In reading Bart Ehrman's God's Problem, it struck me how hollow are the arguments of many Christian apologists who claim that agnostics or atheists (1) don't know much about Christian beliefs and/or (2) take things out of context. This post doesn't concern itself with point number one (and only the most irrational of religious fanatics would argue with Ehrman's personal experiences of the Christian faith or his credentials in regards to his knowledge of Christian scriptures).
But regarding context: it is abundantly clear that the only way one can hold religious beliefs is to take things out of context. When you keep things in context, Christianity (and all other religions) are revealed for what they really are: fantastical myths that hold a mirror up to their irrational and flawed creators--i.e., men.
A few examples. When you take various pieces and snippets of the Christian Bible out of context, you can support pretty much any belief, however silly, baseless, hate-filled or dreamily optimistic. God loves us all. Fags go to hell. The Earth is only 4,000 years old. Jesus rose from the dead. Etcetera.
When you consider religion in context--by which I mean when you consider the bigger picture--you rationally conclude:
- big picture (to quote Ehrman), "the Bible contains many and varied answers to the problem of why there is so much suffering in the world; many of these answers are at odds with one another, and at odds with what most people seems to think today."
- bigger picture, that the Bible--full as it is of contradictions, differing tones and styles, stories of impossible "miracles" and the like--is a collection of myths written by men over centuries
- bigger still, that Christianity itself is one of countless religions and belief systems that have sprung up over the millenia, and its supposedly sacred and unique beliefs--e.g., virgin births--have been recycled through many other religions ardently believed in by their long-dead followers. (As Sagan put it in his brilliant and moving Reflections on a Mote of Dust, this tiny planet in an incomprehensibly vast universe has been home to "thousands of confident religions." And yet so many so fervently believe their religion is the true one.)
- bigger still, that considering whatever (if any) evidence that might support any of the claims of any of these confident religions, against the evidence that might support any of the claims and assertions of science over just a few hundreds years, the claims of science are supportable while religious beliefs require the suspension of rational thought.
So, let us not argue any further about agnostics or atheists taking things out of context. The word context comes from the Latin, contexere, meaning "weave together." Ehrman--together with other intelligent and thoughtful rationalists--is weaving together a vast and accurate picture of religion while the apologists are spinning silly tales out of single threads of their own liking.
