"We Are Guilty"                    

One obstacle that needs to be dealt with right away is the issue of the historical atrocities associated with institutional Christianity. Such things as the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition are horrific blood stains on the fabric of church history, and need to be acknowledged as such. Even if one has never read the Bible, it ought to be painfully clear that to murder, kill, and torture in the name of Jesus Christ is the utmost perversion of Jesus' message of love, peace, and self-sacrifice (simply consider how Jesus chose death on the cross rather than a fight with the authorities).

Jesus also said, "A tree is known by its fruit," and "The tree that produces bad fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire."¹ What this means is that fruit of genuine Christianity is love, peace, and joy in the grace of God, not torture and murder in the name of Jesus Christ. Yet the shame of the killing and the mayhem committed in Jesus' name is to be acknowledged, and the perpetrators unequivocally identified as false representatives of the gospel of repentance, peace, and love. At Thomas Ministries, we utterly reject the biblically indefensible, condemn the hateful acts, and we commend the final fates of such perpetrators to the righteous judgment of God.

¹ Please see Matthew 7:15-20.

"HYPOCRITES!!"                   

Another obstacle to be dealt with is the frequent charge that, since the Christian church is full of hypocrites, the Christian faith is invalid. This argument bears a closer examination. It has been well pointed out that the purpose of going to college is to receive a college education. It is a known fact, however, that many people go to college for reasons other than to receive a college education. Most notably some go to party, some go to escape their home situations, and some go to avoid military obligations. All of these motivations are hypocritical with respect to the stated reason for attending college -- to obtain a formal education. This means then, that college must also be full of hypocrites! Thus, it ought to mean that the institution of college is also invalid, because, like the Christian church, it is also full of hypocrites. Nonetheless, one just about never hears the argument that the institution of college is invalid because it is attended by hypocrites. So unless one wants to apply one standard of judging hypocrisy to the Christian church, and a different standard of judging hypocrisy to the institution of college, one has to admit that this "hypocrite" argument does not stand up to close examination. The embarrassing truth is that applying such a double-standard of judgment is an act of hypocrisy in itself!

In reality, there are hypocrites in every human endeavor, and especially in worthwhile ones. Thus, the mere presence of hypocrites by itself does not represent a sufficient reason to reject any investigation of a worthwhile human endeavor. Nor does it represent a sufficient reason to reject the validity of the endeavor as a whole. If anything, the objection to hypocrisy points to a common human condition: the dislike of hypocrites.

More Hypocrites!

Granted that hypocrites have historically been a plague on the Christian Church, we still need not to mistake the false believers for the true ones. Look at recent history in science, for example. No more should we condemn all historians for the actions of the famous plagiaristic few, nor condemn all archaeologists for the fraudulent stoneware-planting actions of a few, nor all paleontologists for the deceptive skeletal reconstructions of a few, nor all medical researchers for the sadistic actions of a few (e.g. Nazi "research"). Such individuals are scientific hypocrites in every sense of the term. Neither, then, should we condemn all Christians for the hateful words and deeds of a few, for the dogma-worship of a few, nor for the murderous actions of a few (e.g., abortion clinic bombers).

One may well object at this point that there have been many more Christian hypocrites than scientific ones. If so, one must also remember that there have been many more Christians than scientists over the past two thousand years! This would certainly lead one to expect a greater total number of hypocrites among Christians, without it necessarily reflecting a greater rate of hypocrisy among Christians. But even if it did, this would simply reflect that the message of Christianity is clear even to the non-believing, so that the actions of Christian hypocrisy are evident to all. This cannot generally be said of science, which remains remarkably difficult to grasp by the community at large. As a result, those hypocrisies in science that do exist are by no means evident to all of society, whereas those of Christianity are. In fact, it is only the most blatant of scientific hypocrisies that make their way to the mainstream culture. Scientists themselves, however, know that there is rampant hypocrisy in the scientific community in the areas of data manipulation, investigative competition, and research funding, not to mention kowtowing to politics. The point here is not to beat up on them, however. The point is to acknowledge their existence and importance in scientific endeavors, and to acknowledge that hypocrisy is unfortunately common ground for both science and Christianity.

There is another hypocrisy-related objection that needs to be dealt with. One may object that Christian hypocrisy is somehow worse than scientific hypocrisy, because Christians claim to represent God. This objection, however, is itself quite hypocritical. What we are describing here in essence is an attempted comparison between a "God-based" system of reasoning (i.e. Christianity) versus a "God-replaced" system of reasoning (i.e. atheism or agnosticism). The actual validity of this comparison is in itself quite questionable, a point that will be pursued in another essay to come. But the focus here is on the numerous hypocritical faults associated with this very objection.

First of all, many scientists and philosophers believe that scientific reasoning is superior to all other forms of reasoning. If this were so, however, scientific hypocrisy would then by definition have to be worse than religious hypocrisy. This is because its practitioners are supposedly engaged in the superior reasoning system. Therefore, to assert that scientific hypocrisy is less worse than religious hypocrisy while at the same time insisting that scientific reasoning is superior to religious reasoning, is in itself hypocritical.

Second, keep in mind that hypocrisy is not a rational failing, but a moral failing. If this objection shows anything, it shows that moral failings are independent of reasoning systems, or at least that they are independent of scientific and religious reasoning systems. This is because it is not what one knows that produces hypocrisies; it is what one chooses to do with that knowledge that produces hypocrisies. In other words, whether religious or scientific, "superior" reasoning systems apparently do not prevent common moral failures.

Third the objection is hypocritical because, if God really exists, the objection simultaneously has great merit and also is quite baseless. It has great merit because, if God really exists, it is indeed more objectionable to have religious hypocrites than scientific ones. But then if God really does exist, it is baseless because both the atheistic and the agnostic positions of belief are immediately proven false. But it is those same atheistic and agnostic belief systems that have asserted the superiority of scientific reasoning. If they are false, so then is their assertion that scientific reasoning is superior. Either way, the objection remains hypocritical.

Fourth, the claim of "superiority" is itself hypocritical. In order to fairly judge one thing to be superior to another, there has to be not only an independent standard which is transcendent to both things being judged, but also an independent arbiter capable of properly evaluating them against that transcendent standard, and then further capable of enforcing that evaluation. The case for a God-based evaluation of superiority rests in the qualities inherent in God, whereas the case for a God-replaced evaluation of superiority rests in whoever can get away with it. Without an external standard and an independent arbiter, the claim of the scientific community to superiority of reasoning is just an opinion. An opinion! Scientific stringency demands acceptance of this fact. In a God-replaced system of reasoning, the best that can be hoped for by way of comparison is an opinion. Likewise, without a transcendent external standard and independent arbiter, the claim of any "religious" community to superiority of reasoning is also just an opinion. Welcome to the post-Modern world of conceptual and moral relativism!  Thus, it is at best naive to assert the superiority of scientific reasoning in a God-replaced system, and frankly blind arrogance at worst. For any argument between the "superiority" of scientific versus religious reasoning systems, no claim has any merit unless it is God-based! The truly scientific mind needs to accept this fact: In a God-replaced system of reasoning, there is no basis for claiming the scientific superiority of anything over anything else. The scientific community needs to own up to the fact that any claims for the superiority of scientific reasoning in a relativistic world are simply childish. And a God-replaced world is a relativistic one.

Conclusions

In conclusion, then, accusations and findings of hypocrisy are very important within any belief system, because they help determine the internal legitimacy of a given belief system. Further, accusations and findings of hypocrisy are important indicators of whether or not a given belief system can actually be lived out "where the rubber meets the road." The presence of hypocrisy is far less important, however, when comparing different belief systems, unless there exists some external standard of merit by which to judge between the systems. Only then can the types and degrees of hypocrisies present in each system be adequately evaluated, and only then can a claim for "superiority" be made. And using God-replaced systems of reasoning rather than God-based systems of reasoning do not permit such claims. There simply are no legitimate comparisons and accusations regarding degrees of hypocrisy between the scientific and the religious communities in a God-replaced (i.e. conceptually and morally relativistic) world.

"We Will All Fall Short"

Thomas Ministries, though, is concerned with both genuine science, and the genuine Christian faith. We are not concerned with the ringing counterfeits, cheats, and murderers that are inevitable in all human endeavors. We do recognize that true objectivity is unattainable, and do not presume to say that we are truly objective either as scientists or Christians. Neither do we claim to see perfect science or perfect Christianity lived out in the real world. However, we do ask you, dear reader, to examine yourself to see if you are willing to listen to reasonable and rational discourse in order to further investigate the truth. We are not demanding that you accept the arguments and positions presented herein, we are only asking that you give them fair and reasonable consideration. If objectivity is a hallmark of scientific endeavor, let it be employed by that scientific reader! If love of the truth is a hallmark of the genuine Christian, let it be exercised by that reader of faith! "What if . . . ?" is the essence of scientific inquiry, let that question be asked here! To both the scientist and the Christian we present the following challenge: "If I fear the truth, how can I possibly defend it?!" There are no sacred cows on these pages. Rather, we believe that this is a challenge that must be issued in order for fruitful deliberation on truth to be attained by either side.

Feedback/Comments/Questions