What if I stumble? Arguing against Christianity from the lives of Christians

Posted on 08/07/12 18 Comments

A few years ago I had an interesting conversation with a couple Jehovah’s Witnesses who came to my door. After a few minutes they realized I was not going to be as easy to b-p-t (biblical proof-text) into submission as the typical mark, and so they suddenly switched tactics. “Do you know,” one of them said, “that the Jehovah’s Witnesses are the only group that refused to submit to the Nazis in Germany during World War 2?”

“I don’t know if that is true or not,” I replied, “but even if it was, it wouldn’t make Jehovah’s Witness more likely to be true.”

Or would it?

And if I’m wrong and the moral lives of Jehovah’s Witnesses does make their faith more likely to be true, does that mean that the failure of adherents to this faith to live morally makes their faith less likely to be true?

Bad Christians = unbelievable Christianity?

Jeffrey Jay Lowder explores these kinds of questions in “Are Christians the best argument against Christianity?” when he considers the claim of “The Confident Christian” that Christians are the best argument against Christianity.

Lowder wants to know whether this might be true. Of course, he observes, much depends on what we mean by “best”. Lowder is not sure this is true if we’re talkin’ ”the argument with the most evidential strength,” but he is open to the possibility if we mean “the argument with the most emotional or rhetorical appeal”. Lowder closes by inviting the reflections of others. I’m taking him up on that offer, albeit on my home turf where there is more room to stretch.

Spotting a Christian by their love

Let’s start with this statement from Jesus in John 13:34-35:

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

Should we take Jesus to be offering a formal criterion for the identification of his disciples? I think not, for it would suggest that the only way a person could learn somebody is a disciple of Jesus is through inductive or abductive inference after witnessing the way the person lives over an extended period of time. This would, among other things, preclude the possiblity that a person could learn another person is a disciple of Jesus through good old direct testimony as in ”Hi,, my name’s Bill and I’m a disciple of Jesus.” And that seems rather, er, implausible.

The argument from the meager fruits of theism?

Let’s consider what Lowder calls “The argument from the meager moral fruits of theism.” This is how Lowder summarizes this argument from Paul Draper:

“The moral fruits of theism are meager at best: theists do not seem to live more moral lives than atheists. Neither church history nor Draper’s personal experience support the claim that theists are morally superior to atheists. On the assumption that theism is true, one has reason to believe that theistic belief has significant moral fruits, that worshipping God is a source of moral strength. Thus, on the assumption of theism, the fact that theists do not seem to live more moral lives than atheists is surprising. On the assumption that atheism is true, however, this is not surprising. On atheism, believing in God would not make people morally better.”

Lowder does not endorse this argument explicitly because he thinks we have insufficient data to establish that belief in God has meager moral fruit. This is certainly true, but there is another rather glaring problem with the argument. According to Christian teaching, the demons believe in God too (James 2:19), but demons are not known for their moral fruit (unless we’re talking about stinking durians). So no, Christian should not think that merely believing in God is a sufficient criterion to ensure any increase in moral living.

Add to this the frequent warnings in the New Testament that people who are not true disciples are intermingled in Christian communities (e.g. Matthew 25:21-46; 2 Corinthians 13:5; 1 John 2:19) and the argument is left for dead. After all, you can always argue that the indistinctive moral living of any select group of Christians is evidence not against Christianity but rather against the assumption that these particular individuals are genuine disciples of Jesus. (You know Chesterton’s old saying: Christianity has not been tried and found wanting. It’s been found difficult and left untried.)

How about Hortatory?

Now let’s wrap this up. Consider the opening statement from this old DC Talk song “What if I Stumble“. According to the statement:

“The single greatest cause of atheism in the world today is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips then walk out the door and deny him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.”

Does DC Talk really intend here to make a formal claim about what makes most atheists be atheists? Perhaps. But I think there is a more plausible way to interpret statements like this if we switch to the genre of hortatory, a mode of speech that seeks to inculcate some particular kind of action in the individuals at which it is directed. If we interpret DC Talk’s claim as hyperbolic hortatory then we can see them attempting to spur Christians on to moral living rather than making a literal description of the source of most unbelief.

http://www.retheology.net/ Jared Miller

It’s actually a quote from Brennan Manning, but more to the point the argument (at least anecdotally) follows that the epistemologically Christianity and its claims may not be affected by the actions of its adherents, but the desire to self identify with a group is hampered by such claims.

A couple of years ago the mayor of the town I grew up in in Nova Scotia refused to fly a rainbow flag on Town Hall for Pride Week, and the story was picked up by the national news. The comments made in the online editions of the Globe and Mail were akin to those made by atheists who tout Christianity’s darker moments as evidence for the abandonment of the faith. Anecdotes may not have any place in purely rational discourse or science, but they still hold sway.
http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

One of the most compelling things about the life of Jesus of Nazareth is that he practiced what he preached. Or was it that he preached what he practiced? So harmonious were the two that it’s not easy to tell which led the other. In any case, they were inextricably tied together. Moreover, the moral excellence implied by his conduct, and made explicit by his teaching, were so elevated when compared to typical human behavior that even unbelievers will usually admit being impressed even if not won over.
- Raymond Ingles
  
  Mark 11:11-14, Mark 11:20-22. Comes across as awfully petty.
  - http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt
    
    Note that I qualified my statement with “usually.”
    
    By the way, how do you conclude that he was petty without believing Mark’s account?
    - Raymond Ingles
      
      There are a couple of possibilities. If it’s true, as I said, it still “comes across as petty”. If Jesus took credit for a natural phenomenon, he comes across as dishonest and petty. If it’s an exaggeration of some more mundane coincidence (note that, in Matthew, considered a later Gospel, the fig tree takes considerably less than a day to die – what if in reality the tree took a few weeks to die?) then Jesus comes across as a petty fictional or fictionalized character – like Flashman, or Sir Thomas More in Wolf Hall.
      
      All told, I figure it’s apocryphal or at most an exaggerated coincidence. But as presented, it’s still petty. And that leaves aside Jesus’ obvious (portrayed) relish in the punishment of sinners. As Bertrand Russell put it, “Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching — an attitude which is not uncommon with preachers, but which does somewhat detract from superlative excellence. You do not, for instance find that attitude in Socrates.”
      - http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt
        
        It’s amazing how inventive a human mind can be when called into service by the will. That is, rejection of Jesus Christ is the common theme of the variety of possible explanations you are prepared to believe.
        
        A better example of pettiness would be selecting a small enigmatic incident from a larger and much more defining narrative, giving that incident a negative and ill-founded spin, and then using that mischaracterization to rob a person of reputation that the person’s virtue has rightly earned.
        
        Raymond Ingles
        
        It’s always amazing the rationalizations the human mind will gyrate through trying to convince itself it might escape death.
        
        See, I can play what C.S. Lewis called “The Motive Game” too! We just covered this a few days ago: http://randalrauser.com/2012/08/can-you-be-expected-to-love-somebody-who-might-not-exist/#disqus_thread
        
        You can’t address someone’s motives until you answer their arguments. (“If you find my
        arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about
        my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my
        arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came
        to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of the concealed wish will become
        relevant – but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered
        me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds.”)
        
        As Lewis said, “I decline the motive game and resume the discussion.”
        
        http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt
        
        You argued that Jesus could be considered petty even if the account were not true by assuming that the aspects from which you inferred pettiness were true while the others were not. I don’t find that a particularly compelling argument.
        
        “Bob told George about an unusual incident regarding Jason. George concluded from this incident that Jason was petty. I asked George if he believed the story Bob had told him. George replied, “Only in part; I believe the parts that indicate Jason was petty without believing the parts that might indicate Jason was something better than that.”
        
        Raymond Ingles
        
        No, I argued that if it were not true, the character of Jesus as portrayed in a fictionalized account could be considered petty. Just as Thomas More the historical individual was (relatively) merciful while Thomas More the character in Wolf Hall is obsessed with persecuting heretics.
        
        http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt
        
        Even as a fictionalized account, I struggle to see how “pettiness” could be a natural takeaway.
        
        In addition to the rationale Randal offered in his subsequent post, I would view this incident as a timely reminder to his disciples that the torture and death he was about to undergo was in no way a reflection of his inability to resist them had he chosen to do so.
        
        Raymond Ingles
        
        As to the “small enigmatic incident”, let me point out that when you’re claiming Jesus’ perfection, even small incidents matter. And I’ll reiterate that the whole ‘hell’ thing is more than a small matter.
        
        Betrand Russell pointed out areas where, say, Socrates exceeded Jesus in temperance. As to Jesus’ moral teachings, I’m not so impressed as all that. To appropriate Samuel Johnson, I’d have to say they were “both good and original. But the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good.”
        
        Since Randal’s started a whole thread about it, we can continue there.
        
        http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt
        
        Actually, I didn’t say that Jesus was perfect but rather that “his moral excellence was so elevated when compared to typical human behavior” that it usually provokes an admiring comment even from unbelievers. By instead censuring Jesus as “petty,” you apparently one who takes delight by being in small company.
        
        Raymond Ingles
        
        And I didn’t say that there was nothing to admire about Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels. But what’s good is not unique to Jesus, and what’s unique to Jesus ranges from ‘indifferent’ to ‘petty’ to ‘vindictive’.
        
        http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt
        
        I said that even unbelievers usually have something positive to say about Jesus’ morality. Perhaps you are doing so belatedly. You should ask yourself, though, why you felt compelled to step up quickly in that context to say that he came across to you as “petty?”
        
        Raymond Ingles
        
        Because the apologists I’ve run into tend to do a quick hop-skip-and-a-jump from ‘admirable’ to ‘perfect’ to ‘God’, of course. I’m trying to point out the distance is a bit far for that.
        
        http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt
        
        They’re only wanting to save you time. But if you don’t want to go on the journey at all, saving time is not an interest.
        
        http://www.randalrauser.com/ Randal Rauser
        
        Bertrand Russell is not a reliable guide to what “aionios” means in a passage like Matthew 25:41 and 46. I don’t think Jesus taught eternal conscious torment at all.
        
        As for your Samuel Johnson quip, it is true that some people have balked at the Sermon on the Mount. How could adultery of will or murder of will be as bad in God’s eyes as the actual act?
        
        Countless others however, and I certainly count myself among them, find this to be an enormously sublime teaching that gets at the heart of the moral life. In this sermon Jesus exposes the modern ethical fixation on external acts to have effectively placed the cart before the horse, and he’s right.
        
        So should I be troubled by the fact that you don’t find this teaching to be sublime and illuminating? We might answer the question with a question. Should the superfan of Rush be troubled when the superfan of AC/DC says that Rush’s music is lame?
        
        Raymond Ingles
        
        I was responding to Mike here, not you, Randal. I’m simply pointing out that it’s possible to have different estimations of Jesus’ “moral excellence”. And Russel’s point about hell involves both the existence of it and dwelling upon the fate of those who wind up there with evident relish (e.g. Luke 19:27).