Before I leave the subject of the canonical scriptures, I must illustrate the distinction between inspiration and infallibility. It would be wrong for me to say, as I have before, that the canonical scriptures were not seen as perfect before 1978, as some early fathers and scholars used such language. It, though it seems, was using the old “slippery slope” fallacy, that if one word was proven false in scriptures, then all of Christianity would collapse. Even Thomas Aquinas, my favorite theologian, used language suggesting that he saw the scriptures, though written by men, as authored by God and thus perfect. But Aquinas also wrote that nature or reality was God’s second book, and the two books of God must be in agreement.

But here is the reality. As the scientific, rational approach (what Christians call higher criticism) was applied to the archaeological, restoration, translation, and linguistic comparison of old Biblical manuscripts, there was an honest observation that there were differences, some substantial, among the old manuscripts. This could not have happened if the texts were indeed perfect.

However, to some parts of the church, these objective findings were intolerable and, just like they did with the overwhelming observations by geologists that Earth is very old (3.5 billion years, I think), and that the fossil record had an overwhelming evidence of evolution on some level, the church did what it always does, turned it into a moral problem. In both cases, the church made these scientists out to be immoral and the enemies of God. They lied about their findings and created conspiracy theories about their motives and methods. As I say, all religions, including Christianity, have conformity, not seeking factual truth as their highest calling.

I am no Biblical manuscript expert, but I’ve watched many lectures and read some books by those who are. It is blatantly clear that the texts of different Biblical manuscripts differed, sometimes substantially. Yet, in response to these findings, conservative churches created the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy in 1978, which codified the belief in the perfect scriptures, meaning that if you did not believe that—despite the evidence—you are not a Christian, or at least, not a very good one—a moral measure. And people wonder why the most rational of us are leaving Christianity?

But this forces Christians once again into magical thinking. You can read the modern Old Testaments from before 1946 (the year the Dead Sea Scrolls were found) and compare them word-for-word with the same texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls (as done here), written in about the third century BCE, and you will see many differences. Yes, most of them are insignificant in meaning, but not all. Likewise, the New Testament manuscripts show some significant differences, including the addition or removal of verses.

Do we then throw the Bible away if we accept reality? Are the scriptures, therefore, untrustworthy? Without doing the due diligence of reading these old manuscripts themselves, when I write what I just did, I, too, am attacked morally, stating that I am not a Christian or even a good person. Yet, the scriptures themselves do not say they are perfect, but inspired, meaning God-breathed.

Paul’s Example

The Apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 7:10, To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.
So, here Paul makes a clear distinction between God’s opinion and his own as the author. Were Paul and his opinions perfect? While some Christians would say that he is in this case, it violates a fundamental tenet that humans are fallen and thus imperfect, all of them.

Again, a few verses later, in 1 Corinthians 7:25-28, Paul makes it clear that he is sharing his opinions, not something dictated by God.
Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment {opinion} as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is. Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

Peter Enns Example

A few weeks ago, I wrote about Peter Enns, a biblical scholar, who was being forced (if you listen to his confession) to give up rational thinking, to follow God, which is one of the biggest myths of post-modern Christianity. His backstory is that he is a Biblical scholar. He had a fourteen-year history as a tenured professor at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia, where some of my old conservative Christian friends and one of my prior heroes, Francis Schaeffer, were associated. But he was fired from his position there (for more, see this article). It is my understanding that Peter taught that the scriptures were like Christ, divine but with a human side, reflecting human thought and culture. I don’t think this gathered much attention until he published his book, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. Then the controversy began over whether Peter was true to the evangelical mandate that the scriptures were 100% divine and without error, and he was therefore fired. His firing illustrates the MO of religion, as I had shared, of conformity. Peter has made very reasonable and evidence-based arguments for his position. Still, he was met with the highest level of social coercion that the church can offer in modern times: defrocking, firing, and discrediting. Just a couple of generations ago, both the Catholics and protestants would have tortured him to death in a very cruel way.

The Consequences of Seeking Conformity at the Expense of Factual Truth on Epistemology in the Age of Trump

I will repeat once more that the MO of religion is to seek conformity (and severe repercussions for nonconformity) while science seeks factual truth. The religious and other anti-science people claim conspiracy theories where the scientists have a conspiracy to lie for some reason, but after working almost forty years in science, I have rarely seen a hint of that.

But there are consequences of having the most important thing in your life, your religion, telling you not to believe your eyes, but to believe without evidence things they tell you are true. If you don’t, you will have terrible coercive consequences (declaring you not to be a real Christian, calling you the devil, shunning you socially, which is still better than torturing you to death).

If you know me, you know that I can’t stand Donald Trump. I’ve had the greatest temptation to hate him than I’ve ever had toward another human being in my memory. I regret that I’ve allowed my family and conservative Christian friends to define me as “political” when this has nothing to do with politics. It doesn’t matter to me if he were a Democrat, Republican, or Independent. He is a profoundly stupid man, grossly immoral, and mentally ill with a verified narcissistic personality disorder. This war with Iran is not 3-D chess, as Fox “News” will tell you; it is total ignorance. Even the hideous habitual pedophile Jeffery Epstein wrote in an email (part of the documents release), “Trump is dangerous, dirty, and evil beyond belief.” Besides being a con-man his entire business life, he was accused of sexually abusing or raping over twenty women and at least one 13-year-old girl in the Epstein files. I could go on about him, but I will pause to say that, despite the overwhelming evidence against Trump’s character, more than any other voting bloc by far, the conservative Christians have embraced and adorned him. There is no way to define this phenomenon, to have such total devotion to such an evil man, but by calling it a cult. I was in a cult once, and I know what it looks like.

It is these same Christians who have had their own ability to discern neutered by their church that are now such easy prey to such evil ideas. “Don’t trust your eyes, don’t trust your reason, just believe.” In my world, those friends who studied the Bible the most are the ones deceived the most, because of how they were taught to view the scriptures, as subjective magic. Their new prophet is the exact antithesis of the Jesus described in those scriptures they claim to love and study. But to be clear, this does not make my evangelical brothers and sisters evil, stupid, or not real Christians, per se, but the products of an irrational philosophy by their religion.

We live in a rational cosmos, created by a rational God. We can never have certainty because we are imperfect, but we find truth with high probability when we use the senses and reason God has blessed us with.

An Example of Truth-seeking vs Conformity

I know this is getting very long, and I apologize, but so much is happening in my brain right now. Also, for some strange reason, I must be doing something right, as I passed 1,000 readers per week for the first time today. That is peanuts in the blogosphere. But for me, it is a significant increase.

I do not write to criticize the church or to persuade others to think like me. I’m not evangelistic in my ideas. But those I know and meet who have left Christianity because the church has given them no room to stay, they are on my mind day and night. It is not about Heaven or Hell. It is about meaning and purpose, and I think the historical Jesus gives them, not in an existential, subjective, or emotional-experience way, but in practical terms.

As I wrote earlier, I am not a Biblical scholar. While I am an armchair philosopher, and anyone who speculates about the questions of philosophy, meaning, ethics, and metaphysics can call themselves a philosopher, I am not an academic philosopher. What I mean is I have never formally studied philosophy. However, I fell in love with Philosophy at age sixteen when I read Socrates (Plato’s writings about Socrates), who held the pursuit of truth above social conformity. I even wrote my first book at age seventeen about Socrates, which I bound myself, and was read only by one person, our high school philosophy teacher, Dr. Murphy. While my dyslexia must have made my grammar and spelling atrocious, he said he loved it. But then I became an evangelical in earnest. Therefore, from that point forward, the science I loved and the philosophy that I imagined were thrown into the garbage can of my mind as evil.

Later, after I left evangelicalism and became acquainted with Francis Schaeffer, I was reintroduced to philosophy. Francis Schaeffer often wrote, “There is no difference between philosophy and theology in the questions asked, only in the answers given.” The philosophy I know is from reading and listening to lectures, but my reading has not been thorough. For example, I often mention Søren Kierkegaard, although I have attempted to read his writings; most of what I know comes from excerpts and what others have said about him. But I have now put his book Either/Or on my reading list.

Yesterday I had the opportunity to discuss philosophy with a verified academic, who has graduate studies in philosophy. I have two major takeaways. The first is that she mostly agreed with my amateur understanding of the philosophical history of Western civilization. Secondly, where we disagreed, she is a follower of Kierkegaardian thought and believes that ethics are intrinsic (created by ourselves-existentially), whereas I, who think Kierkegaard was wrong and that ethics are extrinsic (established by the personal creator), believe that though simple, they are for all to follow. So, she would say (the example I gave her) that pedophilia is wrong because she doesn’t like it, and our society has determined it wrong. I would say pedophilia is wrong, and all unloving abuse of one person over another is wrong, because the personal creator has one rule or commandment, that we are to love all.

But here is the refreshing point. Despite our disagreement, we had full respect for one another. She is not evil, not stupid, or anything like that, because I have a different take. I have much to learn from her. Such discussions are impossible in the religious setting because, as I have written, competitive piety is the utmost pursuit within religion. If someone doesn’t agree with your views, it is mandatory that you demean them, at least in your own mind, as stupid or immoral, to maintain your feeling of religious superiority. That’s what I hate about discussing things with deeply religious people, who I know, in the end, will go for my jugular and accuse me of being a bad man, stupid, and evil. This inability to ask honest questions with the desire to learn is why many thinking people have left the Christian religion for good.

With Respect,

Mike