Jesus Did Not Die For Your Sins
Jesus Did Not Die For Your Sins
By August Berkshire
(This essay is available as a downloadable tri-pane PDF pamphlet
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
– John 3:16 (NIV)
According to Christians, all humans are “sinners” who need to be forgiven. Christians further believe that the Biblical character of Jesus is a savior who died for our sins. Those who are not “saved” by Jesus are presumably destined for eternal suffering in Hell.
This raises the following questions: What are these sins? Who are these sins committed against? Who should do the forgiving? Who should suffer the punishment? And, in what way does Jesus save us?
Sinful Human Nature
The first category of sin would be what Christians claim is the inherent sinful nature of humans. The sin we are born with – called “original sin” – requires baptism to “wash away our sin.” Yet even after this, our sinful nature continues, and so we are supposedly in need of a savior.
But if the god who supposedly created us was dissatisfied with his creation, he should have started over and kept trying until he got it the way he wanted. (In fact, why didn’t he get it right in the first place?) For this god not to do this shows that he is either incompetent or cruel (creating beings, some of which he knows are destined for eternal punishment in Hell).
Humans Sinning Against Humans
The second category of sin would be the willful harm humans do to each other. But such harm can only properly be forgiven by the person who has been injured, not by a third-party savior (or a priest acting on behalf of that savior).
And if a punishment is appropriate, it is unjust for anyone but the person committing the harm to suffer the penalty. It is unethical for a third-party savior to suffer for the sins of others, just as it would be unethical for any of us to go to prison for crimes committed by someone else.
Thus no divine third-party savior is needed for forgiveness or to suffer a penalty.
While a god might be disappointed in our behavior towards each other, this god is not harmed by it, nor should this god send a savior to suffer for it.
Humans Sinning Against A God
A third category of sin, according to Christians, are sins that humans commit against the Biblical god.
No one claims that the Christian god Yahweh has ever been physically injured by humans. And the only physical harm alleged against the Christian god Jesus was during the story of his crucifixion, and the people who supposedly committed that act are long dead.
Thus the only way we might be able to harm a Christian god today would be by causing this god mental anguish.
(However, it should be noted that it is not possible for an all-powerful god to experience mental anguish unless he himself allows it.)
If this god’s mental anguish is caused by humans harming each other, then, as stated previously, the only being who can properly bestow forgiveness is the human who has been harmed. While a god might be disappointed in our behavior towards each other, this god not harmed by it.
However, if this god’s mental anguish is caused by humans failing to believe in this god’s existence, then that is easily remedied by this all-powerful god revealing himself in a convincing way. If this god fails to do this, then he has no one but himself to blame for any mental anguish caused by people not believing in his existence. To blame humans is to blame the victim, which is unethical.
If this god’s mental anguish is caused by humans failing to have proper gratitude for his goodness, then this god must first demonstrate that there is something good in life that would not be possible without him. And, the proper punishment for not appreciating something good is the removal of that thing, not eternal torture.
Furthermore, this god must also explain the existence of natural evil – why he, as an all-powerful, all-loving god, allows it to happen. And, if he can’t explain the problem of evil, then this god should ask us for forgiveness.
Finally, it should be mentioned that thought-crime should not be a sin because it harms no one and we cannot help what thoughts come into our head, nor are we always successful at banishing them.
Does Jesus Save Us?
In order to be “saved” you have to be “saved” from something. You have to be in danger of something bad happening to you.
According to Christians, what happens if our sins are not forgiven by the Biblical god? What happens if Jesus does not “save” us? The answer is that we go to Hell forever.
Who makes the determination of whether or not we go to Hell? It is obviously the Christian god, since no human in his or her right mind would send himself or herself to Hell. (We don’t even know the directions to get there, wherever it is.)
In the Bible, sacrifices are made to a god to try to please him. For example, “Then burn the entire ram on the altar. It is a burnt offering to the LORD, a pleasing aroma, a food offering presented to the LORD.” (Exodus 29:18, NIV)
If Jesus’ death was a “sacrifice,” it was a sacrifice to God. In fact, Jesus is sometimes referred to as the “lamb of God”: “The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, ‘Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!’ ” (John 1:29, NIV)
It is claimed that Christianity is a monotheistic religion, so there must be at least some sense in which Yahweh in the Old Testament and Jesus in the New Testament are the same god.
Putting all of the above elements together, we can reach the following conclusion: God sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself.
Jesus’ “Sacrifice”
While it might make sense for a god to punish humans for harm they cause each other – if no human authority is able to do it – it makes no sense for a god to punish an innocent third-party savior for the misdeeds of humans.
Thus the sacrifice of Jesus makes no sense. It violates justice to have an innocent person pay a penalty for a guilty person. And if an all-powerful god doesn’t want to send us to Hell, he can presumably stop himself from sending us there.
If the Biblical god wanted to forgive us for something, he could simply have done it. No savior needed to die in order to accomplish this. If one chooses a more difficult way than is necessary in order to accomplish a task, then, by definition, it is not a sacrifice.
For Jesus to have suffered and died for humanity, when it wasn’t necessary, makes Yahweh a sadist and Jesus either a masochist or an innocent victim. So Jesus deserves either our scorn or our pity, but not our gratitude.
But while Jesus’ suffering makes no logical sense, it does make emotional sense in that it is often used as an emotional ploy to keep Christians guilt-tripped into remaining believers: “Jesus suffered and died for you. How can you abandon him?”
But Jesus did not die for your sins. He died for himself.
© 2011-2012 August Berkshire (01.18.2012)
Capital “A” Atheism?
Capital “A” Atheism?
By August Berkshire
There is some confusion and debate, both in the general public and among atheists themselves, as to whether the words “atheist” and “atheism” and their derivatives should be capitalized as proper nouns. The answer is No.
People who improperly capitalize these words generally do so for one of three reasons: ignorance, insecurity, or religious atheism. In all cases, capitalizing these words harms the atheist movement.
Ignorance
Some people capitalize “atheist” and “atheism” out of ignorance of the rules of grammar. Atheistic is a state of being – the state of being without god beliefs. Similarly, “rich” is the state of being in possession of a lot of money and “smart” is the state of being intelligent or well-educated.
Atheism comes from the roots “a” (without) and “theism” (belief in at least one god). If we don’t capitalize words like “apolitical” and “amoral,” why should we capitalize “atheist”?
No one thinks to capitalize the words “theist” and “theism,” so why should we capitalize their opposites?
Insecurity
Some atheists want to capitalize “atheist” in order to try to gain respect from society. After all, they reason, religious people, like Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc., have their names capitalized, so atheists should too.
But self-esteem is not a rule of grammar. To capitalize a word in order to try to gain respect is a mark of insecurity, not strength. And rather than gaining respect, it tends to have the opposite effect – invoking ridicule or pity.
Religious Atheism
Atheism has no tenets or dogma, which is another reason the word should not be capitalized.
Since some gods are defined in ways that cannot be examined, we cannot be 100% sure they don’t exist. We can only be sure that, at present, there is no good reason to believe in any of them.
Therefore, atheism is a tentative position and most atheists define themselves in conformity with the strict definition of the word: a-theism – without theism – lacking a belief in gods but being open to reason and evidence that could change their minds.
If atheists are not open to something that could change their minds, then they are, by definition, close-minded. Yet few atheists fit this description.
For atheists to say they know that no gods can possibly exist is a statement of faith. It confirms the accusation made by some religious people that atheism is just another religion – that atheists have faith that there is no god.
It could be argued that this type of dogmatism on the part of this type of atheist does deserve capitalization of the words “atheist” and “atheism.”
But this type of close-minded atheism is not descriptive of the vast majority of people who call themselves atheists and it therefore does a disservice to the movement.
Finally, there are some atheists who wish to capitalize “atheist” and “atheism” to carry on a tradition started by Madalyn Murray O’Hair. But such ancestor or hero worship is akin to religion and should be rejected by atheists.
August Berkshire has been an atheist activist since 1984. His website is AugustBerkshire.com.
Atheism 101
ATHEISM 101
By August Berkshire (Download PDF)
Definitions
An agnostic is a person who has no (scientific) knowledge of any gods. Therefore, everyone is an agnostic. People who nevertheless make a leap of faith and believe in at least one god are theists. People who lack a belief in all gods are atheists. (Most atheists disbelieve in the existence of anything supernatural.) People who don’t care enough to take a position regarding the existence of gods are apatheists.
Burden Of Proof
A theist makes the positive claim that at least one god exists. Therefore, theists have the burden of proof to demonstrate the existence of a god
Atheists do not have to “disprove” the existence of gods. Atheists only need to demonstrate that there is no evidence or compelling reason to believe in any gods.
Worldviews
The theistic worldview presupposes the existence of one or more supernatural beings and/or a supernatural world that precedes and supercedes the natural world. Typically, a supernatural god creates the natural world out of nothing and rules over it. This is a “top-down” view of existence.
The atheistic worldview observes the natural world and makes no leaps of faith regarding the existence of a supernatural world or beings. This is a “bottom-up” view of existence.
Ten Leaps Of Faith
The god that most people believe exists requires at least ten separate leaps of faith:
- Something supernatural exists.
- A supernatural being exists.
- This being has consciousness.
- This being is eternal.
- This being created something out of nothing.
- This being monitors the entire universe.
- This being changes things through miracles.
- This being is all-knowing.
- This being is all-powerful.
- This being is all-loving.
Four Questions About Gods
- What are gods composed of? – What is “spirit”? We know what spirit isn’t, but we don’t know what it is.
- What are the attributes of gods? – Stories of various gods list differing attributes:
a) Eternal vs. being born and dying
b) Omni-present vs. confined to certain areas
c) All-powerful vs. limited powers
d) visible vs. invisible
e) All-knowing vs. limited knowledge
f) All-loving vs. evil vs. temperamental vs. indifferent
g) How many gods are there?
h) Where are gods located? - How do gods do things? – What mechanisms do gods use to accomplish things?How does a god create something from nothing? How does a god tinker with our DNA? “Miracles” and “magic” are not useful answers.
- What difference does it make? – If the god that most people believe exists were to suddenly disappear, what would change in the natural world?
Eight Problems With Belief In Gods
- The Problem of Scale – If humans are the ultimate goal of a god’s creation of the universe, why did this god create 100 billion galaxies when only a single star and a single planet were necessary? Why did 12 billion years pass before we showed up?
- The Problem of Silence – If a god exists who wants us to be aware of its existence, then why doesn’t it clearly reveal itself? And if the punishment for not believing is eternal hellfire, then it is cruel for this god not to convincingly reveal itself.
- The Problem of Revelation – If a god exists who wants us to understand him, why do we have so many different and competing revelations, religions, and holy books? How can we tell the difference between a revelation and a hallucination?
- The Problem of Heaven – How can a person be perfectly happy in heaven if some of one’s friends and loved ones aren’t there too?
- The Problem of Evil – If a god exists who is both all-powerful and all-loving, then why do natural evils, such as natural disasters, diseases, and birth defects, exist? Often, people who believe a god exists that is providing them with answers to their prayers and an afterlife dare not displease this god. So they endow him with all good attributes and blame themselves for the problem of evil.
- The Problem of Unintelligent Design – If an all-powerful, all-wise god designed us and other life forms, why didn’t he do a better job? For example, why do our breathing and swallowing passages intersect so that we can choke to death on food? Why have 99% of all species that have ever existed gone extinct? (See the website: “Some More of God’s Greatest Mistakes” at tinyurl.com/BadDesign)
- The Problem of Free Will – If a god exists who knows the future, this means humans have no free will. Yet it is often claimed that this god will judge, reward, and punish us based on our free will choices.
- The Problem of God’s Size – If a god is the size of the universe, then god’s consciousness, traveling at the speed of light within that god, would take 93 billion years to travel edge to edge. Even if information within this god could travel at 100 times the speed of light, that’s still about a billion years from edge to edge. How does this god keep in touch with himself on a timely basis?
Meaning And Purpose To Life
Evolution supplies us with drives to survive, to reproduce (have sex), and to care about future generations. To accomplish this, we acquire knowledge and live in cooperative communities. Learning and interacting with the world and others gives our lives meaning and purpose, without the need for belief in any gods.
Ethics
Imagine a mother with two children, a girl and a boy. Now imagine that the girl starts hitting the boy. Does the mother reflexively say to her daughter: “Stop hitting your brother because it says not to in the [Torah/Bible/Koran/Vedas/etc.]?” No. At that point gods and religions are not what she is thinking about.
Instead, doesn’t the mother say something like: “Stop hitting your brother; you’re hurting him!” (consequences) or “Stop hitting your brother; how would you like it if someone hit you!” (empathy) ?
Consequences and empathy are the bases for natural ethics. These lead to cooperation and compassion, which are found in many animals, including humans.
Six Uses Of God-of-the-Gaps
When people don’t know or don’t like something about nature, they sometimes employ “God” to try to change things. The gap that “God” fills can be physical or emotional.
However, we are never told what a god is or exactly how a god does anything. Thus “God” is not a useful answer because it provides us with no information.
- Science – The first and traditional area where god-of-the-gaps is used is science. So, for example, when humans didn’t know what caused lightning, they invented a “God of Lightning.” Then we discovered electricity. In fact, god-of-the-gaps is the basis for the “Intelligent Design” movement: “This thing is so complicated that we can’t figure out how it could have evolved naturally, so ‘God did it.’ ”
- Medicine – The human body has great healing powers of its own, which are not fully understood. Yet when someone is healed for reasons we don’t understand, some people say “God did it.” But if prayer and “divine intervention” were really reliable methods of healing, there would be no need for hospitals. A true miracle, like an amputated limb growing back on a human, never happens.
- Ethics – For emotional and practical reasons, we may want there to be a system of simple, absolute ethics. Since nature doesn’t provide this, some people claim that a god provides moral instruction through “revelation.” Yet even within Christianity there is no agreement on the ethics of such things as: drinking alcohol, masturbation, pre-marital sex, contraception, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, divorce, the role of women, gay rights, the death penalty, voluntary euthanasia, and when and if we should to go to war.
- Meaning In Life – Some people desire a “cosmic meaning” in life. Since nature doesn’t provide one, some people invent a god to give them one.
- Emotional Security – People naturally seek emotional security during uncertain or troubled times. We’ve all heard the phrase “I had no where else to turn, so I turned to God.” God-belief may indeed have a placebo, calming effect, but it’s the belief that is responsible. A god doesn’t really have to exist.
- Afterlife – Our survival instincts make us want to live forever. Nature doesn’t provide for this, so some people invent a god to give them an “afterlife.”
Science And Religion
Evidence-based science and faith-based religion are only compatible if religion either makes no testable claims, or the results of testable religious claims are not at odds with scientific findings.
For example: To say that a god created evolution is not a testable claim, though it at least accepts the evidence for evolution. To say a god created the universe 6,000 years ago is a testable claim and is false.
© 2010 August Berkshire (12.08.2010)
A “Fine-Tuned” Universe as Proof of a God?
A “Fine-Tuned” Universe as Proof of a God?
By August Berkshire [PDF Download]
There are many people who believe that if one or more physics constants of the Universe had varied only slightly, they would have produced a universe incapable of supporting life. For example, if the gravitational constant had been slightly greater, the Universe would have collapsed back in upon itself before any life had a chance to form.
Some religious people look at this supposedly “fine-tuned” Universe and claim it is proof that a god exists who did the fine-tuning. Let us examine this claim.
God-of-the-Gaps
At heart, this is a god-of-the-gaps argument. It says that if we can’t think of a probable natural way that conditions could have resulted in life in the Universe, then a supernatural “god” did it. However, we don’t know what this god is, nor how it accomplishes anything. Therefore, “god” is not a meaningful answer because it provides us with no information.
Religious people claim that we aren’t entitled to a “free lunch” regarding a natural explanation for life in the Universe. But “god” is the ultimate unexplained “free lunch.”
The Universe
Most of the Universe is decidedly inhospitable to life. Outer space is deadly to anything other than, perhaps, microbes – and the majority of planets, moons, and asteroids aren’t much better.
Judging by what we observe now, the Universe will continue expanding forever, creating a “big chill” effect. Heat energy will be so dissipated that no life will be possible. A person alive just before this happens won’t view things as so “miraculously fine-tuned” as some religious people do today.
Our Sun
While natural conditions are favorable for life on Earth now, this won’t be true in about five billion years. At that point the Sun’s supply of hydrogen will run out and the Sun will expand and engulf the Earth, wiping out all life. Even a billion years from now, all water will have boiled off the Earth, making life improbable, if not impossible. Again, a person alive just before either of these events occurs won’t view things as so “miraculously fine-tuned” as some religious people do today.
The Earth
Apart from the Universe, some people claim the Earth itself is so fine-tuned for life (the proper distance from the Sun, the right kind of elements, etc.) that only a god could have established it. This, of course, is the same god-of-the-gaps argument that we encountered with the “fine-tuned” Universe.
But instead of asking about the odds of life as we know it arising through natural processes on this particular planet (Earth), we should instead ask about the odds of life of any kind arising naturally on any planet. It is estimated that there are 100 billion galaxies in the Universe (containing trillions of planets). If only one planet per galaxy had the right conditions to produce some kind of life, that would still amount to 100 billion planets and at least 100 billion different species.
Limited Knowledge
The fined-tuned Universe argument for a god assumes that what we know about the Universe today is accurate. But this is cutting edge physics and what we believe to be true today is far from certain. Even now there is dispute among physicists as to how much these constants of the Universe can vary and still produce a universe capable of leading to life.
Multiple Universes
Extraordinary odds against life in one universe become a near certainty if there are many universes. If many universes exist (sometimes called a “multiverse”) and each universe has its own random set of constants, then life will almost certainly arise in at least one of these universes. (For example, roll a set of dice long enough and you will eventually get two sixes.)
While there is, as yet, no evidence for other universes, their existence is more plausible than the existence of a god. After all, we know it’s possible for universes to exist – we live in one. We have no evidence that it is possible for gods to exist.
A Fine-Tuned God?
Those who believe a “fine-tuned” Universe proves the existence of a god admit that there is some slight margin for variance in these physics constants of the Universe. But what about the god they believe exists? Could that god be anything other than exactly what it is? If not, then there is zero margin for variance for that god. So, as improbable as the existence of life in the Universe may seem, the existence of a god would be even more improbable. It also begs the question: Who or what fine-tuned this god?
Conclusion
The track record of naturalistic science for answering questions about the natural world far exceeds the track record of supernatural “revelation.” The existence of a god seems more improbable than life arising naturally on its own in the Universe. “God” has not provided us with any answers and has instead raised more questions.
© 2010 August Berkshire
Ethics & Unity in the Atheist/Humanist Movement
Ethics and Unity in the Atheist/Humanist Movement
by August Berkshire
Does being an atheist or a humanist automatically make a person ethical? If we can admit there are some atheist people and groups that are unethical, small in number though they may be, how does this affect the unity we are trying to achieve?
Two of the greatest concerns, internally, of the atheist/humanist movement are ethics and unity. Unfortunately, these are sometimes at odds with each other. For the sake of ethics, it would be necessary to forgo total unity in our movement; unethical people or groups would be excluded. Alternately, for the sake of total unity, it would be necessary to overlook major ethical lapses.
So which is the correct road to take? I would argue that if we forgo ethics, then religion has already won, no matter how much unity we have. Furthermore, if we do not place a priority on ethics, we loose our standing to critique the ethical lapses of religious people and groups without being hypocrites and losing credibility ourselves. We must be consistent and avoid a double standard.
I have noticed that humanists have tended to put more emphasis on ethics and atheists have tended to put more emphasis on unity. There are traditional and definitional reasons for this. Atheism has been more concerned with critiquing religion and humanism has been more concerned with what kind of life we lead once we have dispensed with gods.
This is not to suggest that people who primarily identify as humanists aren’t sometimes unethical too. The point is that most humanist groups make an explicit effort to address the issue of ethics, whereas many atheist groups have not reached that stage yet.
In addition to traditional and definitional reasons, I believe there is a further, evolutionary reason for this difference in emphasis between humanism/ethics and atheism/unity. When threatened, a social species like humans often seeks safety in numbers. Unity for survival is paramount; ethics are a luxury.
Historically, humanists have not felt attacked the way atheists have. In fact, most people don’t even know what a “humanist” is, often mistaking it for a word that already has a positive connotation: “humane.” This has allowed humanists the opportunity to contemplate issues beyond survival, such as how to live an ethical life.
In contrast, there has hardly been a time or place in the history of humanity when atheists have not been under attack. This has caused some atheists to believe that the ends justify the means in fighting back against religion. Ethics fall by the wayside in the fight for survival.
Is the solution, then, for us all to just call ourselves “humanists,” to get religion off our backs in order to give us a breather so we can better pursue ethics? No, the word “atheist” cannot be avoided because it is an accurate description of who we are.
Because survival is paramount (often expressed as victimization by and anger towards religion), many atheists would rather shoot the messenger who points out unethical atheist behavior than examine the message. While we are right to be concerned about unethical religious activity, should we not be equally upset by unethical activity within our own movement?
Tellingly, those who favor the inclusion of unethical people or groups in freethought coalitions will use words like “unity” or “censorship” to defend their position. However, a word I have never heard them use is “ethical.”
One would think, from a marketing point of view at the very least, that atheists would care more about ethics than they do. After all, it is the number one accusation made against us by religious people: That we can’t be good without god.
By embracing unethical atheist people and groups and bringing them into the fold, perhaps some people believe we can get them to improve their behavior. I have not seen this route be successful. Unity should be withheld until ethical behavior is achieved. Unethical people and groups should be marginalized, not embraced.
Or, do some people believe that by enveloping an unethical person or group in a larger freethought group that we can cover it up? How ethical is that?
To those who believe in total unity at all costs, I say that unethical behavior is too high a price to pay for unity. Are we so naïve or desperate that we have to put up with unethical behavior? I hope not.
The vast majority of all atheists and humanists lead ethical lives. And, since atheism and humanism are increasing, this demonstrates that an ethical approach to atheism/humanism works. So, not only can we support ethics above total unity because it is the right thing to do, we can relax and do so because it is also the practical thing to do.
© 2009 August Berkshire
This essay was published in the January-March 2010 issue of Secular Nation magazine.