Many Christian beliefs don't "work" at all. I saw a lecture last week by a very good paleontologist
from an Ivy League university. I admire his bravery, although when someone is brave for a lost cause, all I
can admire is the bravery. He stated outright that he is a theist and believes all of evolution is driven
forward by "God's love."
At the end of the lecture I promptly said, in front of the entire audience, "That explanation of evolution
doesn't acknowledge all the data. It ignores all the suffering from biological agents: predation, infection,
starvation, psychological maladies of humans, etc. How, by any stretch of the imagination, can you
convince us that this has anything to do with love'?" Of course his answer, basically, was, "The ways of God are mysterious and human suffering is abig' question"
In other words, the central problem with theistic faith is that it can't give a good explanation for so
much obvious suffering, not only in humans, but everywhere a biologist looks. We think the forest is
healthy and full of perfectly adapted organisms, a wonderful example of God's wisdom. Look more
carefully, and we see that virtually every tree is infested with parasites, and the parasites themselves are
infested with bacterial parasites. Instead of thriving, the entire community is just getting by in a
precariously balanced equilibrium that serves the parasite as much as the host.
How can this have anything to do with a loving and caring creator? How can children suffering from
malnutrition be any evidence of God's love? What about genetic diseases that are passed from unknowing
parents to their completely innocent newborn baby? What kind of love is that? Would this be some kind of
theological test for parents?
Naturalists have an explanation for understanding suffering. In that sense alone, it is more useful than
theism. Take brutality. Brutality is going to happen, no matter what faith is dominant. I am convinced of
that. This is my way of cutting Christianity some slack, actually, because it has been the dominant
worldview for the rise of our modern world. It leads the way in fostering brutal death and misery. But if
some other form of belief were in power, I believe similar atrocities would pervade our history.
Atrocities are a part of human civilization and are the result of ignorance about human nature. Until
naturalistic investigation, there was no way to understand human nature. But that will change in the
coming centuries. Human behavior will be better understood and, hopefully, suffering will be minimized.
As long as Christian theology has no satisfying answer to human suffering, it is at a terrible
disadvantage. That is why so many intellectuals have moved away from it as a belief system, and even the
religious intelligentsia offer an uncomfortable explanation of suffering: "God's ways are mysterious." It
simply isn't a satisfying intellectual explanation. Nobody, not even a child, sits well with that; they merely
give in to the fear of authority and the weight of history.
Naturalism depends on science, which in turn is anti-authoritarian because any momentary new
discovery will overturn the entire theoretical structure. But it has to be repeatable. Do an experiment.
Repeat it. It has powers of convincing and it makes you feel good! Especially when it solves difficult
puzzles about the world. Knowledge is the cure for the disgruntled.
On the issue you raised of what the "vast majority" of people who have lived have believed: It is not a
prudent line of reasoning to say that because the "vast majority of people who have ever lived believe in
so and so" you must then concede an important fact. The people in the past were far more ignorant than we
are. If you can't concede that point then I will go no further and you can chuck out all that I have ever