On So-Called False Christians, False Scotsmen and Judging Others

Some of the evangelical blogs I have been receiving notifications of have been speaking on a common theme lately.  This theme is the concept of who is a true Christian and who is a false Christian, and whether or not it is right to treat true Christians differently from false Christians.

I am inclined to think such a view, while perhaps well meaning, is contrary to the view of Christ.

For openers, we could look at Matthew 7:

^1 “Judge not, that you be not judged. ^2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. ^3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? ^4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? ^5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

Judging whether one is a true Christian or not is a matter of judging of the person, not of the act.  It presumes to judge whether another has accepted Christ or not and fails to consider that the other person may be a Christian who fails at their commitment.

It also fails to consider whether the individual doing the judging could also be judged by another as not measuring up to his standards.

A person is a Christian by the virtue of Baptism (either explicit or through the Baptism of desire or of blood) [see 1 Pet 3:21-22].  A person will be a faithful or unfaithful Christian based on how they carry out their following of the faith.

It is unfortunate that in the Evangelical traditions, we have the notions of "accept the Lord as your personal salvation and you will be saved" because it leads to the fallacy of the No True Scotsman.  I've spoken on it before, but I'll recap briefly for those who haven't heard of it:

MacIntosh: No Scotsman puts Brown Sugar on his porridge

MacIver: What about Angus over there.  He puts brown sugar on his porridge

MacIntosh: He doesn't count.  No true Scotsman puts brown sugar on his porridge.

Under this reasoning, no counter-example by MacIver will be accepted, because the counter-example will be rejected as not being a "true" Scotsman.  However, MacIntosh's claim is based on his own definition, and makes him the judge and jury over who is a Scotsman.

Likewise the individual who seeks to decide who is or is not a true Christian is passing judgment over the other person's sincerity.

The problem is this can be cut any number of ways.  "Him?  He's a Papist!  He can't be a Christian!"  "Her?  She's got a drinking problem!  She can't be a Christian!"

God will judge the Christian who fails to live up to their calling of course.  But that does not mean we can pass this judgment on them as to whether or not they are seeking to follow Christ.  Christians can indeed be hypocritical (the common atheistic charge is that all of us Christians are hypocritical).  They can backslide.  However, this does not unmake their baptism.  It means they failed to live up to it, and if they do not repent they will be judged.

The second issue, of how we should treat others who are not "true Christians," must be measured before the requirement Jesus made of us in Matthew 5:

^43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ ^44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, ^45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. ^46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? ^47 And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? ^48 You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

In other words, if we treat "true" Christians differently from "false" Christians, we disobey Christ.

Now, we can indeed excommunicate a public sinner from the communion of believers, as St. Paul described in 1 Cor. 5, but this is not intended to be a punishment of condemnation, but an ostracism to return the wayward Christian to his senses.

The difference between how we should treat Christians living according to their faith and the Christian fallen is that the former we should pray that they may be sustained, while the latter we should pray for them to return to the path they fell away from, even if we must rebuke them.

Rebuking may be necessary of course.  We must always reject sin and refuse to accept it in others with indifference.  However, we should not deem a person damned, or not a Christian because he stumbled on the path.

And we should remember that the measure we use against others will be the measure used against us by Christ.

So before determining that a person is a "false Christian," we need to ask ourselves on what basis we make this claim, and on which authority we have the right to make it.

We should remember the parable of Christ in Luke 18:

^10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. ^11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank thee that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. ^12 I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I get.’ ^13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ ^14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

God calls us to act like the tax collector before Him, and not like the Pharisee.

On So-Called False Christians, False Scotsmen and Judging Others

Some of the evangelical blogs I have been receiving notifications of have been speaking on a common theme lately.  This theme is the concept of who is a true Christian and who is a false Christian, and whether or not it is right to treat true Christians differently from false Christians.

I am inclined to think such a view, while perhaps well meaning, is contrary to the view of Christ.

For openers, we could look at Matthew 7:

^1 “Judge not, that you be not judged. ^2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. ^3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? ^4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? ^5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

Judging whether one is a true Christian or not is a matter of judging of the person, not of the act.  It presumes to judge whether another has accepted Christ or not and fails to consider that the other person may be a Christian who fails at their commitment.

It also fails to consider whether the individual doing the judging could also be judged by another as not measuring up to his standards.

A person is a Christian by the virtue of Baptism (either explicit or through the Baptism of desire or of blood) [see 1 Pet 3:21-22].  A person will be a faithful or unfaithful Christian based on how they carry out their following of the faith.

It is unfortunate that in the Evangelical traditions, we have the notions of "accept the Lord as your personal salvation and you will be saved" because it leads to the fallacy of the No True Scotsman.  I've spoken on it before, but I'll recap briefly for those who haven't heard of it:

MacIntosh: No Scotsman puts Brown Sugar on his porridge

MacIver: What about Angus over there.  He puts brown sugar on his porridge

MacIntosh: He doesn't count.  No true Scotsman puts brown sugar on his porridge.

Under this reasoning, no counter-example by MacIver will be accepted, because the counter-example will be rejected as not being a "true" Scotsman.  However, MacIntosh's claim is based on his own definition, and makes him the judge and jury over who is a Scotsman.

Likewise the individual who seeks to decide who is or is not a true Christian is passing judgment over the other person's sincerity.

The problem is this can be cut any number of ways.  "Him?  He's a Papist!  He can't be a Christian!"  "Her?  She's got a drinking problem!  She can't be a Christian!"

God will judge the Christian who fails to live up to their calling of course.  But that does not mean we can pass this judgment on them as to whether or not they are seeking to follow Christ.  Christians can indeed be hypocritical (the common atheistic charge is that all of us Christians are hypocritical).  They can backslide.  However, this does not unmake their baptism.  It means they failed to live up to it, and if they do not repent they will be judged.

The second issue, of how we should treat others who are not "true Christians," must be measured before the requirement Jesus made of us in Matthew 5:

^43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ ^44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, ^45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. ^46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? ^47 And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? ^48 You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

In other words, if we treat "true" Christians differently from "false" Christians, we disobey Christ.

Now, we can indeed excommunicate a public sinner from the communion of believers, as St. Paul described in 1 Cor. 5, but this is not intended to be a punishment of condemnation, but an ostracism to return the wayward Christian to his senses.

The difference between how we should treat Christians living according to their faith and the Christian fallen is that the former we should pray that they may be sustained, while the latter we should pray for them to return to the path they fell away from, even if we must rebuke them.

Rebuking may be necessary of course.  We must always reject sin and refuse to accept it in others with indifference.  However, we should not deem a person damned, or not a Christian because he stumbled on the path.

And we should remember that the measure we use against others will be the measure used against us by Christ.

So before determining that a person is a "false Christian," we need to ask ourselves on what basis we make this claim, and on which authority we have the right to make it.

We should remember the parable of Christ in Luke 18:

^10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. ^11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank thee that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. ^12 I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I get.’ ^13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ ^14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

God calls us to act like the tax collector before Him, and not like the Pharisee.

On Teacups, Aliens and Miracles: Hume's Error of Unproven Assumption

David Hume (1711-1776), Skeptic and Philosopher, once argued against the belief in miracles under the following reasoning:

The only rational basis for believing something is a miracle is that all alternate explanations are even more improbable.

This argument is popular with atheists.  In dealing with the claims of miracles, they claim it is easier to believe that the possibility of lying or being deceived than a miracle happening.  The question however is whether it can be considered accurate.

In a word, no, it is not accurate.  Nor is it reasonable or logical.

On the surface this might sound reasonable and logical.  However, the reason it is not is because: while something can seem more probable, that is not proof that it is what happened.

A Hypothetical Case

Let's take a hypothetical case.  A man claims to have been abducted by aliens.  The reasoning of Hume would say, Is it more probable that he had been abducted by aliens, or is it more probable he lied or was deceived?

The problem is, whether or not it is more probable the man did lie or was deceived is no indication that this is what did happen.  If, for example, a man is actually abducted by aliens it did happen even if it seems more likely that a man would lie than have it happen.

Or, as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle put it (in the words of Sherlock Holmes):

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

So when investigating the claim of a miracle, one has to start by eliminating the impossible, in a reasonable fashion.

So for the case of the example, we would investigate: Did he lie?  Was he deceived?  We would have to investigate these things.  We would need to investigate what did happen exactly, and the nature of the person claiming them.  During the course of the investigation, we would see if there are holes in the story, or if the person was known to be a liar or if it is possible that something natural happened which the hypothetical man in question misinterpreted.

(This, by the way is the process the Catholic Church uses — more or less — to investigate a claimed miracle or apparition.  It also goes a step further, investigating a diabolical cause if it seems to have a supernatural cause)

Hume's Error

Reasonable in this case does not mean the a priori claim "Miracles can't happen."  It means looking at the case as a whole to see if there is evidence for a lie, or deception or a natural cause.  However, if this turns out this cannot be established, it cannot be claimed as true that the individual was lying.

Hume's case against miracles is essentially an arguing in a circle:

1. Miracles cannot happen (Hume's enthymeme)
2. It is more probable that one who claims a Miracle must either be lying or mistaken
3. It is more probable they are lying or mistaken because miracles cannot happen

The problem of course is this argument assumes what needs to be proven (Miracles can't happen… which is a universal negative which is impossible to prove).

Ultimately, Hume's claim is based on a world view that miracles cannot happen, and any claim to one must be based on ignorance or deceit.  But unless this can be shown to happen, it is operating, not on science or reason, but on an atheist's "faith" in science to explain all things eventually.

The Atheist's Potential Counter-Objection

The atheist may at this time post the counter-objection: "Well, your assumption acts on the unproven premise that God does exist."  Sam Harris, noted atheist, has argued as a counter-analogy that he cannot prove a teacup does not orbit Pluto but he thinks it is probable that it does not.

The problem with this counter analogy is that it makes a great sound bite but proves nothing.  We could reasonably argue that there is no teacup orbiting Pluto, because there seems to be no way a teacup could even be out there.  Either we would have to put it out there, or someone else would have to put it out there.

Harris' (false) analogy argues essentially We did not put it out there, therefore it is not out there.  However, whether or not it is probable a teacup is out there, the atheist misses the point: Either it is out there or it is not out there.  If it is out there, then all the arguments about how unlikely it is are meaningless.

How Reason should approach Miracles

A claim of a miracle would be like dealing with a claim that a teacup was discovered out around Pluto and one needed to investigate the claim: What is the basis of the evidence it is there?  If it is there (and whether one believes in miracles or if one believes in "natural causes only," the case involves something which is there).  How could it have gotten out there? 

Science could tell us it is improbable that some cosmonaut having a tea break dropped it and it drifted out to Pluto because of the vastness of space compared to how far Pluto is from us.  In such a case, it would mean either it had a natural formation around the orbit of Pluto, or else aliens dropped it there.

Ultimately this is the problem with Hume's approach to miracles.  It is not enough to tell us something can't be a miracle.  It has to tell us what it actually is.  If science cannot tell us what it is, it needs to acknowledge this fact.

It is this failure to do so, which is based on the unproven assumption that miracles are impossible, that makes the claims of the atheist nothing more than a childish retort of "nuh uh!" to a claim.

On Teacups, Aliens and Miracles: Hume's Error of Unproven Assumption

David Hume (1711-1776), Skeptic and Philosopher, once argued against the belief in miracles under the following reasoning:

The only rational basis for believing something is a miracle is that all alternate explanations are even more improbable.

This argument is popular with atheists.  In dealing with the claims of miracles, they claim it is easier to believe that the possibility of lying or being deceived than a miracle happening.  The question however is whether it can be considered accurate.

In a word, no, it is not accurate.  Nor is it reasonable or logical.

On the surface this might sound reasonable and logical.  However, the reason it is not is because: while something can seem more probable, that is not proof that it is what happened.

A Hypothetical Case

Let's take a hypothetical case.  A man claims to have been abducted by aliens.  The reasoning of Hume would say, Is it more probable that he had been abducted by aliens, or is it more probable he lied or was deceived?

The problem is, whether or not it is more probable the man did lie or was deceived is no indication that this is what did happen.  If, for example, a man is actually abducted by aliens it did happen even if it seems more likely that a man would lie than have it happen.

Or, as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle put it (in the words of Sherlock Holmes):

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

So when investigating the claim of a miracle, one has to start by eliminating the impossible, in a reasonable fashion.

So for the case of the example, we would investigate: Did he lie?  Was he deceived?  We would have to investigate these things.  We would need to investigate what did happen exactly, and the nature of the person claiming them.  During the course of the investigation, we would see if there are holes in the story, or if the person was known to be a liar or if it is possible that something natural happened which the hypothetical man in question misinterpreted.

(This, by the way is the process the Catholic Church uses — more or less — to investigate a claimed miracle or apparition.  It also goes a step further, investigating a diabolical cause if it seems to have a supernatural cause)

Hume's Error

Reasonable in this case does not mean the a priori claim "Miracles can't happen."  It means looking at the case as a whole to see if there is evidence for a lie, or deception or a natural cause.  However, if this turns out this cannot be established, it cannot be claimed as true that the individual was lying.

Hume's case against miracles is essentially an arguing in a circle:

1. Miracles cannot happen (Hume's enthymeme)
2. It is more probable that one who claims a Miracle must either be lying or mistaken
3. It is more probable they are lying or mistaken because miracles cannot happen

The problem of course is this argument assumes what needs to be proven (Miracles can't happen… which is a universal negative which is impossible to prove).

Ultimately, Hume's claim is based on a world view that miracles cannot happen, and any claim to one must be based on ignorance or deceit.  But unless this can be shown to happen, it is operating, not on science or reason, but on an atheist's "faith" in science to explain all things eventually.

The Atheist's Potential Counter-Objection

The atheist may at this time post the counter-objection: "Well, your assumption acts on the unproven premise that God does exist."  Sam Harris, noted atheist, has argued as a counter-analogy that he cannot prove a teacup does not orbit Pluto but he thinks it is probable that it does not.

The problem with this counter analogy is that it makes a great sound bite but proves nothing.  We could reasonably argue that there is no teacup orbiting Pluto, because there seems to be no way a teacup could even be out there.  Either we would have to put it out there, or someone else would have to put it out there.

Harris' (false) analogy argues essentially We did not put it out there, therefore it is not out there.  However, whether or not it is probable a teacup is out there, the atheist misses the point: Either it is out there or it is not out there.  If it is out there, then all the arguments about how unlikely it is are meaningless.

How Reason should approach Miracles

A claim of a miracle would be like dealing with a claim that a teacup was discovered out around Pluto and one needed to investigate the claim: What is the basis of the evidence it is there?  If it is there (and whether one believes in miracles or if one believes in "natural causes only," the case involves something which is there).  How could it have gotten out there? 

Science could tell us it is improbable that some cosmonaut having a tea break dropped it and it drifted out to Pluto because of the vastness of space compared to how far Pluto is from us.  In such a case, it would mean either it had a natural formation around the orbit of Pluto, or else aliens dropped it there.

Ultimately this is the problem with Hume's approach to miracles.  It is not enough to tell us something can't be a miracle.  It has to tell us what it actually is.  If science cannot tell us what it is, it needs to acknowledge this fact.

It is this failure to do so, which is based on the unproven assumption that miracles are impossible, that makes the claims of the atheist nothing more than a childish retort of "nuh uh!" to a claim.

Christianity Is Not Irrational Even if Some Christians Are

Through the perusal of the daily blogs I follow I occasionally see articles which are quite worthy of wincing over.  The author of these efforts makes a statement as a Christian, indicating what they claim is a Christian belief, and not a belief of the individual.  Unfortunately such individuals do not realize in doing so, they are making a "witness" for Christians which is scandalous.  Not scandalous in the sense that Christians need to challenge the world.  Rather I mean scandalous in the sense of "Christians believe that?  What a bunch of idiots!"

Now yes, the foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of man but I am not speaking of these scandals.  Rather I am speaking of the foolishness of a man which is seen as the foolishness of Christians.

The issue I have is with certain Christians and their approach to science.

Christianity and Science

Historically, Christians have had nothing to fear from science, and indeed many of the earlier scientists were not only Christians, but priests or monks as well.  The idea was that God created the universe, and they sought to come to a greater understanding of the universe God made.

Now, beginning in the so-called "Enlightenment," we had a movement towards emphasizing reason alone, arguing that only that which we could observe could be considered true.  Unfortunately this false reasoning meant that certain scientists who accepted this view fell into the argument from silence fallacy, that because they did not have evidence of a thing it means it must not exist.

This view of science is of course wrong and must be challenged.

Unfortunately, some groups of Christians go the wrong way with this.  They seem to operate under this syllogism:

1. The Bible is true
2. Some claims of science contradict the Bible
3. Therefore Science is false

The problem is the major premise is ambiguous (in what way was it understood to be true?) and the second premise is false.  The conclusion is therefore not shown to be true.

I think this is important to stress because I have seen Christians lose their faith over this.  Once they become convinced Science does contain truth, they look at the second premise and therefore conclude that where Science contradicts the Bible, the Bible must be false… never realizing the problem the whole time was in their own personal interpretation of Scripture.

The Bible is indeed true and inerrant.  However, this does not always mean the individual interpreting it understands it correctly.  [The reason I reject the idea of personal interpretation of Scripture is that I have seen too many contradictory interpretations.]  Some scientists may reach conclusions which contradict either their understanding of the Bible or that of the one reading both the Bible and the writing of the scientist.

The Bible does indeed speak of Creation in a period of seven days, yes.  The Bible also often uses the number seven as a symbol of fulfillment (A Christian who believed God needed seven days to create the universe or that He was exhausted and needed to rest on the seventh day is limiting the power of God).  So a claim that a universe billions of years old contradicts the Bible really requires an investigation whether the one who holds seven literal days is reading the Bible as intended.

In regards to the claims of the scientists out there, the PZ Myers', the Richard Dawkins' and the like who claim that Science doesn't need God, therefore there is no God, what they claim is not claimed on the basic of scientific discovery, but on their own philosophical beliefs which goes beyond what Science itself can claim.

Christians who have faith in God do not need to fear science, though they need to assess the claims of the scientist to investigate whether a claim is based on science or what the scientist claims science teaches.

Christianity and Reason

Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen once said that God is not contrary to reason, though He may be above reason.  I find this to be very profound.  Certain Christians fear a claim that indicates something is against God's nature because they fear it makes God limited.

It is like the dilemma of Socrates in Euthyphro:

"Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" (10a)

The non Theist often argues that gods are subject to values.  Some Christians argue that Values are because God wills it (which opens up Christians to the question of "What if God told you to kill your child?").

The reasoning Christian recognizes this is a false dilemma.  Thomas Aquinas recognized that something is good because it reflects the good which God is.  Therefore good is neither outside of God, nor arbitrarily chosen by a "cosmic killjoy."

The claim of some Christians, seeking to protect the freedom of God, that God could do evil but chooses not to is based on a misunderstanding of what evil is.  Evil is not a positive force, but an absence of good.  So to say God could do evil is to say that God could be less than perfect.

Moreover this seeking to protect the freedom of God (based on a misunderstanding of how God is free) makes God's constancy and His boundless mercy no longer certain.  Because God could choose evil (under this idea), our only assurance He will not is "Well, He hasn't done it yet."

The Importance of Reason

I am not calling for the Rationalism of the Enlightenment of course.  That was an error based on the assumption that the human mind can know all there is to know.  Let it die recognized as the foolishness it is.

However, I am calling for the recognition that Christians do not need to be afraid of reason or science.  The Catholic Church does not require me to mindlessly follow without thinking.  Rather she calls me to understand what they teach so I might follow the teachings of Christ out of devotion and not because it is an arbitrary rule with no sense to it.

I wonder how many people have walked away from the Christian faith because either they did not understand the reasoning behind it or because they saw an irrational Christian and assumed from this that all Christians were irrational.

The Christian faith is not irrational.  We may not understand a reason for something, but this does not mean no reason exists for it.

If one is a Christian, do not fear reason and science.  If one follows reason and science, do not fear Christianity.  The individual should be certain their own understandings of Christianity or of science are not in error before arguing that either Christianity or science is "wrong."

Christianity Is Not Irrational Even if Some Christians Are

Through the perusal of the daily blogs I follow I occasionally see articles which are quite worthy of wincing over.  The author of these efforts makes a statement as a Christian, indicating what they claim is a Christian belief, and not a belief of the individual.  Unfortunately such individuals do not realize in doing so, they are making a "witness" for Christians which is scandalous.  Not scandalous in the sense that Christians need to challenge the world.  Rather I mean scandalous in the sense of "Christians believe that?  What a bunch of idiots!"

Now yes, the foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of man but I am not speaking of these scandals.  Rather I am speaking of the foolishness of a man which is seen as the foolishness of Christians.

The issue I have is with certain Christians and their approach to science.

Christianity and Science

Historically, Christians have had nothing to fear from science, and indeed many of the earlier scientists were not only Christians, but priests or monks as well.  The idea was that God created the universe, and they sought to come to a greater understanding of the universe God made.

Now, beginning in the so-called "Enlightenment," we had a movement towards emphasizing reason alone, arguing that only that which we could observe could be considered true.  Unfortunately this false reasoning meant that certain scientists who accepted this view fell into the argument from silence fallacy, that because they did not have evidence of a thing it means it must not exist.

This view of science is of course wrong and must be challenged.

Unfortunately, some groups of Christians go the wrong way with this.  They seem to operate under this syllogism:

1. The Bible is true
2. Some claims of science contradict the Bible
3. Therefore Science is false

The problem is the major premise is ambiguous (in what way was it understood to be true?) and the second premise is false.  The conclusion is therefore not shown to be true.

I think this is important to stress because I have seen Christians lose their faith over this.  Once they become convinced Science does contain truth, they look at the second premise and therefore conclude that where Science contradicts the Bible, the Bible must be false… never realizing the problem the whole time was in their own personal interpretation of Scripture.

The Bible is indeed true and inerrant.  However, this does not always mean the individual interpreting it understands it correctly.  [The reason I reject the idea of personal interpretation of Scripture is that I have seen too many contradictory interpretations.]  Some scientists may reach conclusions which contradict either their understanding of the Bible or that of the one reading both the Bible and the writing of the scientist.

The Bible does indeed speak of Creation in a period of seven days, yes.  The Bible also often uses the number seven as a symbol of fulfillment (A Christian who believed God needed seven days to create the universe or that He was exhausted and needed to rest on the seventh day is limiting the power of God).  So a claim that a universe billions of years old contradicts the Bible really requires an investigation whether the one who holds seven literal days is reading the Bible as intended.

In regards to the claims of the scientists out there, the PZ Myers', the Richard Dawkins' and the like who claim that Science doesn't need God, therefore there is no God, what they claim is not claimed on the basic of scientific discovery, but on their own philosophical beliefs which goes beyond what Science itself can claim.

Christians who have faith in God do not need to fear science, though they need to assess the claims of the scientist to investigate whether a claim is based on science or what the scientist claims science teaches.

Christianity and Reason

Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen once said that God is not contrary to reason, though He may be above reason.  I find this to be very profound.  Certain Christians fear a claim that indicates something is against God's nature because they fear it makes God limited.

It is like the dilemma of Socrates in Euthyphro:

"Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" (10a)

The non Theist often argues that gods are subject to values.  Some Christians argue that Values are because God wills it (which opens up Christians to the question of "What if God told you to kill your child?").

The reasoning Christian recognizes this is a false dilemma.  Thomas Aquinas recognized that something is good because it reflects the good which God is.  Therefore good is neither outside of God, nor arbitrarily chosen by a "cosmic killjoy."

The claim of some Christians, seeking to protect the freedom of God, that God could do evil but chooses not to is based on a misunderstanding of what evil is.  Evil is not a positive force, but an absence of good.  So to say God could do evil is to say that God could be less than perfect.

Moreover this seeking to protect the freedom of God (based on a misunderstanding of how God is free) makes God's constancy and His boundless mercy no longer certain.  Because God could choose evil (under this idea), our only assurance He will not is "Well, He hasn't done it yet."

The Importance of Reason

I am not calling for the Rationalism of the Enlightenment of course.  That was an error based on the assumption that the human mind can know all there is to know.  Let it die recognized as the foolishness it is.

However, I am calling for the recognition that Christians do not need to be afraid of reason or science.  The Catholic Church does not require me to mindlessly follow without thinking.  Rather she calls me to understand what they teach so I might follow the teachings of Christ out of devotion and not because it is an arbitrary rule with no sense to it.

I wonder how many people have walked away from the Christian faith because either they did not understand the reasoning behind it or because they saw an irrational Christian and assumed from this that all Christians were irrational.

The Christian faith is not irrational.  We may not understand a reason for something, but this does not mean no reason exists for it.

If one is a Christian, do not fear reason and science.  If one follows reason and science, do not fear Christianity.  The individual should be certain their own understandings of Christianity or of science are not in error before arguing that either Christianity or science is "wrong."

Is It Religion That Makes Us Worse People?

Another individual recommended a blog to me asking whether religion does harm to people.  (In fairness, the blog author seemed to be asking "Is this true since I became a Christian?"  Not asserting it was true).  He gave this quote as a lead-in to the article:

"I have watched a good many atheists who were harmless, inoffensive people.  They committed a few adulteries or a little quiet pederasty and they were not to be trusted with unattended typewriters or valuable books, but, by and large, they were inoffensive.  Then they would start going to church and listening to the clink of thuribles and inhaling incense and suddenly they would acquire all those wonderful Christian virtues—bigotry, pride, intolerance, chronic anger, sexual dishonesty."

— Kenneth Rexroth, An Autobiographical Novel

The problem of course is the associating of these "Christian virtues" with Christianity, and not in the failing of the individual practicing it.

These are not Christian vices.  They are vices found in all men, whether Christian, Jew, Buddhist or even Atheist.

The thing is we notice them only when a person changes a world view.  When person X practices the same vices we do, but practices them with the same outlook as we have, we write it off as "That's how people are."

However, when a person changes his worldview, the vices he possesses has not gone anywhere, but are practiced in light of his new perspective those vices are no longer tolerable.  We hypocritically denounce them as being "caused" by this change.

Certainly the atheist can possess all of these "wonderful Christian virtues" as well.  They can be prideful that they "know better" than the believer.  They can be intolerant of the Christian who practices openly what he preaches.  They can be continually angry at the Christian who challenges them, and they can be sexually dishonest (the atheist may deny there are any binding sexual mores, but I think he would be quite upset if he found his wife in bed with another man).

It would of course be hypocrisy to look down on Christians for these vices when they are present in all.

I believe the common stereotype of Christians being judgmental comes not from their actual change for the worse, but because they are seeking to devote themselves to God, and that necessarily means a turning away from the old man who lived contrary to the way God willed.

This turning however does not mean we automatically lose our former behaviors.  I try to gentle myself because being a Christian means loving others, but that doesn't mean I automatically lost my exasperation with bad logic and unchallenged assumptions.  Rather, the target has changed.

[People who think I am arrogant or condescending now as a Christian would have probably liked me much less twenty years ago, when my focus was on politics.  It was the Christian faith which taught me that truth is not constrained in a party platform.]

I do believe the teachings of the Catholic faith have tempered me from the man I was before, teaching me not to confuse the error with the person who held them [that is: An idea may be idiotic, but that does not mean the person holding it is an idiot].

So I would say, no, religion does NOT make us worse people.  It is our refusing (or our inability) to die to ourselves that makes these vices noticeable in Christians.  However they are not "Christian" vices, but human vices.