So What

I knew what I wanted to call this piece long before I wrote it. But when I finally started writing the words, I couldn’t decide whether to end the title with a question mark or an exclamation point. Though technically a question, I am using it as an answer. It occurred to me that every Christian apologetic can be answered with, “So what!” It is not a mere dismissal of the topic. It is a declaration that the topic lacks any motivating power for change.

My style of argumentation is an appeal to the practical. If at the end of the day, an argument has no practical value, it loses. Worse, it ceases to matter. I both listen to and read a lot of arguments in favor of a theocentric worldview. Increasingly, I am convinced that even the better arguments have no wood behind their arrows.

There is no Christian argument that is relevant to a nonbeliever because all arguments must do more than convince. They must motivate a person to make a change. There is simply no incentive provided by the Christian for which the nonbeliever is obliged to regard as relevant. Indeed, there are only two incentives the Christian has to offer. And both are useless. All Christian incentives amount to reward and punishment. Here’s why they don’t matter:

Reward and Punishment

Why don’t you seek out practitioners of voodoo for help or reward? Why don’t you fear the punishments they can deliver? I suspect it is for the same reasons I don’t. I simply do not believe that there is anything they can do for me or to me with regard to reward and punishment. Not one Voodoo adherent has ever produced a shred of evidence that such rewards or punishments are even possible. Therefore, I feel extremely secure in my current position of ignoring voodoo as a going concern.

All of the above applies to Christianity. I grasp at no reward of eternal life and fear no punishment of hell as I don’t believe either are truly on offer. Nor has any Christian provided a shred of evidence that such is possible. But with Christianity, there is yet another factor that keeps reward and punishment from being a going concern for me, and most other nonbelievers:

There’s No Faking It

Let’s say that I was absolutely convinced that the god of the bible existed, and that there was a hell prepared for the wicked. What then? Would that change my perspective? Nope! The reason is pretty simple. I happen to find the very concept of hell abhorrent and offensive. I would actively campaign against any god who concocted such a place thinking it was just punishment for any finite crime. In other words, I would utterly despise any god that created such a place. And I wouldn’t feel too favorably disposed to the people who worshipped such a god.

This is an insurmountable problem. The New Testament Christ demands that we love him. Like his dad, he desperately wants to be loved, and ties that love with obedience. But I don’t love this Jesus who seems to have a thing for hell. As much as I would want to try, I simply couldn’t fake the kind of love that is required for salvation. If loving such a god is the price of admission, he can cook me now.

If I have misunderstood him, he can set the record straight, present himself as a being I could fall in love with. The fact that he does not set the record straight indicates that I am right about him, and there is nothing to be set straight, or he doesn’t care to save me. Either way, my fate is sealed. Therefore, I have no incentive to change anything. I have only to await the inevitable conclusion.

Alternate Endings Still Have No Effect

But what if there is a god, but no hell as many Christians believe. Would that make me love him, and thus, become a follower? Nope! Hell is but one of many atrocities associated with this god. If the biblical record regarding this god is even partly true, he is still a monster. I would be a monster to accept rewards from such a being.

What if none of the biblical record paints an accurate picture of this most beneficent being? In that case, I don’t know anything about him/her, and couldn’t possibly love him/her… it. Take away the bible, and we know as much about the Christian god as we do about dark matter. If this unknown god was offering eternal life, I would have no idea what it wanted in exchange. Therefore, it would make no sense for me to change anything about myself in a desperate attempt to please an unknowable god.

What if there was no afterlife, and rewards and punishments only pertained to this life? Would that do the trick? Nope! The problem with that idea is that there are too many disconformations to ever believe in such rewards and punishments. Good things happen to bad people. And bad things happen to good people. Nothing in human experience suggests that justice reigns in this life.

Conclusion: So What?

I was recently listening to a debate on the resurrection, and found myself uninterested in the arguments on either side. I don’t even believe there was a Jesus. But it doesn’t matter if I am wrong. Let’s say there was a Jesus that was crucified and rose from the dead. So what? Really, what does that matter? How is that relevant to anything?

Don’t get me wrong. Rising from the dead is a neat trick. But in the bible, it wasn’t unique. Lots of people rose from the dead. That didn’t make them sons and daughters of god. They all either died again, or were taken from this world. Either way, we have none of them to interview. No one has risen since that time. So why should it matter if Jesus did?

I have no desire to live eternally with the kind of god that is outlined in the bible. Living forever in peace without him does not seem to be an option. So I would rather just die when my time comes, and stay dead, left completely alone by all cosmic bullies who demand my love or fear.

Even if such cosmic bullies were real, I couldn’t love them, or run from them, or fool them, or even have meaningful communication with them. And I’m not alone. I cannot be swayed by an apologist because I could not act on anything they say even if i wanted to. I can’t believe in things I don’t believe, love who I don’t love, desire the unattainable, or fear what does not exist.


The Many Problems with Intellegent Design

ID is one of those Christian apologetics that gets me a bit riled up. It is not just that it is wrong or bad. They are all wrong and all bad. It is that the ID argument is dishonest. It is creationism 2.0 dressed up in different garb. Here’s the big difference. Creationism was overtly religious. That platform wore its religion on its sleeve. That kept it from being taken seriously in scientific debate. ID pretends to be purely scientific with no religious roots. But secretly, it has the same religious underpinnings as its predecessor. ID is simply hiding, or outright lying about its religious motives to sneak into scientific discussion.

Besides being dishonest about the motives, ID is no more scientific than was creationism before it. ID is philosophy and theology pretending to be science. Worse still, it is bad philosophy and theology. It simply does not hold together as a theory. It only looks promising if one does not look too closely at it, or take it to its logical conclusion. In this piece, I will do both:

Identifying Design

Take a cup of paint and throw it against a wall. Next, hire a professional artist to paint another wall so that it looks exactly like the wall with the splattered paint. Now tell me, which was random and which was intelligently designed? Here’s the thing: You can’t. No one can. There is nothing about the splashed wall that says, chaos. And there is nothing about the carefully painted wall that says, design.

The fact of the matter is, everything we are capable of detecting looks designed. The fact that we can see it all means that it is adhering to some sort of mathematically describable pattern. We wouldn’t recognize true chaos because we couldn’t detect it. What the proponents of ID will not do is name something they do not think is intelligently designed. For them, everything is intelligently designed because everything looks like design. Design, by its very nature, implies an intelligent agency.

From a scientific perspective, their claim is unfalsifiable, as nothing could disprove design as they define it. But that blade cuts both ways. It could also be said that everything appears to be a result of unintelligent, naturalistic processes without any design whatsoever. This includes computers, works of Shakespeare, and tacos. Here’s how that counterargument goes:

Process Without Design

Nothing is designed because everything is a part of an evolutionary process. No, unless it is a cheap Windows PC, your computer is not a random assemblage of parts. But the intelligently designed computer is not the beginning, but the end of a process no one could have predicted at the beginning. It is a stage in the evolutionary process.

Of course there is intelligence behind it. But where did the intelligence come from? Human intelligence, itself, is a part of an evolutionary process. The universe did not design intelligence anymore than it designed a computer.

This is not the Shakespeare written by infinite monkeys argument. It is more along the lines of Shakespeare being produced by a lengthy succession of monkeys, which is more or less what actually happened. The universe did not set out to intelligently create the works of Shakespeare. But over the course of billions of years of unguided process, the works of Shakespeare have come into existence.

Whether or not tacos were the ultimate design goal of the universe, I will leave it to the reader to decide. I am reminded of the old joke, if you want to bake a cake from scratch, first, make a universe. It is an acknowledgment that everything evolves from something. The only real question to ask is, what was the first thing that was not evolved from anything. And make no mistake about it: That is the only real question ID is getting at.

First Mover Redux

Oh, well… Here we go again. Surprise, surprise! When it all comes down to it, ID is just another first mover argument. As I have stated many times before in a variety of ways, creating a first mover does not solve the problem. It just advances the problem another level.

As we have seen in this universe, human intelligence is a natural, evolutionary process. Therefore, why should we suspect it would be different in any other universe, or with any other life-form? If we can see how human intelligence evolved, why is it unfair to ask how the ultimate intelligence evolved?

Then, there is the question of where god obtained the material to create the universe in which we live. It can’t be a preexisting part of himself. If that is the case, then all of god’s interactions with the universe is no more interesting than a human picking at a scab. To have any meaning, this universe has to be something wholly other from god, something he made, not something he is.

But to make a cake, or a universe, you have to have ingredients. Did god create from nothing, ex nihilo? Then you admit the possibility that matter and energy can come from nothing. If you say we are from god, and god has always been there, then you permit that matter and energy could have always been there. In neither case is a god necessary.

Conclusion: Goodbye Science, Hello, Fiction

Do yourself a favor: Skip the ID debate altogether. If you grant everything the proponents of ID are pushing, you still don’t get anywhere near a being recognizable as the god of the bible: the only designer candidate they actually care about.

Even they will admit that the only thing they are trying to prove is that someone with intelligence designed the universe. Beyond that point, they stop pretending that science has anything to do with their program. They support the principle of inference to the best explanation. They do not claim proof of design. They only claim that it is be best explanation inferred by the evidence. Beyond that point, it is all theology.

It is like an episode of Star Trek. A transporter is loosely based on some undefined scientific principles. But to actually get to a transporter, they have to abandon science, and fully embrace fiction to move the story along. If they didn’t, they would have never gotten the crew to a planet’s surface without landing the shuttle every week. From a production standpoint, that was very expensive. Transporters were cheap.

For the proponents of ID to get to where they actually want to go: the god of the bible, they have to abandon science and enter fiction. Next time I revisit the subject, I will examine some of the plot holes they end up creating in order to tell their story.

David Johnson

Faith: “Help My Unbelief”


Despite the title of this post, I am not actually petitioning aid for my unbelief. I’m well beyond that point. But make no mistake about it: I have vigorously prayed this prayer many times during my first forty years of life as a believer. Alas, that prayer was never answered. My unbelief was not abated by divine intervention. The Line, “Help my unbelief” is from a story in Mark 9. A man is desperate for Jesus to help his dying son. He seemed like a person who would have tried anything, and probably did. He would have tried anything, believed anything. He was desperate and afraid. We’ve all been there.

The line has always captivated me from the moment I first read it as a child. The insertion of this very human moment contradicted everything I thought I understood about faith. It left me hopeful, but hopelessly confused. It seemed to stand in stark contradiction with other passages that required absolute faith. Jesus could do no miracles in his home town because of the lack of faith shown by the people there.

His own disciples could not cast out a particular demon because of their doubts. And they certainly had more faith than anyone else, as they had seen and performed other miracles first-hand. If even a little doubt could render them impotent, what hope did anyone else have?

Yet, here is a man admitting doubt, and yet, got the miracle he was so desperate to receive. How is that even possible. More to the point, if it was possible for him, why shouldn’t it be possible for me. That was my question then, and is my question for believers today.

The Faith of Thomas

One of the 12 that walked with Jesus, Thomas is my hero. Grant it, I don’t believe Thomas was a real person. But in terms of the story as told, he may be my favorite character in all the bible. Why he was singled out as a doubter, I will never know. The storyteller needed a doubter, and Thomas was it. He was declared the doubter because he requested proof that the risen Jesus was who he said he was. Here’s the thing: The other eleven had been given the proof demanded by Thomas in an earlier meeting. Here’s the passage:

On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the disciples had gathered together and locked the doors of the place because they were afraid of the Jewish leaders. Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. Jn. 20:19-20

You will notice that the disciples rejoiced only after they had been convinced by the wounds. Thomas wasn’t with them at the time. When they told him about it, he also insisted on seeing the evidence before being convinced. The story highlights Thomas as a doubter because he held out for the evidence. I’m fine with that. He held out for the evidence. He saw the evidence. And he believed as a result of the evidence.

Even more interesting, Jesus actually gave him the evidence rather than the more typical mercurial answer for which he was known. Not only that, he accepted Thomas’s faith rather than rejecting him as a disciple because of his demand for proof. Of course, Jesus upbraided him for his lack of faith, and made a speech declaring those who believed without evidence were somehow better.

But none of that really matters because the faith of Thomas was apparently sufficient for him to continue as one of Jesus’ 12 representatives. If it was good enough for Thomas, I’ll take it. Except, it seems that option is no longer available. It is either faith without evidence, or nothing.

The Impossible Faith

As I have said many times in other posts about the matter, we do not choose what we believe. We can choose what we want to believe. But when it comes to what we actually believe, we either believe it or we don’t. We can’t skip the builtin mechanisms we have for distinguishing truth from falsehood, muscling past our mental gatekeeper. We can’t short-circuit the pathways to proper belief. Just try as hard as you can to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You simply can’t do it. That is what I call an impossible faith.

What god seems to demand today is an impossible faith. My not believing things that are hard to believe does not make me a bad person. It makes me a properly functioning human. At worst, it makes me Thomas. God does nothing to try and persuade us. He simply demands that we believe. It is a little like demanding that you love someone you never met, and aren’t too sure if that person even exists. Love this person, or die! Believe these propositions sans clarification and proof, or die! It is the mad man who demands that you love him while he holds a gun to your head. I can try to fake it. But I can’t accomplish it. He might as well pull the trigger.

The Price of Grace

I recently wrote a piece called Grace: A Not So Free, Not So Gift. Part of my thesis was that grace is not free because it requires us to do something to reap its benefits. In most formulations, that something is usually faith. It is saved by grace through faith. No faith, no grace. Semantic games cannot change the fact that faith is a payment. The Hebrews writer put it this way:

Now without faith it is impossible to please him, for the one who approaches God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. He. 11:6

There is simply no getting around it. Without faith (to paraphrase the Soup Nazi from Seinfeld), no grace for you! This particular passage highlights two propositions you have to believe. The first is that god exists. It is interesting that the writer of this passage does not automatically assume that everybody knows that god exists, or that there is sufficient evidence for his existence. He lists it as a proposition that one must take on faith. The second is that god rewards those who seek him. I know many Christians who do not believe in heaven, and hold no classical view of eternal reward.

I find the second proposition even more interesting because it seems to be unimportant in the grand scheme of things. Belief in god seems essential enough. But reward? What does it matter if a believer understands the idea of godly rewards? Why not demand belief in the risen Jesus, or blood atonement? Why something as inessential as the belief in reward? This will always be a mystery to me. What I am certain of is that the bible makes faith a prerequisite for receiving the not so free gift of grace.

Conclusion: Help My Disbelief

Christians unquestioningly accept faith as the price of grace. I do not. Why must we believe anything? If you have never asked yourself this, ask now. We don’t actually need faith for any of the laws of physics to work. Gravity, quantum mechanics, and relativity operate as predicted whether or not I understand or believe in them. I don’t have to believe in the benefits of oxygen to draw a breath. Nor do I have to believe that a snake is venomous before it can kill me.

This is true even in interpersonal relationships. If I make the unlikely promise that I will give you a pony, it is not incumbent upon you to believe it. In fact, if you know anything about me, it would show good judgement on your part to completely disbelieve it. The responsibility to deliver your pony is mine, and mine alone. You can disbelieve it all the way up to the point that the pony is in your yard, with all the appropriate papers declaring me the giver and you the owner. My fulfilling my promise does not require your faith.

I have been close enough to death so that I was certain I would die in the hospital, and not live to see another sunrise. I remember closing my eyes having zero faith that I would open them again. Fortunately, my faith was not required, as years later, I’m still here. Many mornings, I wake up a little surprised to have successfully done so.

Faith is meaningless in every practical aspect of our lives. We don’t need faith for a thing to be true, or to receive a gift, or to accomplish the unlikely. One might argue that wishful and positive thinking offers some benefit. But faith is presented as something distinct from hope and positive thinking. While hope may give you some measure of confidence where none is called for, faith will not give you better grades. It will not grow back your thinning hair. It will not keep you from being hit by a drunk driver. It will not add one good day to a bad marriage. It will not keep the repo man from driving off with your car. Faith profits nothing!

But… What if I’m wrong? What if I disbelieve as a result of being born to the wrong family, or in the wrong part of the world? What if I was provided misleading information during my formative years? What if I have a defective gene? What if I am mentally and emotionally incapable of the understanding required for faith? What if any number of things I haven’t even mentioned is keeping me from believing? I am still required to believe in what I clearly cannot.

I have been a seeker, not a finder. I have searched the scriptures multiple times. I have prayed with the fervor of a thousand priest, “I believe! Lord help my disbelief!” Until that prayer is answered, I don’t see the point in any other prayers. What I am left with is what I actually believe and don’t believe. I cannot muscle past the gatekeeper of my better judgement. I will happily take the reward of Thomas based on his evidence-powered faith. I await god’s presentation of the evidence that would persuade me.

David Johnson

Grace- A Not So free, Not So Gift


I listened to a program that featured a Christian and a Mormon debating the concept of grace. The Mormon representative delivered a grace with which I was very familiar, as it exactly mirrored the Church of Christ idea of grace I have known since I was a child. While the debate, itself, wasn’t particularly enlightening, it did get me thinking about the subject.

I am very familiar with the main formulations. I find Calvinism vs. Arminianism debates quite entertaining, and most on point. Listening to people debate Paul vs. James can also be rather enlightening. But the epiphany I had when taking in this particular debate was that I had absolutely no idea what any of it actually meant. The more I study grace, the more nonsensical it seems. I’m not sure how I ever thought I understood it.

Though different groups pour different meanings into the words, everyone seems to agree that grace is a free gift from god to humans. This is the gift of salvation, as without it, everyone would be lost (burn in hell, live eternally without the presence of god, be completely annihilated). Salvation and condemnation are yet more concepts different groups apply different meanings to.

But the more I study grace, it strikes me that it is neither free, nor a gift. And it seldom ends in salvation, whatever that happens to mean. Obviously, I’ve got some unpacking to do:

Free as in Beer

I don’t at all understand the literal imagery of this expression. But I know what it has come to mean. Free as in beer suggests that something is absolutely free with no strings attached. Not only is there no up front payment, there is never any expectations for payment, or even appreciation after the beer is drank. Free as in beer is as free as it gets.

When Christians talk about salvation being a free gift through grace by faith, they seem to have a very different idea of free than I do. Even as a Christian, I always struggled with this one. The formulation I learned is that salvation is the free gift of grace. But you had to receive the gift through certain fulfillment mechanisms.

We were careful not to label those fulfillment mechanisms as works. But we definitely understood that there was something we had to do in order to take possession of the free gift. It is not that we earned the gift in any way. We didn’t. We just had to take possession of the gift. Make no mistake about it: The gift was still free.

Receiving the Gift

One of the quiet scandals of the gameshow: The Price Is Right, is that many winners couldn’t claim their prizes because they couldn’t afford the taxes on those prizes. Yes, the prizes were free. But they still had to pay the California state tax.

A more common example you may have experienced happens when you order something from TV. Often, there is a free gift with your order to incentivize you. When you have a representative on the phone, they tell you that all you have to do to receive the free gift is pay the shipping and handling. Shockingly, that shipping and handling fee is often the real, hidden price of the free gift. No S&H fee, no free gift.

At that point, it becomes a matter of semantics. How much do you have to do before the gift is no longer free? I am reminded of the classic Nigerian scam. Some wealthy royal is escaping from a desperate situation, and needs help moving his substantial cash hoard. He offers to give you a lavish reward if you help. He just needs you to send a small amount of money in U.S. currency for whatever transaction fees he concocts. To receive your free gift, all you have to do is send him a few hundred dollars. What a bargain!

For the sake of argument, let’s pretend that there really is a substantial reward at the end of the deal. It still wasn’t free. You had to pay to get it, just like you have to pay the gameshow and the S&H fees. Semantically, the Christian can say that salvation by grace is free. But the loophole is that you have to do something in order to receive it, to claim your prize. You either have to be baptized so you can come in contact with the cleansing blood, or swear fealty to Jesus, your new king and master, or profess belief in propositions you can’t square with the facts. There is always something that you are expected to do to receive your free gift.

It gets even worse, and more confusing…

The Pearl of Great Price

 “The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure, hidden in a field, that a person found and hid. Then because of joy he went and sold all that he had and bought that field. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant searching for fine pearls. When he found a pearl of great value, he went out and sold everything he had and bought it. Mt. 13: 44-46

I’m not going to pretend that I fully understand these parables. I can only tell you how I understand them based on study, and how they have been taught over the years. The treasure and the pearl represent the kingdom of god. We are meant to be the person who finds these treasures. To truly possess the treasure, it costs us everything we have. These treasures (gifts) are so valuable, no one could possibly pay the true price. To obtain it, you must give (pay) everything you have.

The interesting thing about the gospels is that Jesus never talks about grace. He tells some to keep the law in order to be saved. To others, he says if they love him, they will keep his commandments. Both he and his predecessor required their followers to repent and be baptized to be saved. In the above passage, salvation costs more than belief, repentance, and confession. It costs everything you have and are. That seems like a pretty high price for a free gift.

The Gift that Keeps on Taking

When a gift is not really free, it’s not really a gift. The moment I make a payment to receive it, it is no longer a gift. It is merchandise. I now have a contract that states that when I perform an action, you have to make delivery of your promise. When I pay shipping and handling, the free gift had better show up. Semantics aside, what we have is a two-way contract, not a free gift.

God’s free gift is even more problematic. We can understand why there has to be some kind of fulfillment clause among humans. If I offer every person in the world a dollar, it is reasonable that I require them to send me an SASE. I’m only one person. There isn’t enough time left in my life to address 7 billion envelopes. As humans, we have limits. God does not.

This is where the charade gets just a little bit transparent. God doesn’t have to require us to pay a state tax, or shipping and handling, or provide a self-addressed stamped envelope. We don’t have to seek him, or decide if he is even real. We don’t have to believe in him or trust him. If he wants to give everyone in the world a free gift, he can just do so without drama or fanfare.

If he wanted everyone to be saved, everyone would be saved. There is no need to jump through fulfillment hoops. He requires artificial fulfillment clauses precisely because he does not want to give his pearl of great price away for free. He does not want to give what is holy to the dogs. He wants us to show that we are worthy of the gift for which we can never be worthy. By definition, god has made certain that his gift is not free.

He has also made certain that his gift is not actually a gift. It is not just that we have to pay something to receive it. We also have to go on paying after we have supposedly received it. I say “supposedly” because there is no verifiable, extrinsic, measurable sign that we have received anything other than a good feeling.

We don’t get any added health benefit, as well still get sick and die from the same diseases as everyone else.The lifespan of the believer is not longer or happier than anyone else’s. Their finances are not any more stable. Their marriages are not any more secure. Their kids are not any smarter or obedient. Their parents suffer from the same geriatric issues. There is simply no received gift that can be externally demonstrated.

The big gift is eternal life. Of course, there is no way to verify that gift without first dying. Once dead, there is no coming back to verify the gift for someone else. Your only gift is something that you cannot verify, and is highly doubtful. And for that gift, you are expected to do an awful lot.

A Life of Sacrifice and Self-denial

Jesus tells his disciples they have to take up their cross and follow him. What kind of gift is it that requires the most loyal to carry an instrument of torture and death for the rest of their natural lives? Paul put it this way:

You, however, know all about my teaching, my way of life, my purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, persecutions, sufferings—what kinds of things happened to me in Antioch, Iconium and Lystra, the persecutions I endured. Yet the Lord rescued me from all of them. In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted… 2 Tim. 3:10-13

Paul made a point of his many sufferings so that he could pay it off by saying that every godly wannabe has to likewise suffer. Forgive me if I remain unsold on this gift that is starting to look a lot less like a gift. If my salvation has been completely paid for by the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus, why am I expected to pay through my self-denial and suffering?

There is an even more troubling aspect of this gift. If this grace thing is really a gift, who is the giver, and who, the receiver?

An Eternity of Obedience, Worship, and Devotion

Jesus says that if we love him, we must keep his commandments. Does this ever stop? Will we always have to be subject to his commands even in heaven? Is there ever a time when we can say, “Nope. I think I’d rather do something else”?

One of my secret fears as a child was that I would go to heaven, get conscripted into the choir, and be stuck singing praise anthems to god for the rest of my eternal life. Is there a time when you can duck out of the song-fest and go shoot pool with some of your buddies? In heaven, can you have any conversation other than about how great god is, and how thankful you are to him for his free gift?

If life on earth is any indication, probably not. Once we have taken possession of our free gift, we are to be in a constant state of thanksgiving, prayer, and remorse for our sinfulness. We are never to trust inner own understanding. We are never to plan to do anything without first acknowledging that we can do nothing if it is not god’s will that we do so.

The advice of Ecclesiastes is that we should fear god and keep his commandments. This is the whole duty of man. Paul says that for him to live is Christ. And for him to die is gain. It seems that the only one getting a measurable benefit from the free gift is god.

He gets willing receptacles for his disembodied spirit. He gets us to give him money instead of the other way around. He gets us to volunteer our lives whenever he needs a sacrificial lamb. And he gets an eternity of worship, praise and sycophantic devotion. Even if we do get eternal life in the bargain, it seems god is getting much more. He is not giving us a gift. He is giving us a bill. And we will be paying it for the rest of our natural lives. Count me out!

Conclusion: Candy from Strangers

Why do believers accept this idea of a gift so uncritically? We look gift horses in the mouth everyday. If something seems too good to be true, it probably is. When did we stop believing that? We know about cons and scams. If you believe in cosmic, otherworldly beings, why could there not be cosmic, otherworldly scammers?

The promise of heaven and eternal life in a state of undefined bliss sounds a lot like candy from a stranger. At least then, you get the candy. Religion promises so much more, demonstrates no ability to fulfill it, and requires that you give all that you have to obtain it. Isn’t it reasonable that we ask more information about this god who speaks to us in parables through ancient intermediaries?

As I have already made clear, I don’t understand the grace thing. It is a free gift for which I don’t have to do anything. Yet if I insist on living my own life on my terms, then I don’t qualify for this thing that god so desperately wants me to have. No, I don’t understand it at all. I don’t see how it’s free. And I don’t see how it’s a gift. But even if I did, I don’t believe it!

I don’t believe there is a reward waiting somewhere in outer space for those who live their lives in a particular way. I don’t believe that there is anything beyond the grave. I don’t believe there is a hell from which to be saved. If there is such a hell, I do not believe that the human sacrifice of an ancient, Middle-Eastern man can do anything to help me avoid it.

I don’t believe any of it. There is simply not sufficient evidence for me to do so. It is not that I haven’t tried. But if there is a god who represents a universe where all of these things are true, he knows exactly how to reach me. He knows the kind of evidence that would convince me. If he was interested in saving me, he would not try to do so by the equivalent of offering candy from a stranger.

He intentionally and consistently avoids allowing me to see any evidence that I would find persuasive. He will not do for me what he has supposedly done for so many others. He will not appear to me. He will not talk to me. He will not even give me a hallucination. He will not give me an argument that I can’t easily defeat. He will not give me an unmistakable sign, or even a feeling.

Contrary to the song I sang for so long, his grace most certainly does not reach me. And I suppose that is a good thing. Because like the prizes on the Price Is Right, I couldn’t afford it anyway.

David Johnson