Religious

Who's Really Being Religious?

Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D.

May 13, 2014

Many Conservative Christians Ignore the Bible When They Define Religion

Most people label Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. as examples of religions. Although the Bible has a lot to say about Jewish and Christian doctrines, there are very few verses that actually define and describe a religion. In the New Testament, James 1:27 describes “pure religion” as a virtue, which consists of helping the needy and keeping yourself uncontaminated from the sins of secular society (King James Version):

“Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.”

In contrast, the terms “religious” and “religion” in recent decades have become pejorative in American culture. Thanks to some sects of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and other groups, religion is no longer simply associated with mysticism, worship, prayer, kindness, generosity, morality and seeking an afterlife. Religion is now too often associated with emotional fanaticism, subjective beliefs, inconsistent arguments, flawed logic, groundless dogma, intolerance, irrational fantasies, narrow-minded worldviews, unreasonable biases, delusional doctrines, hypocrisy, superstition, self-righteousness, accusing other religious groups of heresy, and even acts of violence. Because of the bad connotations associated with religion, many theists no longer want to be identified as being religious. They often prefer to call themselves “spiritual” rather than religious. Some conservative Christians even use a tactic that attempts to “turn the tables” on their secular opponents. They frequently refer to atheists and agnostics as being “religious.” So, when Reed and Oard (2009b, p. 259) and other young-Earth creationists (YECs) call atheists “religious”, they're not referring to James 1:27 and praising non-believers for helping the needy and being virtuous. Atheists clearly understand this insult and often reply that atheism is no more a religion than not collecting stamps is a hobby. Rather than being a religion, atheism is more accurately described as a group of philosophies that cross the political spectrum (Democratic Secular Humanism, secular conservatism, secular liberalism, Ayn Rand Objectivism, Marxism, etc.). Although atheistic philosophies deal with morals and ethics, they don't advocate worship, prayer, an afterlife, or other mystical activities that are usually major components of religions.

Clearly, many conservative Christians are now so embarrassed about being labeled “religious” that they deny the validity of James 1:27 by claiming that Christianity is not even a true religion. Instead of listening to the call of James 1:27 to be generous to others and seek piety, they strive to redefine conservative Christianity not as an authentic religion, but as something far more self-centered (selfish). They sincerely want to believe that their faith in a Jesus that they can't see, hear, or touch is a “personal relationship” that is just as valid as the relationships that they have with their friends and families. Other individuals refer to their faith as a “life-style choice”, “spirituality”, or other self-centered euphemisms from American culture. In other words, for these modern Christians claiming to have a "personal relationship" with Jesus, religion is more about my relationship with God, me, me, me, .... rather than serving the widows and orphans.

Can One Criticize the Bible without being Religious?

Reed and Oard (2009a, p. 11) superficially argue that if support for the claims and authority of the Bible is a religious position, then the denial of those claims and authority must also be a religious position. In this statement, Reed and Oard (2009a, p. 11) are obviously not using the pious biblical definition of religion from James 1:27. For YECs to really see the logical fallacy in the Reed and Oard (2009a, p. 11) argument, let us reword the argument from a Mormon perspective. A Mormon might easily modify the argument in Reed and Oard (2009a, p. 11) to read:

“If the affirmation of the truth and authority of the Book of Mormon is a religious position, then the denial of the truth and authority of the Book of Mormon must also be a religious position.”

Now, most people, including Mormons, will admit that affirming the truth and authority of the Book of Mormon is a religious position. Individuals that study the Book of Mormon (whether theist, agnostic or atheist) will also soon discover that large sections of the book are very similar to the King James Version of the Bible. For example, Moroni 10:9-17 in the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints (Utah) version is very similar to the King James Version of 1 Corinthians 12:8-11. Now a Mormon would probably claim that God miraculously gave Paul and Moroni the same inspired words, whereas a “spiritual” Baptist critic of Mormonism might somehow blame the devil for plagiarizing Paul and inspiring Joseph Smith, Jr. However, a theist, agnostic or atheistic skeptic using Occam's Razor could derive a more rational and non-supernatural explanation: Joseph Smith, Jr. or another person in the 19th century simply copied parts of 1 Corinthians 12 from the King James Bible as he was creating the Book of Mormon. Is using Occam's Razor and natural arguments to explain the origin of Moroni 10:9-17 as ordinary plagiarism an example of a “religious position”? If Dr. Reed and Mr. Oard say yes, then they need to better define “religious” and explain how atheistic, agnostic and theistic critics of the Book of Mormon could have the same anti-Mormon “religious position” that doesn't rely on God, the devil or any supernatural explanation. If they say no, why should they argue that any skepticism of the Bible is necessarily a “religious position”?

Critics of the Bible not only include atheists, but also agnostics, liberal Christians, liberal Jews and various non-Christian gentile theists. A critic of the Bible only needs some healthy skepticism, a little logic, compassion for their fellow humans, and some knowledge of secular history and science to point out the numerous contradictions and supposedly divine-sanctioned immoral acts in the Bible (also see Finkelstein and Silberman, 2001; Dever, 2005; Price, 2003; Price, 2007; Doherty, 2005; Loftus, 2008; Loftus, 2010). On the other hand, it takes a lot of religious faith to believe in the miracles of the Bible, ignore the numerous blatant contradictions and unlikely scenarios in the book, and overlook the evidence from the geologic record that flatly refutes Flood geology and a 6,000 year old Earth (also see Prothero, 2007; Dalrymple, 1991).

Actualism is Not a Religion

Oard and Reed (2009, p. 7-8) argue that geologists simply reject the Bible out of “religious commitments” or a “clash of worldviews” rather than science. The real problem for young-Earth creationism is that there is no more scientific evidence to support the existence of Noah's Flood or Adam and Eve than there is for the stories in the Book of Mormon or the Cyclops of Greek mythology (e.g., Finkelstein and Silberman, 2001). When it comes to “worldviews”, almost everyone, including fundamentalist and evangelical Christians, clearly prefer the U.S Bill of Rights and other products of the Enlightenment to a “righteous” and “perfect” Old Testament Law (Psalm 119:7; 19:7) that commands its followers to execute witches (Exodus 22:18) or anyone that picks up firewood on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36; Exodus 31:12-17). Is any fundamentalist Christian disappointed that they don't have to follow all of the hundreds of laws of the Old Testament? If so, they should embrace Judaism instead.

Although many people claim to believe in the infallibility of the Bible as the word of God, there are many philosophical, historical and scientific reasons to refute this claim. At the same time, many good geologists are sincere Bible-believing old-Earth creationists and evangelical theistic evolutionists. They simply do not allow their religious convictions to dictate their geological results. There are also a number of archeologists that have studied some of the sites mentioned in the Bible and recognize that the Bible is a mixture of history and mythology. When Oard and Reed (2009, p. 7-8) present a simplistic and unrealistic struggle between YECs and “religious” Bible-rejecting geologists (also see “The Perpetuation of a False Creation/”Evolution” Dichotomy in Oard and Reed (2009)”), they fail to realize that scientific investigations of the Earth's past are no more “religious” than presenting forensic science in a court case.

References

Dalrymple, G.B. 1991. The Age of the Earth, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, USA, 474pp.

Dever, W.G. 2005. Did God have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA, 344pp.

Doherty, E. 2005. The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ?, Age of Reason Publications, Ottawa, Canada, 380pp.

Finkelstein, I. and N.A. Silberman. 2001. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts, The Free Press, New York, 385pp.

Loftus, J.W. 2008. Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity, Prometheus Books, Amherst, New Jersey, USA, 428pp.

Loftus, J.W. (editor). 2010. The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails, Prometheus Books, Amherst, New Jersey, USA, 422pp.

Oard, M.J. 2009a. “Landslides Win in a Landslide over Ancient 'Ice Ages'“, chapter 7 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 111-123.

Oard, M.J. and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, 272 pp.

Price, R.M. 2003. The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, Prometheus Books, Amherst, New York, USA, 389pp.

Price, R.M. 2007. Jesus is Dead, American Atheist Press, Cranford, New Jersey, USA, 279pp.

Prothero, D.R. 2007. Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, Columbia University Press, New York, USA, 381pp.

Reed, J.K. and M.J. Oard. 2009a. “A Context for the Flood Geology Debate,” chapter 1 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 11-17.

Reed, J.K. and M.J. Oard. 2009b. “Conclusion”, chapter 16 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 259-261.