Either God or a Bad Man

Was Thomas Jefferson a good man? Was he basically a good person who, like most of us human beings, was morally flawed in some respects? If we look carefully and honestly into the words and actions of Jefferson, we are bound to find a mixture of good and evil, a number of wise and admirable aspects, but also a number of unwise and ignoble aspects. One thing we can say with great confidence: Jefferson was not a morally perfect person.

What about Jesus? Was Jesus a good man? Was he basically a good person, who like most of us, was morally flawed in some respects? If we look carefully and honestly into the words and actions of Jesus, will we find a mixture of good and evil, a number of unwise and ignoble aspects as well as a number of wise and admirable aspects? One thing we can say with great confidence: If Jesus was a morally flawed person, as are most humans, then he was not God incarnate, and Christianity is a delusion.

But moral critique does not have the sort of objectivity that can occur in scientific investigations. There are various alternative philosophies, worldviews, and systems of ethics that one could use in constructing a moral critique of Jesus:

Secular Humanism
Buddhism
Liberalism
Judaism
Marxism
Existentialism
Feminism
Aristotelian Ethics
Humean Ethics
Utilitarian Ethics
Kantian Ethics
Social Contract Theory

Just as one could use a Christian viewpoint in a moral critique of Jefferson, one could also use a Christian viewpoint in a moral critique of Jesus. In fact there are multiple Christian points of view that one might use:

Liberal Protestantism
Conservative Protestantism
-Calvinism
-Lutheranism
-Baptist tradition
Liberal Catholicism
Conservative Catholicism
Eastern Orthodoxy

One might suspect that Jesus would come out looking better from a conservative Protestant point of view than from a Marxist or Secular Humanist point of view, but there is no way to know in advance of doing a careful investigation of Jesus' words and actions and in advance of doing a good deal of honest thinking about those words and actions from a particular point of view, what the outcome of that investigation, analysis, and evaluation will be. Many political liberals believe that Jesus is on their side, and that political conservatives have distorted and corrupted the teachings of Jesus to support conservative ideas that Jesus would most likely reject and even actively oppose.

Prior to doing the necessary intellectual work, one must leave open the possibility that Jesus would be judged a very good person from a Marxist point of view, and not so good a person from a conservative Protestant viewpoint. Apart from doing the fact gathering and hard thinking required, we cannot know whether Jesus would turn out to be good, bad, or indifferent from a Christian point of view.

From a Secular Humanist point of view, there are a number of aspects of Jesus life that are ignoble and that arguably amount to moral flaws. Jesus taught people to believe in God, and to believe in divine intervention, including faith healing and miraculous answers to prayer. Jesus also taught people to devote themselves fully to obedience to God and to an intensely religious form of life that is occupied largely with faith, prayer, worship, preaching, study of scripture, evangelism, etc.

Jesus taught people to believe that there would be life after death, but that such a life would be good and happy only for those who lived their lives in full obedience to God. From a Secular Humanist point of view, Jesus taught superstitious falsehoods, false hope of immortality, and false fear of eternal punishment. Jesus taught people to live lives focused on a fantasy of "Pie in the sky by and by" instead of living in a way that focuses on how to make our lives better here and now in the real world.

In short, Jesus promoted superstitious and delusional otherworldly beliefs that have helped to keep humankind in darkness and bondage for the past two thousand years. So, Jesus does not appear to be an especially good person from a Secular Humanist point of view.

One might argue that Jesus was just a man of his time and culture. His belief in God, and miracles, the resurrection of the dead, and in the divine inspiration of the Old Testament were simply inherited from the Jewish culture that he was raised in. That certainly is a mitigating factor, but because he made himself out to be a prophet and a religious leader, he must face a higher standard than the average person.

If Jesus had been more honest and objective in his thinking and conversations, he would have been more skeptical and less dogmatic in his teachings about God, miracles, the Bible, and the afterlife. At any rate, the general absence of skepticism, honest doubt, and intellectual humility in the words and actions of Jesus point to a significant moral flaw, from a Secular Humanist point of view.

But doing a moral critique of Jesus from a Secular Humanist point of view is not going to be very persuasive to Christian believers. Secular Humanism assumes that there is no God, at least no God who intervenes in the physical world with divine healings and miracles. Secular Humanism assumes that the Bible and other supposed sacred writings are the products of human minds and not messages from the creator of the universe. Secular Humanism assumes that Christianity is a delusion, so a moral critique of Jesus from a Secular Humanist viewpoint will not do as the basis for an objection to Christianity. Such reasoning appears to beg the question:

1. Secular Humanism is true.
Therefore
2. Jesus was morally flawed.
Therefore
3. Jesus was not God incarnate.
Therefore
4. Christianity is a delusion.

One could simply cut out the intermediate inferences here:

1. Secular Humanism is true.
Therefore
4. Christianity is a delusion.

The conclusion follows from the premise, but the premise is highly controversial, especially in the context of a disagreement between a Secular Humanist (like me) and Christian believers. I cannot simply assume that my worldview is correct and that any other worldview that conflicts with mine is mistaken. There is a whole lot of argumentation and debate that needs to occur in relation to premise (1), before it can be used in an argument against Christianity. And if I manage to persuade someone that (1) is true, they have already ceased to be a Christian believer, making the argument useless.

The Resurrection Factor - Part 3

McDowell puts forward the following bit of reasoning in Chapter 1 of TRF:

Christianity is not a religion. Religion may be defined as humans trying to work their way to God through good works. Christianity, on the other hand, is God coming to men and women through Jesus Christ, offering them a relationship with Himself. (TRF, p.5)

Here is McDowell's reasoning in standard argument format:

1. Christianity is God coming to humans through Jesus Christ, offering them a relationship with Himself.
Thus,
2. Christianity is NOT humans trying to work their way to God through good works.
3. Something is a religion if and only if it is humans trying to work their way to God through good works.
Therefore:
4. Christianity is not a religion.

On the next page (p.6), McDowell mentions his attempt "to refute Christianity". This implies that Christianity is a belief or set of beliefs. Claims and beliefs are the kinds of things that can be refuted. In fact, McDowell specifies (p.6) some of the beliefs that Christianity involves:

- Jesus Christ is God's Son.
- Jesus died on the cross for the sins of mankind.
- Jesus arose [from the dead] three days later.

So, Christianity is the sort of thing that one can attempt "to refute" because Christianity is a belief or set of beliefs (or if it includes a set of beliefs).

Premise (1) involves an obvious category mistake. If Christianity "is God coming to men and women through Jesus Christ..." then Christianity can neither be proven nor refuted. God "coming to men and women" is an event, and events cannot be true or false; events cannot be proven or refuted. Beliefs about events, however, can be true or false, and can be proven or refuted.

Premise 1 can be reconciled to McDowell's comments on the next page (p.6) by making it clear that it is a belief that is under discussion:

1a. Christianity includes the belief that God comes to humans through Jesus Christ, offering them a relationship with Himself.

This makes perfect sense. But if we clarify premise (1) this way, to reconcile it with McDowell's other comments about Christianity, then we need to make similar clarifications to the other premises, so that the reasoning in McDowell's argument is logical:

1a. Christianity includes the belief that God comes to humans through Jesus Christ, offering them a relationship with Himself.
Thus,
2a. Christianity does not include the belief that humans must work their way to God through good works.
3a. Something is a religion if and only if it includes the belief that humans must work their way to God through good works.
Therefore:
4. Christianity is not a religion.

To be continued...