Category Archives: Uncategorized

The Limits of Open Mindedness in Debates on Same-Sex Marriage and Abortion

Posted on by

Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) now supports same-sex marriage, a reversal he made public in 2013. He was the only Republican senator holding that position. He publicly welcomed the Obergefell decision that legalized same-sex marriage in 2015. What caused the turnaround was his son coming out as gay two years earlier.
Portman’s record against homosexual issues had consistently followed the traditional Republican position. He voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, he supported the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, and he voted to prohibit same-sex couples in Washington, DC from adopting.
He said about his change of heart:

[My son’s homosexuality] allowed me to think about this issue from a new perspective, and that’s as a dad who loves his son a lot.

Dick Cheney had been a closet supporter of same-sex marriage for years because of his lesbian daughter but in 2009 he also came out on the issue.
Why the delay from realization to public position? Are Republicans hesitant to do the right thing on same-sex marriage because it’s politically inconvenient? Since when do you put what’s best for the party in front of what’s best?
Frustrating though the delay is, they have company. I’m guessing that was behind the Catholic Church pedophilia cover up—doing what’s right for individuals took a back seat to what was best for the Church. But that’s a side issue. Portman’s change was a step forward, and let’s celebrate politicians who take a potentially unpopular stand.
Imagining it vs. living it.
Here’s my question. I see that having a homosexual relative makes the issue one you can’t just push away, but why does it take that? Isn’t one of humanity’s super powers the ability to imagine themselves in new situations? Why couldn’t Portman or Cheney wonder, “Gee, what if this issue hit me directly? What if my own child was homosexual? Would I still not budge on ‘traditional marriage’?”
The tide has turned, and many conservative legislators who are now against same-sex marriage will change their minds in the next decade, but why must it take so long? Why can’t they imagine themselves in Portman’s position and change their minds next week? (And when they finally do change, will they think back on Portman’s example and wonder why it took so long?)
This kind of empathy must be harder than it looks, like only vaguely knowing what hearing a doctor’s diagnosis of cancer feels like from having friends tell of their experiences. Speculating about something is a poor substitute for it actually happening, and Portman and Cheney would probably still hold their old positions if not for the push from their children.
Applying this thinking to abortion
Let’s broaden this observation. One of my posts on abortion received nearly 1000 comments, and I argued there with several pro-life advocates. I’m guessing they were older men for whom abortion could never affect them personally (related post: Why is it always men advancing the pro-life position?). Their positions were simple: a fetus is a human life, and it’s just wrong to kill a human. That’s it—no nuance, no exceptions, no consideration for the harm of not having an abortion. And why should there be? It’s murder—end of story.
I see these antagonists as the pre-enlightenment Portman or Cheney. They’re smart, they can marshal arguments to support their position, and their position isn’t insane—abortion does kill a fetus.
It’s the tunnel vision that’s the problem. Let’s broaden the view, Senator Portman, and imagine that your own son were gay. Let’s broaden the view, Mr. Pro-Life, and imagine that your own 15-year-old daughter had an unwanted pregnancy. All the plans that you and your wife have for your daughter—graduating from high school, then college, and then a satisfying career and a family—are in jeopardy. How much school will she miss? What teams or clubs must she withdraw from? What commitments will she have to cancel for decorum or out of embarrassment?
It will be an enormous bump in the road if she places the child for adoption. But girls in that situation almost never do—just two percent of premarital births in the U.S. are placed for adoption. Now we’re talking about, not a bump in the road, but a fork to a completely different life, a life with her as a 16-year-old single mom living at home trying to make a life from the constrained options available.
Problem one is that Mr. Pro-Life can’t put himself in this situation, or at least can’t do it successfully. Imagining it is a poor substitute for actually hearing his daughter sobbing in her room and finding out what the problem is.
Problem two is where the parallel to the gay rights lesson from Sen. Portman fails. Portman understands that he can’t make his son un-gay, but Mr. Pro-Life can assist or even encourage his daughter to become un-pregnant. He could cite extenuating circumstances in his situation, take care of the problem, and then return to his pro-life dogmatism.
We see this situation in the stories of women picketers of abortion clinics who, being human, have their own unwanted pregnancies. Or their daughters do. They’ll slip in the back door, have the abortion, and then be back on the picket lines days later. When asked about the hypocrisy, they say that other women are the sluts. They, by contrast, had a good excuse.
For this reason, pro-lifers may never be able to understand the difficulty facing the nearly one million American women who choose abortion each year. And perhaps we will never have a reasoned conversation on this divisive issue.

I was always looking outside myself 
for strength and confidence, 
but it comes from within. 
It is there all the time.
— Anna Freud

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 3/18/13.)
Photo credit: Denis Bocquet, flickr, CC

Five Christian Principles Used to Give the Bible a Pass (2 of 2)

Posted on by

Let the Bible clarify the BibleStarting with the popular Christian principle, “Let the easy Bible passages interpret the hard ones,” we’ve been examining five principles for biblical interpretation (beginning with this post). Here are the final three.
Principle #3: Begin with the assumption that the Bible has no contradictions
Here’s the principle stated in “How to Interpret the Bible” (HIB):

The “analogy of faith” is a reformed hermeneutical principle which states that, since all scriptures are harmoniously united with no essential contradictions, therefore, every proposed interpretation of any passage must be compared with what the other parts of the Bible teach. In other words, the body of doctrine, which the scriptures as a whole proclaim will not be contradicted in any way by any passage. Therefore, if two or three different interpretations of a verse are equally possible, any interpretation that contradicts the clear teaching of any other scriptures must be ruled out from the beginning.

So before you say, “Aha—there’s a contradiction here in the Bible,” go back and rethink that, because there are no contradictions. (The first rule of Look for Contradictions in the Bible Club is that there are no contradictions in the Bible.)
You can see the problem. “There are no contradictions” would be a conclusion, not a starting assumption, and there is a huge mountain to climb before this principle can be validated.
As an aside, this principle, where Christians simply declare that the Bible has no contradictions, has a parallel in Islam. The Principle of Abrogation states that if there’s a contradiction in the Quran, the later passage (that is, the one written later) wins out over the earlier. Problem solved—no more contradiction.
As damning as the Muslim principle is (how could the Prophet have gotten it wrong the first time?), at least it’s a rule. Principle 3 simply makes a groundless assertion.
Let’s let the Bible itself speak on this.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16).
You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything from it, that you may keep the commandments of Yahweh which I command you (Deuteronomy 4:2).

The verse from 1 Timothy tells us that any passage, even the ones that make Christians squirm, should be read and followed, and the one from Deuteronomy says that the Bible must be allowed to speak for itself and not be treated like a marionette. So next time you pick the more pleasing verse and pretend the “difficult” verse doesn’t exist, don’t!
Principle #4: Begin with the assumption that the Bible is infallible and inerrant.
Here are a few excerpts from the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, a joint project of more than 200 evangelical leaders:

We affirm that canonical Scripture should always be interpreted on the basis that it is infallible and inerrant.
We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible.

(Infallible means reliable and trustworthy, and inerrant means containing no mistakes in statements of fact.)
There is no interest here in following evidence. You don’t need to make a reasoned argument if you’re simply going to declare this as a faith position. “The Bible is manmade” has been ruled out, not because the evidence points elsewhere but simply as fiat.
What’s the point of scholarship in this environment? This is intellectual in the same way that discussing strategy in a card game is intellectual. Sure, much mental energy can be spent on the project and interesting ideas can come from it, but in the end it’s just a game. It becomes just one stake in the field of Dogma. Without any empirical evidence to ground this view, other Christians will simply put their stakes where they please.
Principle 5: Avoid claims built on uncertain grounds
From HIB:

Don’t build a doctrine upon a single verse or an uncertain textual reading. We should not erect an entire teaching or system of doctrine upon a verse in isolation from its context, or which has dubious textual support. Christian doctrine should be built upon passages which exist in the original manuscripts and can be confirmed through the science of textual criticism.

I agree that the manuscript tradition should be reliable, but keep in mind how difficult it is to know what the originals said. Scholars do a good job deciding which of two variant traditions is the older one. What they don’t do well is deciding between two traditions when they only have copies of one. We have a centuries-long dark ages before the earliest codices of the fourth century—who knows how many hundreds or thousands of changes were made that we don’t know of?
The principle argues that we not build anything substantial on a verse that is an outlier. That sounds sensible until we consider that this conflict—the general consensus versus the outlier—means that there’s a contradiction in the Bible. Principle #3 declares that contradictions don’t exist, but of course that’s a declaration built on nothing.
The second problem is that one of the most important Christian doctrines, the Trinity, violates this principle. There are a few verses that speak of the three persons separately in one sentence (for example, “Make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” from Matthew 28:19), but this is a long way from the elaborate Trinitarian handwaving in the Athanasian Creed of around 500 CE. This is the one principle that makes sense, and it tells us that there’s scant evidence for Paul or Jesus having a Trinitarian concept of God.
I wonder why Christians don’t apply these principles to other religions’ holy books (or even apply them consistently to their own).

The Bible is the world’s oldest, longest-running, most widespread,
and least deservedly respected Rorschach Test.
You can look at it and see whatever you want.
And everybody does.
— Richard S. Russell

No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says.
He is always convinced that it says what he means.
— George Bernard Shaw

Image credit: Photo Editing Services Tucia, flickr, CC

Five Christian Principles Used to Give the Bible a Pass

Posted on by

Let the Bible clarify the BibleIn Christians’ Damning Refuge in “Difficult Verses,” we looked at a Christian response to the well-known Dawkins Quote (“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction …”). This response tried to distinguish between “clear” and “hard” passages in the Bible. But is the problem that some verses are unclear or that they’re actually unpleasant, with clear/hard simply misdirection to justify ignoring verses where God’s barbaric behavior is on display?
Christians will tell me to look without bias at what the Bible says and I’ll do my honest best, but I have no patience for when they don’t follow their own rules. Or when their own rules demand that they be biased.
Consider these Christian recommendations for how to interpret the Bible. We’ll start with an elaboration of the one we’ve just seen, “take the clearer passages to interpret the harder passages.”
Two of my sources are “How to Interpret the Bible” and “Ten principles when considering alleged Bible contradictions.” From this point forward, I’ll abbreviate these as HIB and 10P. (I’ve responded to 10P in depth here.)
Principle #1: Let the Bible clarify the Bible
Or, as HIB puts it, “The Clear Must Interpret the Unclear”:

Murky passages can often be clarified by other scriptures which address the particular topic in a more straightforward way. For example, a very specific interpretation of the highly symbolic visions of John’s apocalypse [that is, the book of Revelation], may never “trump” the clear teachings of Paul’s epistles, which are more didactic and less symbolic, and hence clearer.

Here’s another way to see that clear/unclear simply mean pleasing/displeasing. When someone says that verse A is clear and B unclear (so we should focus on verse A, ignore verse B, and pretend we didn’t notice any contradiction), ask why that’s the order. Why isn’t B the clear one? For example, Paul says, “[All I’ve been saying is] that the Messiah would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would bring the message of light to his own people and to the Gentiles” (Acts 26:23). But this is contradicted by (1) the zombies that came out of their graves on the death of Jesus (Matthew 27:52), who were actually the first to rise from the dead, and (2) the gospels themselves, which say that Jesus had a long ministry before his resurrection, not after as Paul says it. Why do the gospels trump Paul?
Or take the duration of Jesus’s time on earth after the resurrection. Why is it popularly seen as forty days (Acts 1:3)? Why not one day (Luke 24:51)?
Here’s another example. Harold Camping famously made a fool of himself when he predicted the Rapture on May 21, 2011. The first lesson from the Camping fiasco is that testability is not the prophet’s friend. If you’re going to predict something, make it vague to give you plausible deniability after your inevitable failure. (John Hagee didn’t get the message when he said in 2013, “The coming four blood moons points to a world-shaking event that will happen between April 2014 and October 2015.” Whoops—wrong again.)
But the second lesson is that the Bible is a sock puppet that can say almost anything you want, despite the principle of “Let the Bible clarify the Bible.” Christian apologists, embarrassed by Camping’s date for the Last Days®, quoted Paul speaking about the end: “The day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.… Destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman” (1 Thessalonians 5:2–3). That is, the end must be a surprise, and Camping couldn’t have correctly calculated the date of the Rapture.
Camping trumped that by quoting the very next verse: “But you, brothers and sisters, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief.” That is, the chosen won’t be surprised by the end.
The lack of biblical clarity and the inadequacy of Principle #1 is made particularly clear by Christianity’s 45,000 denominations (and counting). If the Bible were the clear message from an omniscient Creator, there would be just one.
Principle #2: “Description is different than approval”
10P says:

Sometimes critics of the Bible (or critics of Christianity in general) point to an evil or corrupt situation described in the Bible to argue God (or Christianity) approves of the situation (or is the source of the evil). Remember, just because a Biblical author writes about something, this does not mean God condones it or supports it.

This principle attempts to tap dance away from God’s approval of things we find horrifying today like slavery and genocide.
Here’s an exercise that will explore what God does and doesn’t approval of. Consider the following lists, each containing three items mentioned in the Bible. For each list, think about what connects the items in that list and how it is different from the other lists:

  1. Murder, lying, and stealing
  2. Slavery, genocide, and polygamy
  3. Weights and measures for commerce, sheep herding, and eating meat

The items in List 1 (murder, lying, and stealing) are all prohibited in Exodus 20. They’re typically numbered 6, 8, and 9 in the Ten Commandments. (As an aside, it’s interesting that they’re not on the second version in Exodus 34, the one that found its way into the Ark of the Covenant.)
The items in List 2 (slavery, genocide, and polygamy) are never prohibited. They can be restricted, however (for example, elders are to have just one wife according to 1 Timothy 3:2), and rules can apply (for example, slaves can be beaten, but not so much that they die according to Exodus 21:20).
The items in List 3 (weights and measures, herding, and meat) are also never prohibited. Rules can apply to them as well (“The Lord detests dishonest scales, but accurate weights find favor with him”).
Lists 2 and 3 are distinguishable only in how we judge them—we prohibit List 2 but accept List 3—but that’s not in the Bible. This leaves us with the biblical view of prohibited things in List 1 versus acceptable things (though possibly regulated by God-given rules) in Lists 2 and 3.
Only modern sensibilities tell us that slavery, genocide, and polygamy are bad. Not only did God regulate slavery and polygamy just like he did accurate weights and measures, Jesus had nothing bad to say about them either.
This principle, “Description is different than approval,” is a transparent attempt to give God a pass when he goes off his meds. It fails.
Conclusion: three more principles in part 2.

You give me the awful impression, I hate to have to say it,
of someone who hasn’t read any of the arguments against your position ever.
— Christopher Hitchens

Image credit: Forsaken Fotos, flickr, CC

The Election-Year Issue No One Is Talking About

Posted on by

churches’ closed financial recordsLots of polls are monitoring the concerns of U.S. voters, and the usual issues come to the top: the economy and jobs, terrorism, dissatisfaction with government, and so on. What also seems to be an election-year staple is Pulpit Freedom Sunday, an initiative of the conservative Christian group Alliance Defending Freedom, in which pastors deliberately break tax rules against endorsing candidates. Said another way, it’s where American Christianity lobbies for even more handouts from the government. They want an exception to the Johnson amendment that prohibits nonprofits (all of them, not just churches) from endorsing or opposing political candidates.
An issue that never gets the attention it deserves is another exception, churches’ closed financial records. Every U.S. nonprofit can receive tax-free donations, but in return it must annually fill out an IRS 990 form that divulges to the public its income, expenses, assets, the salaries of its executives, and more. Every nonprofit, that is, except churches.
Why is this embarrassing exception not on more people’s radar?
I’m a nonbeliever, but let me emphasize that the issue here isn’t nonbelievers annoyed that they must help pick up the slack (the subsidy that American society gives religion because of its tax-exempt status is estimated at $83.5 billion per year). The issue also isn’t to challenge churches’ nonprofit status. Those are worthwhile conversations, but the real issue is the embarrassment the closed books should cause Christians. What do churches have to hide? Nothing, you say? It sure doesn’t looks like it. American Christians, this exception makes your religion look bad.
Christians should be leading the charge on this issue. They should be telling their representatives that churches don’t need the secrecy of closed financial records. The only benefit would be to hide fraud or financial excesses such as lavish mansions or excessive salaries. Does a high-profile televangelist deserve an enormous salary? I’m not sure that that’s how Jesus rolled, but whatever—simply make it public to the society that is helping to foot the bill.
You remember Jesus, right? He’s the guy who told the rich man, “Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.” What would Jesus say about churches’ secrecy?
If executives at public corporations and other nonprofits can make their salaries known, surely God’s representatives can do the same.
Isn’t it ironic that an atheist must point this out? If Christianity has something to teach society about morality, shouldn’t it be setting the example by taking the narrow path? And if God can critique the books—and consequently judge the church’s leadership in eternity—what possible concern could there be about letting the rest of us see?
Sensitive to the problem, some organizations within the Christian community have emerged to restore confidence. The Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability imposes on its members standards of financial accountability and transparency. Membership becomes a seal of approval. Another organization is MinistryWatch, which evaluates ministries for the benefit of potential donors. While these affect some big ministries, they do nothing to illuminate the workings of the vast majority of the 350,000 congregations in the United States.
In 2007, Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) investigated six high-profile ministries that each had revenue in the $100-million-per-year range. He wasn’t an insignificant busybody; this was a U.S. Senator on the Senate Finance Committee, and understanding where the money went and trying to restore confidence and accountability was his job. However, the playing field has been so tipped in Christianity’s favor that five of them felt comfortable not cooperating, and they got away with it.
The solution is available and it already works for the 1.5 million nonprofits large and small that fill out IRS 990 forms every year. The 990 does the job, it’s been in use for 75 years, and it should be our window into the operation of all nonprofits, including churches. These forms are easily and anonymously accessible from sites like GuideStar or Charity Navigator. If a church has enough revenue to keep records, it can fill out the form. There is a four-page 990-EZ for organizations with less than $200,000 in revenue, and an even simpler 990-N for those with less than $50,000.
The change is trivial to make: simply amend the document “Instructions for Form 990” by striking the first four items from section B, “Organizations Not Required To File Form 990.” That’s it. The only difficult part might be the church leadership taking a deep breath and disclosing to the world how they spend your money.
Keep in mind who benefits from the status quo. Wouldn’t you like to see Scientology and other cults forced to disclose their assets?
Christians, I know that many in Congress are eager to subsidize Christianity, but tell them that you don’t want it. Tell them that your religion doesn’t need a crutch and that its activities can withstand the light of scrutiny like every other nonprofit. Secret financial records benefit no one except those with something to hide.

The overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward.
— Titus 1:7

Other relevant posts:

Image credit: Nick Ares, flickr, CC

An Honest Way for Christians to Separate Fact From Fiction

Posted on by

How do you separate fact from fiction? What procedure do you go through when confronted with a truth claim? This procedure should be practical rather than cumbersome, and it must be objective and fair rather than being biased toward a particular worldview. The goal should be finding the truth, not supporting a predefined conclusion.
I’ll go first. I only have two principles.

  • Accept the scientific or historical consensus, where there is one. In fields where there’s a high barrier to entry (becoming a physicist, for example), a layman is unqualified to evaluate evidence in that field and must rely on experts. That doesn’t mean that the experts are right, but the consensus is the best provisional approximation of the truth that we have at the moment.
  • Use the Principle of Analogy. This is the common-sense observation that we have much experience already with things that really exist (rocks, planets) and things that don’t (unicorns, legends). Let’s use this experience to find the best fit for any new claims. (I discussed the Principle of Analogy in detail here.)

Let’s take this procedure for a test drive with 15 categories of claims. (As we go through these, see what your procedure would make of them.)
Mythical animals such as unicorns, fairies, and leprechauns: fiction. Science tells us that these don’t exist and that there is no precedent for the magical powers attributed to some of these animals.
Animal surprises like the coelacanth, gorilla, Komodo dragon, and okapi: fact. Conclusive evidence for these animals was discovered only in the twentieth century.
Cryptozoological claims such as the Loch Ness Monster, Yeti, and Bigfoot: fiction. Science says that the arguments for these animals are insufficient. However, since these are (typically) claimed to have no special powers, there is a chance that evidence simply hasn’t been found. Science has been surprised before by new animals.
Curious life forms like the giraffe, blue whale, bacteria, volcanic vent life, and carnivorous plants: fact. Science tells us that they exist, even if we haven’t seen any personally.
Mythology like the Iliad, Gilgamesh, and Beowulf: fiction. Myths are sacred narratives that explain some aspect of reality (for example, the myth of Prometheus explains why we have fire and the Genesis creation myths explains where everything came from). History notes many examples of supernatural tales like these for which there is no evidence.
Legends like Merlin, Lady Godiva, and the Choking Doberman urban legend: fiction. Though they can include miracles, legends are otherwise plausible events that (unlike myths) are grounded in history. History tells us that there is insufficient evidence.
History like Alexander the Great, Hannibal, and Julius Caesar: fact. These generals won some remarkable battles. Though supernatural stories arose around these men (not surprising in a pre-scientific culture), history rejects the supernatural elements.
Novels like The Wizard of Oz and Harry Potter: fiction. Most are clearly labeled as fiction, though the label is occasional lost or ignored—Orson Welles’ Halloween, 1938 War of the Worlds radiocast is a famous example.
Individual claims of supernatural events like miracles, ghosts, and demonic possession: fiction. Though these are widespread and customized to each culture, history and science reject these for lack of evidence.
Individual claims of extraterrestrials like seeing a UFO or an alien encounters: fiction. Like claims for cryptids, these don’t rely on the supernatural, but science has insufficient evidence to conclude that they exist, particularly when other explanations (hoaxes, misidentification, etc.) are available. “But no one has debunked case X!” may be true but is hardly proof of an alien claim.
Pseudoscience like ESP; telepathy; Ouija boards; Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, and other predictors of the future; and speaking to the dead: fiction. Insufficient evidence.
Fringe medicine like homeopathy, crystals, and Kinoki foot pads: fiction. With the stakes so high, fringe medical claims are common, whether by charlatans or people who honestly think they’ve found a new cure. But when alternative medicine provides the evidence that it works, it’s simply called “medicine.”
Science like black holes, undersea volcanoes, planets around distant stars, quantum physics, and the Big Bang: fact. Science has a remarkable track record, though, as stated above, its claims are provisional.
Conspiracy theories like the moon hoax or 9/11 as an inside job: fiction. Some conspiracies are accurate history, but many, like these examples, do not have the evidence.
Books from the other guy’s religion like Hinduism, Buddhism, Scientology, Christian Science, and Mormonism: fiction. Historians discard the supernatural. That supernatural claims were made is often history, of course, but not that the claims are accurate.
That’s 15 categories, some of which are fact and some fiction. What are your criteria for separating fact from fiction, and what do they make of these examples?
The challenge for the Christian is to have an objective list with no special pleading of the “except for my religion” sort. When Christians throw their net of truth into the water, a winnowing procedure that’s fine-meshed will pull up Christianity but also a lot of other religions. A procedure that’s coarser (like mine) will reject all religions.
What objective procedure can Christians have that will show Christianity as the only valid religion? I can imagine none.

Very few established institutions, governments and constitutions … 
are ever destroyed by their enemies 
until they have been corrupted and weakened 
by their friends. 
— Walter Lippman

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 3/6/13.)
Photo credit: Hasin Hayder

If Sports Fandom Is Just a Cultural Trait, Why Isn’t Religion?

Posted on by

Lifelong fans of the Mariners baseball team would be Red Sox fans if they’d grown up in Boston instead of Seattle. Tarheels fans would be Trojans fans if they had gone to USC instead of UNC. People who eat Frosted Flakes for breakfast would likely prefer fermented soybeans (natto) if they grew up in Japan instead of the U.S.
And believers who think that the truth of Christianity is obvious might think that about Islam if they grew up in Morocco or Afghanistan instead of Mississippi or Alabama.
Begging the pardon of sports fans, there is no objective measure that makes their home team the only valid one, with all others being poor imitations of the real thing. The same is true for religion.
Think of the similarities between religion and sports. Sports fans have rituals. They pray for their team. They proselytize for it. They feel an us-vs.-them rivalry with opposing fans, which builds their own community. They make pilgrimages to out-of-town games. Their passion for their team often begins in childhood. They wear clothes or headgear that identify them as fans of their team.
Why do people pick the religions that they pick? In fact, most don’t pick. They’re in effect assigned a religion by the randomness of their birth. They take on the religion of their parents or their community, like any other cultural trait such as customary food, dress, or etiquette.
Let’s not take this too far, however. Not everyone born in Mississippi is a Christian—atheist theologian Robert M. Price is an example. Not everyone raised as a Christian remains one—I’m an example. Adults can switch religions, though the numbers are tiny. Less than one percent of believers switched in from another religion. What best explains that people tend to take on the religion of their environment?
The atheist view is that all religions are manmade, but they’re sticky elements of culture. People tend to adopt these elements, but you’ll always have some outliers. In a culture where men wear neckties, a few will prefer bow ties. In Seattle where everyone supports the Seahawks football team, a few will be fans of the Cowboys. In a culture where one of the first questions after being introduced to someone new is, “And where do you go to church?” a few will be atheists.
The atheist says that religion is adopted because it’s a dominant cultural trait, not because it’s true.
The Christian view is much tougher to justify. Christians don’t want to discard this correlation because it helps explain why the other guy clings to his religion. Is the fact that there are a billion Muslims strong evidence that Islam is correct? Nope—their belief is just a cultural trait. With over a dozen countries having 98 percent or greater Muslim populations, being Muslim is just what you do when you grow up in a monoculture.
Christians say that Islam, Shinto, Buddhism, Hinduism, and most other religions are cultural traits that are false. But they need to explain why Christianity is actually true even though it looks just like all those false cultural traits.
Seeing religion as nothing more profound or objectively accurate than a cultural trait is the best explanation of the evidence.

Of all things, good sense is the most fairly distributed.
Everyone thinks he is so well supplied with it 
that even those who are the hardest to satisfy in every other respect 
never desire more of it than they already have.
— René Descartes

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 2/27/13.)
Image credit: Keith Parry, flickr, CC