Moderate Christianity is also irrational.


I have been battling religious extremism for so long that sometimes I forget to address the issue of religious moderatism.  So it is my duty to point out to you that Christian moderates are also irrational, and here is why.

Consider the following Biblical accounts:

  • 6-day creation
  • Noah’s flood
  • Jonah and the whale
  • David and Goliath
  • Jesus’ resurrection

The extremist would hold all these accounts as literally true, whereas typical moderates might argue that some of these stories are metaphorical or symbolic, etc.  So let’s follow the moderate Christian’s logic, by which we may successfully remove the following from the list:

  • 6-day creation
  • Noah’s flood
  • Jonah and the whale
  • David and Goliath
  • Jesus’ resurrection

You would think that the same logical train of thought would allow “Jesus’ resurrection” to be eliminated as a Biblical metaphor as well, but no.  It is my understanding that every Christian believes in Jesus’ resurrection, by using, whatdyacallit, faith.  It seems to me quite irrational to exempt the final “miracle” from the same critical reasoning by which all other miracles have been removed, because every miracle is a violation of natural laws.  It is only a logical deduction, therefore, that the moderate Christian’s faith is also irrational, for the same illogical method of (non)reasoning harboured by creationists is seen in the exact same form in the moderate Christian, the only difference being that the moderate Christian takes one further step to pick and choose which of the stories to believe and which not to; and just for your interest, I really dislike such logical inconsistencies.

The story of Jesus (the virgin birth, the walking on water, the resurrection, etc.) is just as ridiculous as all the other biblical myths, and it is just as improbable.  If God had intended the other magical events for metaphorical effect, then do please entertain the possibility that Jesus never existed. 

So what if the stories of Jesus were symbolic – symbolic of God’s love for mankind that he would be quite willing to sacrifice his own flesh and blood –  the only catch: it never actually happened?  What if? 

Actually, it doesn’t really matter because to believe in something for which there is no evidence is already irrational enough.  I contend that the moderate Christian is just as illogical as the moderate Muslim, and I contend that the same type of illogicality as seen in extremism is reflected quite clearly in moderatism, the only difference being that, moderates actually bother to pick and choose from their holy books, while unfortunately, extremists don’t come too well-equipped with that sort of bullshit filtering mechanism.  For the same reason, moderate Muslims do not go around blowing themselves up, because they pick and choose not to follow only some parts of the Qur’an.  It doesn’t mean that moderate Muslims are rational – they are just not as crazy, and… well, not quite as deluded.

Also, I don’t get “theistic evolutionists”, especially the Christian ones.  They act as though their position is logical and compatible with science, but it really isn’t.  A Christian who accepts evolution is like: “although we have ample evidence to suggest that evolution is a natural and unguided process, I still believe that there are some unknown and currently undetected forces overseeing the entire process, and I know this because it says in the Bible that…” and fuck, here we go again.

Because real the problem is actually not whether you accept science or not.  It is whether you accept science for what it is… or are you simply trying to mould it into your irrational faith.  In which sense, the irrationality is still perfectly there.  The real problem, ladies and gentlemen, is that religion is irrational as a whole, because it is not a method of fact finding, but a pretence of knowledge, based upon fear of the unknown and authority.  And by that I include Buddhism, too (by the way, I am talking traditional Buddhism, not that ummm, popular Western philosophy by the same name.)  As House said: “If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people.”  And it’s true.  And just because there are so many bloody Christians around, that doesn’t make your beliefs any less ridiculous.

Because if the whole world was to become totally infested with armed Muslim terrorists, you wouldn’t hesitate one bit to agree with me that Allah is still one fucked up imaginary friend.  And frankly, so is yours – in my humblest opinion.

Advertisements