This article is licensed under Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/)
Some claim that the government wasn't founded as officially christian but the country was. Well, I don't see how, when the majority of the "founding fathers" were deists or unitarians, and they included non specific religious language in all of the documents. The "creator" mentioned in the declaration of independence is used in a general way, not favoring any religious belief (or lack thereof), but still acknowledging the fact that a great majority of people were religious. The whole point was freedom for all as spokesman for the National Liberal League, Francis Abbot, said in a letter to senator George F. Edmunds in 1878:
"...Our government is not for christians alone, but also for vast multitudes who are not covered by that name. If the government should allow partiality to christianity, it would compel all to pay homage to a religion which is not the religion of all..." [57].
Besides the many quotes of people who wanted freedom for all, and not just for particular denominations, it would be a violation of the natural rights of anyone who was not christian if this country was turned into a "christian nation." From the beginning of the formation of this country there has been an abundance of religious individuals living here, and not just christians, and certainly there were many who were of no religion, or outright atheists. Trying to turn this into a "christian nation" would be an insult to anyone who was not christian and would ignore the fact that there have always been atheists, or non-believers of various stripes living in the u.s.
Another argument of apologists is that the english translation, done by Joel Barlow, was a distorted version, and the original arabic treaty did not have article 11 in it. Whether or not that's true doesn't do anything to refute the fact that the Barlow translation was the one that was read aloud, shown to all senate members, and even signed by John Adams. There was even a copy of the treaty printed in several widely circulated newspapers, along with the following:
"Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all others citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof."
There is no record of one person objecting to the wording of the treaty. So, regardless if it was a legitimate translation or not, everyone from the president down, agreed that the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion [58]. This fact clearly illustrates the "founders'" intentions.
The separation of church and state is also a relevant factor: No religion was going to dominate in the country, so it would ensure freedom for all religions. The "founders" knew what could happen if one belief system became more dominant. In fact, James Madison, in one of the times he used his veto powers, denied a bill incorporating a church in the District of Columbia because he believed it to violate the separation of church and state [59].
A third argument used by apologists (including Aikman on page 159) is that after 1805 Article 11 was not included in the new treaty. Apologists make it sound as if this fact is significant - as if that wasn't the true intention of the "founders" to include the "not founded on the christian religion" phrase, and was purely for political reasons. The reason Article 11 was no longer included is because recent events made it necessary to rewrite the treaty. As of 1797, the united states had never "entered into any voluntary war or act of hostility against any Mohametan nation," as was stated in Article 11. As of 1805 this was no longer true, so the treaty needed to be revised. It had to be added that the only exception to this had been to defend the right to navigate the high seas. In rewriting the sentence, Tobas Lear left out the phrase "is not in any sense founded on the christian religion." A likely reason Lear left it out was because it was unnecessary, and with what was added to the revised treaty it made the Article too long. This fact doesn't do anything to prove an apologists' case because the intention of Jefferson was to rewrite the treaty with the current situation in mind, and not with trying to prove this was not a christian nation [60]. With no one, even citizens, complaining about the wording of the original treaty, it seems pretty apparent that it was the intention of the "founders" that this was not a "christian nation" (along with all of the other evidence).
Despite Aikman's claims, it was deism and enlightenment ideas, not christianity, that had the most profound impact upon the united states. It was during the enlightenment that Montesquieu formulated the principals of the separation of powers and Rousseau's "social contract," which rested on the (at that time) revolutionary foundation of a general will of the people [61].
One last observation about the "america is founded upon christian principals" claim. I feel as if this wording has been changed from a claim of the "christian nation" to principals because those who would like to distort history can't get away with that silly claim anymore...there is too much counter evidence. But, one thing I've noticed is that no one outlines exactly what christian principals the u.s. was supposedly founded on... even Aikman is silent in his book. Strange isn't it?
Well, you know, on second thought maybe they are right that this country was founded upon christian principals because it's a fact that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, and if my information is correct, DNA evidence proves that Jefferson (most likely) raped one of his slaves and she had his child (For more information, please see http://arizonaatheist.blogspot.com/2008/02/founding-father-exploited-slave-for-sex.html).
Yeah, I know it's a low blow (but a good one!) and it's true if you read the contents of their "holy" bible.
Something Aikman said on page 140 completely blew my mind. He said, "...it is clear from their actions in life and from their writings that the founders were overwhelmingly not deists..."
Here is where Aikman displays his immense ignorance. The "founding fathers" were deists or, at most, unitarians. It just seems that Aikman doesn't know much about deism. Deism has no set creed, no leader, etc., so many times it can be hard to tell who is a deist, but Edward Herbert formulated five general beliefs of deists, though each person is also not restricted to these and some may even reject a few:
1. There is a god
2. He ought to be worshiped
3. Virtue is the principal element in this worship
4. Humans should repent of their sins
5. There is a life after death, where evil will be punished, and the good rewarded [62]
Two quotes from a few clergymen might also help clear things up:
"The deists were never organized into a sect, had no creed or form of worship, recognized no leader, and were constantly shifting their ground...so that it is impossible to include them strictly under any definition."
"Deism is what is left of christianity after casting off everything that is peculiar to it. The deist is one who denies the divinity, the incarnation, and the atonement of christ, and work of the holy ghost; who denies the god of israel, and believes in a god of nature" [63].
With deism being, essentially, a watered down version of christianity without all of the absurd claims I would consider the "founding fathers" to be deists. Thomas Jefferson was identified as a deist as this quote from a critic of Jefferson's proves: "...my objection to [Jefferson's] being promoted to the presidency is founded singly upon his disbelief of the holy scriptures; or in other words, his rejection of the christian religion and open profession of deism" [64].
An even larger blow to this claim is a speech given by Bird Wilson in New York, on October of 1831. Wilson knew each of the men personally and of the "founding fathers'" beliefs he said, "Washington...had not been an orthodox christian; in reality he had really been an eighteenth-century deist. Wilson cited support on this point from clergy who had known Washington and whom he himself knew. Then - in significant words - he went on to state that 'among all our presidents downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than unitarianism" [65].
On page 143 he misunderstands Dawkins, when he quotes a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to his nephew Peter Carr. Aikman claims that "Dawkins implies that by encouraging Carr to question everything, Jefferson himself had come to the conclusion that god doesn't exist."
Sorry, but Dawkins is being misquoted. On page 43 of The God Delusion, after Dawkins cites the letter, he says that "the remarks of Jefferson are compatible with deism but also with atheism." Dawkins also displays caution when he is discussing what Jefferson believed, when he says, "Whether Jefferson and his colleagues were theists, deists, agnostics, or atheists, they were also passionate secularists..."
Dawkins wrote that what Jefferson said could be compatible with either atheism, or deism, and expressed caution when trying to pin down what exactly they believed. That's a bit of a distortion on the part of Aikman.
Other than these few errors, the rest of the chapter's premise is that the "founding fathers" disliked atheism, and felt that christianity was necessary for morality. He claims that out of the many quotations the "founders" used in their writings, 34 percent came from the bible, while only 22 percent from the enlightenment authors [66]. Well, I'd actually call that fairly close, but either way, no matter the "founders'" opinions on religion or morality, they weren't around to see the many studies which I showed earlier that higher rates of atheism lead to a societies' health (See chapter 5), and the fact is that dead men can't bind the living. No matter what these, often times cruel and contradictory, mens' thoughts were it doesn't mean that is the best course for a country - especially men speaking several hundred years ago who have no idea about the bullshit that religion is still causing to this day.
Using Aikman's "logic" I suppose I could also say that because the "founders" didn't include women or blacks in the constitution, and the man basically owned both his wife, any children, and all property, we should go back to that as well just because that's what their opinions were on those issues also.
I also wonder just how accurate those percentages of biblical and enlightenment references are because in Frank Lambert's book, The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America, he says on page 246 that "...the delegates to the Constitutional Convention [of which the "founding fathers" were a part] in Philadelphia appealed primarily to secular, not sacred, authority. An analysis of citations in american political pamphlets and treaties in the late eighteenth century indicates that almost 90 percent of the references are to European writers who wrote on Enlightenment or Whig themes or who commented on the English common law. Only about 10 percent of the citations were biblical, with most of those coming from writings attributed to Saint Paul."
In fact, the Federalist Papers include several mentions of Montesquieu, a famous enlightenment thinker. Alexander Hamilton references Montesquieu in his Federalist Paper number 9 [67]. James Madison also references Montesquieu in his Federalist Paper number 43 [68], and so does Hamilton again in the Federalist Paper number 78 [69]. These are just a few references of Montesquieu throughout the Federalist Papers.
[Note: The following is an additional edit providing more evidence that the percentages Aikman used are false.]
I must also note that it seems that Aikman got his percentages from a chart in Donald S. Lutz's book The Origins of American Constitutionalism (this is just a guess since he doesn't give a source for his information), which included the following chart** on page 141:
Bible 34%
Enlightenment 22%
Whig 18%
Common Law 11%
Classical 9%
Other 6%
** The original photo of the chart can be found in the original PDF version, found here:
http://arizonaatheist.blogspot.com/2009/05/delusion-of-david-aikman-revised-at_16.html
It would seem that this is damning evidence for Aikman's claims, but there is a problem because Aikman doesn't give Lutz's explanation for these percentages.
On page 140 of The Origins of American Constitutionalism Lutz says:
"If we ask which book was most frequently cited in that literature [the public political literature], the answer is, the Bible. Table 1 shows that the biblical tradition accounted for roughly one-third of the citations in the sample. However, the sample includes about one-third of all significant secular publications, but only about one-tenth of the reprinted sermons. Even with this undercount, Saint Paul is cited about as frequently as Montesquieu and Blackstone, the two most-cited secular authors, and Deuteronomy is cited about twice as often as all of Locke's writings put together. A strictly proportional sample with respect to secular and religious sources would have resulted in an abundance of religious references.
About three-fourths of all references to the Bible came from reprinted sermons. The other citations to the Bible came from secular works and, if taken alone, would represent 9 percent of all citations - about equal to the percentage for classical writers. Although the citations came from virtually every part of the bible, Saint Paul was the favorite in the New Testament, especially parts of the Epistle to the Romans in which he discusses the basis for and limits on obedience to political authorities."
So, the three-quarters of that 34% total came from a sub-category of one of the categories of the documents in the study. This would cause the bible (as Lutz explains above) to be knocked down to about nine percent, more in agreement with the figures I cited in Frank Lambert's book, The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America.
In an attempt to make this clearer, allow me to quote Chris Rodda from her Talk2Action article about this issue:
"The 916 documents included in the study were not official documents, legislative proceedings, etc., but writings 'printed for public consumption,' such as books, newspaper articles, and pamphlets. Only items of over 2,000 words were included. Taking into account that three-quarters of the biblical citations came from the subcategory of sermons, which comprised only 10% of the category of pamphlets, the Bible is really in the same range as Classical influences for documents that weren't sermons" [70].
It also seems that Jefferson didn't feel christianity was necessary for morality. Aikman seems to claim that Thomas Jefferson felt religion was necessary for morality when he quotes Jefferson when he replied to a letter from John Adams, in which Adams stated, "Without Religion, this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell." Jefferson is quoted as agreeing with Adams [71].
There is evidence which contradicts this, however:
"David Hume...shaped Jefferson's and Madison's understanding of how people of many faiths, as well as those unaffiliated with any religious tradition, could find a moral center. Jefferson believed that the Creator had endowed all persons with a moral compass, with a 'sense of right and wrong.' Moreover, he regarded this sense as being as 'much a part of his nature as the sense of hearing, seeing, feeling, it is the true foundation of morality.' Such a perspective placed Jefferson and those who shared his viewpoint at odds with orthodox christianity...
Jefferson contended that the conscience, or moral sense, was not only intact; it was as 'much a part of man as his leg or arm'... [Jefferson] believed that while the moral sense was guided by reason, very little thought was required to guide it aright. 'State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor,' he reasoned, and 'the former will decide it as well, and often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules.'" [72]
Another quote of Jefferson's on this subject is the following:
"... If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814. From Adrienne Koch, ed., The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society, New York: George Braziller, 1965, p. 358) [73].
Many of the "founding fathers" did feel that religion was a worthwhile component of a good and moral society, but they didn't feel it was absolutely necessary for a good society. As the above quote suggests, it seems as if Jefferson felt, much like what evolutionary psychology is beginning to understand today, that there is an innate moral sense that influences our decisions. If that's so, then it would also suggest that Jefferson felt that religion is not needed for morality if we all have this moral sense.
Another fact that is relevant here is that all of the founding documents, like any other legal document, use language which is supposed to bind certain individuals to an agreement. There is no such language in the constitution binding future generations to that agreement, and so we can create whatever kind of place that we wanted (Please see http://arizonaatheist.blogspot.com/2008/01/constitution.html). And for anyone who thinks this means someone can create a theocracy if they wanted, I would not agree. No one can hold power over us unless it's by our permission, and because of that, I don't see how that would happen - unless religious fundamentalists used force as in the past and made us comply, but this is where the idea of self defense would come in. Using some form of coercion to force people to follow your way is opposite of anything that a normal person would consider moral, and from reading about the "founding fathers," it seems to me that they were all for total freedom as long as someone did not interfere in another's life (with some obvious restrictions of course - as I mentioned before, only white men had any real rights in early america).
On pages 157-159 Aikman mentions the Treaty of Tripoli and uses the same apologist excuse that I anticipated someone might use (damn I'm good!) and so I've refuted that claim already.
Conclusion: The New Atheism Offers Nothing New
Before I begin to tear up this chapter, I'd like to say that this statement is extremely hypocritical because religion offers nothing new whatsoever! Yes, it's true that these same arguments - on both sides - are pretty much the same, but what the atheists have is science on their side, which constantly updates its facts and expands our knowledge. Religion does neither. Since the time of the "founders" of the country (and many others) expressed their religious beliefs, there has been massive amounts of new scientific data that exposes religion to be the false, dogmatic, and oftentimes harmful left-over from the human species' past. Now that I've got that out of the way I'll get to what Aikman has to say in this chapter.
Essentially, this chapter consisted of Aikman trying to make a case that christianity is the source for almost everything good, while atheism leads to immorality, uncertainty, and violence. I won't deny that christianity has done some good things throughout the world, but I think it's absolutely naive and, well, just plain idiotic to give credit to christianity to all that Aikman does. To me, and I've stated this in the past, christianity can be compared to a man who has been guilty of murdering one-hundred people, but to his credit, has also saved five. Now, all things considered, would a rational person see this person as 'good?' No. So, how in the hell can someone say that christianity is a good thing in the world when the bad clearly outweighs the good? It's just not logical.
He goes through several pages giving examples of 'immoral' atheists like Madalyn Murray O'Hair and Annie Besant, airing their dirty laundry, making it sound as if all atheists are immoral, slutty, evil people. He says of Madalyn Murray O'Hair:
"...O'Hair was an exceptionally hateful person who made no attempt to conceal her anger and hostility towards anyone who opposed her...views..." [74].
He says this because of her son, who later became "born again." However, it must be said that O'Hair received hundreds of death threats throughout her life from christians, so the fact that her son became one obviously upset her, and explains her hostility.
Of Besant, Aikman insults her for her supposedly having multiple sexual partners:
"Annie Besant was something of an archetypical hitchhiker through the anti-god universe, picking up and discarding beliefs with the same frequency with which she took on new lovers" [75].
Next, he takes us on a tour on the bus of delusion, and restates his claims about how christianity forms the basis of morality and freedom, which is a completely silly statement. On page 178, after going through several pages detailing the immorality and vices of various atheists throughout history, Aikman claims, "A link has indeed existed throughout modern history between conscious rejection of moral restraint and atheism." Of course, as I'm about to prove, this statement is very inaccurate.
Aikman leaves a lot of facts out of his book though. Here is a list of unbelievers of various stripes throughout history who have had positive impacts upon the world, or have contributed to society in some way.
1. Thomas Edison - He invented the carbon microphone, record player, incandescent lamp, among many useful things [76].
2. Susan B. Anthony - She was a major leader in getting women rights over their children, control of property, and over wages. She also supported the abolition movement [77].
3. Warren Buffett - He donated 37 billion dollars to charity [78].
4. Bill Gates - He donated 30 billion dollars to charity [79].
5. Terry Sanderson - He is a gay rights activist [80].
6. Deng Pufang - He is a Chinese handicap people's rights activist [81].
7. Norma Kitson - She was a South African anti-apartheid activist [82].
8. Klas Pontus Arnoldson - Even though not a wealthy man, he spent most of his money in the cause of peace. He opposed the war with Norway in 1906. In 1908 he was Nobel Peace Prize [83].
9. James Watt - He was the inventor of the improved stream engine; he also coined the term "horsepower," and the unit of electrical power (watt) is named after him [84].
10. Alexander Graham Bell - He invented the telephone and devices directed to the needs of the deaf [85].
11. George Pullman - He invented the railroad sleeping car and also introduced dining cars [86].
12. Frederick Douglass - A former slave, he became an american abolitionist activist [87].
13. William Lloyd Garrison - He founded the Liberator, in 1831, which helped to organize the American Anti-Slavery Society [88].
14. Wendell Phillips - He worked for social reforms, prohibition of liquor, women suffrage, abolition of capital punishment, labor rights, and was a delegate to the World Anti-Slavery Convention [89].
15. Elisabeth Cady Stanton - She was a leader of the woman suffrage movement [90].
16. Emily Jennings Stowe - She was a canadian leader for womens' rights, and founded canada's first woman suffrage society [91].
17. Elizur Wright - He was a secretary of the Anti-Slavery Society and was editor of the Abolitionist [92].
18. Louis Pasteur - He is best known for his remarkable breakthroughs in the causes and prevention of disease. His experiments supported the germ theory of disease, also reducing mortality from puerperal fever (childbed), and he created the first vaccine for rabies. He was best known to the general public for inventing a method to stop milk and wine from causing sickness - this process came to be called pasteurization [93].
19. Ivor Jennings - He was vice-president of the National Council for Civil Liberties [94].
20. Hippocrates - The greek physician who is considered to be the "father of medicine" [95].
These 20 men and women (which is by no means anywhere close to an exhaustive list of freethinkers) who contributed - in some cases immensely - to modern society should not be overlooked simply because they doubted, or outright did not believe in, god or christianity.
There are also studies which seem to prove that nonreligious individuals are just as, if not more, moral than religious individuals.
"In 1934, Abraham Franzblau found a negative correlation between acceptance of religious
beliefs and three different measures of honesty. As religiosity increased, honesty decreased.
In 1950, Murray Ross conducted a survey among 2,000 associates of the YMCA and discovered that agnostics and atheists were more likely to express their willingness to aid the poor than those who rated themselves as deeply religious.
In 1969, sociologists Travis Hirschi and Rodney Stark reported no difference in the self-reported likelihood to commit crimes between children who attended church regularly and those who did not.
In 1975, Ronald Smith, Gregory Wheeler, and Edward Diener discovered that college-aged students in religious schools were no less likely to cheat on a test than their atheist and agnostic counterparts in nonreligious schools.
In 1996 George Barna, a born-again Evangelical Christian, in his Index of Leading Spiritual Indicators, based on interviews with nearly 4,000 adult Americans, revealed: 'Born again Christians continue to have a higher likelihood of getting divorced than do non-Christians.' And: 'Atheists are less likely to get divorced than are born-again Christians.' Barna found that the current divorce rate for born-again Christians is 27 percent, while it is only 24 percent for non-Christians. In addition, the Baby Boomers -- that generation often criticized for sexualindulgence and moral relativism -- has a lower rate of divorce (34 percent) than the preceding generation (portrayed in popular culture as the idealized 1950's Ozzie and Harriet family), who hover at 37 percent.
Five years later, in a 2001 survey, Barna found that '33 percent of all born again individuals who have been married have gone through a divorce, which is statistically identical to the 34 percent
incidence among non-born again adults.'
The July/August 2007 issue of the Annals of Family Medicine published the results of a study conducted by researchers from the University of Chicago and Yale New Haven Hospital that religious doctors were no more likely (and even slightly less likely) to employ their craft among underserved patients than were physicians with no religious affiliation. Specifically, Farr Curlin, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Chicago and his colleagues surveyed 1,820 practicing physicians from all specialties: 31% of physicians who were more religious practiced medicine among the underserved, compared to 35% of atheist, agnostic, and nonreligious doctors. Religiosity was measured by religious service attendance and self-reported 'intrinsic religiosity' questions that measured the extent to which individuals embrace their religion as the 'master motive that guides and gives meaning to their life.' Curlin noted his own response to the data:
'This came as both a surprise and a disappointment. The Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist scriptures all urge physicians to care for the poor, and the great majority of religious physicians describe their practice of medicine as a calling. Yet we found that religious physicians were not more likely to report practice among the underserved than their secular colleagues'" [96].
Starting on page 185 Aikman lists some people whose lives have been changed due to their "conversion," "coming to the faith," or whatever you'd like to call it - as if these peoples' personal experiences validate the supposed truth of christianity at all.
Aikman claims, using Thomas Kuhn as his source, that "the real reason scientists prefer a new theory to an old one is not the persuasiveness of the new hypothesis backed by testable evidence, but because the new theory is, well, more appealing aesthetically. In other words, scientists no longer investigate material reality as though there is a logical thread connecting old theories and discoveries to new ones, but out of rather arbitrary reasons" [97].
Of course, this means nothing since it's backed by no evidence, and thus, is nothing more than an argument from authority. The fact is that each scientific theory is backed by evidence and that's that. It might not be what some people want to hear, but truth is truth. Another fact is that science deals with only the material because that's all that's been observed! I've debunked this claim in the past, but that pretty much sums up why science gives no real credit to the supernatural. No proof, so why should anyone take anything seriously that's only backed by appeals to the immaterial? No one has even proven the immaterial in the first place!
Appendix: The Four Horseman and the Bible
This chapter has Aikman attempting to refute the many claims about the bible's historical and scriptural accuracy made by the "new atheists." He begins with talking about the ten commandments and how "the consensus of biblical scholars is that the ten commandments and other stipulations of the mosaic law were part of a covenant ratification ceremony that, to a high degree, mimicked what is known about suzerain-vassal treaties describing mutual legal obligations in the ancient near east" [98].
A few sentences later Aikman says, "But what is beyond dispute is the fact that both the ancient and the modern worlds offer up abundant examples of serious moral confusion for which Harris and Hitchens seem to assume that universal human consensus exists about what is right and what is wrong."
I don't really see how this refutes anything that the "new atheists" say about the ten commandments. Aikman claims that the "new atheists" say everyone everywhere should have some consensus about what is right and wrong, but I think that's a bit of a strawman argument because yes there is research that shows certain universal moral decisions are made by many people, but that doesn't mean that there is no longer confusion. It's just a fact that some have different ideas about what is moral and what isn't.
I would say there is consensus universally that it's wrong to steal, to kill, etc., and many of these things are reflected in many of the earliest attempts at writing down a set legal code, such as the code of hammurabi and the ten commandments. In fact, the code of hammurabi and the ten commandments have some similar laws, and some of the laws that are in the code of hammurabi are also found in the bible. Laws against theft, which the punishment is death; slavery is allowed and has laws regulating its practice. Laws against adultery are also found, and the law # 195 in the code of hammurabi says, "If a son strike his father, his hands shall be hewn off" [99]. This sounds similar to another unnecessary punishment that is in the bible: Deuteronomy 21:18-21, which says, "If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard. Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death." (NIV)
The main problem, though some atheists use various arguments, is that there is nothing special about the ten commandments. Many of the laws were borrowed from other sources (possibly the code of hammurabi for example), and half of them are pointless religious dogma about not worshiping other gods and other religious nonsense.
Aikman talks about the new testament next and says that the following arguments by the "new atheists" are false:
1. all the gospels were written so long after jesus died that they cannot be considered reliable, and in any case, they contradict one another,especially in regard to the genealogy of jesus and the virgin birth
2.apart from the point raised above, the gospels in general are not reliable accounts of what happened
3. none of the gospel writers knew jesus personally, nor are their identities even known
4. the translation of the hebrew word almah as "virgin" is incorrect (as in "a virgin shall be with child")
5. jesus never claimed to be divine
6. the gospels differ in their accounts of the resurrection of jesus
After he lists the various claims made by the "new atheists" Aikman states that, "[a]t one level, most of these assertions could be dismissed with the flick of a rhetorical fly whisk: not one of the 'four horsemen' seems to have any detailed understanding of either christianity or of new testament criticism. The only biblical critic cited as an authority for his attempts to debunk the authenticity of the new testament is Bart Ehrman..." [100].
That's pretty presumptuous of him because even though the "new atheists" aren't biblical scholars, they cite a few well schooled scholars for their evidence, such as Bart Ehrman. Other biblical scholars whose opinions coincide with Ehrman's are Robert M. Price and Earl Doherty, among others. Personally, I've referenced John W. Loftus and Randel McCraw Helms in some of my writings. All these men have legitimate credentials, and some have even studied with well known christian apologists, such as William Lane Craig (in the case of Loftus), so I wouldn't simply dismiss their criticisms like Aikman seems to do.
It's also hypocritical of Aikman to say that the "new atheists" can't cite experts because Aikman's entire eighth chapter has been written using other biblical scholars for his counter claims! So, according to Aikman I could just say that his 'assertions could be dismissed with the flick of a rhetorical fly whisk,' but I won't, because I know I can prove him wrong.
He gives a brief biography about Ehrman and how he "starts from the premise that none of scripture is truthful" [101]. That's, for the most part, accurate but Ehrman says that because we don't have access to the original manuscripts we cannot know for certain what was originally written, though Ehrman doesn't seem so pessimistic when he says the following in his book Misquoting Jesus, on page 210:
"A number of scholars - for reasons we saw in chapter 2 - have even given up thinking that it makes sense to talk about the 'original' text.
I personally think that opinion may be going too far. I do not mean to deny that there are difficulties that may be insurmountable in reconstructing the originals...all of these manuscripts were copied from other, earlier manuscripts, which were themselves copied from earlier manuscripts; and the chain of transmission has to end somewhere, ultimately at a manuscript produced either by an author or by a secretarial scribe who was producing the 'autograph' - the first in the long line of manuscripts that were copied for nearly fifteen centuries..."
Seems to me, with this quote from Ehrman's book, that he doesn't think that it's impossible to get back to the originals, it's just that it can be extremely difficult, and in some cases impossible with some parts of the bible. But he doesn't seem as pessimistic as Aikman makes it sound.
Aikman next begins with his attempts at debunking various claims about the bible which he outlined previously:
1. all the gospels were written so long after jesus died that they cannot be considered reliable, and in any case, they contradict one another, especially in regard to the genealogy of jesus and the virgin birth.
Aikman's rebuttal:
He basically claims that because there are more manuscripts of the bible than any other ancient work, such as Gallic Wars, people should accept that there is more than enough information to obtain much of the original wording of the bible.
Just because there are many copies of many books of the bible, doesn't mean they are accurate to begin with. This argument isn't a very good one.
2. and 3. The gospels in general are not reliable accounts of what happened and none of the gospel writers knew jesus personally, nor are their identities even known.
Aikman's rebuttal:
Aiman's claim is absurd. He claims that "[e]arly church tradition...ought to count for something in the history of christianity..." and states that because it's tradition, it can be counted on as reliable. He is really stretching it this time. He has no evidence whatsoever that any of the writers knew jesus and according to some biblical scholars, such as Randel McCraw Helms, no one even knows who wrote the gospels at all.
As for the claim that none of the accounts are reliable, Aikman didn't even answer that objection. All he said is that many archaeological discoveries have revealed that many of the places mentioned in the bible are real, so that qualifies as "proof" that the stories are true. That line of "reasoning" is about as good as me trying to claim that the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are real because there is a place called New York in real life.
4. The translation of the hebrew word almah as "virgin" is incorrect (as in "a virgin shall be with child")
Aikman's rebuttal:
He says that, overall, the atheists are right, but"[i]n the overwhelming majority of usages of almah in the old testament, however, it clearly designates a woman who as not been married and was, according to the norms of the time, by definition a virgin" [102]. Even if that was true (maybe it is, maybe it's not) it does nothing to prove that a virgin got pregnant and gave birth.
5. jesus never claimed to be divine
I won't even bother to go over this one because theologians can't even prove a jesus existed. I'm not going to waste my time trying to refute something that they can't even prove was real to begin with.
6. The gospels differ in their accounts of the resurrection of jesus.
Aikman's rebuttal:
Basically he claims that one, there are many things in each of the accounts that are the same; second, he says that the tomb was empty, and so something had to have happened to the body; and third, he claims the stories were not products of a legend, because "legends usually require at least one to two generations to bring to life" [103].
These arguments are pathetic. First, yes there are several similarities but there are many more discrepancies:
What time did the women visit the tomb?
* Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)
* Mark: "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)
* Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)
* John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)
Who were the women?
* Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
* Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
* Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
* John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)
What was their purpose?
* Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
* Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
* Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
* John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)
Was the tomb open when they arrived?
* Matthew: No (28:2)
* Mark: Yes (16:4)
* Luke: Yes (24:2)
* John: Yes (20:1)
Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
* Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
* Mark: One young man (16:5)
* Luke: Two men (24:4)
* John: Two angels (20:12)
Where were these messengers situated?
* Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
* Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
* Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
* John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)
What did the messenger(s) say?
* Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7)
* Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:6-7)
* Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7)
* John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13)
Did the women tell what happened?
* Matthew: Yes (28:8)
* Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8)
* Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)
* John: Yes (20:18)
When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?
* Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
* Mark: Yes (16:10,11)
* Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)
* John: No (20:2)
When did Mary first see Jesus?
* Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)
* Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10)
* John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)
Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?
* Matthew: Yes (28:9)
* John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)
After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?
* Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)
* Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14)
* Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)
* John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)
* Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)
Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?
* Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17)
* Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at meat" (16:12,14)
* Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36)
* John: In a room, at evening (20:19)
Did the disciples believe the two men?
* Mark: No (16:13)
* Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)
What happened at the appearance?
* Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)
* Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19)
* Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)
* John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them, no reprimand (21:19-23)
Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?
* Mark: No (16:19) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday
* Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
* John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
* Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)
Where did the ascension take place?
* Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee
* Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19)
* Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
* John: No ascension
* Paul: No ascension
* Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12) [104]
Aikman states that because there was an empty tomb, something must have happened. Well, if you accept that the gospels and the legends are true, it would make sense, but Aikman is making a huge assumption if he does that. If jesus was crucified a more logical explanation would be that someone stole the body, but given that there is no evidence outside of the bible that any of this happened, this line of argumentation is pointless.
I'm currently a 29 year old atheist/anarchist who maintains a blog dedicated to truth and freedom. I've made it my duty to root out error and deception regarding politics and religion. I'm outspoken, hard hitting, and I care passionately about the truth, and when I find it I'm not afraid to spread it, no matter what it is.
To view more hard hitting articles, please visit my blog.
All articles are free to be redistributed as long as it remains unmodified from the original and they attribute the work to the author ('Arizona Atheist') and/or provide a direct link to the original article.
Author RSS Views:
Print this article
Ask about this article