appear suddenly in the first fossilifererous strata of earth with their distinct specializations indicating that they were all created almost at the same time.” (Ibid. p28.)

Paraphrasing Huxley and many other famous atheists, humanists and secularists, they do not want life to have meaning or purpose as that would interfere with the pursuit of their private passions. This is hardly an objective and unbiased maxim with which to analyze the universe. Yet these same individuals would have us believe that their perspective is the only rational point of view? It is at this point - in that it requires faith and lacks empirical evidence to substantiate its claims - that atheism becomes itself a religion, only one that embraces a philosophy of meaninglessness rather than purpose.

President of the Royal College of Surgeons of Great Britain, Sir Cecil Wakeley, said “Scripture is quite definite the God created the world, and I for one believe that to be a fact, not fiction. There is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, to support the theory of evolution.” (H. Enoch. Evolution or Creation? London. Evangelical Press. 1966.) Many scientists have rejected evolution, such as Harvard scientist Louis Agassiz and physicist and engineer Sir Ambrose Fleming. Professor of anatomy at the University of Australia, David Allbrook remarks that evolution is “a time-honored scientific tenet of faith.” Biologist Dr. Duane Gish maintains that “Evolution is a fairy tale for adults.” 

Dr. Arthur N. Field wrote that the theory of evolution was built “upon belief in the reality of the unseen; belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in embryological evidence that does not exist, belief in the breeding experiments that refuse to come off.” (Quoted in, Karl Marx as an Evolutionist.) The evolutionary biologist Sir Julian Huxley once admitted, “I suppose the reason we leaped at The Origin of the Species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.”

Again let's make the observation that both secularism and religion oppose the real Jesus. Secularism, by the words of its adherents, would deny that life has any meaning for erotic fulfillment and the realization of private passions. Religion is no better – it opposes the teachings of Christ and exploits him by replacing him with an imposter. This imposter teaches bigotry, selfishness and materialism. Religion and secularism are two diabolical sides of the same coin - both are in opposition to Christ's teachings. Again, Jesus says as the Apostle Paul once wrote, “And yet I will show you a more excellent way” (1 Corinthians 12:31).

Are We Free or Bound?

In the mid 1990's I took several courses in Educational Psychology at UCF in Orlando. In one of those classes we studied the famous psychologist B.F. Skinner, who had made many contributions to the discipline of pedagogy (the science of teaching). He is most famous for his discoveries relating to Operant Conditioning and the "Skinner Box" (an Operant Conditioning Chamber). He wrote many books and articles, of which one of them was titled “Beyond Freedom and Dignity”. In it, Skinner makes the case that we are biologically determined in all we do. By this, he means that we are not truly "free". Rather we are bound up by our biology, genetics and environmental experiences. In a sense we are never completely responsible for our actions - we are caught up in a self-propagating chain of cause and effect. Skinner was a brilliant psychologist and there is a certain amount of truth to what he is saying, but I couldn't help reacting to such a broad and generalized observation. At the time I thought to myself, "What a limiting, crippling view of human potential!"

Is God a "Mind Virus"?

Biologist Richard Dawkins is an atheist and writes in his book, “The God Delusion”, that humanity’s concept of God is a “mind virus” that infects people who are naive enough to believe that the universe had a Creator. Ignoring the tremendous lack of evidence and the enormous amount of bias, prejudice and opinion in that statement, calling God a "mind virus" is pure conjecture. Extremists, whether atheistic or religious, can be equally irrational. Aside from contradicting the evidence provided by history, science and archeology as discussed in the last four chapters, many skeptics assume things without thinking them through. Allow me to share some common irrational delusions and false presumptions against belief in a Creator that I have encountered over the years:

1. Belief in God is the Cause of All War

First, we have already established that Jesus and his concept of God were already at odds with organized religion in the previous chapters of this book. It remains true that many have exploited religion to create holy wars that have killed millions. What atheists and skeptics fail to consider in this premature conclusion is that by current estimates over 150 million have died in the name of militant atheism under the Marxist leaders of Stalin, Lenin and Mao. Their conflicting ideologies and revolutions have burned across the globe. Millions have also died under fascist regimes and dictatorships. Historically religion has not always been the oppressor - it has often been the oppressed. If we were to get into a contest of dangerous extremisms, militant atheism racks up many more points for violence, death and suffering than religion. The real Jesus opposes both these means of existence.

The natural progression of Darwinism and Atheism was Nazism and Communism. Neither produced the Utopia they claimed they might. Hitler crafted his philosophies, responsible for the deaths of over 6 million Jews, 3 million Polish and millions of Russians, from Darwin and Nietzsche. Nietzsche introduced the concept of the “superhuman” - Hitler extended that to formulate his “super race” of Aryans. Darwin introduced the concept of “survival of the fittest”, whereby Hitler's "master race" justified their invasion of other countries and attempts to exterminate entire peoples. Under Darwinism humans were not created by and therefore responsible to God, but merely animals and objects of chance. In this philosophy, there can be no moral absolutes and ideas can be powerful. Therefore, the undesirables of German society could be viewed as vermin to be exterminated; or as lab rats to be experimented on - since they were not the "fittest to survive". So they were euthanized and mass-murdered by the Nazis as part of their eugenics campaign - the promotion of the "fittest", the master race, by the extermination of the inferior or the "not as fit" races.

Ironically, had the Nazis succeeded it would not have strengthened the human race as they imagined. Rather it would have crippled it by intensifying birth defects and genetic weaknesses as the gene pool progressively narrowed. With the extermination of each non-Aryan race, humanity would have become more and more inbred with itself. Further irony is that the philosophy of "survival of the fittest" of Darwin and Nietzsche practiced through the Nazis actually impeded the adaptation and progression of the human race. The whole advantage of higher mammalian sexual reproduction lies in the random combination of vastly different sets of chromosomes and genes that might result in potential hybrids and better adapted offspring with each generation. The wider the gene pool and the greater its diversity, the greater the number of combinations that can suppress weak genes and promote favorable ones.

Again let's review some things. Charles Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” suggested that only the fittest race was worthy of survival. This is the guiding moral compass of Evolution – “because I can”. No other moral absolute is required, no other ethic needed. Hitler’s “master race” was an extension of this idea. Mussolini, the dictator of Italy in WWII, also subscribed to this idea by saying “The idea of peace is repugnant to the idea of survival of the fittest and the progress of the race; war was essential for the survival of the fittest.”  Mussolini is claiming that the god of atheism is the god of war - necessary for survival of the fittest and elimination of the "weaker" races.

Karl Marx, the father of Communism, took much of his perspective from the writings of Nietzsche and Darwin. His writings in turn gave birth to Russia’s Joseph Stalin and Vladimir Lenin and China’s Mao Zedong. Remember - it is estimated that the casualties of their revolutions and dictatorships resulted in more than 150 million deaths. In truth, religion has caused many wars, but as we have seen militant atheism has been responsible for the lion's share of bloodshed and violence in the last century. The real Jesus opposes both religion and atheism and their attempts to make him their political pawn.

2. Christianity Encourages Misogyny (Hatred of Women)

Jesus, the founder of Christianity, started the revolution for women’s rights when the adulteress came to him and he vindicated her (John 8:3-11). This action was beyond the imagination of many men in Jesus' time. In their society women had little worth or power. They were often abandoned, abused and killed for trivialities and had little voice or privileges in religion or government. They were viewed as inferior and "unclean" within that society. A common prayer among Jewish men at that time involved thanking God that they had not been born as women. Attributing feminine characteristics to something or someone was frequently an insult.

Along came Jesus to rock the boat. He demonstrated that the life of the adulteress was as valuable to him as any man's. He did not refuse to teach women as was a common practice among rabbis and gurus in his time, rather he welcomed female students. He taught and acquired devoted female disciples (Matthew 27:61). Christ preached that there was no distinction between the sexes in heaven - male and female were treated the same (Matthew 22:30).

On the other hand, Friedrich Nietzsche, famous for his quote “God is dead”, and one of the founding fathers of modern atheism, hated women and was an anti-Semite. He said, “Woman is by nature a snake… Thou goest to women? Do not forget thy whip!” Nietzsche went insane in the latter part of his life. Yet secularists believe he champion’s the cause of women? (Friedrich Nietzsche. The Antichrist. Buchanan. Clay-Footed Gods of Atheism.)

3. Christianity Promotes Racism and Slavery

Jesus taught that the greatest in his kingdom were servants, and that his followers should seek the opportunity to serve others rather than become "masters" who wield and abuse power over their subordinates. (Matthew 20:25-27, Mark 9:35, Mark 10:42-45). He taught that the greatest are those who serve - not those who are served, and that his followers should avoid possessing titles like "teacher" or "father" that are self-glorifying (Matthew 23:8-12) He taught mercy, forgiveness and the release of debtors from debts (Matthew 18:23-35). Jesus once set an example for his followers:

"When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. "Do you understand what I have done for you?" he asked them. "You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them." (John 13:12-17)

Christ rejected treating his followers as servants, and instead treated them as friends:

"Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command. I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. This is my command: Love each other." (John 15:13-17)

Paul wrote to the Galatians admonishing them against prejudice and inequality: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)

Atheism is a Type of Faith

We can truthfully say that atheism is a faith system. It is a type of faith in nothing. In logic as outlined by Aristotle and in the language of programming, saying "there is no god" amounts to a universal negative and is impossible to defend by producing empirical evidence. Faith become necessary to support this belief. When confronted with this, many intellectually honest atheists claim that they are really agnostics. Less intellectual atheists often resort to more primal and emotional arguments. For example, many times I have encountered the following when conversing with less rational skeptics who base their arguments on emotive conjecture rather than logic:

The less rational skeptic begins to taunt God, saying something like “If God is real, let him strike me down right where I stand!” Believing their argument to be a stroke of brilliance, they pause dramatically for a few seconds to let it sink in. Then when nothing happens they draw the naive conclusion that there is no God and exclaim “See - I'm still alive, therefore God does not exist!” Anyone who evenly loosely subscribes to the scientific method must scrutinize how sloppy and ridiculous this conclusion is.

If God is a being infinitely more intelligent than man, why would he allow himself to be manipulated and controlled by the pathetic taunts of beings that are, compared to His intellect, less intelligent than an amoeba? Why would such an intelligence care to go to the trouble to prove itself to every pondering being in the universe that demanded constant proof of its existence? It is anthropomorphic arrogance to suppose that God must submit to our human insecurities. And yet, against all odds, Christ taught that we were each valuable to and loved by this universe's "intelligence".

Under Occam's Razor the simplest explanation is not that "therefore God does not exist". This creates many problems, paradoxes and inconsistencies that we have examined in previous chapters. The simpler explanation would be that "therefore I am no one of consequence and God has more important things to do with his time than appease my request for annihilation - and quite possibly he may also be too kind to grant it".  

Morality and Ethics Apart From God?

Is there a moral compass apart from belief in God? Do we really need a supernatural authority for self-government? Is there a system of ethics separate from the divine?  Secularism has tried repeatedly to deliver such a system through socialism and communism. Oxford professor of modern history, E. L. Woodward, writes:

“The values of our western heritage, justice, mercy, kindness, tolerance, self-sacrifice, are incompatible with materialism… If I may borrow a well-worn phrase about the state, these values will wither away in a materialist culture… It is meaningless to talk about human rights in a materialistic society, one might as well make an appeal to the Atlantic ocean.” (E. L. Woodward. Is It - Or Isn't It?. 1962.)

As we have mentioned several times before: Why do communist regimes never deliver the Utopia they promise their followers? Perhaps because generosity, compassion and sharing can only flower from within - they can not be imposed from without. Communism claims to believe in sharing, caring and giving so that the poor are not oppressed by the rich. Yet in every communist government, less than 5% of the people, the party officials, control 95% of the country’s wealth and resources. The party officials live lavishly while the poor are still oppressed, long after their supposed “revolution” against the rich. In addition, the people are abused, neglected and terrorized with fear as a means of controlling them. The common people are exploited by the communists like cattle, and in that aspect party officials are no different than feudal overlords or wealthy slave owners.

In contrast, look at the followers of Jesus. Christ was no friend of the capitalistic nor the wealthy; he stated that “it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to be saved” (Matthew 19:24) and that you “cannot serve both God and money” (Matthew 6:24-34). Neither would he have supported communistic regimes with their entourage of cruelty, violence and oppression. We can not allow either of these extremisms to subvert his message.

Incredibly, the early church attained the "utopia" communism seeks but never finds. The early Christians created a benevolent society of sharing, caring and giving long before Carl Marx and his plagiarism of Christ's teachings ever existed. In Acts, we read that the community sold their private possessions and distributed the wealth and resources to each as they had need. This was done without force or coercion, without violence and in a spirit of joy rather than fear. It flowered from within rather than being imposed from without:

“There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.” (Acts 4:34-35)

Anything that may seem virtuous about Communism was practiced in its purist form by the true followers of Jesus 2,000 years ago without bloodshed, violence, fear or oppression. Modern communism is a false imitation of what Jesus said we could have if we became like him. Christ was no fan of the western "gospel of greed" either. He offends everyone. He opposes us all. He shows us a better way.

The Psychology of Famous Atheists

It is interesting to note that before writing “Origin of the Species” and beginning the theory of Evolution, Charles Darwin had originally studied to become a minister. During his studies his daughter became ill, and though he prayed for her recovery, she died. It is understandable that Darwin would lose his faith and in his emptiness and bitterness seek another method to explain the origin of life. The psychological profiles of famous atheists and skeptics is a subject of interest.

Sigmund Freud is considered by many to be the father of modern psychology and the developer of psychoanalysis. He made great contributions to neurology and psychology - yet this pioneering scientist made the assumption that "all religion is either psychosis or neurosis". What happened to Freud's less-biased observation that, “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar”? When it comes to belief in a Creator, one might equally assume that Freud’s mind, making the assumption that the universe created itself with all its laws and structure and therefore worked cause and effect and thermodynamics backward, was suffering from a severe bout of dementia. Tragically Freud died in an assisted suicide in 1939 after a long struggle with oral cancer.

If we were to apply the psychoanalytical techniques developed by Freud to modern atheists, what would we find? Professor of psychology at New York University, Dr. Paul C. Vitz, was an atheist until his 30's when he came to believe in a Creator. He applied the same psychology to atheists that they apply to those who believe in an intelligently created universe. He examined Freud's "projection theory" of religion which states that "man invented God to provide himself with security when facing the unknown". In his own analysis, Vitz observed the inverse of Freud's theory to be true - that psychoanalysis and the "projection theory" actually serve to comfort the atheist in his unfounded belief that there is no God.

He wrote of his findings in a book called “Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism”. In this book he demonstrates that nearly all modern militant atheists suffered from the abuse, neglect or absence of a father. He observes in the "Defective Father Hypothesis" that "disappointment with one's earthly father leads to a rejection of God". This includes renowned atheists such as Nietzsche, Russel, Sartre and Camus. It is an unusual and interesting work, as the approach it takes is usually used on people with faith in a Creator rather than people with faith in nothing. (Dr. Paul C. Vitz. Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism.  Spence Publishing Company; 1st edition. 2000.)

Madalyn Murray O’Hair was a fan of the atheist writer Kersey Graves, and is famous for banning prayer from public schools in the lawsuit of Murray vs. Curlett in the 60’s. She is a heroine among militant atheists and celebrated as someone who truly advanced the most noble of causes. Yet, according to her son William Murray, who “rebelled” and became a follower of Jesus, her relationship was such with her father that she attempted to murder him with a butcher knife. Having failed to do so, she screamed at him “I’ll see you dead. I’ll get you yet. I’ll walk on your grave.” It appears she too had psychological issues with her father. (William J. Murray. My life without God. Eugene, OR. Harvest House. 1992. 4.)

Conclusion

Perhaps one of the greatest arguments against a secular Jesus, other than what Christ said about himself, could be made by atheists who later became true believers. These individuals were rational, logical seekers of "truth" that could not satisfy themselves with questions answering questions. They would demand nothing less than a legitimate answer and evidence for their belief in nothing, and by intellectual honesty they came to believe in an intelligent universe.

C.S. Lewis was an atheist and writer of famous works of fantasy and science-fiction such as "The Chronicles of Narnia", "The Space Trilogy" and "The Screwtape Letters". He was a close friend of J.R.R. Tolkein - the author of the "Lord of the Rings", and they each shaped the other's fiction over the course of time. Together Lewis and Tolkein were members of the Oxford literary group "The Inklings". Tolkein was a devout Christian and through many long discussions at their favorite pub he and others convinced Lewis of the truth of the real Jesus. As Lewis came to believe in Christ, his writing began to reflect his changing perspectives. In "The Problem of Pain" he wrote of the absurdity of rejecting difficult truths for fabrications simply because they were easier to swallow. He wrote that anything less than the ultimate truth leaves us unsatisfied and starving for answers:

"If we will not learn to eat the only food that the universe grows...then we must starve eternally."" (C.S. Lewis. The Problem of Pain. 1940.)

After nearly 40 years as a skeptic and atheist, the brilliant Russian writer Leo Tolstoy (Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy) became a believer in Christ. He wrote such famous works as War and Peace and Anna Kerenina. After becoming a Christian, he especially liked Jesus' Sermon on the Mount and drew upon it to write works concerning Christian pacifism and non-violent resistance. One such work, "The Kingdom of God is Within You", was used by both Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. in forming their respective philosophies. He said:

“For thirty-five years of my life I was, in the proper acceptation of the word, a nihilist – not a revolutionary socialist, but a man who believed in nothing. Five years ago my faith came to me. I believed in the doctrine of Jesus, and my whole life underwent a sudden transformation… Life and death ceased to be evil; instead of despair I tasted joy and happiness that death could not take away.” (Lawson. Greatest Thoughts. 117-120.)

Earle Albert Rowell was raised as a Jewish skeptic and atheist in the early 1900's. After a long search for the "truth", he wrote of his findings in the book "David Dare":

"I was reared an infidel.  I was nourished on the vaunting skeptics of the ages. But I observed with futile the amazement with which every skeptic, from Celsus to Wells, stood around the cradle of the Christ. I wondered why this helpless Babe was thrust into the world at a time when Roman greed, Jewish hate, and Greek subtlety would combine to crush Him. And yet this most powerful devastating combination ever known in history served only to advance the cause of the Infant who was born in a stable.

I marveled that this poverty-stricken uneducated plebeian who exercised no authority, commanded no army, held no office, received no honors, wrote no books, and who died in early manhood the most contemptible of deaths, a malefactor on a cross between two criminals. I marveled that His name is yet the most esteemed name on earth, even among the skeptics themselves.

No unbeliever could tell me why His words are as charged with power today as they were nineteen hundred years ago. Nor could scoffers explain how those pierced hands pulled human monsters with gnarled souls out of a hell of iniquity and overnight transformed them into steadfast, glorious heroes who died in tortures.

No doubter could tell me how this isolated Jew could utter words so simple that a child could understand them and so deep that the greatest thinkers cannot plumb their shining depths. The life, the words, the character of this strange Man are the enigma of history. Any natural explanation makes Him a more puzzling paradox, a fathomless mystery.

But I learned that the paradox was plain and the mystery solved when I accepted Him for what He claimed to be - the Son of God, come from heaven and Savior of men, but above all, my own Savior." (Earle Albert Rowell. David Dare. The Bible in the Critics’ Den, Letters from a Converted Infidel to His Agnostic Father. Review and Herald. 1917.)

Chapter 3 - The Offending Jesus | Chapter 7 - The Religous Jesus | Bibliography

10/20/2008 ©Charles Germany