To my surprise, the good folks in Pyrmont sent me a reply by mail. It consisted of more propaganda - several A4 pages, in fact - with the following message scrawled across it (prose style their own): “The Oxford dictionary defines ‘empirical’ as based or acted on observation and experiment. NOT ON THEORY. Evolution is still a theory and NOT OBSERVABLE. You believe IT by Blind FAITH. coupled with a deep hatred of GOD. Have a read of this IF YOU DARE. And please explain!”
No love or forgiveness, to be sure! Though fully aware I was wasting my time, I wrote a far more civil reply, which is reproduced below. It elaborates on the themes I mentioned in my first letter, such as my rejection of the Bible on ethical and spiritual grounds. I believe this is the stance we must take when debating with such people. I also believe that civil discourse is preferable to name-calling, threats of violence and the like. If we indulge in the latter, we are guilty of the very excesses we are supposed to be fighting against.
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for your recent letter. I was not expecting a reply and feel honoured to receive one. I am also impressed with the amount of material you sent me. The arguments against the spontaneous generation of life are certainly far more sophisticated than the ones expressed in your earlier pamphlet.
The article by Thomas Heinze rightly states that Stanley Miller manufactured amino acids under controlled laboratory conditions in 1953. It also correctly states that he was unable to create proteins. Other scientists have suggested RNA appeared first, and proteins were formed afterwards. The article makes the obvious point that this theory has problems too. RNA is a large, complex molecule that would be unlikely to form by chance. However, scientific knowledge has advanced since 1953. Like your previous publication, your article criticises early research, but fails to mention more recent findings. Robert Shapiro of New York University, among others, believes self-replicating macromolecules like RNA are too complex to have spontaneously appeared. He believes life actually arose from simpler organic compounds. While anti-evolutionists frequently claim that this violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics (as under the heading “DID YOU KNOW?”) they are missing an important point. Biochemical reactions can grow more complex when they have a source of fuel, and we have one called the sun. Most forms of life increase in complexity as they grow and mature, and only decay when they die. To use an obvious example, you and I were once tiny clusters of cells that in time became embryos and ultimately human beings. You can find a modern theory on the origin of life in the June issue of the Quarterly Review of Biology, 2006. Ken Dill and Justin Bradford have proposed an elegantly simple and plausible variant in “The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,” which should be available online.
The remainder of your article relies on the concept of “irreducible complexity” to undermine evolutionary theory. This is an old argument, and it has been countered many times before. “The Blind Watchmaker” and “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins are just two of the books that deal with it, though less sophisticated readers might find “Unintelligent Design” by Robyn Williams more accessible. I recommend you read all three, though I doubt they will have the desired effect. You are probably hostile to any idea that might undermine your faith.
At this point you might think I am guilty of similar closed-mindedness. Before you accuse me of being blind, though, I will grant you a concession. My current ideas may be wrong - human knowledge is finite, after all. I doubt you would be willing to admit the same applies to yours, but I will ignore this for now. Let’s look at things from another perspective.
If I am indeed wrong in thinking life could have emerged by chance, and if you are right in thinking it has an intelligent designer, this does not automatically mean the Judeo-Christian god exists and the Bible is right on all counts, as your last publication claimed. Your “DID YOU KNOW?” article instructs me to call the “First Cause” that exists “outside of” matter or energy “God.” Why is it necessary to do so? And why on earth is it necessary to give this first cause human attributes such as gender, eyes (Amos 9:8) ears (Isiah 1:20) a face (Genesis 19:13) a backside (Exodus 33:23) and even bowels (Isiah 16:11)? You probably think you have to because the Bible describes God as human in form. Dare I suggest that the Bible is wrong?
While my last letter supported evolutionary theory, at no point did I state that I did not believe in a creator. I only said I had a problem with the kind of god you believe in, and this problem does not come from studying science. It comes from having read the Bible. As I have already said, it has done more to destroy my faith than any other book in existence.
Perhaps you have felt close to your god while you were admiring a beautiful sunset or a sparkling waterfall. I, too, can appreciate nature, but I can’t ascribe its marvels to the Judeo-Christian god. This being orders the merciless slaughter of “utterly old and young, both maids and little children, and women” (Ezekiel 9:5,6) and kills thousands of his own people because one of them brought a Midianite woman to his tent (Numbers 25: 6-9). In Numbers 31:1-18 he commands his followers to kill all the Midianite men, women and babies, but keep the young virgin girls “alive for yourselves.” In 2 Samuel 24:15, he kills thousands more of his own people for the sins of their leader David, who is conveniently spared. I could quote many more examples of his cruelty and viciousness, but if you have read much of the Bible, you are undoubtedly familiar with them. In short, I am not a Christian because I can’t believe our wonderful world could have been made by such a monster. I am also convinced that few self-described Christians have ever read much of the Bible, and if they actually bothered to do so, most would renounce their faith in disgust.
While I appreciate your correspondence, I was disappointed that it consisted entirely of attacks on science and attempts to convert me to your narrow brand of faith. At no point did you try to rebuke my criticisms of the Bible. Some Christians reject evolutionary theory because it contradicts a literal reading of Genesis. As I said in my last letter, the Book of Genesis is incompatible with the Book of James (compare 22:1 and 1:13 of each respectively). The Book of Genesis alone contradicts itself on several occasions (compare 1:4 with 2:5 or 1:25-26 with 2:18-19). The Bible is filled with verses that conflict with each other. If some are right, some must be wrong. How can we place any trust in its account of creation - to say nothing of original sin, virgin birth and resurrection? Christians believe these through blind faith combined with Orwellian doublethink.
On the subject of blind faith, I was mildly perturbed by the accusation scrawled on the Thomas Heinze article. I may believe in evolution, but as I have already said, this will change if I am presented with a better alternative. For reasons I have just explained, the Bible fails to provide it. Again I should remind you that I formed this opinion while reading the Bible, not some atheistic text. Only the blindest of the blind could claim it is infallible.
You also accused me of hating God. While I find the Biblical god repulsive, I can no more hate him than I could hate any fictional villain. Nor do I hate those who believe he exists. Being a former Christian myself, I simply feel sorry for them. Given the tone of your handwritten message, you might want to ask yourself who hates who.
The true worth of any belief system can be gauged by its adherents’ behaviour. While Christianity has inspired some impressive art and architecture and great acts of charity, it has also started wars. The Crusades can be seen as an obvious example of Christians being anything but loving towards their neighbours. The fanatics who captured Jerusalem at the end of the First Crusade described the ensuing massacre in gloating and exultant terms. When not killing unbelievers, Christians have been extremely good at slaughtering each other. Catholics and Protestants fought for many generations, each side believing they had God’s support, and echoes of this conflict are still heard in Northern Ireland. Moreover, Christianity has failed to prevent wars being fought for secular reasons. In spite of their common faith, millions of British, French, German and Russian soldiers slaughtered each other in WW1. Most of these men would have gone to their deaths with the blessings of their chaplains, thinking God was on their side.
The Roman Catholic Church is based in Italy, which is also the birthplace of fascism. The Protestant movement began in Germany, which is also the birthplace of Nazism. Its founder, Martin Luther, called for the expulsion of all Jews centuries before Hitler was born. Hitler did not invent anti-Semitism; he simply capitalised on a long-standing enmity the church had encouraged for hundreds of years. In Franco’s Spain, criticism of the church could carry a death sentence. If I was living there and then, I would probably be shot.
Of course Christians do not have a monopoly on hatred. Atheists like Stalin have also been responsible for great crimes against humanity, though it’s worth noting Stalin came from a strict Russian Orthodox background, and in his treatment of his people, he resembles the Old Testament god. Muslims also have a history of persecuting unbelievers, and according to their own traditions, the Jews were ironically the first people in history to practice genocide (with God’s blessings according to Joshua 10). On a more positive note, atheists, Muslims, Jews and others have made great contributions to civilisation. If you are going to judge people, you should on an individual basis without recourse to stereotypes like the pince nez-wearing atheist of your Jack Chick comic. I would not take the time to tell you this if I thought all Christians were beneath contempt.
You threaten me with talk of hell, but it holds no fear for me. I will freely admit I have made some mistakes and caused other people harm, but my transgressions pale beside those of such devout Christians as Torquemada and Ivan the Terrible. Has their faith earned them a place in heaven? I will also dare to suggest that nothing done in the space of one lifetime deserves eternal punishment. A just and merciful god would not condemn us for our distant ancestors’ sins or the beliefs we inherited. As I said in my last letter, these are largely dependent on our surroundings. If you had been born in Iran, you would probably view Christians as infidels and the USA as Satan incarnate.
When I was a Christian, I thought I would go to heaven, but even so I found my faith spiritually and emotionally unsatisfying. No promise of eternal bliss could free me from the awful thought that millions more would burn in hell, simply because they had been born in the wrong place and time. My rejection of the Christian doctrines was not done out of pride or hate, but of love for all humanity. Although I may be no saint, I firmly believe this decision personifies me at my best.
I am surprised that you have not touched on moral issues in any of your publications. They simply command their readers to reject science, accept the Bible, and embrace Christ as their saviour. While this may be comforting to some, I know from experience that there are saner alternatives. If you would rather content yourself with the thought that I will burn in hell forever, along with all the countless others who might disagree with you, perhaps you should re-read your Bible. According to Thesselonians 2:11-12, God deliberately misleads people so they will not be saved. If these verses are correct, your problems lie with him, not me.
Yours sincerely,
J.F.