It’s been years since I have had an Evangelical Christian ask me a question I haven’t heard and answered before. But, Evangelicals keep asking, so I will keep answering. Perhaps, “in the year 7510 — if God is going to make it, he ought to make it by then” — Evangelicals will discover and use Google search or the search function of this blog. (Please see Curiosity, A Missing Evangelical Trait.) Until then, I will patiently answer their questions.
Today’s interlocutor is a Canadian Evangelical named Anna. Anna read two posts:
Anna then sent me an email that said:
What if you are wrong? Then what happens.
Do you believe in right and wrong? Good and bad?
Question Number One: What if you are wrong? Then what happens?
Wrong about what, exactly? There’s so many things that I could be right or wrong about, so what is it that Anna thinks I am wrong about? I think I can safely guess the she thinks am I wrong about God/Jesus/Christianity/The Bible/The Reds making the playoffs. And, if I am wrong about Jesus, why I will spend eternity in the Lake of Fire being tortured day and night for my refusal to buy what Christians are selling.
However, I am not wrong. While I am agnostic on the God question — an as-yet-unknown deity could exist and reveal itself someday — I am confident that Christianity and its two sisters, Judaism and Islam, are nothing more than ancient tribal religions that can rationally be ignored. I am also confident that the Protestant Christian Bible is a collection of myths and fables; that Jesus was a mere man who lived and died in Palestine 2,000 years ago; that the central claims of Christianity do not make sense. (Please see The Michael Mock Rule: It Just Doesn’t Make Sense.)
I would ask Anna, what if YOU are wrong? How do you empirically know that the triune Christian deity is the one true God? How do you know the central claims of Christianity are true? How do you know the Bible is an inspired, inerrant, infallible book? What evidence do you have for these claims. Why is Christianity true, and not Islam? Why is Christianity true, and not Buddhism? Why is Christianity true, and not Mormonism? Why is Christianity true, and not Paganism? Why is . . . well, you get my point. Have you thoroughly investigated these other religions?
If anything, Anna should be practicing a new rule I am introducing tonight, “The Edgar Rule.” Edgar was a banker at the financial institution where the church I pastored at the time — Somerset Baptist Church — did business. Edgar was a delightful man to work with, a talker, as was I. The church I pastored did a lot of loan business with Edgar’s bank over the 11 years I pastored the church — from short-term loans to car loans to our mortgage.
One day, I was talking with Edgar about getting a short-term loan. Edgar said:
Bruce, you would be shocked to know how much money some of the local churches have on deposit. I like to loan money to churches, covering all my bases, ya know.
And then, he laughed.
“Covering All Your Bases.” That’s the “Edgar Rule.” You see, shouldn’t this be the default position for those who pose the question, “what if you are wrong?” question. Isn’t in their best interest to be a BaptoCathoPentoMusolBuddo universalist?
Remember, almost every religion believes in Hell, annihilation, or some sort of temporary/permanent punishment for non-believers. Shouldn’t Anne and her fellow Evangelicals fear being wrong and ending up in a different religion’s Hell?
I don’t worry in the least that I am wrong about the Christian God/Jesus. I have weighed this religion and its deity in the balance and found it wanting. I gladly await any new evidence that might be provided to disabuse me of my atheist/humanist beliefs, but so far, all I have received are tire, worn-out, stale, irrational arguments.
Question Number Two: Do You Believe in Right or Wrong? Good and Bad?
Again, Anne’s question lacks specificity, so I am left to guess her meaning. I suspect she wants to know if I believe in Biblical morality? The short answer is no. While the Bible does have some good moral and ethical values, it also has a number of reprehensible and immoral teachings. It is not a book that can be in any way relied upon as an objective, absolute standard of morality. Only those who read the Bible with rose-colored glasses can suggest otherwise.
Do I have moral and ethical beliefs? Yes. Four beliefs come to mind:
- Love your fellow man
- Do good to others
- Stand up for the weak, powerless, and disenfranchised
- Don’t be an asshole
I believe it is morally wrong to murder, rape, molest children, destroy the property of others, vote for Donald Trump, and drink Bud-Light.
I also believe than morality is inherently subjective; that it changes over time; that it is culturally, socially, and religiously influenced.
Further, I have concluded that some of the behaviors considered immoral by Evangelicals, aren’t. For example, I don’t think premarital sex, extramarital sex, homosexuality, transgenderism, divorce, wearing polyester shirts, eating shrimp, women wearing pants, men wearing skirts, long hair on men, short hair on women, and eating at Taco Bell — all sins condemned by the Bible — are morally wrong. Well, except eating at Taco Bell. Talk about killing one’s self, one crunchy taco and soft burrito at a time.
Fundamentally, it is humanism that best explains my morality. The Humanist Manifesto III states:
Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.
The lifestance of Humanism—guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience—encourages us to live life well and fully. It evolved through the ages and continues to develop through the efforts of thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals, however carefully wrought, are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance.
This document is part of an ongoing effort to manifest in clear and positive terms the conceptual boundaries of Humanism, not what we must believe but a consensus of what we do believe. It is in this sense that we affirm the following:
Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence.
Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.
Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.
Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.
Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.
Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.
Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature’s integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.
Thus engaged in the flow of life, we aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals. The responsibility for our lives and the kind of world in which we live is ours and ours alone.
I hope my answers adequately answer Anne’s questions. If Anne reads this post — and I will make her aware of its existence — I hope she will practice Matthew 7:7, seek and ye shall find. I have written almost 4,000 posts on this site. I also have a page, Why? that lists numerous posts for people who have questions about my deconversion to read. To quote Fox Mulder:
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Connect with me on social media:
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.
If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a 100 times. Talking is not as convincing as showing. In humanism, we have yet to match the pageantry and beauty of Christian traditions and song. I’m a fierce believer in Darwinism. Natural Selection by free enterprise competition. U want to convince evangelicals to swing over? Then give them something to swing onto. Evangelicals do not feel safe in reconverting to atheism. Not as it stands presently. To them, atheism is cold, hard and colourless. It is a very dark void with a bottomless pit. It is nihilism writ large. There is no salvation, no grace, no purpose to it. It is without happiness, love, contentment. It lacks morality, value, substance. It is inherently evil.
And so goes the Christian marketing.
We R THE POOREST marketers on the bloody planet. The fault is not in the stars, or even Christianity. The fault is ours and nearly ours alone. They really don’t understand how anyone can be a humanist. It just doesn’t compute. When they criticize humanism, they R really asking “SHOW ME SO THAT I MIGHT KNOW AND UNDERSTAND WHY IT IS BETTER”.
They sleep soundly in a bed of hay. They see us sleeping on a bed of bricks. Yet, we could provide them with a bed of feathers to make their bed of hay appear very stiff, cold and hard. We don’t do that. We taunt them to jump into our bed of bricks. When it comes to marketing, we R light years behind.
Think about why the early Christians gave up all aspects of their original Jewish beliefs and traditions and grasped hold of the pagan priesthood and all its FUN traditions. The only thing remotely “Christian” about them is that they still use the Jewish icon, JESUS. I find it enormously encouraging to realize just what it was that the pagans had going for them. EVERYTHING !!! Their traditions we’re more SPLENDID AND FUN than those of the early Christians. And who among those early Christians was most inspired and mesmerized ? THE YOUTH !!!
“In humanism, we have yet to match the pageantry and beauty of Christian traditions and song. ”
really? Christian tradition is ignorance and blind obedience and fear. Pageantry is rich priests wandering around in a pointless building while people starve. Their song idolize a murdering petty thing.
Give me a good Jim Steinman song far over the stilted failure of Christian hymns and a sunset.
Dale M., The content of humanism is hardly a bed of bricks to me. When I finally let go and realized that I had left the spherical beliefs of evangelical Christianity, I found the humanistic rest quite wonderful, feathery soft and affirming. I have no interest in marketing humanism; none whatsoever. Knock yourself out if you like looking for a way to make humanism great for all but I am quite content to be. Being myself, honest as I am able, is quite as close to foundational perfection as I see possible. If Anna sits quietly and actually finds lasting contentment in belief, then I have no reason to offer her another bed to rest on, another way to live. Just being is the big deal to me, the sale of the century, the new car and untold riches. Within the bubble of belief I did not remain settled into being myself but always struggled to get rid of me and be the magic man of the black book.
As for youth, yes indeed, they are the inspiration in the unfolding of time. Ouroboros for me now represents the endless coming and going of existence and not the painful punishment spin of sin and redemption.
And yet, your questioners ask you questions that you’ve already answered.
Anna, I was an arrogant fervent fundy x-tian,deep in my fundy bubble when I overheard a young man who was sitting on a park bench with an older woman. He was bible bashing her and she was so patient with him. She said several times,’Yes dear, I’m glad that works for you, but that doesn’t mean it works for everyone.’ It was the first small chink in my armour that led to my deconversion. I’d read somewhere that some famous leader had a plaque on his desk which said, ‘I could be wrong.’ I began to open my mind to other possiblities, other world views other than the narrow little one I held, that jesus had loved me, died for me and now needed my complete devotion every moment of my life. It is all about opening your mind. I have found most of us who did that, here and on other non-religious blogs, are prepared to admit we are wrong. As Bruce says, show us evidence of a supernatural being in the sky, and we’d be able to say we were wrong. I do hope you will be able to step out of your darkness one day, it’s wonderful out here in the sunshine, try it.
Bruce, I wonder how many times you’ve had the ‘what if you’re wrong’ question put to you, the questioner invariably thinking they’ve hit on a level of profundity you’re incapable of dealing with. As always, I simply quote Richard Dawkins who said it better than anybody (I’ve often wondered if it was rehearsed or off the top of his head?).
“ Well, what if I’m wrong, I mean… anybody could be wrong. We could all be wrong about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Pink Unicorn and the flying teapot. Uhm, you happen to have been brought up, I would presume, in the Christian faith. You know what it’s like to not believe in a particular faith because you’re not a Muslim. You’re not a Hindu. Why aren’t you a Hindu? Because you happen to have been brought up in America, not in India. If you had been brought up in India, you’d be a Hindu. If you had been brought up in… in uh.. Denmark in the time of the Vikings you’d be believing in Wotan and Thor. If you were brought up in classical Greece you’d be believing in, in Zeus. If you were brought up in central Africa you’d be believing in the great Juju up the mountain. There’s no particular reason to pick on the Judeo-Christian god, in which by the sheerest accident you happen to have been brought up and, and ask me the question, “What if I’m wrong?” What if you’re wrong about the great Juju at the bottom of the sea?”
GEOFFT, When I watch that segment of questions from the audience (and I have been drawn back to it many times!) I kind of lean toward the spontaneous response rather than a rehearsed one. The part of the idea expressed by Dawkins regarding the religon we are born into, is not a new idea he has but one that he has previously expressed but the structure of the answer here seems on-the-spot to me because Dawkins clearly gets a bit wond up and emphatic, and seems a bit on his way to being exasperated by the grand wave of denial that allows people to ask this kind of question of him.
It really is a wonderful moment, though…. I just kind of whisper, “Wow,” when I hear it.
Christians dont’ believe in right or wrong. They believe in what their god does, anything at all, is okay because it is god. This shows a subjective morality built on might equals right. And they can’t agree on what their god finds as evil.
CLUBSCHADENFREUDE, The subjective morality might not be based on might equals right. I wonder if it goes further back than ‘God’ to the basic cradle of the brood/family. We are born into a structure that is set by history and evolution. Our very minds and bodies come from what has been and has made us. In this sense, might is, simply is and we are in its presence suckling, growing, learning to walk. Viral religion has taken that essential structure and forged a tool of it, the God tool. I heartily agree that many Christians don’t give a hoot about essential right or wrong but about building the walls to keep the devil out.
not sure why you needed to spell the name of my blog in caps, Brian.
No, the subjective morality is based on might equals right. Our bodies and minds come from the stars, no gods needed. We aren’t some babe, we are humans. No gods needed. No magical nonsense needed either.
the idea of power is there, no need to respect its stupidity.
Thank you Bruce for speaking truth to power! I find your comments pertinent and hopeful and I read every post you put up.
Re “While I am agnostic on the God question — an as-yet-unknown deity could exist and reveal itself someday …” I do not think you are “agnostic on the God question.” We can only address what we have experienced so far. The future is, well, the future. So far, no god has made itself known to all of us or even a large number of us. So, for 5500 years of so of human history … no gods have existed. The probability that a god will show up now is very, very, very slim. Were one of the gods we do believe to actually show up, we would have a serious bone to pick with that god. Since it would be demonstrating its ability to manifest itself in our reality, the obvious question is “what took you so damned long?” We were allowed to fight over whose god was more real for millennia, when showing up would have settled all of those arguments.
So, agnostic you are not, just because you do not preclude the very slim possibility that some god will show up in the future. What other belief is held to that standard?
My ancestors are Romans. I have it on good authority that Jupiter is dead.
Seriously, I think Dale and Brian are addressing, very well, two aspects of something Marx said: Religion is an opium of the people. In other words, people look to it for comfort. In times past (and in some places today), people still use religion as a respite for the hardships of their lives.
But in places where most people don’t have to worry about dying from disease (COVID notwithstanding), pestilence or acts of violence, the real discomforts come from people’s inability to be with themselves. This, I believe, is particularly true in the United States, where so many people are profoundly lonely, whether they are in a congregation, with their families or by themselves. Why do you think people check their screens every two minutes? They want to be distracted from whatever is within them. I understand that: I spent many years trying not to deal what I knew, viscerally, to be true. But I can assure you that as I learn to be with myself, whether you’re alone or in a crowd, it isn’t a bed of bricks or feathers. It’s my bed, the only one that’s right for me, and I’ve lost the need for any other.
It’s interesting to me that so many aren’t content to practice their world view and stop trying to drag the rest of humanity with them.
What if you are wrong?
Who knows… but
What if you are right?
I kinda wish there were some sort of supreme being who, when presented with the latest righteous dead would chuckle, say, “I’m always amazed at the overwhelming numbers of the gullible,” and with a wave, send them away to whatever things the dead do to occupy their time.
But alas. Dead is dead.
No supreme being to do that.
Huh. All right, just in case Anna comes along and reads this:
What if you are wrong?
Then I am, at least, genuinely mistaken.
An all-knowing God would know that, of course. And I cannot imagine how an all-loving God would be offended by it. What would there to be to punish me for? What sin, exactly, is a failure of perception or understanding? If God exists and is even half of what I was raised to believe, then He understands my disbelief… perfectly.
Of course I might be wrong. But even if I could, I would not change my views to their opposite just on the possibility that I could be mistaken. I have reasons for believing — or not believing — as I do.
I received an email yesterday, explaining that the stranger writing to me was a solicitor for a rich foreign client who happened to share my last name. That client had recently passed away, leaving a sum of several million dollars in the care of a bank in Nigeria. He offered to split that money with me if I would step forward and claim to be the next of kin. Could I be wrong in thinking that this is absolutely a scam? Of course I could. But I’m not sending the guy my bank account number.
Do you believe in right and wrong? Good and bad?
This is one of those questions. Asked sincerely, it betrays a fundamental lack of understanding — because the truth is that everyone believes in good and bad. Even the most narcissistic sociopaths believe in right and wrong, good and bad; it’s just that for them, right is whatever benefits them, and wrong is whatever hurts them or prevents them from doing what they want.
Which brings me to my second point, which is that this is also one of those questions that sounds but really isn’t. What exactly do you mean by “believe in” here? How are you defining “right” and “wrong” and “good” and “bad”? What kind of worldview and other baggage do you attach to those terms?
So my short, immediate answer would be: “Yes, but probably not the way you mean.”
That should be “one of those questions that sounds simple but really isn’t.”
Ah, the “what if you’re wrong” question. The questioner always thinks it applies to their specific deity ONLY without realizing that it could apply to an infinite supply of deities.
In my experience, fundamentalists like the easy, uncomplicated boundaries of absolutes- right and wrong, good and evil, etc. They like having the defined list of what is allowed. They don’t have to think about all the choices, all the possibilities – they don’t have to put in the work of considering all the options. I guess their proscribed world works well for people who need defined boundaries. For those of us who see the world as being a spectrum don’t fare well in a world like that. It can be complicated to assess each situation and weigh whether this choice is harmful to others, or if that one is, or if the fifth choice is. Sometimes we make mistakes and learn from them. But that process helps us to grow as humans, as a society. Morality changes as humans change. Look at the complex conversations we are having about race. Those who don’t want to address it break it down into an individual issue so they can absolve themselves of their complicity in a broken system of racism. “I am not racist, so I don’t have to do anything “. That’s what most evangelicals are saying. Is that moral? In their world it is, but in a complex world that acknowledges that systemic racism exists, it isn’t that simple. That’s just one example.
Last year i had a relationship with a person in our village. I needed help with daily chores, she needed money. So i hired her to help me. I’m too old and feeble to do all these things for myself. It was a good relationship and we helped each other.
What finally killed it, is she started asking me if i believe in God. That’s a personal question . I don’t answer it. I think these religious people are rude when they start bullying around. I don’t believe in that. She was a good person but i can’t be doing that.
“What if you’re wrong?”
Eh, there are so many different religions, some exclusionary, so there’s literally no way I can cover all my bases. So I try not to be an asshole, try to do some good in the world, as those seem like the right thing to do. If there’s some deity out there upset that I ate shellfish or wore my hair a certain way, oh well…… one religion says eating pork is forbidden, another says eating pork is ok, another doesn’t know what pork is……who can keep up with all the possibilities?