Did Marx Promise to Abolition Religion? 

In my last post, I contrasted the words of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, with those of Jesus Christ.

Marx & Engels: "Communism abolishes all religion, all eternal truth, all morality." 

Jesus Christ: "Don't think I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets.  I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill." 

A skeptic who calls himself Mowicus did what skeptics should do, and looked up the Marx quote, which he found is from chapter two of The Communist Manifesto.  He then posed this fair-minded challenge:

"I looked up the context of this quotation, as I've encountered bogus Marx quotations in recent times. I'm not sure how you intend it to be seen, but the way it's used in your post it looks like Marx/Engels are asserting and agree with the substance of the quotation while in context they give it as a bourgeois objection to Communism. I'm not sure they don't completely dismiss it, but I'm not sure they affirm it either. How exactly do you see this quotation?"

This is a good question, and I think answering it will help explain Marx' complex, and often tricky, attitude towards religion, and the attitude his followers adopted in various Marxist movements and states.

Sizeable works have been written on various aspects of this question -- I've often recommended David Aikman's detailed historical study of the role atheism played in the lives and thought of Marx, Engels, and Lenin.  (Though it's a little hard to come by, since it was a dissertation under my old prof, Dr. Donald Treadgold, at the University of Washington, at least one skeptic did order it through an interlibrary loan on my advise.) 

Here I'll be brief. 

In short, I think Marx and Engels are giving this as a failed objection to communism, but not as a false charge. In other words, yes, they implicitly admit that communism does abolition all these things (whatever that means), but that it is no crime to get rid of them (whatever "crime" can mean when morality has been abolished!)

Meaning is derived from context, and the context here is (a) a particular passage in the Communist Manifesto; (b) the book as a whole; (c) it's historical background; (d) the life and thought of its authors, that Aikman explores; (e) how it would be interpretted by Marx' most dedicated or powerful followers, especially in communist-ruled territories. 

From the first two, Marx and Engels are making several charges against their own movement, worded as the abolition of things thought fundamental -- private property, family, religion and morality.  They throw these charges out and wrecklessly affirm them.  Marx and Engels then accuse their supposed class enemies of doing something worse, and that the thing "abolitioned" -- private property, family, morality -- is no more than a mask for something horrible:

"Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents?  To this crime we plead guilty . . . The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parent to child, becomes all the more disgusting . . . by the actions of Modern industry." 

It's a little hard to make out Marx' real intentions, here, at times.  His cynical interpretations of his enemies' motives and actions are typical, as is his equally naive assumption that with the "proletariat" in charge, or rather intellectuals like himself, funded by capitalists like Engels, everything will be extraordinarily cool.  Marx probably didn't intend to abolition families: he had one of his own, even if highly disfunctional, and he did seem to love his daughters, in his strange way.  But he certainly did mean to abolition at least large-scale private property, which he treats in the same way, here. 

Certainly, Marx hated God.  He was an atheist, because he denied believing God, but I am not entirely sure he was telling the truth.  (Aikman takes seriously a radical alternative suggestion by Richard Wurmbrand, that I will not go into here, as it would disrupt the discussion.) 

Certainly, Marx and Engels wanted to end religion, and conventional moral rules, and thought communism would do both. 
I go into this in some detail in Jesus and the Religions of Man, and conclude that Marx and his revolutionary followers actually accepted three different moral systems: (1) Christian morality centered on love, by which they debunked the capitalists (this is implicit in Marx' sarcastic and over-the-top criticisms of them in Communist Manifesto, including in this passage). (2) "The ends justify the means," by which they justified their own actions, such as bank robbery, assassination, shooting peasants, imprisoning thought criminals, again including measures mentioned in this passage, etc; (3) Nanny-state morality, by which, having attained power, they harranged citizens to work hard, not spit, not drink too much, have lots of babies or not too many babies, help fellow citizens (if they're not counter-revolutionaries or suspect elements), etc.

The Marxist attitude towards religion was even more complex and flexible. Communism was almost always hostile, but usually pretended to allow some religious freedom, since religion was supposed to fade away on its own, in theory.  Sometimes the state went to an enormous extent to fool people into believing in religious freedom. Often, though, the persecution was intense, including mass-murder and gruesome enslavement and torture, though even then the state usually pretended some pretext, for example by trumping up criminal charges against pastors. Sometimes the doctrine of a "Common Front" was adopted, for instance in response to the Nazi invasion in the USSR. These ambiguities allowed (and allow) many Westerners to fool themselves about the true stance of the communist party towards religion, and even to simply overlook mass murders, torture, destruction, and lies on a massive scale.

In China, I would argue, the attitude towards religion, while still hostile, has since Mao died (and most surviving pastors released from prison) evolved into something pretty traditional.  At the top, party members are mostly skeptics, much like the neo-Confucian literati after the Song Dynasty or so.  They allow several forms of "orthodox" religion, adding "Protestantism,""Catholicism" and "Islam" to the traditional three (Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism).  Worship outside of approved locations, and by approved methods, is in theory not allowed, nor are certain teachings (end times) or activities (miraculous healing).  And some movements are heavily persecuted as perceived threats to social peace or to the state.  But this is traditional in China: Marx I think probably has only a very little to do with what goes on there, these days.

But certainly, the attitude of Marx and Engels, and the actions of the communist movement as a whole, show that "abolish religion" was not at all a false charge, or intended as one, though methods and ultimately attitudes would vary.

Are Religions Evil because they cause Inquisitions?

One of the best lines in the movie Mary Poppins was, I think, given to Mrs. Banks to sing:

"Although we adore men individually, we agree that as a group they're raa-theer stoooo-pid." 

Seldom has the inanity of man to man (not excepting woman) been more richly on display than in Dublin, at the World Atheist Conference a few days ago, when Iranian dissident Maryam Namazie gave a popular keynote speech on the horrors of religion, comparing Christian and Muslim inquisitions. 

In my last post (please read first, it's short), I asked the obvious question, that seems to have escaped those who invited Ms. Namazie.  If you're going to defame religion for causing inquisitions and offer atheism as the solution to such evils, wouldn't it be better to invite someone who is NOT on the Central Committee of a communist party to make the point?  Even in the goodthinking frenzy of the moment, isn't it just possible that some non-atheist in the crowd, who still remembers the long-forgotten 20th Century (it HAS been 11 years, now), might gently point to the Killing Fields or Gulag, and ask why it's better to kill fifty million people to end religion, than to kill three thousand to keep it afloat?

No doubt, "as a group" we Christians can be "rather stupid," too.  It is probably healthy for us to get beat over the head for past sins, from time to time -- lest we ever forget that Christians can put people on the rack, too.      

But we also need to think clearly about history, and try to learn the right lessons from the past. 

In the interest of doing so, I will now analyze and respond to the substance, not just the spectacle, of Ms. Poppins' -- I mean Maryam Namazie's -- speech.  Much of what she says shows deep ignorance and lack of reflection.  One can admire her passion, though, and I think she does hit a few nails on the heads. 

The Islamic Inquisition  / Maryam Namazie  / Keynote address at the World Atheist Conference  / June 4-6 2011


"In this day and age, Islam matters because of Islamism. Islam per se is fundamentally no worse than any other religion. The tenets, dogma, and principles of all religions are equal."

How can anyone get away with thinking, let alone saying, such blithering nonsense in public?  Quakerism is the same as the Peoples' Temple?  "Love your neighbor as yourself" is the same as, "sacrifice your neighbor on top of yon pyramid and cut out his heart so the gods will keep Earth going?" 

Atheists like to portray themselves as being especially in tune with the spirit of science, but from a scientific point of view, when are different objects in a single class equal to one another?  Is a lime as sweet as a strawberry?  Does a weiner dog pull sleds as heavy a load as a husky?  Can one live as comfortably on a planet circling a quasar as on our own beloved Earth?

The reason Namazie could get away with such nonsense, of course, is that she was speaking to New Atheists, who think their own views are true, and dismiss with contempt those they don't believe in.  This is one of the ways in which Gnus are like fundamentalists: they hold to a radical form of what in the theology of religions is called an "exclusivist" understanding of religion, or rather "ontological exclusivism:" the idea that we are right, and everyone else is just wrong, full stop.  It's a very naive view, suitable for adolescents in reaction, not for people who have fairly surveyed the world of religions.  It's not at all what I think Christianity teaches.  But a lot of Gnus seem to be stuck in it. 

"I don't believe in good or bad religions; in my opinion all religion is bad for you."

In the face of the millions of people who have quit drugs, stopped drinking themselves to death, learned to love parents, children, or spouses better, in the face of religious reform movements that combated slavery, foot-binding, human sacrifice, and started tens of thousands of hospitals, schools, and rehab centers around the world, what can one deduce from such Machivalean thinking?  This sounds like a mass of people trying to convince themselves something by the sound of their preacher's roar.  

"Religion should come with a health warning like cigarettes: ‘religion kills.’"

Another easy applause line.  How simple the world can seem!

"But even so, today - as we speak - there is a distinction to be made between religions in general and Islam in particular, but for no other reasons than that it is the ideology behind a far-Right regressive political movement that has state power in many places with Sharia law being the most implemented legal code in the world."

When Namazie is speaking about Islam, she can say some interesting things.  But why reduce a religion that has existed 1400 years to a vague modern political ideology? 

"Islam matters to us today because we are living through an Islamic inquisition and not because it is becoming more ‘popular’ as its proponents like to argue. They call it the fastest growing religion. I’d personally like a count of how many people are leaving it, or would like to leave if they could without being killed."

 Of course one cannot obtain such a count.  But there is no doubt the number of Muslims in the world has grown in recent decades.  Largely that is because of a high birth rate in most Muslim countries, until recently, when it has begun to fall in some Arab states.  It is also true that many have left or would like to leave Islam, but that this can be dangerous in many Muslim countries -- which is no doubt why Ms. Namazie left Iran. 

"Islam’s appeal has not grown amongst the general public; in fact it’s the opposite. Its record in political power speaks volumes for itself: stonings, honour killings, amputation of limbs, child ‘marriages’, sexual apartheid, decapitations, public hangings, bombs in discotheques and on buses, the slaughter of entire generations in the Middle East and North Africa ... "

Which "general public" is she talking about?  The number of Muslims in the UK appears to have grown by about a million in the past ten years.  A quarter of Muslims in the US are converts. 

Frankly, a little madness doesn't always hurt the prospects of an ideology.  Look at communism: everyone knew those folks were out for blood, and still it kept growing.  The willingness to risk your life for a belief creates what sociologist Rodney Stark calls a "high-tension" religion, which tend to grow. 

"It is the difference between Christianity today and one during the inquisition.  A religion that has been reined in by an enlightenment is very different from one that has political power and is spearheading an inquisition."

The "Enlightenment" can be as dangerous as anything.  The French Revolution followed the Enlightenment.  Both Nazis and Communists adopted some of its values and language.  But here Namazie touches on the real issue: the danger of allowing any one ideological group monopoly power.

Stark argues, and I think he's right, that aside from ideology -- which really does matter -- it's a problem if one ideological group monopolizes a society, or if two big groups struggle for control.  A better situation is a free market of ideas.  That's what we've had in the US for 200 years, and as a result, religion has been both vibrant and free. 

"Under the inquisition, you were killed even if you confessed. A confession would just mean that you would be strangled before being burnt to death rather than being burnt alive. The same applies for Islamism. It’s a killing machine."

Most of what Namazie says about the Inquisition appears to be based more on popular myth than reality.  A very small percentage of those subject to the Inquisition were killed; most were given light punishments.  But I agree that the Inquisition was a terrible event, and part of a bigger problem after nationalized churches became supreme in Europe. 

"Sharia law is designed to teach the masses the damnable nature of dissent.  Moreover, under the inquisition, once you were baptized, it could not be undone. The same is true with Islam. You are just not allowed to leave."

There is, indeed, a parallel between the worst excesses of the "Christian" Middle Ages and oppressive Muslim regimes.  Weak religions commonly borrow from stronger religions.  When Islam was on the rise, it borrowed practices from Christians, Jews, Persians, and Arab polytheists.  Later, as Islam ruled most of the richest parts of the Mediterranean world, and threatened to conquer the rest, Europe naturally adopted some Muslim beliefs, such as jihad and Mohammed's teaching that those who die in holy war go straight to heaven.  Christianity also borrowed from the tyranical system of ancient Rome, which had persecuted the church, and turned on its persecutors. 

"If you look at Christianity for example, it’s not that the tenets, dogma, and principles have changed; it has not become more humane since the days of the inquisition and witch burnings."


Actually, when people are allowed to read the words of Jesus (which they were not, in much of the Middle Ages), they see that witch burnings and inquisitions are AGAINST the tenets of Christ.  They were not, unfortunately, against the tenets of Marx. 

It is passing strange for a communist to hold up customs that appeared 1200 years after the time of Christ, and make that the standard for Christianity.  Marx' true homocidal tendencies came to the fore much more quickly. 

"It is important to note here that Islamism was actually brought to centre stage during the Cold War as part of US foreign policy in order to create a ‘green’ Islamic belt surrounding the Soviet Union and not concocted in some immigrant’s kitchen in London . . . "

This looks like one of those weird Middle Eastern conspiracy theories.  Few of the practices that Namazie derides are new to Islam -- most have parallels in the life of Mohammed himself, who I do not believe was a CIA agent.   


"It is the human being who is meant to be equal not his or her beliefs. It is the human being who is worthy of the highest respect and rights not his or her beliefs or those imputed on them."

Here we agree. 

"The problem is that religion sees things the other way around."

Unless this idea was the fruit of Christian theology. 



"This is precisely what is wrong with multiculturalism. It gives precedence to cultures and religion rather than people and their rights and lives. And it says that human beings – depending on how they are pigeon-holed – are fundamentally different, and should be treated as such. The idea of difference has always been the fundamental principle of a racist agenda not the other way around.

"And within this context any criticism of Islam and Islamism are deemed to be racism and Islamophobia. This is nothing but political scaremongering in order to silence criticism against Islam. The term is used to shield Islam and Islamism from criticism and so everything from opposing executions in Iran to demanding an end to Sharia courts in Britain are deemed racism by Islamic lobbyists and their supporters, including from within the Left, like the Socialist Workers' Party in the UK. It has become politically incorrect to criticise Islam. But Islamophobia does not refer to the fear of a certain people. It refers to the fear of a certain religion. And what is so wrong with that? Shouldn't we have the right to be critical of Islam - especially given its practices, its record?"

Preach it! 

Did anyone mention communism?


"At a minimum, we must have the complete separation of religion from the state, the law and educational system. The promotion of secularism is therefore an important vehicle to protect society from religion's intervention in people's lives, especially in the face of religion’s rising access to power."

That depends what "secularism" means.  If it means we favor the worldview of atheists and communists over that of Quakers and Presbyterians, I don't see why that would help. 

"Religion excludes whilst secularism is inclusive and ensures that a sect or group does not impose its beliefs on all. That a person's religion is a private affair."



Sure!  But many secular humanists see schools as an instrument for persuading kids to accept their atheistic worldview.  Sam Harris is on record as saying so; Dan Dennett at loudly hinting it.  And of course communists followed out that policy, on similiar rationale, in one third of the world, and still try to wash tender brains of opposing views in places like China and North Korea. 

"Faith schools must be abolished."

Ah!  The claws of the putty-tat begin to protrude. 

"Religion in general and Islam more so because of the rise of Islamism, indoctrinates children – often violently."

Having been to a religious school as a young boy, I remember some of that violence -- Mrs. Jones in third grade hit my hand with a ruler for getting an answer wrong, as I recall.  Let's abolish Mrs. Jones, and parents like mine who send kids to such houses of instructional horror! 

"Religious schools by nature must teach the superiority of their belief system and the baseness of non-believers and kafirs . . . Education is meant to give children access to science, reason and the advances of the 21st century. It is meant to level the playing field irrespective of and despite the family the child is born into. It is meant to allow children to think freely and critically – something that religion actually prohibits and punishes."

Now there's another remarkably sweeping statement.  If "religion" prohibits and punishes critical thought -- full stop -- where did people like Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas (to start with a few early As) come from? 

If Christian schools are such terrible things, why have billions of young people managed to get a decent education in the things?  Why was I so bored when I went to public school in 4th grade, and sat in my desk a year or so waiting for all the "free-thinking, critical" kids around me to catch up? 

"Let me end with a quote from the late Marxist, atheist and humanist Mansoor Hekmat:"

“…In Islam, be it true or untrue, the individual has no rights or dignity. In Islam, the woman is a slave. In Islam, the child is on par with animals. In Islam, freethinking is a sin deserving of punishment. Music is corrupt. Sex without permission and religious certification, is the greatest of sins. This is the religion of death. In reality, all religions are such but most religions have been restrained by freethinking and freedom-loving humanity over hundreds of years. This one was never restrained or controlled. With every move, it brings abominations and misery."



Some of this seems a little over the top, even about Islam.

To give him credit, Hekmat seems to have opposed Russian and Chinese communism.  Why was he a Marxist, though, if he cared so much about freedom?  One can only wonder -- Karl Marx himself was as egocentric and bossy as many of his totalitarian followers.  



But it looks like Hekmat is simply trying to dis the competition.  All religions, what, say music is corrupt?  But Confucius said, "I heard the sound of this music, and could not notice the taste of my food for months afterwards."  Christianity?  One word: Bach.  OK, a few more: Handel.  Harps.  Halleluyah. Gospel.

What is behind the pitch black image of religion that Marxists portray, seems to be a fundamental (ist) drive to simplify reality: "communism abolishes all religion, all eternal truth, all morality."   

Compare that to the approach an atheist I respect, the psychologist, Ernest Becker, took: 

Sexual aparheid




“I have had the growing realization over the past few years that the problem of man’s knowledge is not to oppose and to demolish opposing views, but to include them in a larger theoretical structure.”

Or Jesus:



"Don't think I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets.  I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill."

The New Atheism seems to be following Marx into the most simplistic and untenable view of religion: that they are all simply wrong, aside from my own, which I do not define as a religion. 

Jesus offers a richer understanding, not just of Christian tradition, but of world tradition -- including the best ideas in atheism.

What we can learn from the Inquisition: 

(1) Ma Bell doesn't care, because she doesn't have to care.  A free market of ideas is best for everybody. 

(2) "Power corrupts."  Separation of powers is not an option.  "My kingdom is not of this world;" "Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's" -- somebody had a good idea.

(3) Ideas matter, too.  Bad ideas can bring you to torture, faster, and keep you doing it for longer.  Good ideas ("Love your enemy as yourself") are not magic wands, but when accepted, can slow the rush to hell described in (2). 

(4) Thank God for atheists!  And for Christian squabbling.  It's probably a good idea for society when the sects, and the anti-sects, are fractured.

(5) Islam, like the West, needs Jesus.  



Maryam Namazie, Central
Committee member of the
Worker Communist Party of Iran,
and good at smiling.

Religious Inquisitions Bad, Anti-Religious Inquisitions Good?

In an astounding act of chutzpah, Iranian communist leader Maryam Namazie just gave a hell-fire-and-brimstone sermon against Christian and Muslim inquisitions at the World Atheist Conference in Dublin.  She breathed not a word about communist inquisitions, which have resulted in the torture and death of tens of thousands of innocent people, for every victim of the Spanish Inquisition.  (Which itself was, I agree, one of the low points of Christian history.) 

"Religion kills," Namazie warns us. 

Yeah, right.  Thanks for reminding us. 

Her talk proved deeply popular among "Gnu" atheists.   In just a few hours, it already has 82,000 page hits.  It was also linked at PZ Myer's popular Pharyngula site, where her attacks were of course generally welcome.  This despite what I see as both deplorable logic and deep historical ignorance, as I think I'll explain in a later blog.  (Viewer alert: I will probably post a thorough, not entirely unappreciative, response to Namazie's talk tomorrow.)

But what's most striking is the humbug and hypocrisy not only of Namazie's address, but of the World Atheist Conference, for inviting a communist aparatchik to give a talk on inquisitions.  Were they expecting a seminar on how to conduct them?  Evidently not, since she didn't give any such useful tips, and no one seemed to note their absense. 

So what are the Dublin atheists thinking?  How does one explain this astounding bit of chutzpah?  Here are a few possibilities I came up with:

(a) Atheists are all Medieval scholars.  They are head-in-the-clouds historians, who are live in the past, and never noticed the 20th Century. 

(b) They believe that the problems with Soviet communism were all the fault of Joseph Stalin.  Otherwise, Marx and his followers are all truly dedicated humanitarians and lovers of freedom.  In other words, they haven't forgotten quite ALL of the 20th Century, just most of it. 

(c) Hey, she's Iranian, she's female, she's lesbian, she's radical, she's got a nice mellow smile -- why read the rest of the resume?

(d) What's wrong with a little "Common Front" until the Gnus take over?  We might as well make a big noise about liberty and all -- we've got the schools and are brainwashing the kids just like the Soviets were, anyway.  Let's squack about their Inquisitions, keep mum about our own, and keep the other side on its toes -- the best offense is a good offense, eh?

The Flying Spaghetti Monster Leaves Orbit! 

God and the Stoics

Since Voltaire, skeptics have recognized that the most effective argument is often mockery.  Laugh, and the world laughs with you.  Argue, and the other side is liable to argue back.  This is why Steven Colbert, who as far as I can tell has nothing to say, is so popular. 

One of the most popular taunts from atheists in recent years has involved comparing God to a creature they call the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  Richard Dawkins is among the many atheists who like to talk about him. Here's a typical example I came across in a conversation about God on Amazon.com:

"Yes, if you choose to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, an atheist will not necessarily understand why."

This particular jibe ended up having a longer and more interesting shelf-life than most such random shots.  It precipitated what I found to be a stimulating debate between myself and a philosophy professor from the Midwest (whom I'll call RF), also an atheist but one more inclined to think than just mock.  We argued about whether or not God is an arbitrary concept, like the FSM, or if (aside from other good reasons to believe in God), there is an independent awareness of God in many cultures.  (Which of course one cannot say of the Spaghetti Monster, Mercury, Spiderman, or other such genuine human inventions.) 

The conversation ended up centering around the remarkable rebirth of theism in ancient Greece, in particular among the Stoics.  My debate partner knew quite a bit about the Stoics.  I came across this argument, now more than two years old, while looking for a source for a footnote for my dissertation this morning.  I thought some readers might enjoy these exerpts.  They may not be pithy enough to use as a response next time someone witnesses to you about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but those seriously interested in the coherence of theism, they might be of value.  (I've ended the conversation after a long post analyzing Cleanthes' fascinating Hymn to Zeus; maybe I'll add more later.  Glosses are in italics.)

Paul: Yes, if you choose to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, an atheist will not necessarily understand why.

David: While you may not have intended to be insulting, and I didn't take it that way, the "Flying Spagetti Monster" probably is inherently mocking. To take it more seriously than it probably deserves, though, one important difference between the spagetti monster, or the pink unicorn, and God, is that the former are arbitrary, while God is not. This is shown by the fact that a cohesive and consistent picture of God emerges in many cultures around the world. Dawkins and Dennett are ignorant of this fact (long since recognized by anthropologists), and it undermines one of their arguments against God.

One of their own arguments against God rests on the premise that there is no such coherent picture of God. But the premise is false; therefore the argument they use to argue against God, if valid, is actually evidence FOR the existence of God.

Probably the best skeptical response to this argument (though a bit ad hoc -- no skeptics I know predicted these facts, as did Sts. Paul and Augustine), would be that there's something about human psychology or anthropology that lends itself to belief in God as the Judeo-Christian tradition conceives Him. (A "God gene," maybe -- though different from a source of mystical experience, as usually intended.)

Even if that were so, that would still send the Spagetti Monster flying off into intrastellar space. Human beings have no spontaneous tendency to cook Italian spagetti, let alone believe in the Spagetti Monster; therefore, there is no parallel.

For this and other reasons, an atheist SHOULD recognize the difference between God and the FSM. If in fact theism has a biological or psychological basis, he probable DOES recognize the difference, and simply chooses to pretend otherwise. If it has no such basis, then the coincidence among different cultures around the world is even more startling, and strongly suggests revelation.

RF:  I've heard you make this remark before concerning a supposed universality of the conception of God. I have no problem with religious people trying to find common ground with people of other faiths, but historically I don't see this universality (nor, by the way, did John Locke, for which reason he rejected innate ideas.). Of course, the three most populous religions of the world today--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--do share a very similar conception of their respective gods, but this is easily explained by historical influence. But looking back historically, and not simply counting heads, we find very different conceptions of deities. One only has to look at the prevalence of polytheism in the ancient world coming out of the bronze age. So I find nothing that suggests historically the universality you claim.

RF: Sorry about the second post, but your reference to a Stoic again raises a question, the one Paul was raising as well, as to whether identifying all these gods in different cultures as a reference to God as understood by a Christian is not a matter of ignoring the details. The Stoics were thoroughgoing materialists, and thus their god was understood as material, fire in fact, quite out of keeping with a Christian conception. One might also cite Aristotle's god. It would be entirely anachronistic to see this god as some equivalent to the Christian god. Aristotle's god is not a creator, not a governor of the world or designer of it in any sense, is not a loving god, not a judge of us or a source of moral standards. We can't gloss over such details, IMO.

DM: As for the Stoic God, I think their physics was at war with their intuition on the nature of God, and the intuition usually won. Of course everything was made of matter for them. But their writings on God are very striking from a Christian perspective. You can make a case that they were materialist, polytheist, pantheist, henotheist, or just theistic -- though all our conceptions of those things are a bit out of pace with their metaphysics -- it was unique. But reading through their stuff, it's the theistic element that seems strongest to me. I'm including a discussion of this question in the paper I'm writing; I'd be interested in what you think about those two or three pages when (if) I finish.

I really am enjoying those folks -- I feel deep admiration for their philosophy, which is one of the most heroic, yet also humble somehow, I've ever come across.

RF:  I'm still not convinced. There's also an issue of circularity to your argument. You admit that there isn't universal belief in a supreme deity, and thus admit to counterexamples. But with that in mind, you argument seems to boil down to something like this: in all cultures in which a supreme deity is recognized these deities are alike in that they are all conceived as being supreme. If you ignore the differences in detail, this is as far as I can see what your argument boils down to.

As for the Stoic god, I would still stress the differences between it and the Christian god. Not only was it a material being, but like Aristotle's god it did not intercede in worldly events. It determines the natural order, but once so determined it does nothing to change that order. Thus like Aristotle's god, there is no point in prayer, since the Stoic god will not answer such prayers, and there isn't even a suggestion that it would hear a prayer. Like Aristotle's god, there is no suggestion of omniscience as Christians understand it. Again, the Stoic god is no moral judge, and no moral law giver.

But further there are so many forms of religious belief: pantheism, monolotry, polytheism, and even forms of Buddhism that don't recognize a god at all, that it is hard to put much credence into your argument. And even if I gave up on these objections, and accepted that there is some general recognition of a supreme being among many cultures, what is implied by this? There are many explanations possible.

But I'm glad to hear you enjoy the Stoics. They have always been a favorite of mine as well, particularly Epictetus.

DM: The skeptic claim is that God is arbitrary, like the FSM. Dawkins makes this explicit (as did Durkheim):

"Not surprisingly, since it is founded on local traditions of private revelation rather than evidence, the God Hypothesis comes in many versions. Historians of religion recognize a progression from primitive tribal animisms, through polytheisms such as those of the Greeks, Romans and Norsemen, to monotheisms . . . "

My response is (1) Dawkins is wrong, "historians of religion" mostly know now that the last item on his alleged progresssion often (even usually) comes first. (2) What he says about the "God Hypothesis" coming in "many versions" involves a major oversight: in fact there is striking agreement between hundreds of tribes on EVERY inhabited continent about the character of the Supreme God.

It's not just that He's supreme. There's a whole list of characteristics that people around the world usually attach to the supreme God. (creator -- father -- good -- judge -- transcends cultures -- rewards kindness -- should not be worshipped with an idol -- among others) Durkheim gives a short list for Australian tribes, John Mbiti a long list for African peoples, James Legge and Vincent Shih give an almost identical list of characteristics for the ancient Chinese God. Lang showed that belief in a High God with similar characteristics was common around the world. Leading experts in different fields and of all viewpoints, like Mircea Eliade, Marvin Harris, Paul Radin, and Rodney Stark, have admitted the phenomena, though they've given different spins to it.

At a minimum, it shows that the Judeo-Christian God is NOT arbitrary, or the product of one particular culture.

The Stoic God was not, admittedly, conceived identically as Yahweh. Like many primitive concepts of God, also some from science, He was distant, and difficult to access. That's why the Christian faith came as "good news:" as Pascal put it, "not the God of the philosophers, but of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" -- the Christian revelation added to what the Greeks were already figuring out about God. But how can a Christian read what Balbus said here and not recognize who he is talking about?

"Thus, if we every way examine the universe, it is apparent, from the greatest reason, that the whole is admirably governed by a divine providence . . . "

"To this skill of nature, and this care of providence, so diligent and so ingenious, many reflections may be added, which show what valuable things the Deity has bestowed on man."

Cleanthes' Hymn to Zeus, and a lot that Epictetus says, is also in the same tone. I'll look at these passages more closely with your criticism in mind, though.

Of course there are many forms of religion. And of course there are possible materialistic explanations for the fact that ONE concept appears in hundreds of cultures around the world -- I admitted that already. My points are, (1) Dawkins, and the FSM argument, depend on the concept of "God" being completely arbitrary, as the FSM is. (Why not a Flying Anchove Pizza Monster? A Gliding Okonomiyaki Monster? A Limping Taco Salad Monster?) But that concept is NOT arbitrary; the concept of "God" should therefore be held separate from culturally -determined devas and deities, like say Bacchus, or Kali, or Superman. (2) Christians predicted this phenomena; I know of no prominent atheist who did so, before the facts were know. (3) Certainly the phenomena makes the reality of God at least SOMEWHAT more credible. When they are ignorant of the phenomena, atheists like Dawkins argue quite readily that the culturally-determined and arbitrary nature of concepts of God consistutes evidence against the reality of God. Why should the argument only work if the data favors the atheist position?

RF:  First, monotheism was not new with the Stoics in Greek culture. It went back at least as far as Xenophanes. You might take this as some confirmation of your points, but I might point out that by in large Greek culture was polytheistic. Monotheism was a philosophical exception. Plato, whom you mention, in the Timeaus, thought that one could not understand the world without positing two gods, the Demiurge and the World Soul. Aristotle, as I mentioned before, thought you could get along with one, but then again his god was very unlike the Christian god.

Now for the passage in particular. The "unity of good and bad" is not a hold out from pantheism or polytheism, although you're right there is much of this in the passage. A central doctrine of the Stoics was that things of themselves are "indifferent." They are only good or bad, beautiful or ugly, based on human judgment. This was critical to the Stoic ethic. All that is is necessary given the natural order. One cannot desire that the necessary not be (if one is rational). Thus what the common man calls "good" in the sense of desirable is in itself indifferent, as the "bad" is equated with the undesirable. This is the realization of the Stoic sage, who does not allow desires to differ from what actually occurs.

"First cause of Nature" and "you know how to . . . bring order from chaos" similarly requires careful reading. You might know that the Stoics were the authors of the doctrine of the "eternal recurrence" (or perhaps Heraclitus, but there is no sufficient evidence here). According to this view, the world has no beginning or end, but is cyclical, where each cosmic epoch repeats precisely the proceeding cosmic epoch. (Generally the Greek philosophers believed in a Cosmos that had no beginning nor end.) A first cause need not be a creator. So much even the great Thomas Aquinas admitted. Each cosmic epoch ended and began in universal conflagration. Why? Because all things return to God who is materially fire. (By the way, they also thought that the soul was comprised of fire, and it appears for two reasons: this would explain why we warm-blooded creatures become cold at death, and also the "quickness of thought" seemed to require the quickness of fire as an explanation.)

Now, with respect to "ruler of all things," let us step back a moment and consider this historically. Was Yahweh the "ruler of all things"? He certainly doesn't appear to be so from the OT. He needs the aid of human action to take Palestine. He is more of the helpful general than in control of all. He certainly aids David against Goliath, but he doesn't do the deed himself. We simply don't get this notion from the OT. And it is understandable. From all that I've read, recent scholarly views are that the Israelites were not monotheists before the return from exile. At best they held to a monolatry. If Yahweh is not the only god, then Yahweh must struggle with other gods as humans struggled with other humans. So the notion of God as "ruler of all things" is not Yahweh.

A second historical note. The Gospel of John is the first to refer to Christ as the "Word," or in Greek the "Logos." John clearly took this view from the Stoics, who took the view of the Logos from Heraclitus. So the historical record is not untainted here. This familiar theme of Christianity no doubt entered the religion from the Stoic Greeks. After all, the Jews were hellenized centuries before John. So if John was an educated Jew, he would understand much of Greek thought. If John were a converted Greek, then of course he would understand his intellectual culture.

I appreciate that you brought your comments onto my "home court" as it were, philosophy. As I said, with the exception of a bit of Chinese religious belief I'm not well acquainted with nonWestern religion--a lack that I'd like to address before I die, perhaps even sooner. But I do believe that a claim of convergence of belief among cultures must be carefully scrutinized. There is much room to see superficial similarity.

DM: Paul brought up the "Flying Spaghetti Monster." I responded by saying, "One important difference between the spaghetti monster, or the pink unicorn, and God, is that the former are arbitrary, while God is not. This is shown by the fact that a cohesive and consistent picture of God emerges in many cultures around the world."

I also pointed out that Dawkins bases an argument against God on the lack of any such consistent picture. His premise being false, if his argument is valid, anthropology provides a useful (though admittedly not overpowering) argument FOR the existence of God.

You admitted you sometimes use leprechauns for a similar purpose, and disputed the commonality or coherence of the image of God in various cultures. Since I've been reading Stoics lately, and since someone else brought up the Greeks and Romans, I offered a couple long quotes from Epictetus and Cleanthes to illustrate my point, and that's where the argument has centered since. I introduced Epictetus with the words, "But yeah, God keeps on breaking through to the Greeks and Romans, too."

With that background in mind, a few possible responses are not entirely relevant:

(1) "But Stoics may have influenced the early Christians, or Greeks may have been influenced by the Jews."

True, but we're only talking about the Greeks, rather than the Chinese or Australian aborigines, as a concession to Western culture.

(2) "But these folks have lots of gods, not just one."

True, but that has nothing to do with my initial claim about God vs. FSM, or my later claim about God "breaking through" to the Greeks and Romans.

(3) "But scholars think early Jews had lots of other gods, too!"

True, and the Bible points that out forthrightly. But if the concept of God, as Christians and Jews hold it, really does appear widely in primitive times, then Hebrew (or American) idolatry can be regarded (from a theistic perspective) as a regression, as indeed the Bible depicts it. The issue is not "monotheism" vs. "monolatry," it is whether a consistent picture of God can be found in MANY cultures around the world.

All right, here's Cleanthes again. Let me insert apparent points of commonality between Cleanthes' words about "Zeus," and what Christians say about God. I'll consider some of the points you dispute afterwards.

Theistic expressions in Cleanthes "Hymn to Zeus"

"Most (1) glorious of the (2) immortals, (3) invoked by many names, ever (4) all-powerful,

Zeus, the (5) First Cause of Nature, who (6) rules all things with (7) Law,

Hail! (8) It is right for mortals to call upon you,

since (9) from you we have our being, we whose lot it is to be (10) God's image,

we (11) alone of all mortal creatures that live and move upon the earth . . .

The whole universe, spinning around the earth,

(12) goes wherever you lead it and is willingly guided by you.

So great is the servant which you hold in your (13) invincible hands,

your eternal, two-edged, lightning-forked thunderbolt.

By its strokes all the works of nature came to be established,

and with it you guide the universal (14) Word of Reason which moves through all creation . . .

But you know how to make extraordinary things suitable, and (15) how to bring order forth from chaos; and even that which is unlovely is lovely to you.

For thus you have joined all things, the good with the bad, into one,

so that (16) the eternal Word of all came to be one.

This Word, however, (17) evil mortals flee, poor wretches;

though they are desirous of good things for their possession,

(18) they neither see nor listen to God's universal Law;

and yet, if they obey it intelligently, (19) they would have the good life . . ."

On the face of it, that's a remarkable amount of agreement. Some Christians, I think, would even find this quote threatening -- "how could a pagan know all that?"

But you argue that in many ways, official Stoic philosophy is quite different from Christian theology. Furthermore, you make the case that even some of these points may diverge more than they appear on the surface:

(5) "First cause of Nature . . . (15) you know how to bring order from chaos" . . . requires careful reading." In fact, the Stoics believe the world has "no beginning or end," and the "first cause need not be a creator."

That may be. The congruence with Genesis 1 is, nevertheless, striking. "The earth was formless and empty . . . God said, 'Let there be light!'" God here is depicted both as a "first cause," and as One who brings "order from chaos."

"Now, with respect to (6) "ruler of all things," let us step back a moment and consider this historically. Was Yahweh the "ruler of all things"? He certainly doesn't appear to be so from the OT. He needs the aid of human action to take Palestine. He is more of the helpful general than in control of all. He certainly aids David against Goliath, but he doesn't do the deed himself . . . "

Perhaps you confuse "ruler" with "despot," or "one man band." The Bible doesn't depict God as a big Puppet Master in the Sky, usually . . . But I see no reason to think that's what Cleanthes had in mind, either. Freedom is built into the OT: "Choose you this day whom you will serve!" God can be "ruler" without dictating and causing every single event directly. (According to the Bible, even evil human acts are turned into good.)

Finally, you seem to challenge (14) somewhat:

"A second historical note. The Gospel of John is the first to refer to Christ as the "Word," or in Greek the "Logos." John clearly took this view from the Stoics, who took the view of the Logos from Heraclitus. So the historical record is not untainted here."

John clearly did borrow the term "logos" from the Greeks -- actually all his words, apart from a few Aramaic insertions! And Philo and other Jews had used "logos" in some such way already, absolutely.

But John is mainly echoing Genesis. "In the beginning God . . . " "And God said . . . " These two most powerful invocations translate brilliantly, clearly, succinctly into "In the beginning was the Word."

So the real question is not why John sounds so much like Cleanthes, but why Cleanthes sounds so much like Moses. And I think my interpretation is the simplest solution, and fits a lot of other data, including the many remarkable confluences between Cleanthes' hymn and Judeo-Christian images of God. Remember, my original comment here was not, "The Stoic picture of God is exactly like the Christian," but "God keeps on breaking through to the Romans and Greeks." There's enough similarity here to support that contention, I think.

You said, at one point, that I seemed to be arguing in a circle: Yahweh is supreme, and many other supreme gods are like him because they are also supreme. Hopefully you'll admit we've now seen other qualities that the J-C God and the Stoic God share in common. Allow me to go through Chrysippus' Hymn to Zeus one more time. This time, I'll put each of the 19 qualities that his "Zeus" shares in common with the J-C God in one of three categories: (a) qualities shared between Christians, Stoics, and Greek pagans; (b) qualities shared between Christians and Stoics; and (c) qualities shared between Christians and Chrysippus, but NOT with orthodox Stoicism. I see (b) and especially (c) as potential evidence for my hypothesis. (Leaving aside for the moment the issue of historical borrowing, and what that might mean.)

(What counts as evidence against the hypothesis is also a dicey issue, given the complexity of the hypothesis, and the potential for "stacking the deck" on my part.)

God and Chrysippus' "Zeus:" 19 shared characteristics

"(1) Most glorious . . . " (a) or (b) Agrees with Stoic and Christian theism, and partially with Greek polytheism. Zeus is the chief of the gods, but as philosophers had long since recognized, the Homeric vision of his acts were not always very glorious.

"(2) of the immortals . . . " (a)

"(3) invoked by many names . . . " (b) or (c) While Greek gods were commonly identified with deities in other cultures known by other names, this seemed especially true of Zeus, and generally as a deity more closely approaches monotheism. The Bhagavad Gita takes this to an extreme: "Some bow to the countless gods that are only my million faces." (81) But the many names of God in Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, is also paralleled in Chinese theism, and by the common recognition among tribal peoples that God has many names. Paul also implied that even the name "Zeus" could refer to the One True God, as we will see.

"(4) ever all-powerful" (b) Zeus is not all-powerful in Greek mythology; when he is described as such, he begins to take on theistic qualities.

"(5) Zeus, the First Cause of Nature . . . " (b) Stoic philosophy agrees here with Judeo-Christian theology, against traditional Greek paganism.

"(6) Who rules all things . . . " (b) or (c) The pagan Zeus does not do this; it is not clear in what sense the God of Stoic philosophy does, either. Of course this agrees with the J-C image of God.

"(7) with Law . . . " (b) The Stoic and Christian God is lawful; Homer's Zeus passionate and rather lawless.

"(8) It is right for mortals to call upon you . . . " (c) Here, remarkably, Cleanthes appears to agree with both J-C theism, AND with polytheism, AGAINST the school of philosophy he heads. You have argued that Stoics could not pray to their God. Johan Thom (professor of Classics, U of Stellenbosch) agrees, but notes:

"This again confronts us with the problem what it means for a Stoic to pray. In terms of the logic of a strict pantheistic system, a Stoic should have no need to pray: he has direct access to God within himself, since his reason shares in the divine logos . . . The fact that God is identified with fate furthermore appears to preclude prayer, for how can prayer change that which is predetermined by the very structure of the world?"

Here's an interesting piece of evidence for my theory. Theoretically, you should be right: Stoics should not pray. But many of them do, including Cleanthes, the second leader of the school. Strom continues:

"In the words of Marcel Simon, `Stoic prayer is a paradox but a reality.' Seneca and Cleanthes are sometimes cited as representatives of a `strict' and a `more liberal' approach to prayer, but even Seneca is at times quite positive about the value of prayer.'" (Thom, Cleanthes' Hymn to Zeus, 26)

Thom explains this by pointing out that Stoicism is a combination of pantheism and theism, and that Stoics are not always consistent! Following Simon, he points out that two common kinds of prayer, thanksgiving and submission to the divine will, are relatively easy to square with Stoic philosophy. However, here we have "petitionary prayer with a request to God to assist human beings in overcoming their lack of insight and the concomitant failure to make the correct moral choices. In this case Cleanthes turns to a superior force, outside himself, for help." (Ibid, 27)

"(9) from you we have our being . . ." (a) or (b) This is an interesting phrase. It has polytheistic parallels in Homer, Hesiod and Theolytus, where "genos" can be taken physically. But Paul also seems to echo it in Acts 17: 28: "As even some of your own poets have said, `For we too are his offspring.'" while Paul is (most agree) citing Aratus directly, as Thom puts it, "the plural `your own poets' suggest he may have had Hymn to Zeus v. 4a in mind as well."

Aratus was speaking of "Zeus" in a way that suggested a stronger theism as well:

For every street, every market-place is full of Zeus.

Even the sea and the harbour are full of this deity.

Everywhere everyone is indebted to Zeus.

Everywhere everyone is indebted to Zeus.

For we are indeed his offspring...

Paul quoted the last line, and likely had Cleanthes in mind as well - showing that he recognized the name "Zeus" could refer not to Homer' god, but to that of Abraham and Jesus. (See 4 above.)

"(10) we whose lot it is to be God's image . . . " (?) Here I don't know the other tradition well enough to say. No necessary contradiction with Stoicism or paganism, but the parallel with Genesis is particularly striking.

(11) we alone of all mortal creatures that live and move upon the earth . . . (?) This phrase underlines the Genesis parallel.

"(12) The whole universe, spinning around the earth, goes wherever you lead it and is willingly guided by you."  (b)

Homer lacked such an exalted view of Zeus. He also seems to take a more active role than Stoicism proscribed.

"(13) So great is the servant which you hold in your invincible hands" (b) The pagan Zeus was quite vincible.

(contrary evidence?) "your eternal, two-edged, lightning-forked thunderbolt. By its strokes all the works of nature came to be established . . . "

Thom argues that his phrase reflects the Stoic connection of God to fire.

"(14) and with it you guide the universal Word of Reason which moves through all creation . . . " (b) OT theology anticipated the Stoic "logos" twice. First, it does so in the creation account, to which we have already referred, in which acts of creation repeatedly begin with, "And God said." Second in the Proverbs, in which Sophia (in the LXX) is a personified quasi-divine voice.

"(15) But you know how to make extraordinary things suitable, and how to bring order forth from chaos . . . "   (b)  Zeus does not do that, for Homer. Stoicism here is "Moses in Attic Greek" - as Genesis describes: "The earth was formless and empty . . . and God said, `Let there be light.'" There are no doubt other parallels in Mediterranean thought, as you suggest.

"(16) the eternal Word of all came to be one." (b = 14?)

"(17) This Word, however, evil mortals flee, poor wretches; though they are desirous of good things for their possession"  (b) or (c) This is one of John's favorite themes, but it predates Christianity in the Jewish tradition. I don't know how well it fits Stoic philosophy. I doubt the desire to flee Homer's Zeus would define a person as an "evil mortal."

(18) "they neither see nor listen to God's universal Law;" (b) or (c) Law is a major theme of Psalms, especially Psalm 119. Also one of the themes of Romans 1-2, also of the prophets. "They have eyes, but see not." Again, this does not fit in with Greek paganism, but is another example of Stoic thought moving in the direction of a theism recognizable to Jews and Christians.

"(19) and yet, if they obey it intelligently, they would have the good life . . ." (a) or (b) The gods reward, though not because of following "Law."

Is my analysis of these points fair? Would you disagree with any of them, or can you tell me how to resolve those I couldn't classify?

I'll add Epictetus, Balbus, and "Life of Zeno" to the mix later. Already it is clear that at least SOME Stoics agreed a great deal with Christians about God.

Hope you don't find this boring, or feel that I'm trying to "colonize" the Stoics for Christianity -- I would admire them for their heroic ethics, even if I didn't find so many theological congruencies. But I'm finding this very interesting.

RF does respond to this last, long post, and we do explore the equally remarkable theistic ideas of these other Stoics. . . But this is probably enough -- maybe more than enough -- for now.  What I think this shows, is how far out in space the Spaghetti Monster really is.  God was breaking through to the Greek philosophers, as He did to the Chinese, Indians, and tribal peoples around the world.  God might even be defined as the least arbitrary being in the universe.  But you won't hear that from those who take Colbert as their idol. -- DM

Christianity and Women: Challenge to Loftus

From John Loftus' 'Debunking Christianity' blog, this afternoon, accompanied by the cartoon at right:

"I am against sexism, most emphatically, without any doubt at all.  In fact, one of the main reasons I do what I do is because of what religion has done and continues to do to women.  I argue against religion for that reason alone."

My response:

Resolved: That the Gospel of Jesus has done more to help more women than any other teaching in the history of Planet Earth.

I challenge you, John.

I issue this challenge assuming that John is sincere, and because millions of other people agree with him that Christianity has harmed women terribly. 

Supplemental question: if my claim turns out to be true, John, would that open your mind to rethinking your rejection of Christianity?


2017 Update: Loftus declined to debate, or to change his mind or even stop repeating these comments or amending them in any way.  But his followers insisted on my making the case for my position, anyway.  I subsequently did so, with a seven-part series, beginning here.   The series has now grown to some two dozen posts, and a book is in the works as well.  Needless to say, Loftus never responded substantively, though I did stir up a few other hornet's nests. 
.

Why Mark Driscoll is wrong about Avatar.

Why Mark Driscoll is (partly) wrong about Avatar

Mark Driscoll, the intense, eloquent, and stand-up-comic-gets-religion-hip pastor of the megachurch Mars Hill Fellowship in Seattle, which I sometimes attend, kicked up a stir last year when he described the even more
 popular Avatar movie as "the most demonic, satanic film I've
 ever seen."

As a world religions scholar, coming to his comments a bit late (I don't go
every week), I think they raise the important question of how Christianity relates to other faiths in a particular interesting way. 

Quite a bit of what Driscoll said (reported in the Seattle P.I.) makes some sense.  But I think he misreads how art relates to Gospel, and how Christianity relates to other religions. His approach is typical of one popular Christian model of religions -- a view that depicts all religions other than Christianity as essentially wrong, immoral, and even demonic. This is opposed to a view that portrays all religions as just happy trails up the same spiritual mountain. I think there's a better and more biblical alternative to both. 

In what follows, (I.) I'll quote Driscoll's comments.  (II.) I'll respond to what he says about art and world religions.  (III.) Finally, I'll offer an alternative model of religions that I think is more bibilical, less obnoxious (or, obnoxious in a more enlightening way), and makes better sense of reality, especially what you find when you look honestly at world religions.

I hope Mark reads these comments: visiting his church many times, I not only find his sermons often profitable, and his jokes (often) funny, but I've also noticed evidence of humility and willingness to learn new stuff under his sometimes blustering demeanor.  Aside from writing two books on how Christianity relates to other religions, this is also the subject of my dissertation.  I'll keep the analytical stuff at the end brief: even a hobby horse needs its rest.   

I. Driscoll's comments

"The world tempts you to sin, to use people, to disobey God, to live for your own glory instead of his own, to be a consumer instead of generous, that’s the world system.

"And if you don’t believe me, go see Avatar, the most demonic, satanic film I’ve ever seen. That any Christian could watch that without seeing the overt demonism is beyond me. I logged on to christianitytoday.com and the review was reflective of Christianity today, very disappointing. See, in that movie, it is a completely false ideology, it’s a sermon preached. It’s the most popular movie ever made, and it tells you that the creation mandate, the cultural mandate is bad, that we shouldn’t, we shouldn’t develop culture, that’s a bad thing.

"(It teaches that) primitive is good and advanced is bad and that we’re not sinners, we’re just disconnected from the divine life force.  (It's) just classic, classic, classic paganism, (saying) that human beings are to connect, literally, with trees and animals and beasts and birds and that there’s this spiritual connection that we’re all a part of, that we’re all a part of the divine.

"It presents a false mediator with a witch. It presents false worship of created things rather than Creator God in absolute antithesis to Romans 1:25, which gives that as the essence of paganism. It has a false incarnation where a man comes in to be among a people group and to assume their identity. It’s a false Jesus. We have a false resurrection. We have a false savior. We have a false heaven. The whole thing is new age, satanic, demonic paganism, and people are just stunned by the visuals. Well, the visuals are amazing because Satan wants you to emotionally connect with a lie."

II. Marshall's Commentary 

I. "The world tempts you to sin, to use people, to disobey God, to live for your own glory instead of his own, to be a consumer instead of generous, that’s the world system."

So it does. But let's be clear what we mean by "the world," here. It's not true that every non-Christian belief system teaches us to be ungenerous. Some Yanomano Indians in Amazonia, a violent tribe among whom murder and gang rape were accepted norms, were afraid to embrace Christianity because they found missionaries so stingy with their goods, and didn't want to be damned for stinginess, a terrible crime in Yanomamo culture. Northwest Indians, likewise, would shame most any Middle Class Presbyterian for generosity at a potlatch.

Neither are the Navi obvious poster-children for self-centered hedonism.

Nor is it true that every non-Christian religion teaches us to disobey God. Most tribes in Africa were aware of the existence of one Supreme God who created all things, and demands justice, even before missionaries arrived. The same was true of many tribes in Asia, the Americas, Australia, and Polynesia. In fact, I would argue that if anything, Avatar misrepresents tribal societies by failing to recognize that many of them were well aware of a just creator God, though they also often recognized their own sin and alienation from Him.

By "the world," Driscoll may mean "Hollywood." If so, again, not even Avatar is that thoroughly debased. Yes, sex outside of marriage is cool in any Hollywood movie. Yes, this movie also glorifies worship of a Mother Nature spirit. Avatar is, I think, both wrong in its theology, and naive in its anthropology. Men and women live in harmony on Pandora -- but among the close-to-nature Yanomamo, men cut off their wives ears if they strayed, or shot them with arrows, and raped other women whenever the opportunity presented itself.  In that sense, Avatar "tempts" viewers to act not worse, but better than savages in a state of Nature usually did.  Can it make both errors at the same time? 

"And if you don’t believe me, go see Avatar, the most demonic, satanic film I’ve ever seen. That any Christian could watch that without seeing the overt demonism is beyond me."

Perhaps this is less a negative commentary on Avatar, than a positive commentary on Mark Driscoll's movie-going habits.  Of all the slasher films, hard-core porn, and sadistic movies out there, (which, yes, I've managed to miss, too), it is beyond me how Avatar could even appear on a very long list of satanic movies. 

What is a demon?  Christians define them as evil spiritual beings. (Though the word in Greek was ambiguous.)  What is Avator?  It is a science fiction movie about an imaginary world. Are any spiritual beings depicted as evil in that movie? On the contrary. The planetary Mother Spirit is depicted as life-giving and protective.  Arguably, there are no beings that fit the Christian definition of "demons" in the film. 

True, Christians have often described the gods and goddesses worshiped in other religions as "demons," by definition.  There are hints of this already in the Bible.  But throughout Christian history, serious believers have created great art in which the gods and goddesses of Paganism were given imaginary positive roles in fiction.  John Adams, no Satan-worshipper, called Abigail "Diana" (after the goddess) in an early letter to her.  Dickens' ghosts are a late example of a long-standing Medieval motif.  One can find many such baptized "gods" in the Chronicles of Narnia.  The difference between (say) the river "god" in Prince Caspian and the Mother Goddess of Pandora (Eywa) is that the former is imminant, limited, and entirely under the control of the Lion, Aslan, while no on in Avatar seems to believe in God. 

But to depict a spirit in fiction is not the same as to worship one. And not every spirit or "daemon" need be Satanic. Socrates believed a "daemon" or personal spirit was guiding him: yet early Christians often recognized him as a kindred spirit, even as a symbol of or preparation for Jesus.

I agree that Avatar does promote a naive paganism.  But to call it "satanic" is to ignore moral distinctions.  What, then, do we call deities that wear garlands of human skulls, to which natives tear out the hearts of their neighbors? 

"It’s the most popular movie ever made, and it tells you that the creation mandate, the cultural mandate is bad, that we shouldn’t, we shouldn’t develop culture, that’s a bad thing."

True, Avatar offers a stark contrast between the real or potential evils of science and technology, and a naive picture of early man in harmony with nature. True, that's not how tribal society really was, most of the time.  It is, however, how Genesis depicts earliest man and woman. 

And who can deny that science is often used to destroy the environment and exploit weaker tribes?  Has Mark never heard of the conquest of the Americas?  The Atlantic Slave Trade?  Mutiny on the Bounty?  The Opium Wars in China?  The Goa Inquisition?  All of these horrors were inflicted on relatively backwards peoples by means of so-called "Christians" with advanced technology. 

But let's get beyond caricatures, and back to biblical realism about both "primitive" and "advanced" tribe.  A more realistic and complex picture of the dynamics when the two meet is given in another beautiful movie, The Mission.  The Mission is the (slightly fictionalized) story of Jesuit missions in South America.  The tribal peoples to whom the missionaries go are no noble savages: they tie visiting missionaries to a cross, and launch them over a waterfall.  Later missionaries teach the tribe Christianity, music, and the arts of civilization -- until Spain and Portugal demand their land, attack the village, and murder and enslave the now civilized inhabitants, and the Jesuits who defend them. 

History is more like The Mission than Avator.  In fact, The Mission is based on the actual history of a Jesuit kingdom in Paraguay that lasted for more than a century. I agree with Pastor Mark that technology has created a lot of good.  During the Cold War, it also almost destroyed the world.  The Mission is, aside from the lush visual invention of Avatar, The Mission is a greater piece of art because it goes beyond propaganda to explore real human complexity.  But Avatar is a good reminder of the dangers of technological arrogance -- one that it doesn't hurt us to keep in mind. 

"Primitive is good and advanced is bad and that we’re not sinners, we’re just disconnected from the divine life force, just classic, classic, classic paganism, that human beings are to connect, literally, with trees and animals and beasts and birds and that there’s this spiritual connection that we’re all a part of, that we’re all a part of the divine.

Again, paganism is not inevitably pantheistic: in fact, hundreds of pagan peoples around the world were aware of the Creator God, though they felt distant from Him.  Lin Yutang, who called himself a pagan, said that Chinese pagans "always believe in God."  Greco-Roman civilization was also recovering an awareness of God when St. Paul and the first Christians arrived (Paul appeals to this awareness in Acts 17).  This is one of the reasons (as Augustine seemed to recognize) that Christianity won the empire. 

"It presents a false mediator with a witch. It presents false worship of created things rather than Creator God in absolute antithesis to Romans 1:25, which gives that as the essence of paganism. It has a false incarnation where a man comes in to be among a people group and to assume their identity. It’s a false Jesus. We have a false resurrection. We have a false savior. We have a false heaven. The whole thing is new age, satanic, demonic paganism, and people are just stunned by the visuals. Well, the visuals are amazing because Satan wants you to emotionally connect with a lie."

No doubt there are some iffy things in Avatar, but let's not get carried away. 

How can a character in a fictional movie be called a "false Jesus?"  Is Aslan also a "false Jesus?" How about the Passover Lamb in the Old Testament? 

Jesus told about a man who was mugged and left for dead, and a "Good Samaritan" who came along to save him.  Is that story a "lie?" Does the fact that the Samaritan "saved" the mugging victim make him a "false Jesus?"  Obviously not: it was a story, told for the purpose of teaching us to treat people kindly. 

Clement of Alexander described Jesus as a fulfillment of Homer's story of Odysseus.  Like Odysseus tied to the mast of his ship, Jesus was tied to the cross, suffering so that we could all come home to Heaven.  Clement knew of course that Odysseus had love affairs with TWO female deities on the return trip.  How could he not know, then, that Odysseus was a "false Jesus?" 

Simple.  Clement understood the distinction between fiction and reality.  One of the functions of fiction is to give us symbols by which to talk about things in the real world. 

The visuals in Avatar are good, not because of Satan, but because of the technology Mark tells us we shouldn't scorn.  (And that he effectively makes use of as a backdrop for his sermons.)  More than anything, the planet Pandora reminds me of C. S. Lewis' Perelandra.  If Lewis had had a computer, he might have made a world that looked something like this. 

What about the "false resurrection?"  Again that comes in many works of fiction: the Suffering Servant in Isaiah, Superman, Neo in one of the Matrix films, Aslan in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.  Odysseus also "comes back to life" by being untied from the mast of his ship.  In fact, something like a resurrection happens in about half our movies.  Does that make them all "satanic?"

This reminds me of Justin Martyr's much-mocked theory that the devil imbedded stories of a god dying and rising in pagan cultures, to trick people away from Christ. 

One might equally-well suggest that the Holy Spirit inspired James Cameron into making a film in which central Christian truths have been planted so that we can explain them to our friends -- pointing out the errors of his iffier beliefs, as well.   

III.  How should Christians understand other religions? 

Speaking of the devil, C. S. Lewis tells us that Satan sends errors into the world in opposite pairs, so we will go from one extreme to the other.  Two extremes in understanding religions are "exclusivism" and "pluralism."  I don't think they are from the devil, exactly -- there is some truth in both, and they may both be sincere mistakes -- but I do think there has to be a better solution. 

A. Exclusivism is the idea that only one religion is true, and the rest are almost entirely in error.  That's what the word "exclude" means: if a fraternity excludes women, it has no women.  An exclusive theology finds no truth in other religions. 

There are three big problems with the "exclusivist" model of religions: (1) it is impossible; (2) it ignores some facts about the Bible; and (3) it ignores a lot of facts about religions. 

Exclusivism is impossible, because it is impossible to keep all truth out of any successful religion, or even out of a good movie.  Mohammed was a murderer, rapist, war-mongerer, and slaver: yet his teaching that there is one God who made all things is, from a Christian point of view, true.  Avator is, Mark tells us, a demonic movie: yet he is also offended that it is full of Christian truths. 

Exclusivism is unbiblical, because the Bible shows that God does sometimes speak through other religious traditions.  God spoke to Pharoah, the kings of Babylon, and Pilate's wife, in dreams.  God spoke to the Wise Men through the stars and apparently their own cultural assumptions.  When Paul arrived in Athens, he preached about the "unknown God" whom the Greeks already worshiped in ignorance, quoted Greek philosopers, and used Greek words for God. 

Christians raised as exclusivists often seem to feel uncomfortable with the good things they find in non-Christian religions.  Is that healthy?  Should we pretend Buddhism doesn't really teach compassion?  That Gandhi was not a great spiritual leader? 

B. Pluralists, by contrast, tend to think all religions are equally true, "paths up the same mountain." 

People who take this position often have a hard time saying what that mountain is, though.  They can't say we all need Christ, or that would exclude non-Christians.  They can't say we all seeking God, or that would exclude Buddhists and secular humanists.  Following a philosopher named John Hick, some say the mountain we climb is "the Real," though we can never know what the Real is.  So apparently the secret to getting along is to agree on being really vague about what we believe! 

In the end, pluralism is just another compromise religion -- like Bahai, Sikhism, Unitarian Universalism -- that grows more dogmatic as time goes by.  Pluralists think they know the truth -- essentially, spiritualized cliches from the European Enlightenment -- and that truth logically excludes orthodox Christianity and Islam.  So there's no getting away from saying, "I think I see the truth more clearly than some other people."   

What's the biblical solution?

Jesus said, "Don't think I've come to abolish the Law and the Prophets.  I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill." 

This is the core intuition of what I call "fulfillment theology."  It is naive to say "All religions are just as true and good as one another."  But natural phenomena are never the same or of the same value as one another.  The world of religions is full of oppression and lies, as well as beauty and truth.  Religious people cut hearts out at the top of an Aztec pyramid, bury charioteers in the tomb of a king, and burn heretics at the stake.  Can all that come from the Real?   

Fulfillment thinkers say all history is part of the redemptive story God is telling of the human race, centered around Jesus of Nazareth.  This unfolding story embraces the history of other tribes -- maybe even planets?  The Holy Spirit has sown truth in cultures around the world (universe?  multiverse?) that prepares us for Christ. Fulfillment thinkers like Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, Mateo Ricci, C. S. Lewis, and Don Richardson have given many examples of this.  But one cannot deny that evil is at work, too. Christians are therefore called to test each tradition, text, and teaching, hold to and redeem what is good, and rebut and reject what is harmful and vile.  We work on the assumption that God got to the host planet long before missionaries arrived.

(A portrait of Perelandra, by James Lewicki.)