Title: The End of Christianity
Editor: John Loftus
Bibliographic Info: 435 pp.
Publisher: Prometheus, 2011.
ISBN: 9781616144135
Buy it at Amazon
This collection of 14 essays, edited by John Loftus, is another volume in trilogy of polemical diatribes against the Christian faith. The previous two volumes are Why I Became an Atheist, and The Christian Delusion. This volume aims to show that Christianity is completely untenable to believe in and thus should end. Though considering that is what The Christian Delusion was meant to demonstrate, I wonder why this sequel had to be released. Perhaps not enough people were leaving Christianity after reading The Christian Delusion? 
This review will consist of four or five parts in which I shall provide brief overviews of each essay, as well as an overall assessment of the book and how it impacts Christianity. Does this book live up to its contentious title of ending Christianity? We shall see.
The introduction, by the editor John Loftus, is not really an introduction to the book as such, but is basically just an apologetic for Loftus’ prized “Outsider Test for Faith” (OTF). This is apparently a “hotly contested” concept and Loftus seems rather sure it is some sort of bunker buster that can demolish a person’s religious faith once they take the test. I won’t rehearse the OTF here, but head on over to his blog and I am sure you can read all about it.
The essays in this volume are divided up into four sections, the first of which is called “Why Two Thousand Years are Enough.” It is composed of three essays which are what this first part of the review will tackle.
The first essay of the book is titled “Christianity Evolving” and is written by Dr. David Euller. I will provide the following quote from this chapter which I think aptly sums it up:
… there is no such thing as the religion of Christianity; at best it is a multitude of related but distinct and often-enough opposed traditions, shifting and swaying with the winds of local culture and passing history. (23)
Euller provides a brief overview of Christianity from its beginnings to the reformation, then the many adaptations of the Christian faith that have occurred in America, and lastly, the global Christianities that have been emerging in Latin American, Asia, and Africa.
Euller’s essay was actually one of my favorites of the entire book, partly because it is generally an accurate assessment on the evolution of Christianity, and also because there were a lot of nice soundbites, such as the following:
Even more, the evolution of Christianity follows exactly the same processes as biological evolution such as speciation, radiation, competition, extinction, and so on. (24)
With that said, there were a few mistakes in the essay. For instance, on page 34, Euller refers to the Council of Chalcedon as occurring in 380. For those unaware, that is not even in the correct century (it was in 451). Maybe he meant the Council of Constantinople in 381?
Also, in discussing the shaping of the Christian scriptures, Euller gives the erroneous impression that there was some sort of decisive council and vote that decided on whether to include or exclude certain scriptures from the new canon: “Worse, as the scriptures of the movement gradually came into shape, many candidates for inclusion were voted out, such as…” (29)
I particularly enjoyed the brief section at the end where Euller pondered on whether Christianity would end if we discovered extraterrestrial life. I have also contemplated that before, and like Euller, I came to the conclusion that Christianity would adapt to such a discovery. It would necessitate some theological changes for sure, but it would adapt. I mean, after all, Christianity adapted to the discovery that the universe didn’t revolve around the earth (as it was believed for a long time), so it would also adapt to the discovery that our planet isn’t the only inhabited one in the universe.
While I did enjoy this essay overall, I really can’t see how it is supposed to contribute to the end of Christianity. I mean, are we really meant to think that the information provided in this chapter is so shocking that it proves Christianity is a fraudulent religion based upon mere superstitions and lies? Apparently so, but it just simply doesn’t provide any impetus for the demise of Christianity, or for that matter, the superiority of the atheistic worldview.
The next essay is by Dr. Richard Carrier and is called “Christianity’s Success Was Not Incredible.” The opening paragraph gives the overall gist of the chapter, but also shows why I thought this chapter was rather pointless:
…it’s often claimed that Christianity could never have begun or succeeded unless the people of its first three centuries had overwhelming evidence that it was true. Therefore we should conclude there was overwhelming evidence it was true, even if that evidence doesn’t survive for us to see it now, and since we should believe anything for which there is overwhelming evidence, we should believe Christianity is true. (53)
I have never ever heard any Christian layperson or apologist say that the reason Christianity was so successful in the early centuries was because there was overwhelming evidence it was true. I don’t even remember popcorn apologists like Josh McDowell making that claim (yes, unfortunately I was a fan of McDowell and similar people back in my teenage years). Obviously I can not claim to have read all Christian apologetic books, so maybe there are people out there who use the argument that Christianity’s early success means it is true. If that is the case, then I have to make up a new category for them, because they are not even worthy to be place in the “popcorn apologist” category.
There was one redeeming feature of this essay by Carrier in that he tried to go on the offensive. He said that Christianity’s conception and growth were standard and that Christianity arose naturally like every other religion, and that this means that Christianity is an entirely natural religion and thus, false. Carrier says:
[Christianity's] rate of development was entirely natural. Since that rate was natural, we should expect its cause was natural, which alone closes the book on Christianity having any supernatural evidence or guidance. Had it had such, its rate of success would reflect that. It does not. (54)
Naturally, Carrier provides no reasoning why Christianity would need to have had some unnatural rate of development for it to be considered a valid truth claim. Why on earth should we accept Carrier’s claims to know what we should have expected to happen if Christianity’s claims were true or false?!
Essentially, this chapter is filled with a bunch of supposed claims that Christians make that Carrier then proceeds to tear down. For example, one claim that Christians supposedly make is that Christians being tortured, hunted, and killed would have made their success impossible except for divine intervention. I have never heard a Christian make such a lame claim before. This essay was perhaps the most disappointing of the book as Carrier just sets up straw men and tears them down.
Carrier makes some other claims which are untrue as far as I know (or perhaps he just isn’t being too careful with his language). He says:
[Resurrection] was already a common Jewish staple, with past resurrections in its sacred stories and future resurrections in its imagined plan of salvation.
…
Even the claim that Jews would never have bought the idea of a singular resurrection before the general resurrection of all Jews is false: such special resurrection already appeared in their own Bible and were readily believed to still be occurring. (59-60)
I can not for the life of me think of a story in Second Temple Literature in which someone is resurrected. Resuscitated back to life? Sure. But that is not the same thing as resurrection (not in Jewish parlance anyway). Perhaps he is referring to the stories of figures being exalted and taken up into the heavens. But again, this is not resurrection. I think Carrier is just not being precise enough with his language. Proclaiming Jesus had been resurrected from the dead is not the same as saying that Jesus had been brought back to life (e.g. like the Shulamite woman’s son), nor is it the same as the concept of someone undergoing apotheosis and exaltation (e.g. Enoch). As far as I know, the idea of a singular person achieving resurrection before the general resurrection at the eschaton, was indeed quite a novelty in Judaism at that point in time.
Another point Carrier tries to drive home is the parallelism between the story about Jesus’ death and resurrection with that of various other figures throughout history. One example he latches onto in particular is that of Inanna. He says that the Sumerians believed in a religion centered on a crucified goddess, Inanna, who was “stripped naked and crucified, yet she rose from the dead and, triumphant, condemned to hell her lover, the shepherd-god Dumuzi.” (55)
Again, Carrier is being far too sloppy with his words to say that Inanna was “crucified”. I would have loved if Carrier had provided references to primary source material on Inanna to support his claims, because from what I know about the Sumerian account is that it simply states Inanna is killed and then her body was hung on a hook in the underworld. To say that Inanna was crucified is not just being far too loose and sloppy with words, it is dishonest (besides, I think crucifixion wasn’t used until about a millenium after Inanna’s story developed, by a completely different culture nonetheless). Also, to equate Inanna’s ascending from the underworld as being similar to the resurrection of Jesus is again being too sloppy with words and concepts.
The third essay in this book, by editor John Loftus, is titled “Christianity is Wildly Improbable.” Loftus lists ten propositions of protestant evangelicalism that he finds to be utterly implausible to adhere to. At one point Loftus states:
If in our world miracles do not happen, then they did not happen in first-century Palestine, either. And that should be the end of it. (80)
Just because Loftus has never witnessed a genuine miracle does not mean they do not occur. Just because Loftus has never witnessed something truly supernatural, does not mean such things do not exist. (And by “supernatural” I do not mean a nice warm feeling you get when you worship at Church).
The chapter ends with an attempt by Loftus to tackle some philosophical and theological questions relating to some key Christian doctrines. For instance, he asks:
Many humans have been eaten by cannibals, bears, sharks, and parasites. Others have been lost at sea or cremated. How can there be a bodily resurrection for these bodies if they no longer exist? (88)
A good and proper question. But does Loftus think that just because Christians couldn’t provide a compelling answer, that we should then just abandon this belief? I don’t see why we should abandon beliefs that do not have completely adequate answers.
Loftus also takes a look at prominent Christian apologists Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, and Richard Swinburne. Not much to complain about there because I pretty much agree with him in his criticisms of them. The chapter ends with Loftus presenting 15 points on what it takes to believe and defend Christianity.
As with the previous chapters, I just don’t see how this chapter is meant to contribute to the demise of Christianity. It may do so against the uncritical fundamentalist strain of Christianity, but not Christianity in general. The type of Christianity that Loftus argues against can be clearly seen in the following quote:
The evidence is simply not there to believe in a three-headed, eternally existing god who became one of us to die on a cross for our sins in one lone part of the ancient world; a god who bodily resurrected from the grave but was only seen by a small number of people, which forces the rest of us to believe their word on it or else spend an eternity in hell because we were not there to see it for ourselves. (99)
Read Part II here.
Hi Kevin,
Do you not like apologetics as a field or just the way apologetists go about their business?
I don’t really like or dislike the field in and of itself. I do think that, as it is practiced by conservative Christians, it is merely an exercise in coming up with arguments to support preconceived notions.
Carrier’s chapter appears to be a condensed version of his book *Not the Impossible Faith*, which is a response to Internet apologist JP Holding’s work *The Impossible Faith*. Holding’s argument, roughly, is that various sociocultural factors militated against acceptance of Christianity in both the Jewish and Hellenistic worlds, thus making it “impossible” for the faith to succeed unless potential converts could investigate and find convincing evidence that the resurrection actually occurred.
Thanks for that info. I have heard of Holding but never read any of his book. Sounds like I would disagree with him anyway.
“Just because Loftus has never witnessed a genuine miracle does not mean they do not occur. Just because Loftus has never witnessed something truly supernatural, does not mean such things do not exist. (And by “supernatural” I do not mean a nice warm feeling you get when you worship at Church).”
What does a ‘genuine miracle’ look like? What is the direct causal evidence it is the work of jesus-god?
More than ever, as our scientific understanding of human nature and the universe matures, it seems to me that theology is bit ignorance of natural causes reduced to a system. Nothing more , nothing less.
A miracle is the occurrence of an extremely unlikely event that isn’t explainable by natural or scientific laws.
So for instance, suppose you came across a person who had been blind from birth. If that person was just waltzing down the street one day and then could suddenly see, then I would say that a miracle occurred. In fact, I would say that two miracles occurred in that case: 1) their eyes starting see again, and 2) their brain was rewired so as to be able to process the information coherently. Is there direct evidence that such a miracle is caused by God or a supernatural being of some sort? No. But it is indeed a logical conclusion.
Also, while theology may sometimes be ignorant of natural causes as explanations for strange occurrences, humans are also far too capable of being ignorant of the supernatural just because they may not have experienced it. Those of us who have, well, we need a more reasonable explanation for it than merely burying our head in the sand and pretending such things never happened.
Papalinton is almost certainly John Loftus himself.
I doubt it Loftus is lame enough to employ multiple accounts.
“Papalinton is almost certainly John Loftus himself.”
Sorry to disappoint you, Pitch, but alas Papalinton is a solely different and separate entity and personable person.
More importantly, I’m curious as to when there might be diglot’s response to the notion of a ‘genuine miracle’ and the proofs for the existence of the ‘supernatural’ as a separate and active world replete with demons, angels, seraphim and cherubim, gods and Satan.
The only efficacious demonstration of ‘supernatural’, so far, is that it is a function of the brain’s capacity for ideation and the ‘supernatural world’ is the way the brain categorizes certain types of thought patterns in one’s mind. There is much recent work in psychology, psychiatry, the neuro-sciences etc. that clearly demonstrates the causal links between how the mind orders its world and its relationship to explanations of the natural physical world. And it is exciting stuff. There really is no going back to superstition and the mythos of past millennia.
It would be fair to say, Loftus’ book, takes a peek at this new and exciting perspective of learning and understanding this aspect of the human condition.
Cheers
Hi diglot
“Those of us who have, well, we need a more reasonable explanation for it than merely burying our head in the sand and pretending such things never happened.”
We do need a more reasonable explanation, and to call it a miracle is OK with me. There are many things that seem inexplicable but each and every time science has been able to propose a plausible explanation and go on to demonstrate that the cause of each previous miracle had a perfectly reliable and accurate prediction and explanation, it ceased to be a miracle [like resuscitation of a drowned person from a frozen lake hours after having drowned, like using the fibrillator when someone has suffered a heart attack, like drugs for schizophrenia, like someone climbing out of a car after a 100mph head-on crash].
But to invoke a god as a reason is just very lazy theology.
And it is not ”merely burying our head in the sand and pretending such things never happened”. Nobody is doing that. Nobody says it doesn’t happen. In fact most reasonable and smart people would be honest and just say, “We don’t know why, at this point”. Inextricable things do happen, no doubt about it. But to invoke a god, in the absence of a natural explanation is simply appealing to the ‘god of the gaps’.
For consideration.
Cheers
It is not appealing to the “god of the gaps” if a god is the most reasonable explanation for a particular occurrence.
Tell me, what do you think would be a viable scientific explanation, which doesn’t invoke the existence of a supernatural realm or entity, for multiple people who experienced a supernatural entity (e.g. ghost, angel) on multiple occasions? Were they all exposed to some sort of natural gas which gave them the same hallucinatory experience? What would you suggest to be a more reasonable hypothesis to explain a happening like this other than that such a supernatural entity actually existed?
Hi diglot
“Tell me, what do you think would be a viable scientific explanation, which doesn’t invoke the existence of a supernatural realm or entity, for multiple people who experienced a supernatural entity (e.g. ghost, angel) on multiple occasions? ……. What would you suggest to be a more reasonable hypothesis to explain a happening like this other than that such a supernatural entity actually existed?”
Much research has been conducted in this field of neuro-science, diglot, and I am perhaps a little surprised that you seem unaware of it.
Through magnetic stimulation of various areas of the brain, or equally though a variety of direct and indirect processes of electrical stimulation, researchers have been able to trigger enhanced incidences of participants experiencing the “sensed presence” of an entity. The pattern that stimulates this sensed presence is called the Thomas Pulse.
Other stimulation experiments have resulted in the sense of “oneness with the Universe”, experiencing feelings of a paranormal, spiritual presence and ‘cosmic consciousness’, and experience a sense of timelessness.
It is a truly fascinating and absorbing area of investigation.
Some suggested sites that expand on these new studies:
http://www.meridianinstitute.com/reports/neurocor.html
http://clinicallypsyched.com/neurotheologywithgodinmind/
http://neurotheology.50megs.com/whats_new_9.html
http://www.google.com.au/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=stimulation+of+temporal+lobes+to+to+sense+presence+of+someone&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&ei=g4YyTv3EIYKkmQXh7JXwCg
I am relatively familiar with experiments that have caused people to sense a presence by deliberately stimulating certain parts of the brain. But I have not seen any experiments which can explain how multiple people can experience the exact same auditory and visual manifestations (on multiple occasions) of a supposedly “non-existent” entity.
And in case you’re wondering, yes I am talking about myself. The lame explanations of scientific experiments that can make people “sense a presence” is not even remotely an adequate explanation for people that have undergone different types of experiences. While that explanation is fine for people to accept who have never experienced such things, for those of us who have, it is a laughable (and undoubtedly a wrong) explanation.
Sorry diglot, don’t kid yourself. We’ve all experienced transcendent moments even me. It is just that we don’t attribute them to your designated deity, as indeed the other 5 billion people on this planet don’t.
Just as you and I would acknowledge these experiences are truly life-changing moments that resonate such that people do not forget them, they are nonetheless a perfectly normal aspect of being human, although they can be felt in significantly varying degrees of intensity and timing.
I am not sure your refusal to at least even acknowledge the possibility of a more straight forward and natural explanation makes those explanations untrue, or ‘undoubtably wrong’. We grow by incorporating all this new knowledge and appreciating the value of it and melding it integrally into our improved understanding of what it is that makes us tick as humans.
Cheers
I would actually say that the vast majority of people do not claim to have experienced transcendent moments. Unless, of course, you are counting moments of emotional rapture at church (or any quasi-religious setting) as “transcendent moments.”
Also, I never attributed my experiences to a particular deity. All I said is that they are evidence of some sort of supernatural realm/existence. I take the existence of a deity(-ies) as a corollary to what my family and I experienced.
Actually, I do not refuse to acknowledge the possibility of another explanation for it. There just simply is no other more reasonable explanation for what occurred. Maybe one day in the future, science will come up with some evidence which explains various supernatural sightings in purely natural terms with no necessity to invoke a supernatural realm. But until then, the most reasonable explanation there is, is indeed that the supernatural exists.
I have had other supernatural type experiences too, yet I know how they could be explained in terms of more natural theories, and so that is what I have put those ones down to. You may not believe it, but I am actually a very skeptical person; but I am not one of those people who are oblivious to the possibility of the existence of the supernatural.
Hi diglot
You say, “All I said is that they are evidence of some sort of supernatural realm/existence.” and you say, “But until then, the most reasonable explanation there is, is indeed that the supernatural exists.”
In the 1980s, a mass supernatural Marian sighting occurred in Mejdugorje in Bosnia-Herzegovina. It has taken Catholic believers by by storm. However, years after, the Vatican now claims that it is a heresy. This has not stopped millions of christians flocking to the sacred place.
Diglot, you might care to have a quick look at the following including the Vatican’s official stance.
Whatever it is they saw, people experienced an incredible supernatural transformative change, regardless of the vatican position. I guess one’s man’s supernatural experience is another man’s ……………….
http://mypeoplepc.com/members/deaconjohn/marianwebpage/id4.html
http://www.medjugorje.org/
http://www.medjugorje.ws/
http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=7452
Cheers
I always thaught miracles where understood in the christian faith as being events in which brought the recipiant closer to God, not so much as an event that has no natural cause, and therefore MUST be supernatural. I agree with you that there may be many supernatural forces at work, and that we atheists just don’t see them, but than I also contend an alternate unprovable theisis- the UNH- or in other words, the Unidentified Naturalistic Hypothisis. An example would be the sightings of the virgin Mary. Many christians (protestants) and non believers don’t believe they are veridical, while Catholics do. So, what are we to do about them? Well, they happened, and that;s undenieable, so we can, I believe, say with reasonable assurance, that they may have a naturalistic Explaination that hasn’t been explored yet. Perhaps it was a mass hallucination? I am open to it, since there are many instances of this happening (fatima, for instance). I am not saying it is to be preffered over supernatural explainations, and I humbly admit to feeling uncomfortable with the flimsyness of these speculations. But I think the important point is that it is rational to hold them.
I would also like to add a big ol’ PS- that Carrier was referring to the work of JP Holding when he mentioned “Apologists who claim that christianity was too improbable to have occured naturally”. If you never heard of JP Holding (and that would hardly be surprising), he’s just another ultra-conservative apologetics nerd. Peace out!!!
c’mon, just spill the details…
Don’t you think it’s unfair to toy with peoples worldviews, by teasing them with evidence that could very well shatter it? I want to know the truth- I honestly do. And if this experience of yours can lead to the truth- than it’s your responsibility to put it out, is it not? After all, who knows how many heathans may burn, become annialated, etc-since they didn’t have the evidence they required to believe? The evidence that you may be sitting on.
Sorry for the harsh accusations. I pride myself in being more honest than most of my fellow atheists, so I was curious as to the details of the experience, so I could guess at how a naturalist could explain it. I have no interest in saying whether my explaination IS correct- so I don’t think of myself as being a debunker.
Anyways, from the little information you gave, I’d guess you and your family underwent either a poltergeist or an apparitional experience of some sort. Whatever the visionary experience was, I would throw out the common responses, such as faulty memory, social expectations, minor hysteria, etc.
There are also more complex ones, like Persingers work on Tectonic Strain Theory.
Andy
No poltergeist type experience (as far as I’m aware of). The only apparitional experience I am aware of is the angel my mum claims visited her a month or so before the spooky stuff started to happen.
All of my own experiences were auditory. A deep heavy breathing with an overwhelming feeling of evil. My mum experienced other things (audible whispers of children, cold winds circling around her). Friends of my mum also experienced the cold wind phenomenon on one occassion I know of. My brother experienced an intelligible voice on one occassion too. Other than that, it was just deep heavy breathing that occurred semi-regularly. Unfortunately, we (me, mum, dad, brother and sister) rarely talked about these things while we lived there, and never did after we moved out (though I did briefly talk to my mum about a couple times). So I don’t know everything that my other family members had experienced apart from our common experiences.
Strangely, when we moved out of that house (we were living on a sheep farm in a small rural town), the occurrences stopped happening. Though I did experience a couple of terrifying nights in the years subsequent where I woke up sensing a feeling that an evil entity was in my room. I couldn’t move or scream, and it sat down on my bed (I could feel the bed mattress compress). But I’ve read some literature on those sorts of experiences, and so the skeptic inside of me is willing to put it down to the natural explanations.
Believe it or not, but I am actually quite a skeptical thinker and do not doubt I would be an atheist if it hadn’t been for those childhood experiences, but the many experiences we had when we lived on the farm can not be just put down to natural causes in my opinion. The most natural explanation for what we experienced is that some sort of supernatural forces were at work.
“The most natural explanation for what we experienced is that some sort of supernatural forces were at work.”
I’m sorry. I thought you meant the same visual/auditory manifistations at the same time. Still, I actually agree with you! I cannot say what really happened- I was not there! I can appeal to faulty memory recall- but we all know that that is an un-provable hypothesis because, no matter what you say, I could easily claim you weren’t remembering it properly.
Also, I don’t doubt that your skeptical. You may not believe me- but I am skeptical of atheism too! I have investigaed NDE’s and apparitions for a while now. The only reason I call myself an atheist is because I feel the evidence forthe supernatural is, well, inconclusive. For every 5 angel encounters I have ever read from a Christian, I could name one that happened from a loony new ager.
My mother, who is a new ager, claims that she spoke to ghost all the time. She said they were like the spirits from the “6th sense”. Also, when it comes to NDE’s- I have noticed that many happen to Bah’ai, Mormons, etc. I have read that, according to many Mormon NDE’s, Abe Lincoln became a mormon in heaven!
I think the reason I am so fascinated by apparitional stories is because I think that some may be genuine. So I hope I didn’t give you the wrong impresion.
All the best
andy
I also wrote up an apology on my blog
http://oldtimeatheism.blogspot.com/2011/12/open-letter-to-kevn-brown-aka.html
Andy
Thanks, thats very kind of you.
Just to be clear, my family did experience the same auditory manifestations at the same time (on many occassions), but the only visual manifestation anyone had (that I know of) was my mother (of an “angel”).
I’m traveling overseas in a few months to see my family and I’m planning on asking them all (individually) what they remember about it all.
Interesting- I suppose you mean the deep breathing when you say audio manifistations, or were they more along the lines of screams, screeches, etc? Although I tend to be skeptical of claims that happened in the distant past- I am still very curious as to what else may of occurred. Just make sure to ask them all individually, so they don’t try to corroborate the details with each thers accounts. That often leads people to “invent” their own memories (it sounds wired, but trust me- my bro is getting a degree in psychology).
Andy
This did happen in the distant past (we moved out of there 16 years ago). There are only a handful of specific experiences that occurred that I can recall with specific details (e.g. the first time it occurred). Most of the other experiences have been forgotten to a good degree.
One of the things I enjoy studying is historical Jesus studies, and I read this recent monograph by Dale Allison called “Constructing Jesus”. Anyway, in the book he discusses memory, imagination, etc., and it is all quite fascinating. (I would highly recommend anything by Dale Allison. He reminds me of myself due to that he himself claims to have had direct supernatural experiences, yet he still approaches Christianity and religion with a very large amount of skepticism and critical thinking).
My wife and I visited my parents early last year.At one point during our visit there, I asked my mum (with my wife present) if we lived in a haunted house (I was just asking for my wife’s benefit so should could hear it from someone else in my family). Anyway, we only talked about it for a few minutes and we only discussed one experience that we both remembered happening.
My recall of the experience is as follows: My mum, brother, sister, and I were in the living room when the phone rang for my mum. She went through to the hallway and bedroom to speak on it. A short while later she came back to the living room and was visibly frightened and angry. She demanded to know who it was that had been creeping up behind her in the hallway whispering “mummy, mummy”. Neither myself nor my siblings left the living room for a second during that time she was on the phone. Anyway, we all put it down to the ghost/demon/whatever that inhabited our house (as there just wasn’t any other explanation other than my mum was crazy lol).
So when my wife and I were talking to my mother last year, I asked her if she remembered the incident of the child whispering behind her (and I wasn’t filling in any details for her). Her recount of the story was the same as mine above, i.e., my siblings and I were in living room, phone rang, she went through to hallway to speak on it, came back through to living room after the call yelling at us, but we were adamant that none of us left the room for a second. There was, however, one significant discrepancy in our accounts, which was that she thinks that our dad was also there with us in the living room. (Whereas, I had always thought that our dad was out on the farm doing his farming stuff, so when she mentioned that I was very surprised).
Anyway, just thought I would share, as its interesting how memories can be altered and changed over the years.
Also, this whole experience occurred to me quite early. We left the farm when I was 9 years old, and it had been going on for about 2-3 years beforehand (maybe even 4 years).
I was absolutely petrified of the dark after we moved, right up until I was 15 years old. If I really had to get up in the night to go to the bathroom, I turned on every light I could between my bedroom and the bathroom (6 or 7 in total). Every single night I went to sleep I would hide under blankets for the entire duration as I was too scared to peek out from under the covers. I had recurring nightmares in which we moved back to the farm and the hauntings started happening again. I remember for my 14th or 15th birthday, my mum asked me what I wanted for my present. I took her to this antique shop and asked for a night-lite that was in the shape of a turtle (I wanted it due to my fear of the dark). Thankfully,my fear of the dark, and the nightmares, all stopped when I “got saved” at age 15.
I saw my sister earlier this year, and we were talking about my theology studies. Somehow we got onto the topic of how a lot of Christians leave the Christian faith (becoming either pluralists, atheists, or agnostics) after going to seminary or taking graduate religious studies at a university. I mentioned that I can completely understand why that happens, because my academic studies has definitely altered my faith, beliefs, and my understanding of Christianity and world-religions. But I mentioned it would be impossible to me to become an atheist. She responded with something like, “Oh because of what happened when we were younger and lived on the farm?”, to which I responded in the affirmative.
We only talked about it for a few minutes more, as she was uncomfortable discussing it. The only thing she really said was how up until she first moved in with her boyfriend (now husband), she had never gone to sleep without the light or television on. Living in that house had made her terrified of the dark for years afterwards too. [If I was 9 years old when we moved out of that house, then she must have been 13 years old, and I think she moved in with her husband when she was 21-22, so she was scared of the dark for even longer than I was!]
Without your childhood experiences, because of your academic studies, do you think you’d still be a Christian or would you have converted to atheism? In other words, for someone who is a Christian, yet takes academic study of the bible seriously, is it an untenable position to remain a Christian based off this evidence? Do you think you’d still affirm the resurrection without these childhood experiences? Thanks
Wow! I actually experienced an extremely similiar paranoia of the dark as well! I swear, I used to be unable to sleep on my own! I’d have to wait until I’d naturally get knocked out, since I didn’t want to close my eyes. Also, I remember that, during the night, when I’d have to use the bathroom, I’d have to literally sprint to the bathroom, turn the light on, “go”, and then sprint back after truning the light off and washing up. And the nightmares! I swear, I had these reaccurring hell dreams that were unbelievably terrifying! I just couldn’t be alone in the dark until I was 14- 6 years after the events!
I’m not sure how I’ve been able to ignore my own experiences for so long. I mean, people mistaken mundane scenario’s for more impressive ones all the time! But the feelings of dread- those feel real! I think a large factor in my lack of belief in my incident was the fact that, apparantly, an Ouija board caused the haunting.
By the way, I am a very big fan of Dale Allison. I actually sent him an email, asking him for his response to Davis, Craig and Habermas
If you want it, just send me an email. Thanks for a good conversation- I’m definatley gonna provide a link to it on my blog.
Andy
*Forgot to mention in the above paragraph that I also experienced a similiar phenomena.
Andrew, yes, if it wasn’t for my childhood experiences I would no doubt be an atheist now. I am a “doubting Thomas” by nature and I love science, so I need some sort of proof for God (or the supernatural) in order for me to believe in any of it.
You asked, “In other words, for someone who is a Christian, yet takes academic study of the bible seriously, is it an untenable position to remain a Christian based off this evidence?”
If you are asking whether it is tenable to be a Christian based solely on the Bible, then I would say no, not for me. Most other Christians, I think, consider the Bible is enough evidence to believe in a God, even the Christian God. Though I think most would also say that it is by faith, and not a decision based off of any evidence.