Christianity is a Cultural By-Product And That's All It Is

The history of human understanding shows us that human understanding evolves in each generation in a respective culture. Sometimes there are set backs but it continues to evolve. I cannot prove that this means Christianity in all of its forms is a delusion. I can only point out that theology parallels other disciplines of learning since it too has evolved down through the generations, and it has, making Christianity nothing more nor less than a cultural phenomena created by human beings for other human beings.

I could show how theological ideas have evolved like Biblical cosmology, God, Jesus, Satan, Hell, theories of atonement, apocalyptic end time predictions, and how morality itself have all evolved down through history, easily. Those would be the historical facts.

I say this evolutionary development looks entirely like the human quest for knowledge--that it doesn't look as if there is any divine mind behind this human quest. If Christians had faith in any particular era of the past they would believe what they did and that God led them to their beliefs. In this era they say what they do because they live in this era. And although they would reject the theologies and moralities of the past they still think there is a divine mind behind this quest. So there would be no way of disconfirming what they think about this, except to point it out. You either see it or you don't. For me it's plain as day.

We could therefore apply Flew's falsifiability test here, not for whether theology is meaningless, but whether its truth is probable. Christian, you believe what you do now. But it is patently obvious that what you believe now is not what the earliest Christianities did, nor the what the Medievals did, nor what the early moderns did, and it won't be what future Christianities will believe either. You say there is continuity but we must ask if earlier Christianities would embrace you or excommunicate and kill you for what you believe, and we know the answer to that. The same thing will be the case for future Christianities if the past is any guide to the future (and if not, why not?).

So no matter what a Christian believes in whatever time period he lives, so long as it's considered orthodoxy by the majority of his cultural grouping and no matter how small his cultural grouping is, he could still say that God is behind his current evolved understanding of theology. What could therefore falsify any Christian's belief in his cultural grouping when I point out that it just looks like the human quest for the transcendent? It obviously looks like it evolves just like all human understanding has done. But any Christian of the past, present or future would say, "no, God is behind this process." There is nothing that could falsify this claim.

Where is God? I can understand that if God exists he would want his people to learn and grow deeper in their understanding of him and of theology and ethics as time goes by. But why would such a God be pleased with the kind of ignorance that believers have had which caused them to do atrocities in his name?

What I’m arguing is this: "If Christianity is a matter of supernatural revelation then we should not see THE EXTENT OF evolutionary development in its understanding or evidence that it is a social phenomenoa." The book The Evolution of God shows this most effectively. I did a review of it on Amazon. It's a great book.

By contrast the Christian mode of argument is this: “No matter what we see in the past with regard to the development of theology, what Christians in my particular sect have been led to believe is from God.” That is highly dubious given the many other different religious people around the world who would say the same thing.

You see, there is historical evidence that before there were the monotheistic faiths there were beliefs in elemental spirits, puppeteers, organic spirits, ancestral spirits, and the high gods. When cities clashed the high gods were elevated to the status of one supreme God. There is ample evidence of this in the OT itself, in fact we see two Yahweh’s in it, plus an Elohim, Adoni, child atoning sacrifice, etc. And then there is the rich theological development in the inter-testamental period which further revised what the Jews believed, including views of hell, Satan, and apocalyptic hopes for a Messiah which were accepted by Jesus and the Pharisees. So it’s not true that Christianity was a completely new religion either. It too merely adapted from what was previously believed which included some Hellenistic ideas.

What we see is nothing but enculturaltion and revisionism as Christian groups blend with their respective cultures and/or break off from one another. As they do so each new Christian sect includes some innovation every single step along the way. But it's all culturally produced.

One way to see this is to ask how God could have revealed himself without it looking like a purely cultural by-product. There is plenty he could have done. Something like this. He could also have communicated with an eye on the future as I showed in chapter 7 for The Christian Delusion. His revelation would be entirely different from each culture; like condemning slavery way ahead of it's time, along with condemning trial by ordeals, child sacrifices, and so forth. The faith God revealed would be clearly distinct from other surrounding cultures by far. In fact, there would be things in it that would advance knowledge at every step of the way.

But this is emphatically NOT what we see. Christianity is a cultural by-product and that's all it is. So along with Pierre-Simon de Laplace we can say of the claim that there is a divine mind behind this whole theological process we “have no need of that hypothesis.”

In fact, I think I have solved the the Christian puzzle. Check it out.