Why I'm no longer a Christian

Last updated 1996

I was raised as an Episcopalian Christian (basically the Church of England in the United States). This is widely regarded as a main-line moderate version of Christianity. I have kind feelings towards the Church I attended and people I met at the church. I also admit to enjoying the ceremonies of a common faith. As an historian, I derive pleasure from thinking back on the hundreds of years which the religion is a part of. Finally I admire much of the ethics and moral teachings of the Episcopalian religion. One could do a lot worse.

That said, I find that I can no longer, in good conscience, call myself a Christian. At a basic level, I don't believe. The following points are my explanation as to why I don't believe.

Why I no longer believe in Christianity

1. It is not possible to reconcile the existence of evil and the suffering of the innocent with a Christian God who is fundamentally good. While I admit free will is a good thing, and a reasonable means of explaining bad actions by other humans, you do not give free will to children. By any reasonable humans today (and for all recorded history) are children. The vast majority of humans in any human epoch are nowhere close to adult mental states. The situation today is even worse than in previous centuries: we have the power to destroy our civilization, the power to kill nearly every human on this planet, the power to destroy our common civilization. Just like a child by itself with a box of matches. We humans are children without a parent. If there is a God, it certainly does not care what we do.

2. Christianity is essentially parochial in its attitudes towards some important things which I now regard as important. These things are: preservation of the planetary ecosystem (Christianity is silent on this issue) and respect for intelligence, no matter where it is found (Christianity, like all other major religions is completely human-centric). I talk about the things that I now regard as essential later in this essay.

3. Christianity is based on legends that now have no meaning or wonder for an intelligent person today. The miracles recounted in the Bible are now things which are well within our technological grasp. In the last 50 years we have seen surgeons stop people's hearts, and replace them with machines. Modern medicine has its problems without doubt, but it is a lot closer to God-like power than it is to the minor miracles talked about in the Bible.

4. Christianity is burdened by a long history of immoral actions taken in its name. Support for immoral wars, for Crusades against heretics, support for evil and repressive systems of government, support for slavery, support for the rejection of equality of women, etc. While there is no question that Christianity has been responsible for much that is good in the world, its history of evil drags it down. Basically, Christianity cannot stand on its past as an example of moral behavior or as evidence of some devine truth. If the Church leaders were divinely inspired, as the Popes have claimed, there is very little objective evidence for such a belief.

5. Christianity, like most religions, makes a claim to be a higher truth. To believe in Christianity, one must believe in a falseness of all other religions, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, etc. I see no reason to grant Christianity (or any other religion) its desired special status. I see no convincing reason to choose Christianity over Buddhism over Judaism on the basis of their claims to ultimate truth. The only reason I see to choose a religion is on the basis of the moral values they espouse. In effect I reserve the right to judge all of the religions according to my own beliefs of what is right and what is wrong. Having made this important step, I see good elements to many of the religions, but all seem missing important elements.

6. I see no evidence for a benign God who watches over Christians. I see no evidence for a God that cares about humans at all. I do think a God likely does exist in the sense of God as the universe creator or the Aristotelian prime mover but it does not follow that this prime mover has the least interest in humanity, still less in individual humans. In fact I see good reason to believe the opposite (see point 1). The suffering and death of innocent children due to disease or natural disaster is simply incompatible with the idea of caring God.

7. In my opinion, belief in an active, watchful God is not useful because it frees weak minded humans from taking responsibility for their actions and the actions of others. Just as the Devil is a convenient scapegoat, so to is a belief in a God who will sort everything out, make things turn out right. Nazi Germany was not defeated by God, the Nazi armies were only defeated through the suffering and sacrifice of millions of people around the world. To ascribe it to the will of God is to deny the greatness in humanity, just as to ascribe evil to the work of the Devil is to deny the human capacity for doing evil.

8. It would be easy for God to demonstrate his existence. All it would take is some miracle, just one thing that defines explanation. Instead we find that we can explain things. We find that the universe around us seems inherently mathimatical and calculateable. If we can explain the universe, is there a role for God? I do not think so.

So, what if anything, do I believe in? My new belief system, which I call 21st century pragmatism, has three essential components that I feel are missing from other religions.

1. Our purpose in life is to spread the ecosystem of the Earth to other planets. In effect, we are the prime reproductive means the Earth has. To accomplish this goal requires several related steps:
   
   • We must understand the Earth ecosystem in great detail.
     
   • We must preserve the Earth ecosystem as best we can.
     
   
   
2. Intelligence is the highest good. Although life without intelligence is better than no life at all, intelligence without life is better than no intelligence at all. Intelligence is a good because it allows us to better accomplish goal #1 and because it is an inherent good. There are several corollaries:
   
   • We must respect all life which demonstrates intelligence.
     
   • We should seek to create intelligence, the operative idea here is uplift as invented by David Brin.
   
   
3. The basis for all moral decisions is how the decision will play out in the long term. Morality is in large part an analysis of a decision considered over the long term.
   
   • The golden rule of Christianity is quite applicable do unto others as you would have them do unto you However, this is not a blind always do good, instead the principle of Tit for Tat is recognized as a valid principle for behavior.

So where did this come from?

My personal reverse revelation occurred while I was listening to a Jewish woman's story on NPR last year (1995). She recounted her own survival during World War II. In late 1944, all the Jews from her village in Hungary were rounded up and were marched towards some trains miles away that - although they didn't know it at the time - were going to take them to a death camp. But this woman was saved. A Hungarian soldier stopped her and told her to run and hide. He told her You look just like my sister. These people are all going to be killed, run away! She followed his advice and hid for the rest of war. When she was asked if she ever went back to thank the soldier she said No, of course not. The interviewer said: Why not? And she replied: Because he was obviously an angel sent by God. I wouldn't find him.

This shook me deeply, and I still feel the tremors today in my heart. Why? I'm sure that the soldier in question was a real person and what I wonder is, if there is a God, why didn't he save all the innocents? It would have been so easy, a word here, a subtle push there, and the near genocide of the Jews would never have happened. In other words, why wasn't God on that road to the trains?

This link leads to Microsoft's Slate magazine. Slate had a good debate between an atheist and a devote Christian. You can now find it in their compost section, under the title "Is there a God?". I thought that the arguments against God were very convincing (but that should come as no surprise to anyone who reads this). Take me to Slate..