It should come as no surprise in a book entitled, The End of Faith, that Harris refuses to even consider that there might be something to religion in general, and Christianity in particular. When he says, therefore, “The fact that religious beliefs have a great influence on human life says nothing at all about their validity” (64), I simply have to disagree. Let’s look at things scientifically. One of the ways a certain hypothesis or theory gains acceptance comes from observing its effects in the real world.
When observing the sociological effects of religion in the ancient pagan societies, one quickly sees that such societies were horrendously violent, dangerous, and bleak. The same can be said, for example, of the Aztecs. The reason for this is simple: when you have a religious system that teaches human beings are worthless slaves of the gods who have no dignity and worth, and that the king is a son of the gods, how do you think the mass of people will be treated? As worthless slaves with no dignity and worth. Simply put: bad religions bring about bad societies.
By contrast, Christianity teaches that human beings are made in the image of God and therefore possess inherent dignity and nobility. Furthermore, Christianity teaches that Jesus is not only the king of kings, but he is also a suffering servant—and that his followers are to “rule” through being priestly servants. Consequently, over the past 2,000 years there has been a tremendous improvement in the overall fabric of the worldwide society, precisely because of Christianity. Despite the many examples of bad people doing bad things in the name of Christianity, the overwhelming impact of Christianity transforming the lives of both individuals and societies has been astounding, from law, medicine, science, education, and the overall quality of life. In that respect, one has to at least consider that the positive effects of Christian belief on society certainly lends themselves to the validity of the Christian faith.
Some Really Bad Biblical Exegesis
Another way Harris looks to “prove” that Christianity is harmful can be seen in the very way he goes about his critique. What I mean is that it is frightfully obvious that although Harris claims he is “criticizing faith in its ordinary, scriptural sense” (65), what he really means is that he is just going ignore the historical Christian faith as express by the early Church Fathers and prominent theologians and scholars throughout the centuries, and instead highlight the “faith” of the more ignorant masses. It would be like me writing a book on how worthless science is, but never addressing the Einstein, Darwin, Galileo, Copernicus, or Newton, and only basing my “research” on my interaction with “ordinary” American sophomores who got no better than a “C” in Biology. If you go to the lowest common denominator of anything, chances are you’re going to be able to criticize that thing—of course, such a critique wouldn’t be really honest.
Take for instance Harris’ condemnation of John 20:29: “Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.” Harris interprets this verse without any consideration of its context. Instead of discussing exactly what Jesus was telling doubting Thomas (i.e. “Hey Thomas, when all your fellow disciples tell you they’ve seen me alive, at least consider their testimony to be true! Don’t be such a close-minded skeptic!”), Harris claims this verse is simply holding up ignorance as an ideal for faith, when he says, “Every child is instructed that it is, at the very least, an option, if not a sacred duty, to disregard the facts of this world out of deference to the God who lurks in his mother’s and father’s imagination” (65).
But of course, that isn’t what John 20:29 is saying, and a rudimentary knowledge of how to read makes that obvious. Thomas was faced with the facts of his fellow disciples’ testimony regarding a real historical event and was proving himself to be too much of a hardened skeptic by disregarding the facts of eye-witness testimony. If anything, Jesus was telling Thomas, “Don’t disregard the facts! Listen and believe!” To interpret Jesus words as a command to simply “believe in the fairy tales in your parents’ imagination” is in fact to willfully distort it.
Harris the Bomb-Thrower
Another way Harris supposedly “debunks” Christianity is by simply belittling it. This, of course, doesn’t involve any reasoned argumentation, as it does simply ignorant mocking, without any real attempt to understand anything. Consider the following quotes:
“Jesus Christ—who, as it turns out, was born of a virgin, cheated death, and rose bodily into the heavens—can now be eaten in the form of a cracker” (73).
“The pope says that Jesus was born of a virgin and resurrected bodily after death. He is the Son of God, who created the universe in six days. If you believe this, you will go to heaven after death; if you don’t, you will go to hell, where you will suffer for eternity” (74).
Now, it is true, Christianity makes come tremendous claims, most notably the resurrection. Harris, though, spends an extreme amount of time with the virgin birth. In fact, if you only read Harris, you’d think that the resurrection and the virgin birth get “equal air time” in the Bible. The fact is, though, the virgin birth is mentioned twice in the entire New Testament, and is never even alluded to again. In this respect, I would argue that the Church has historically put too much emphasis on it.
Side Note: A Brief Bible Lesson on the Virgin Birth in Matthew and Luke
For that matter, I think we often miss the point with the infancy narrative in both Luke and Matthew. In ancient Rome, if you asked someone, “Who is the one born of a virgin who has brought his good news to the entire world?” the answer you’d get is “Caesar Augustus.” Yes, Virgil described him in this way, and this is how he was known. People knew he wasn’t literally born of a virgin—it was their way of saying that he was “a god,” because only a god could have brought peace to the civil war-torn Roman republic.
If you know that, then when you come to Luke, whose audience was predominantly Gentile, you realize that the virgin birth story in his gospel is there to present Jesus over and against Caesar. In effect, Luke is saying, “Jesus, not Caesar, is God; Caesar’s ‘peace’ is Roman tyranny, whereas Jesus’ peace is the Kingdom of God; Jesus, not Caesar, is the one truly ‘born of a virgin.’” It’s a political statement just as much (if not more so) as it is a biological one. I say this because throughout the New Testament it is emphasized that Jesus, not Caesar, is the true Lord of lords, whereas nothing whatsoever is ever attached to the biological claim—it’s just out there, and no theological point is ever attached to it.
The same goes for Matthew, only his focus is the actual quote of Isaiah 7:14: “Behold, the virgin is with child, and she will give birth to a child and name him ‘Emmanuel.’” Now, in this case, the focus isn’t Caesar, but Herod. In the original context of Isaiah, this verse is set during the Syro-Ephaimite Crisis of 742 BC. Isaiah has challenged Ahaz to put his trust in YHWH, and Ahaz has chosen instead to appeal to the king of Assyria for help. In response, Isaiah launches into a series of “Emmanuel prophecies,” Isaiah 7:14 being the first. Simply put, the rest of Isaiah 7-12 goes something like this:
Isaiah says to Ahaz, “You idiot! The king of Assyria will come, alright, he’ll deal with your problem, then he’ll never leave, and you will be his slave! Look! By the time your wife gives birth, and he grows up a little, Judah will be under Assyria’s boot! ‘God will be with us’ in the form of punishment from Assyria! But…by the time your child grows up to be king, he’ll put his trust in YHWH, and then YHWH will work through him to bring about Judah’s salvation from Assyria! ‘God will be with us’ in the form of salvation from Assyria!”
In that literary and historical context, it is obvious that Isaiah 7:14 was originally about Hezekiah. And, in the original context, the word “almah,” translated as ‘virgin’ in English, simply means ‘young woman,’ and therefore a reference to Ahaz’ wife. As it turns out, the Hebrew word “almah” got translated with the Greek word “parthenos” in the Septuagint (that’s the Greek translation of the Old Testament that the New Testament writers quoted from), and “parthenos” tends to mean ‘virgin.’ And so, Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14, knowing it originally was about Hezekiah, then applies it to Jesus in order to show that Jesus is the true king of the Jews, the true Messiah, who will bring about the salvation of the whole world. He’s essentially telling the reader, “You know what God did through Hezekiah? Well, Jesus is like that…but a whole lot more!” This stands in contrast to King Herod, who we find in the next chapter is actively trying to kill the baby Jesus.
And so, in both Luke and Matthew, the virgin birth accounts are meant to present Jesus as over and above both Caesar and Herod. The biological statement, although it is there, is simply never elaborated on anywhere else in the New Testament—no theological importance is given to it at all. And so, not only has the Church historically probably emphasized it more than it should have, but Harris is also wrong to present it as being on the same level as the resurrection.
Back to Harris the Bomb-Thrower
Since that was quite a long tangent (but fascinating, don’t you think?), I will make the rest of my comments for this post brief…
Notice Harris’ “cracker” comment—he is mocking the Christian practice of communion. Now, the doctrine of Transubstantiation (the bread and wine literally become Jesus’ body and blood) is a faulty teaching that has developed over the history of the Catholic Church. Orthodox and Protestant churches do not teach this. So when Harris implies that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is as core of a belief as the resurrection, not only is he being dishonest, his intentional ridiculing of communion just makes him look petty and snarky.
I also find Harris’ second comment astounding. I’m pretty sure the Pope has never said, “If you don’t believe Jesus created the universe in six literal days you’re going to fry in hell for eternity! But if you say you believe it, come and get your angel wings!” As you well know, if you read my blog on a regular basis, literal six-day young earth creationism has never endorsed by either the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, or many Protestant denominations for the first 400 years of the Reformation. It is a uniquely 20th century phenomenon found within a segment of the Evangelical world. So once again, Harris’ presenting it as a core Christian belief shows him to be dishonest. Of course, I suppose it is very possible he really thinks young earth creationism is a core Christian belief—but if he does, that would only show he is a sloppy researcher who never took the time to check his assumptions.
We’ll continue with Harris’ attempt at biblical scholarship next time.
