Over the past several months, several times I’ve heard
it said that people are manipulated into Christianity by being threatened with
the fear of eternal damnation in the fires of Hell. Recently I read
writings by one Chaz Bufe, as he attempted to use such an argument to disparage
and disprove the veracity of Christianity.
This fear view, was offered as the first reason and
perhaps the prime reason that he could not accept the legitimacy of the Christian
faith. The interesting thing is that he failed to do his homework.
But then he is not alone.
He begins
his pamphlet, 20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity[1] by postulating that Christianity was and is based
upon fear and in fact states “...the motor driving Christianity has been—in
addition to the fear of death—fear of the devil and fear of hell.” With a
very broad brush he employing largely anecdotal "evidence" and then goes on to generalize about the Christian
faith. What one will find most interesting is the assumptions that he
brings to the discussion.
“The Fear of Death”
An assumed, "Fear of
death?" Very simply if one’s truth paradigm does not give some sense of
peace about and reconciliation with one’s ultimate demise, then it might be well to embrace one that
does. An example is found in one who was no friend to Christianity,
Christopher Hitchens. Though he claimed no faith, he by all accounts left
this life in peace for it appears that he lived and died in keeping with the truth paradigm he had chosen. As well
reports would indicate the same about Carl Sagan's at his death.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon the individual to find peace in the belief system that they have chosen to embrace. If such is not so then one should continue the search until they find a truth paradigm that will provide such peace when
this earthly journey is nearing the end.
Shifting Truth Paradigms
Is it possible then that a person on such a search is going to change? It likely depends upon how much one has invested in his truth paradigm. (Little investment, great potential for change. Great investment, little potential for change.) For example should one have expected in the final moments of his life that Christopher Hitchens would change. Not likely since he had invested much of his life and thinking in the truth paradigm he had chosen to embrace.
Such a notion for
change is characterized by two things. First is that this need for change is obvious to
all except those who are so bound by bias that the viewing other truth paradigms is
lost to them. Second though the focus is upon those who choose faith, one cannot deny the opposite to be true. There are
those like Stephen Hawking who it is reported has shifted his views away from God.
Distortion Based Argument
One can take any
belief, faith and otherwise, cite a few of the excesses plus a distortion or
two and then present it in its distorted form and then set about disparaging
it. Such a treatment of Christian faith is illegitimate and fails even
rudimentary logic. The sad part is that such a person will mock and
ridicule a “straw man” Christian faith and then congratulate themselves for
finally putting the Christian myth to bed.
Bufe’s assumption
like so many others is based in a false notion of Christianity. His bias
is found in the introductory words to his pamphlet which gives his purpose as
listing, “…the most outstanding misery-producing and socially destructive
qualities of Christianity in one place.” He certainly is not alone in his
thoughts. If, however, what he lists is indeed accurate in its portrayal
of Christianity, I would quite agree with him and abandon the Christian faith.
However, contained in his statement is a rather glaring problem. Has Mr. Bufe exhausted every book, article, and argument for and against the Christian faith to know what he says goes beyond his opinion? The likelihood of such is so miniscule as not to be considered.
Unanswerable Question
Assume for the
sake of argument that the thesis is true, that Christianity is a religion of
fear. Those who conclude such to be so, begin their journey into
such a position because of a certain skepticism. Is such a skepticism reserved for a special
few? No of course not!
Also consider
that such a “fear” statement takes an exceedingly low view of people.
While some people are gullible most are not. The reality is the most
people have an internal alert system composed of doubt, cynicism, and skepticism, which offers protection.
The problem in
the argument is a treatment of that skepticism is left out of the discussion. It seems
more likely that such skepticism as is common to man would steer a person away
from being manipulated and victimized by fear or any other truth paradigm with
which they are not comfortable.
If such was not
so, one would fall prey to every slick talking magazine salesman that happened
to stop by one’s home. One’s skepticism mitigates against such being so.
So it is when I
see every porch everywhere I travel, covered by magazines, I shall give serious
consideration to this notion of fear causing people to enter into the Christian
experience.
Care Based Faith
The reality is
that Christianity is a care based faith. That is to say that a very basic
plank of genuine Christian doctrine is the care of others. The founder of
the Christian faith spoke of “loving God and loving
others,” of care for others, and that such can involve the “denying one’s self.” .
At the end of His follower's life one would find it inconceivable that the doctrine of care would end at one's death. No, such care extend beyond this life into the next. As a matter of fact such a care based faith would view such
a faith as described in the article referenced in opening words of this post as
abhorrent and out of step with genuine Christian faith.
[1] Pamphlet available at
http://www.seesharppress.com/20reasons.html#numberone
George H. Smith[1] in his book, Atheism: The Case Against God
and
writing of The Skepticism of Faith argues
that skepticism in the study of the origins of knowledge will eventually lend aid
and comfort to religious claims and turn against the atheist. Quite a claim for a libertarian atheist.
Just to be clear, since atheism
cannot be reliably proven, then such requires some degree of belief beyond what
proof that may exist for the claim. Therefore
one can conclude that atheism requires faith.
So while the atheist points to the theist and joyfully demands proof, what
he fails to see is that his own position is equally fragile. Fragile because it cannot be completely and
totally substantiated.
This holds true for the
Rationalist, as there are matters that cannot be discerned through one’s thinking
no matter how much intellectual prowess one might posses. As well it holds true for the Empiricist for
there are matters that cannot be scientifically proven nor explained no matter
how much science is applied to the question.
