caught somewhere between real life, simple faith, & raw emotion
Are Christians Delusional?
I recently received an email from a gentleman trying to ‘convert’ me. Perhaps it might be more accurate to say ‘unconvert’ me from my faith. He was bringing to my attention a book he was a contributor on. Although it may not sound like it, the email was a very friendly. He was wanting simply to create a dialogue–which I am all for.
The book is called the The Christian Delusion (Why Faith Fails).
Now let me make it clear, I HAVE NOT read the book. I have, however, read the extensive summary on each chapter over here. (BTW-I have requested a review copy).
From what I can gather, through a variety of approaches (from different contributors) it seeks to prove that those who believe in Jesus (are Christians) are delusional, stupid, and dangerous.
Now, I was doing a radio interview in Sydney, Australia last week. The host mentioned Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens to me (since one of them had been on the show the day before). I described this movement as “Fundamentalist Atheists”–which he gave a good laugh to. This is a good description of this book.
For example, it attacks the resurrection of Jesus as a ridiculous myth, asserts that many Christians have believed in a flat-earth and alleges the Bible supports this) so Christianity must be false, calls God retarded (yes, that’s in there), says God is evil, and the Bible is filled with silly fairy tales–to name a few things.
A few things struck me as I read the summary:
1. If Christianity is so inconsequential then why not ignore it? Why all the effort? It would seem to me that the best why to deal with something that is so ridiculous, is to give it no mind or effort. For example, I do not believe in the Loch Ness Monster, so I am not going to write a whole book on why I don’t. I simply let it be inconsequential by ignoring it.
2. This book seems to be very angry. I know that sounds funny coming from a guy who wrote a book called 10 Things I Hate About Christianity, but it’s true (and my book isn’t actually an angry one). Many atheists take Christianity to task for being ‘mean and hateful’. I get it. But It is also ironic, since many atheists reciprocate to a venomous degree as a solution.
3. Delusion implies deceit. I am not trying to deceive anyone. I actually believe in God and Jesus. And yes, some atheists are mad at me because: 1) I used that title (of my book) before them and 2) am still a Christian.
Anyway, there are some brief thoughts. I have no particular animus for atheists or agnostics. I have several that I call friends. I am simply commenting on this new book. I look forward to reviewing it.
*So now it’s time for some atheist jokes to add some humor.
What did the atheist say when he was about to smash into the car in front of him at full speed? GOD HELP ME!
How many atheists does it take to screw in a light bulb? I don’t know. They’re too busy telling me that since there is not light that they can objectively see right now, then there is no reason to believe another bulb will produce this thing you call ‘light’.
Got any of your own?
35 comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Keep posting and keep providing interesting and great information.
Following my own monitoring, millions of people in the world receive the loans at different banks. Thence, there’s good possibilities to receive a collateral loan in every country.
This page added to Google cache Cached: http://google.com/search?q=cache:http://blog.jasonberggren.com/2010/04/16/are-christians-delusional.aspx?ref=rss&ei=AFQjCNHajN_OX0kgxzx7UGA1yBffree PoRndfWq
I stand corrected!
The title, “The Christian Delusion,” was in fact not John’s first choice.
As for Islam, the same publisher already has an expert on that topic who has published eight controversial books:
Why I Am Not a Muslim
Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out,
What the Koran Really Says: Language, Text, and Commentary
The Quest for the Historical Muhammad
The Origins of The Koran: Classic Essays on Islam’s Holy Book
Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said’s Orientalism.
Which Koran?: Variants, Manuscripts, and the Influence of Pre-Islamic Poetry
Virgins? What Virgins?: And Other Essays
But there’s someone even MORE daring, namely the author of an online comic stip titled, “Jesus and Mo”
I meant no disrespect. I think you make many fine points.
I simply meant that we will both present sources for our views that neither will validate.
The truth is, all ‘evidence’ relies on the account (and trust) of someone else. We all have cognitive bias, so long as we have a pulse.
But I certainly appreciate your comments. They add value to the dialogue for me.
PS-Often I can’t comment at the length I would like. I am balancing the responsibilities of my life (wife, kids, day job, house in disrepair, book, radio interview, new book, blog, and main site, etc.). I am not dismissive. I do what I can.
Uhm, wow. Great job completely not answering a perfectly valid (though perhaps a little rambling) challenge to your rather vague and ambiguous claim that one of your main reasons for believing the extraordinary event of the Bible is “manuscript research.”
Exactly how is my refutation compressable to your childish back and forth? Let me rephrase my point:
You claim “manuscript research” as cause for believing extraordinary claims without defining or explaining what you mean by “manuscript research”.
I suggest that one very well-known form of “manuscript research”, the Jesus Seminar, essentially dismisses most of what Jesus said as not likely historical. This is a reasonable and specific attack on your vague claim. I take it you grant this point?
Then, to continue my counter against your vague claim, I offer an analogy to illustrate how the manuscript itself is problematic for any claim of using it as a sourse of evidence, much less “extraordinary evidence,” for the extraordinary claims found in the Bible:
1. None of the writings are contemporary to the events.
2. It makes claims that are not corroborated by any other documents contemporary to the events.
3. It contains historical errors and self-contradicting errors in details. (Maybe acceptable in a court case regarding a car crash, but not acceptable when dealing with events that break all known laws of physics and biology. Not to mention dealing with a document said to be at least guided by a perfect uber-being.)
I used the analogy I did to illustrate how in a similar circumstance with a similar condition of “manuscript”, no reasonable or intellectually honest person would believe this tale of a flying pink rampaging unicorn for one minute.
Do you grant these points? Or would you care to explain how they’re the equivelent of “yes there is” “no there isn’t” etc.? I very curious to know how you reached this dismissal.
Thanks for stopping by.
Again, I realize I haven’t read the book yet (my review copy hasn’t arrived yet). But I have a thought in the title.
Why use Christianity on the title? Why not Islam? Or Judaism? Etc..
Christianity is an easy target, no?
If the sub-title is true to the content, why not put Islam in the title. That would have REALLY been controversial and garnered some real attention. It would have also required a lot of courage (and I simply mean that matter-of-fact).
Just a thought.
Oh, I remember this game:
Yes there is…
No there isn’t…
Yes there is…
No there isn’t…
And so on.
You described me as “very friendly,” thanks. So are you Jason. That’s one of the reasons I decided to add comments to your blog.
Also, “deconversion/reconversion to something else” usually takes time once a person has established a strongly held view on any particular topic. I prefer to raise questions, dialogue, debate. And I don’t envy anyone having as many questions as I presently have. But like anyone with something in mind to share, I share what’s on my mind.
Neither will you find my chapter in TCD, which is titled, “The Cosmology of the Bible” to read like the work of someone who is angry.
There are some places in TCD where I think sentences could have been phrased less provocatively. Perhaps the title also, but titles often help gain books notariety and/or infamy, which are sometimes the same thing. Take your own book’s title for example. Or J.P. Holding’s “Blowing the Doors Off” title. Or Ken Ham’s, “Evolution the Lie” featuring a snake on the cover with an apple in its mouth. Dawkin’s book of course is the archetype for the use of “delusion” in the title of a bestseller, and others have used it in reverse, i.e., “The Atheist Delusion.” So book title battles continue (just like “fish” bumper sticker battles) “delusion” versus “damnation.” Though one can with a little efffort stick with the arguments themselves and filter out the noise of name-calling.
Speaking of name-calling in general, it is an old practice, from ancient Near Eastern curses to the curses of Yahweh and of the psalmists in the O.T. to the woes that Jesus aimed at some groups. Early Christians named their Roman rivals “pagans,” as if they were ignorant farmers living in the country. Christians also have employed terms like: “Heretic!” “Blasphemer!” “Idolater!” “Infidel!” “Anti-Christ!” “Apostate!” “Schizmatic!” “Demon Deluded Servant of Satan!” Or in jest, one of my inventions, “As Fit to Be Fried as Lucifer’s Lamb Chops!”
In contrast, one can express disagreement or even disbelief pretty calmly if one takes a deep breath and keeps the delete key handy. As Meister Eckhart once put it, “Only the hand that erases can write the true thing.” All that we think or do is subject to change, we learn things via feedback loops, some ideas are reinforced, while others may grow more questionable. And the mind once stretched by new data, or a new idea (or simply an old question viewed from a new angle), never springs back completely to its original dimensions. Even our friend J.P. Holding’s beliefs have undergone some change over the decades. In fact, wouldn’t we all find it a little frustrating if we could email younger selves in the past, and try to convince them to speed up their transition to where we are at now? In some cases our younger selves might even reject some of what we say so strongly and emotionally that they do not reach our cur present destination, belief wise.
…would you believe it? You have a letter in your hand saying it happened. An actual original letter even and not a several generation copy of copy which is the best we have of anything from the Bible. Heck, you can even verify my name and address on the letter! Would you still be expected to believe my story of a rampaging pink unicorn?
Let’s even say you received three more original letters from three DIFFERENT people describing that event! Believe in pink, flying, rampaging unicorns now?
Now, let’s say my and the other three letters tell slightly different stories with some contradicting facts. AND let’s say you actually went to the town mentioned and can’t find a ruined building in the manner described. And let’s say none of the archived town newspapers even mention this event at all. How’s believing in flying pink unicorns now? Even with the four letters in hand?
Now let’s say you find out that we four authors are connected in some way, like, we went to the same college and are fundraisers for our amateur film club. Hmm. And let’s say you find out none of us actually have been to said town, and in fact weren’t even born when the unicorn events were said to have happened!
Now, is there any reason whatsoever any rational person should be expected to believe in flying rampaging pink unicorns? Even if you have four handwritten letters describing the event?
Should saying, “But I just FEEL that it’s all true,”
be greeted with anything but dismissal at best and ridicule more likely?
I’m sorry, I have to butt in. What do you mean by “manuscript evidence”? Evidence that the texts were written? Because as far as actual evidence coroberating the claims found in the Bible — it’s sorely lacking.
For example, the Jesus Seminar, one of the biggest cooperative projects invoving many top Biblical scholars, have determined that a tiny fraction of what Jesus is attributed to having said may actually have been said by an alleged historical Jesus.
But even if you dismiss the J’ Seminar, it doesn’t matter, because the Bible itself is not proof of anything it days happened, happened. Few of the non-supernatural “facts” can be verified by emperical evidence, and none of the supernatural events can. And none of the supernatual events can be cross-corroberated by any contemporary writings — and there are several people recording events in that exact area during the time of the alleged Jesus. Yet, not a single reference to anything claimed in the Bible was written down by someone at the time.
No feeding of multitudes, no sun as sack cloth, no rending of the temple wall, no dead walking the streets, no walking on water, not even a reference to throngs of people following a famous preacher. And no reference to the very odd and noteworthy claim of a Roman official letting a criminal go at the behest of a crowd of Jews! Unheard of! But no mention of it. Nor of a slaughter of children. Nor of a census event that would NEVER have taken place in the way described by the Bible.
None of these very, very noteworthy events were recorded by anyone who was writing stuff down in that time or place. Now absence of evidence isn’t always evidence of absence, but in the event of trying to justify events that go against all known laws of nature and human experience — the absence of ANY contemporary reporting is pretty damning.
All we have are some religious letters written by people who never met Jesus (except in a vision, but if you’re going to start taking the word of people who have visions, I’d suggest you head over to your nearest mental facility and start letting people out!
And a handful of stories that weren’t written until DECADES after the events and by people who weren’t even there!
Should anyone be expected to believe in highly fantastic events with no eye-witness testimony, no material evidence, and only the stories told by people (who weren’t there) decades later?
By that reasoning, there’s no reason you shouldn’t be Muslim, believe that thousands of people are being abducted by aliens daily, and Elvis is alive.
And personal experience and feelings are the LAST thing that should be relied upon as “proof” of events 2000 years ago. Google or Wiki “cognitive biases” to see why you should be skeptical of your own feelings, much moreso of OTHER’S feelings and personal experiences.
As a final example, let’s say you received a letter from me claiming my pink unicorn rampaged through a town and leveled a building and flew away. Would…
Yes, definitely, I have a problem with the concept of accepting supernatural events. It seems to me, without strong evidence, accepting them makes one gullible and irrational, as well as logically obligated to accept practically anything else (even contradictory things) on the same minimal evidence…
Clearly, the rising from the dead part is the only REALLY implausible bit from the story. We have solid evidence that people have been executed by crucifixion, so accepting that a particular man was crucified isn’t difficult (not that it’s automatically true, merely that it’s plausible). The leap from that to accepting that the same man supernaturally resurrected, merely because a book says so, though… I can’t get there from here.
Personal experience isn’t a very good arbiter of truth. Human beings are notorious for incorrectly interpreting events, for a variety of reasons, many of which psychologists are well aware of.
So is your problem really with the idea of the supernatural? That’s really a separate issue.
Also, I believe for several reasons. Manuscript evidence of the Bible is unparalleled. And I also cannot deny what I have experienced in my own life. But there is no Bunsen burner that can prove that.
Any reasonable person would believe, given sufficient evidence. It would be irrational not to, right? The problem for me is that words in an ancient text, likely written years or decades after the supposed event, amount to nothing more than hearsay. Any literate person could write an account of something and claim it was true. On what basis do we believe them, especially when the claim is an implausible one?
I can’t say what evidence WOULD convince me, but as I said, it would need to be remarkably strong, given the unlikelihood of the event in question. Some verses in the Bible simply do not cut it for me.
You say you also think it is implausible, yet believe anyhow. My question is, why?
Apologies for putting words in your mouth. My experience has been that Christians are quick to point out the irrationality of believing in “non-Christian miracles” while claiming theirs make sense. I personally have not seen anything to convince me that ANYTHING supernatural occurs or has ever occurred, so I don’t mean to be picking on you specifically.
I’m just curious…am I to understand that you would believe that Jesus was resurrected when presented with the right ’emprical’ evidence (historically speaking, of course)? What exactly would satisfy you. Just trying to take it to the next logical conclusion.
Yes, of course I understand why people view the resurrection as unlikely. I have never been one to have problems with doubting. It does not offend me. And I don’t believe it offends God. In fact, I wrote a whole book on it. I also think it is implausible. But I still believe it.
Lastly, I think you may unintentionally be putting words in my mouth. I have never implied that supernatural events have never (or don’t) occurred outside of the constraints of Christianity, specifically. I think that is possible.
Sure, I’ll concede that historical events often do lack empirical evidence. This particular event has a supernatural component, though, that should require an extra degree of evidence before one accepts that it really happened.
Do you not at least see why people like me view something as irrational and implausible as a man’s bodily resurrection after execution as unlikely to be a real, historical event? Do you find yourself wondering why not everyone believes as you do? Do you think that the skeptic’s standard of evidence is unreasonably HIGH? I’m just trying to wrap my head around this.
Again, on what logical basis do you dismiss claims of supernatural events from other religions? It couldn’t really be as simpleminded as “it’s not in the Bible so it’s automatically false” could it?
Yup, that sure is annoying. But I still stand by my statement. Plus, the negative traits you describe are somewhat subjective, no? I would also ask if the jerk-to-nice-people ration is somewhat similar to people who are not Christians. Or is that you pay attention to Christians actions more than others? And maybe that’s judgmental also? We could go around in circles for ever. But it’s true, people are people.
(Begin singing Depeche Mode song in 3…2…1…)
“Just because people are jerks doesn’t mean God isn’t real.”
Sure, but it does really bring into question the whole: you shall know a Christian by their works. If half the Christians I encounter are jerks and judgemental close-minded bigots, ultra-materialistic, etc., then really, what makes being a Christian any better than any other godless heathen? Isn’t becoming a Christian supposed to fill you with grace, or the holy spirit, etc.?
(Begin “No True Scotsman” fallacy in 3…2…1…)
It’s true–people can be judgmental. Christians say I am going to Hell b/c of the title of my book. Atheists get mad that I used that title to me book but am still am a Christian.
But I have a motto:
Just because people are jerks doesn’t mean God isn’t real.
Of course, violence is not exclusive to religious people. And as for the ‘judge’ part, I guess you missed the part where Christians say you’ll go to hell.
That’s funny, empirical evidence for God or the resurrection. I’m not sure I have ever met any Christian who made that claim of that.
Like with any historical (alleged or not), there is often little empirical evidence. You can simply ‘make a case’ for it, like we do in our court systems.
I DO NOT advocate violence. I never have. I also cannot and will not be responsible for those that do. So the only thing I can say to speak to that is: IT IS WRONG! I must also add that violence is not exclusively the tool of allegedly ‘religious’ people (or movements). I think it is better to deal people like that as crazy in general, whether they claim to be religious or not.
As for being judged for not believing, not here and not me. But that does not I do not have opinions. You are free to live your life and believe or not. I fully support that. That doesn’t mean we can’t respectfully go back-and-forth on opinions a little though.
“For example, it attacks the resurrection of Jesus as a ridiculous myth…”
What evidence do you have that the resurrection occurred, aside from a handful of paragraphs in an ancient text that we have no means of verifying?
Many accounts of similar miraculous events appear in ancient non-Biblical texts, and Christians dismiss them out-of-hand for exactly the same reason atheists dismiss the resurrection: there is no evidence that it was a real, historical event.
Unless you have some empirical evidence I’m unaware of (and I’d love to see it if you do) it seems justified and reasonable to me to consider the resurrection story a myth, and decidedly irrational to believe it really occurred as described in the Bible.
I meant “…or even JUDGE me for my lack of belief,”
If belief in the Loch Ness monster get so widespread that over 80% of the world’s population accept it, and the belief becomes divergent that different groups are willing to kill each other in some cases for their versions, or even me for my lack of belief, it makes sense to be vocal about why I don’t believe in it.
Liam-I assure you, my intention was not to misrepresent the book from my initial reading of the summary of each chapter.
However, I think it is perfectly reasonable–based on reading the book’s summary–to get the impression that much of the content seeks to show how Christians “deceive” people, and are also deceived themselves.
My intention is to read the book and give a fair assessment. I simply do not have the time to overtly make enemies. But that does not mean I won’t present my impression and opinions.
Fair enough. I am always happy to bat it around in the arena of ideas.
But a large part of the time, I will enter a conversation with an atheist who seeks to ‘ban religion’.
That’s when I stop. It’s just a bit too extreme.
I look forward to reading the book.
I’ve reminded myself of a quote, though I don’t recall who to attribute it to:
“What we call one person ‘insane’ for believing, when many believe it, we call ‘religion’.”
Ah, well, yes, I guess if you’re going to use a syntacticaly different version of “delusion” than what is intended, sure you can apply the lying component.
However, unless one of the authors was writing about, atheists who are posing as ministers and convincing them to believe in a religion for their own financial gain, or something like that, then your misapplication of the “to delude” infinitive from the condition of “deluded” is spurious and misleading. Wait, ironically, your twisting “delusion” to include “to delude” with the implication of conscious deception is itself an attempt to delude. Funny. 🙂
No. I have yet to read or hear anyone claim that, aside from maybe the odd televangelist whose peddling faith healing like snake oil, the faith of Christianity relies on deluding people in the sense of active deception, any more than someone who thinks they’re Napoleon has been lied into believing it to be so as a result of an active deception. People who believe in a revealed and supernatural-based religion have not been lied to, nor are they lying, but are still delusional. It’s not a delusion that requires institutionalization or psychiatric help (although fanatics like the Fred Phelps cult could probably use it), but it’s a condition that exists because of significant cognitive dissonance and constant cognitive biasing. No active and conscious lying necessary.
I’m sure I could find all manner of words you use to describe your own beliefs and liguistically twist and contort them and make it sound like something you do not mean nor intend to imply. Would that be fair and responsible of me?
Jason, I’m a strong advocate of the separation of church and state no matter what people believe, so there will be no attempt by me to ban religion or the free expression of ideas. Religious faith based reasoning is never likely to go away, anyway.
Liam-“Delusion” comes from “delude”. And the American Heritage, Merriam-Webster, and Random House Dictionaries all define delude “to deceive” (or something nearly identical). Yes, I did check it before I wrote the post, because I like to be accurate (here’s the link: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delude).
Straw man? Not quite.
I have no desire to control people with my faith. Like with John, I ask to what end is your purpose? Just curious.
I look forward to reading it. And perhaps have a more “consequential” assessment of the book.
John-I look forward to reading it. My review copy is on the way. I did make clear in my comments above that I HAVE not read it–implying that what I said is purely subjective at this point.
And on your “faith-based reasoning ” is harmful, I am curious to what end you would like to see and how would you like to get there?
For example, do you seek a future where faith is banned? Not saying you do, just curious.
Thanks for stopping by.
I’m sorry, when did the understanding of “delusion” change to imply deceit? I can’t find any denotative source which connects delusion with lying. Straw man, much?
Also, like John said, there’s a HUGE difference between the handfuls of people who believe in a sea monster as a woo novelty, and the billion people who believe in a religion that rules an runs their life choices, influences their politics and how they vote, what they do with their vast amounts of money, how they make decisions regarding other peoples’ ability to marry or make reproductive decisions or why kind of education they receive….
I’m curious where anyone in this book claims Christianity is “inconsequential”!
But then, since you haven’t read it yet, anything you say about its content and message is irrelevant and…inconsequential.
Remember the old adage, “Don’t judge a book by it’s cover”? And you’re also aware that “first impressions can be deceiving”? I look forward to what you might say about it.
Keep in mind though, that contrary to (1) above, ridiculous ideas can be ignored only when a tiny minority believes them and/or when they are harmless. Faith based reasoning is harmful to people and to our society, and many people use it.