Bakery Run #12 – Red Door Bakery, Hyde Park

Pie Buddy: Ryan

Topic: Why I’m not a Christian (Part 1, A humanist/naturalist’s perspective)

I’ve had a few people recommend Red Door Bakery to me, so I decided it was time to give it a crack. Might I just say, this place has an element of class to it that not many bakeries achieve. If the Queen came to Adelaide and wanted to eat a sausage roll (not that either of those things ever happen), I reckon this is where she’d send her servants to get one from. The menu range is a class above the rest – no pepper steak pies on offer, so I had to make do with an Angus beef organic, free range pie (there was another fancy word in there that I’ve forgotten). My fellow pie crusader Ryan went with a beef and mushroom pie. With meat that fancy, I guess you can’t afford to use too much, and so the pie seemed to mostly consist of pastry. Amazingly good pastry though, probably the flakiest pastry I’ve ever eaten. The meat filling was nice as well, but it certainly wasn’t the meatiest pie I’ve ever had. And instead of simple tomato sauce, I was given the choice between onion chilli jam and spicy tomato relish. They’ve certainly taken the humble meat pie and redesigned it for a class of people much more sophisticated than it’s working class pioneers (pie-oneers if you will). And charged $6 for it, which seemed a bit steep. I also opted for a chocolate and macadamia brownie, which hit the spot nicely. The place was busy the whole time we were there, so people obviously recognise that this place is a good spot. Personally though, it’s a little too upmarket for me. I still enjoyed my meal though.

Ryan and I got chatting. We started by briefly discussing our personal beliefs, and how we came to those views, so that we each understood where the other was coming from. I explained how I’d grown up in a family that believed in God, but that it wasn’t until I went to a church that provided solid biblical teaching that I came to understand what it meant to be a Christian. I began to see Christianity not as a set of rules followed out of fear, but as a response of joyful obedience.

Ryan grew up with a believing mum and an unbelieving dad. He attended Sunday School as a child, but didn’t keep going to church later in life. “ I still identified as a Christian until I was around 21.” he said, “I thought it provided a good explanation for a lot of things in life, like the complexity of life. You can’t just throw paint at a piece of paper and have it turn into a nice painting. You’ve got to work hard to make it that special. So Christianity seemed like a likely explanation for the origin of life of humans. So I stuck with that, as I thought it was the best answer for the big questions.”

He then explained how he got into programming, and found that a computer program called Conway’s Game of Life was able to randomly generate images of things similar to what we see in the natural world. This made him realise that simple rules can create complexity, and that perhaps the world, like a computer program, could run on its own once the wheels were in motion.

“So are you saying you believe in a creator?” I asked.

“There could be a creator, but only to set the rules,” Ryan replied. “After that, it doesn’t need any intervention to be shaped into complex things.”

I suggested that this was essentially the philosophy of deism – that God creates, then lets things run their natural course without intervening.

“Yeah,” said Ryan, “and possibly it was set up by something, and if that’s true, then that thing must have been set up by something else, and you end up with a chain that you can’t really follow back, because you can’t follow anything back before the big bang. So I saw the world as just needing a starting point and a set of rules.”  

“So you still think there’s a creator?”

“There’s a possibility of a creator,” Ryan acknowledged.

I decided to keep going with the computer program analogy. “The computer program’s all very well, but someone’s built the computer, someone’s put the program in, and someone’s making sure there’s an electricity supply to keep it running.”

“Exactly, I agree,” said Ryan. “So the rules must have been made. But they don’t necessarily need to be set up by a person fine-tuning it. There could just be an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of settings, and the one that supports life is the one we’re living in today. And this could have happened over an infinite number of years.”

This is commonly known as the multiverse philosophy. “Is that something you believe, or are you just flagging it as a possibility?” I asked.

“It’s a possibility, just like the idea of a creator. The idea of an interventionist creator is quite difficult to believe.”

“What do you mean by interventionist?” I asked.

“A person on the planet, like Jesus, who shapes the future of the world, who punishes someone for sinning and then changes the future of the world,” said Ryan. “It seems possible, but I just think that would have shown up somewhere evidently. Even a miracle is only proof because it’s witnessed, but then once it’s written down, people won’t actually call it evidence, because it’s eyewitness evidence. If people at a crime scene report different things, that’s not reliable evidence, you need more tangible, repeatable evidence. I’d expect to see more indisputable evidence that convinces everyone to follow that God, rather than other Gods, but that evidence hasn’t arisen. I don’t see how eyewitness evidence is solid evidence.”

“How is that any different to believing that Julius Caesar was alive?” I asked.

“That’s also eyewitness evidence, and I believe Jesus was alive as much as I believe Caesar was alive, but you have to understand how much is fact and how much is fiction,” Ryan replied.

“So you think Jesus’ life has been over-elaborated a bit?”

“Yeah, a bit of artistic license.” Ryan gave the example of the movie Braveheart, which was a huge exaggeration of the life of William Wallace (about which little is actually known)

“So you came to see the Bible as something that was true, but exaggerated?”

“I think with the Bible, if it entertains, then it’s more likely to be passed from person to person,” said Ryan. “So if it’s not a compelling book, the religion will die. The Bible is compelling, but as to how much truth is in it, that’s up to each person to decide.”

“What about all the lists and genealogies?” I asked. “If JK Rowling wrote stuff like that, she would’ve sold a lot less books.”

“It’s not exactly a page-tuner,” said Ryan, “but I think the Bible has enough principles to make people want to change their lives, which then draws other people along too, and it grows. There are lots of great principles in the Bible that can make someone a better person. If you look at any religious text, there’s always a moral fibre to them, there’s guidance on what to do in life.”

“Do you think Jesus was real?” I asked.

“Yeah, there are so many accounts of Jesus. The evidence that he is real is a lot better than the evidence that he wasn’t. I think he was a special, talented person, who was able to guide people toward making good decisions.”

“Where do you draw the line with what’s said about him in the Bible? At what point do you think ‘nah, that’s rubbish’?”

“2000 years ago we’re dealing with a society that believes in magic,” said Ryan. “A lot of the things in the Bible that were thought of as miracles, like raising the dead and healing the sick, already happen in today’s society. We have chiropractors and doctors, and defibrillators if someone’s heart stops beating. And anyway,

“In a couple of cases though, the person was dead for around four days. And what are the odds of one guy doing it three times to different people?”

“He was clearly a very skilled person, very much in sync with nature, including how people’s bodies work, and he understands how to treat them.”

We discussed the healing of blind and paralysed people. Ryan questioned the extent of the disabilities in these healings, given that eyewitnesses don’t know the full stories of people they interact with, and so can easily conclude that a healing is miraculous when it isn’t. I pointed out the account of Jesus healing a blind man, whose parents testified that he was born blind (John 9).

Ryan was cautious of reading too much into a book that was obviously written from a Christian perspective. It was a fair point. You would expect a book on a particular topic or worldview to be biased in favour of that worldview. He reasoned that it was important to look at both sides of an argument to find the truth in the middle.

“Is that always the case though?” I asked. “If you’ve got an argument, will the truth always be in the middle?”

“No, it’s a case-by-case basis,” said Ryan. “But you can’t just consider one side and disregard the other just because your natural instincts tell you it’s true. You need rationality.”

“And it comes down to whether you think it’s important or not,” I said. “If you’ve never thought about Christianity, you’ll see no need for it. But once you think through the implications of what you believe in, you realise there is a need to look at the facts and make a decision. I always find it sad seeing people who don’t look at the facts and think things through carefully.”

“I agree with that. Many wrong decisions are the easy decisions to make,” said Ryan.

We then had a look at the topic from a philosophical point of view. “Achieving goals in life will bring me joy, not happiness,” said Ryan. “If you want to be happy, to feel like you’re doing something worthwhile, I think doing humanitarian work is the way to go.”

“Making the world a better place?”

“Yeah, not just looking after your own interests, but the interests of others. If you work really hard, sure you can get a nice house, but I think looking out for other people will bring more happiness. And religion does provide a great moral structure. A lot of things in the Bible regarding morality are absolutely true, like treating poor people with respect and treating your enemies as you treat your friends.”

“When you say true, what’s that based on?” I asked.

 “Not just my worldview, because everyone has their subjective thoughts“ said Ryan. “I look into books, conversations with people, find out what their concerns are, and see if that reconciles with my concerns.”

“So would you say that the moral laws of the Bible are reflective of general human moral laws?”

“A lot of them definitely are,” Ryan replied. “But I think at some point you have to go beyond the Bible, because it can’t teach you how to treat homosexuals in a respectful way. It’s hard to align yourself with a book that’s disrespectful towards homosexuals. And there’s a passage about how a woman cannot exercise authority over a man, or teach, but must remain silent. You read that and it’s quite extreme! I’d rather align my views with something that I believe is right from beginning to end. That’s what I struggle with, with Christianity. If I just picked out the good bits, I’d be completely happy with it.”

I briefly outlined my thoughts on the issues of how the Bible treats women and homosexuals. I’m sure I’ll delve deeper into these in another blog post. As I see it, men are not superior to women, but both sexes have complementary, God-given roles. The husband really has the harder role of the two – he is called to love his wife as Christ loved the church (which was by sacrificing his own life). Read in the context of the time, the Bible is actually counter-culturally supportive of women in society. As for homosexuality, I see no biblical basis for homosexual orientation being sinful. I think this is a common and extremely dangerous misconception.

I continued with the philosophical side of the discussion. “Can I ask you this – are you choosing your worldview based on what is true, or what is convenient for you?”

“The philosopher’s idea of truth is that you reconcile what you believe with what you experience, and then you come to what you believe is true,” replied Ryan. “Reconciling what’s in the Bible to what’s in the world is sometimes very difficult, because you don’t see these miracles or interventions, and the last time you could have seen those was a long time ago. You can definitely benefit from the Bible and have a great life, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that everything’s true, it just means that the principles work.”

“So if we’re looking at what your barriers to Christianity are, one would be that there’s not enough concrete evidence?”

 “Yeah, when I recognise that eye witness accounts aren’t always reliable, then I really struggle to see that as evidence,” Ryan replied.

Examining the evidence for Christianity is a fascinating exercise. And this is also where faith comes into play.

Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. (Hebrews 11:1)

Although I personally believe that there is sufficient evidence to see Christianity as being a rational belief, it clearly lacks the rock-hard, unavoidable, entirely conclusive evidence that some people will demand. We can’t all meet with the resurrected Jesus like Thomas did. We are required to live by faith. Faith is a gift from God (Ephesians 2:8), and it enables us to be fully persuaded that God will do the things that he has promised (Romans 4:21). So while Christians may (and should) use rational arguments to defend their beliefs, a God-given faith is ultimately underlying our worldview. No one can become a Christian without God’s help.

“At what point in the Christian story, would you butt in and say ‘nah, that didn’t happen’? Like if we look at Old Testament, New Testament, the early church history, the growth of the church to where it is today.” I find that this is an interesting question to ask people. Personally, as I look over the origin and history of Christianity, I can’t see a clear point where it becomes clear that the gospel message has been fabricated.

“When it conflicts with my idea of reality, my understanding of what happens in the world, what happens personally and reading what other people think and coming to a conclusion of what my foundation of morals is – when I come across the treatment of women, the limitations on women, that’s where I struggle. A woman should be able to decide her limits, I don’t think rules should do that.”

I was trying to get to the bottom of Ryan’s objections. “So you’d probably say you have more a philosophical objection to Christianity rather than an evidence-based objection? If you could come to embrace the philosophical implications of Christianity, would that at least make you willing to explore it?”

“Yeah, I’m certainly not going to go through and say I can disprove this, this and this, it would be like claiming you knew the true life of Julius Caesar. That would just be speculation, and quite arrogant. It’s not something I feel I need to explore. I’d be happy to live my life and not explore it, on the basis that I’ve explored other things that are just as compelling or powerful.” Ryan then proceeded to point out the number of possible worldviews that could be explored. It would be impossible to invest in all of them. “The principle is, I don’t think being a Christian or not is important, I would say that making good moral decisions that improve the world are important. If I could do that, I’d be happy with my life.”

“I’d see it as an eternal thing,” I replied. “If what Christians claim is true, then it’s not just about a good moral life, there are eternal implications.”

“There are eternal consequences outside of the Christian worldview, depending on what you believe,” Ryan responded. We then discussed the eternal consequences of Buddhism, as well as  the nihilistic and universalist philosophies that abound in the world. “I don’t think I could ever have the understanding to determine which one is right,” he concluded.

I explained my sense of urgency in evangelism (that is, telling people about Christianity with the hope that they will become Christian) using football as a comparison. I support the Adelaide Crows, but it doesn’t hugely bother me who my friends support, as it’s a fairly insignificant thing. However, I don’t see a person’s religious belief as being insignificant, because I believe that people who reject Jesus will go to hell. Hence it would be extremely unloving to keep my faith to myself. As Jesus himself said,

I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)

This is a huge claim that Christianity makes. If Christianity is right, everything else is wrong, and everybody who doesn’t follow Jesus stands condemned. It’s an offensive, divisive message. But if I believe it to be true, how could I possibly keep silent?

Ryan countered that by pointing out that there is often a similar sense of urgency among Buddhists to share their faith. Ryan also pointed out his concern for animal welfare, and highlighted that Buddhism has more to say on this issue than Christianity. From that point of view, Buddhism speaks to him a lot clearer than Christianity does.

“So you’d look at different religions through your lens?” I asked. “You’ve got your values, they’re the parameters, and you need to see something that satisfies that?”

“Yeah, I want to be a better person in terms of what I see a better person as being. Not everyone will care about animals like I do. If I come across something in the Bible that doesn’t support my beliefs, it’s hard to keep expanding my view by reading the Bible until it begins to make sense.”

I could see where Ryan was coming from. Humanism and naturalism fit well with his thinking, so it would be difficult for him to stray too far from those philosophies. Essentially, Ryan’s objection to Christianity was from a philosophical point of view. Although he thought it likely that parts of the Bible were exaggerated, it wasn’t a lack of belief in the physical claims of the Bible that prevented him from accepting Christianity. It was an inability to reconcile every aspect of Christian teaching with what he saw as being sensible and ethical philosophy. It would be impossible to believe in a perfect God when you thought he was wrong on some issues. And I see this as being a big stumbling block to Christianity. There are times when our imperfect, sinful, human minds don’t desire the things that God desires. When you approach this problem with a belief in God, the natural response is to strive to align our desires with God’s (often a very difficult task!). But when you approach this problem without a belief in God, the natural response is to object to what would seem like oppressive rules. I would encourage anyone who finds themselves objecting to Christianity on a philosophical basis to do two things. Firstly, look into the physical evidence for Christianity. I doubt you will be converted on the spot, but hopefully the realisation that Christianity is actually quite a rational, well-founded belief will give you a fresh perspective on the matter. Secondly, find a Christian person and discuss your objections with them. You may find that someone who has wrestled themselves with many of these tough questions will be helpful in explaining to you how they reconcile God’s desires with our tendency to desire different things.