An argument against Christianity

In this post, I will outline an argument against Christianity. It’s not an argument for atheism, or against theism as such. It’s just aimed specifically at showing that Christianity is false.

The argument

Here is the argument:

  1. If Christianity is true, then a perfect being exists
  2. But if a perfect being exists, then Christianity is false
  3. Therefore, Christianity is false.

This argument is logically valid. If the premises are true, then the conclusion has to be true. The argument is just ‘if p, then q’, ‘if q then not-p’, ‘therefore, not-p’. This is easy to check using truth tables (and will leave it as an exercise for the interested reader).

Premise 1 is relatively uncontroversial. By ‘perfect being’, I just mean a morally perfect, omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe. This is the standard view of God in mainstream Christianity. (For the purposes of this argument, I think I don’t even need omniscient.) If your view of God is that he isn’t morally perfect, or not all powerful, etc, then this argument won’t apply to you. But it does apply to most mainstream Christian views of God.

Given that the argument is valid and the first premise is uncontroversial among mainstream Christianity, the action is really all about premise 2. I’ll devote the rest of this post to defending premise 2. Specifically, I have three lines of defence for premise 2, each of which involves a different key tenet of Christianity; original sin, the atonement, and salvation.

original sin

Original sin, supposedly incurred when Eve are from the forbidden tree in the garden of Eden, means that every subsequent person inherits some degree of moral culpability as a consequence. That is, everyone is morally blameworthy for the actions of someone who existed before they were born.

However, it is unjust to blame someone for something that another person did. In court cases where someone gets sent to prison for crimes that they did not commit, we readily recognise that this is unjust. This is independent of any particular theory of justice. It’s merely a datum that any theory of justice worthy or the name needs to take into account (like the way any theory of morality needs to account for things like torturing babies for fun being morally wrong).

The problem for Christianity is that original sin just is a punishment for a crime that nobody but Eve committed. Holding anyone else to blame for it is to deviate from where the moral responsibility really lies. So original sin is unjust. And surely a morally perfect being wouldn’t set up a system like that. A perfect being would set up a just system, where people would get punished or rewarded according to what they actually do in life, and not what other people do. Thus, if there were a perfect being, there would be no original sin. But original sin is crucial to Christianity. Thus, if there were a perfect being, then Christianity would be false. And that is premise 2 of the argument.

Atonement

The central story of the New Testament is about the life and death of Jesus. Whatever else we might say about Jesus, it is clear enough that he was a first century Palestinian Jew, who was a religious leader that was killed by the Romans while he was in his early 30’s. Subsequent generations of Christians developed many theories regarding his death, and it ultimately came to be seen as not a tragic thwarting of a man in his prime, but as the central and most important event in history. In the eyes of mainstream Christianity, the death of Jesus has enormous metaphysical consequences.

Typically, this is cashed out as Jesus ‘dying for our sins’. But what does this ‘atonement’ mean? There are many theories of atonement, including the ransom theory, the satisfaction theory, the penal substitutionary theory, etc. What most of these have in common is the notion that our moral culpability can be transferred, specifically from us to Jesus. In one way or another, Jesus stands in for humanity, receiving a punishment we deserve, in order to save us.

However, this is also unjust because moral culpability cannot be transferred from one person to another. Consider the following example:

Suppose a gangster murders your best friend. He then gets arrested, tried, found guilty and sentenced to life in prison. But then one of his cronies volunteers to do the prison time in the gangster’s place, and the judge agrees. The gangster walks free from the courtroom while the crony gets lead in handcuffs into the jail.

In such a scenario, justice has not been done. The problem is glaring: the moral failing remains with the gangster, no matter what anyone else does (such as try to stand in for them at a trial, etc). So the imposition of the punishment for that moral failing on someone innocent is another deviation from where the responsibility really lies. Therein lies the injustice.

A perfect being would not have as the centrepiece of their metaphysical system a blatantly unjust action like this. Yet that is crucial for mainstream Christianity. Therefore, if a perfect being exists, Christianity is false, and we have our second premise again.

Salvation

Christianity involves the notion of salvation through faith or acceptance of Jesus as your saviour. There are two aspects of this which are problematic. Firstly, it severs their connection between action and culpability. According to Christianity, one can be a murderous warlord (like Constantine), but repent on one’s deathbed, and thereby be forgiven and accepted into heaven. All the while, someone who lived a morally perfect life, but didn’t believe in Jesus, could end up being the recipient of eternal punishment.

This is blatantly unjust. The wrong people, from a moral perspective, are being rewarded and punished. Constantine’s deathbed repentance did not alter his moral responsibility. Him being rewarded is another deviation from what justice requires. Thus, this is also something that a perfect being would not do. A perfectly just being would reward people for morally good things and punish them for morally bad things. But this is not what we get with Christianity. Therefore, if a perfect being exists, Christianity is false.

Lastly, this theory of salvation rewards or blames people on the basis of their doxastic states. But doxastic states are not the sorts of things that have moral significance. By contrast, consider desires. Plausibly, the possession of certain desires can be immoral. Of course, the act of torture is immoral, but maybe so is the desire to do it. Either way, doxastic states are not like this. Believing that you tortured someone is not immoral. Even believing that you desire to torture is not immoral. No belief is moral or immoral to hold. They are completely neutral.

Yet the possession or lack of a belief makes all the difference in Christianity. Merely believing in the right propositions is rewarded by heaven, and not believing them is punished by hell.

Thus we have another deviation from justice. Punishing someone for something that has no moral significance is itself unjust. Actions (and perhaps desires) are the proper subject of moral culpability, but not beliefs. Punishing someone for holding a belief (or not) is unjust, and not something a perfect being would do. Perfect beings would punish and reward in proportion to what people do (and maybe what they desire to do). Yet this is not what we see with Christianity, where eternal punishment and reward is dished out in relation to holding beliefs. Therefore, if there is a perfect being, Christianity is false.

24 thoughts on “An argument against Christianity”

  1. Here are some possible Christian apologetic responses off the top of my head:

    ORIGINAL SIN:
    Since God is definitionally morally perfect, we must start there. The solution must simply be that our morality — though “written on our hearts” by God — is corrupted in some way by our imperfection. Inheriting sin means we inherited faulty moral judgment, and therefore what we call “unjust” is another way of saying “God’s perfect justice should match my imperfect justice,” and that logically cannot happen.

    ATONEMENT:
    Jesus may not “deserve” our punishment since he is morally perfect and forever innocent, but because Jesus/Yahweh is morally perfect, He can both give us grace through Jesus, while also doling out Perfect Justice® in the form of a sacrifice. If other ancient religions believed (incorrectly) that they could transmit their sins onto an animal, then why can’t Jesus be the ultimate and True™ scapegoat/sacrifice? A human or animal can’t ultimately stand in for another human, because all humans and animals are imperfect. But a “perfect” being can most definitely stand in for the sins of all humans as long as blood magic is part of God’s master plan. He likes blood, therefore justice is served – God’s Perfect Justice®™. Perfect blood = perfect justice!

    SALVATION:
    See all the answers above. Rewarding “right” belief IS just in God’s perfect mind. You just can’t see that because you’re not perfect!

    The through-line in all of these answers typically redounds to this: “Your idea of justice is corrupted by your sinful nature, silly human. Duh! God is perfect. You think you know better than God?” In other words, there’s an answer for everything if you start with your preferred conclusion and work backwards.

    The only solution I have found is to outright reject any kind of argument which relies on “objective morality”. You can’t argue that something is “unjust” as a matter of objective fact and be able to win the argument. because you’re both not starting from an agreed upon moral foundation. What I’ve realized is that just as my idea of justice does not align exactly with the Christian or their God’s purported idea of justice, my idea of justice doesn’t align exactly with anyone’s. It broadly overlaps with most people’s idea of justice, and that’s how we’re able to make and obey laws. But if you really dig down, we don’t all agree on every possible scenario in order to make a concept like “objective morality” possible or coherent. Morality = the list of things my conscience cannot abide. Everyone has a list, and each person’s list is pretty similar in general to everyone else’s (except those with mental aberrations), so that’s why it *feels* like a fact of reality, but it’s not objective; it’s intersubjective.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  3. Perfect in what sense though? Perfection requires some kind of metric that has a maximum. Perfection can then be defined as the maximum of this metric. So the question becomes, how to define the metric in question that is objective rather than subjective. I have no idea if this is even possible.

    I’m not a fan of such arguments in general either for or against christianity.

    Like

    Reply

  4. Wow. Just wow.
    Ignorance of Christian doctrine, the overall biblical narrative, and any meaningful historical discussion of what “perfection” is normally understood to mean within its context.
    I’d call it a strawman but that would give it too much credibility.

    Like

    Reply

      2. Yes, I really want a proper response. A serious, thoughtful, intellectually honest, and forthright response, please. Not what you just gave us. What you just gave us is akin to a “just look at the trees; it’s obvious!” argument. So, explain it to us like we’re children, children you want to teach. Sure, my original post was full of snark, but you know what it’s like when you’re on the internet. But now that we’ve gotten the snark out of our systems, let’s do it the right way. I’ll give as much as you give. The floor is yours.

        I do like Mat Hunt’s question. Maybe you could start there?

        “Perfect in what sense though? Perfection requires some kind of metric that has a maximum. Perfection can then be defined as the maximum of this metric. So the question becomes, how to define the metric in question that is objective rather than subjective. I have no idea if this is even possible.”

        Liked by 2 people

  6. Pingback: Ignorance or Intention?: Atheists, Strawmen, and Laziness – Triggermanblog
  7. Pingback: Interaction with Alex Malpass – Triggermanblog

  8. At least one immediate problem with this argument is either a confusion about the univocality of Christianity or the tautological nature of the argument.

    So one response could be:

    1) If A (Malpass’ argument) is true, then Christianity must be univocal.

    2) But Christianity is not univocal.

    3) So, A (Malpass’ argument) is not true.

    The second would be:

    4) For every predict in A (Malpass’ argument), the predicate just is what “Christianity” is being defined by.

    5) If (4), then A (Malpass’ argument) is trivial.

    6) So, A (Malpass’ argument) is trivial.

    Now either A relies on Christianity being univocal or A fails to be able to remark on whether Christianity is true, and Christianity is not univocal.

    Like

    Reply

  9. Very interesting argument as I think the logical deduction makes complete sense. However, many of the Christian ideas I think have been misinterpreted (I’m just starting to learn more about my faith so correct me if I’m wrong)

    For the first premise, I agree with the point of what God is defined as.

    For original sin, I think you are misinterpreting what it is. From what I’ve read, original sin seems to be the knowledge that we all have of good and evil. As Genesis says, Adam and Eve learn the difference between good and evil. So instead of thinking as original sin as some plague, I believe that it is more the knowledge that has been passed down and how we as humans can see good and bad. Therefore, we are not being punished for original sin; instead, we are reprimanded because God knows that this knowledge leads to evil.

    For atonement, the logic of moral culpability makes sense. However, I think your interpretation of Jesus’s death and how it cleared sin is a bit flawed. First, I believe that Jesus only cleared original sin, not all sins. Otherwise, the world would be perfect. Second, Jesus’s death didn’t wipe away original sin from us as we still need to be baptized to clear it (at least in Catholicism, I don’t know about other denominations). However, what it did do is open the eyes of many. Jesus’s death left the world in a dark place according to the writer Sextus Julius Africanus. But it also began a movement especially once Jesus came back. Christianity, in a sense, is how sins were cleared. It gives people a way to clear their original sin because without Jesus dying, would people have started the religion? A quote from Matthew states, “When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, ‘Surely he was the Son of God!'” So to conclude, people kept their sins. But Jesus gave a way to repent and purify yourself, albeit a much longer journey than people summarize it as when they say “he died for our sins”.

    Finally, salvation is another interesting argument as it is correct except for one interpretation that I’ve learned through Cliffe Knechtle (really good Christian channel that explores many arguments against the religion). Heaven and hell aren’t rewards and punishments; they are connections or separations from God. Using your example of Constantine and a moral person, here is how I would look at it: Imagine you have a house that you can invite people to. The first person is super moral, but you don’t know them super well. You really haven’t talked to them and they’ve heard of you, but don’t know anything about you. You’ve offered help to them but they haven’t taken it ever. Now, would you invite them to your house. Probably not, as they haven’t shown interest in you or your assistance and haven’t asked for an invite. Now we look at a different person, someone who is immoral. If they come to your door and ask for help and forgiveness, will you help them. Probably depends on whether you know if they will truly change. And God knows that. He can see if the people repenting truly want to change and be faithful to God. And as a truly moral person who sees someone who needs help and is willing to change, you would help them, ignoring their past. This is the argument for allowing Constantine over the moral man.

    Along with that, the argument over rewarding and punishing based on belief is wrong because of heaven and hell not being punishments or rewards. You aren’t being punished for not believing; you are going to hell because you don’t want a relationship with God.

    I hope this helps you understand the flaws in your argument. Otherwise, I thought the logical deductions all made sense. Thank you for this opportunity to critically examine my faith and hope you can learn something from this.

    Like

    Reply

  10. Hello Dr. Malpass, I appreciate your work a lot. I’ve listened to every online discussion by you that I can. You are always very precise and careful and concise. I also felt the need to say that I’m sorry about your discussion with Dr. Stratton. That must have been so frustrating for you when he refused to define “reliable” and when he just read long passages from his paper that you had already objected to. Anyway:

    I think that the Christian can reject (2) of your argument without much trouble.

    First, I agree that original guilt is unjust. I do not think this view is taught in the Bible. I also think that the Bible teaches against it. So I think that the Christian should reject original guilt.

    Second, a Christian can reject the transfer-of-guilt model of the atonement in favor of a moral-influence-plus-identification model (for reasons you didn’t mention). But even if they accept penal substitution, I think that there are two relevant differences between penal substitution and your cronie story. (1) On penal substitution, whenever someone sins, divine justice becomes unsatisfied. A penalty must be paid in order for that satisfaction to be restored. The penalty can be paid by the wrongdoer, or, if they can’t afford it, the penalty could be paid by a proxy. It’s like if I’m at work and I break an expensive piece of equipment, but my boss decides to cover the cost. (2) Of course, merely satisfying divine justice is not enough for a criminal to walk free. A criminal is still guilty even if the penalty has been paid. But on the basis of Jesus’s sacrifice, God turns to us to offer us a pardon, which we can choose to accept or reject. If we accept it (which involves what I discuss in the next paragraph), then we can walk free. But if we reject it and choose to remain in a life of immorality, then we will continue to bear the penalty. Or, in the very least, we will simply be separated from God because we choose to be separated from God.

    Third, Christians generally won’t say that merely accepting a certain set of propositions will get you saved, and I certainly don’t think they should say that merely not accepting a certain set of proposition will get you sent to hell. Christianity, on a personal level, is a life commitment: it’s like pledging your allegiance to Jesus, to follow him wherever he calls you to go. This naturally involves more than just propositional belief: it involves the desire for the wellbeing of others, the desire to grow closer to God, the desire to serve others, the desire to bring others into a relationship with God. And, morally virtuous actions will naturally flow out of that.

    Like

    Reply

  11. Hi apmalpass. I’m no biblical scholar, but upon first glance, the things you listed in support of the second premise don’t seem to actually align with Christian beliefs:

    In terms of original sin, Christians do not believe that everyone in the world bears the blame for Eve’s individual sin. I agree with your point that it is “unjust to blame someone for something that another person did”, but every person since Eve has also sinned (acted contrary to God’s instructions/best desires for us) by their own actions in their own individual life. Original sin refers more to a corruption or predisposition toward sin that began with Adam and Eve — one that resulted in humans trusting their own judgment over God’s, and thus developing a mindset that causes sinful actions to be committed. (There are very lengthy discussions within Christianity about why this concept of free will exists, but they’re topics I won’t go into at this time.)

    Your point about atonement seems to fail to take into account Christians’ belief about the divinity of Jesus. The Bible describes death as the just punishment for sin, by God. But since Jesus never sinned while on Earth, He chose for His undeserved death to take place on our behalf, as a result of our sins. Since Christ is divine (AKA God), it was the judge himself who bore the full and just punishment on our behalf. This is the most important distinction from your idea, which suggests that just an ordinary, sinful human’s deserved punishment cannot take the place of the punishment another human deserves — which is true. But, in this case, the very implementor/source of justice fully carried out his own punishment, justly paying off the penalty that was deserved by people for sinning. This sacrifice was the very reason God humbled/placed himself into a human form through Jesus — to die on our behalf. Ultimately, you would be right to say it is “unjust” for a perfect God to suffer the punishment that imperfect humans deserved — that’s why it’s an act of mercy. Jesus’s resurrection nullified the death penalty once and for all, for those whom his death/payment accounted for.

    You wrote: “According to Christianity, one can be a murderous warlord (like Constantine), but repent on one’s deathbed, and thereby be forgiven and accepted into heaven. All the while, someone who lived a morally perfect life, but didn’t believe in Jesus, could end up being the recipient of eternal punishment.”
    Well, this harkens back to the previous paragraph. ALL people are equally deserving of the same penalty of death because all people sin against God. There is no morally perfect human other than Jesus who has existed. (Plus, how is it possible for someone to live a “morally perfect life” when they don’t believe in the existence of the very source of the moral standard they would need to live by? If you think of this moral standard as relative, then a murderer might as well believe that murdering is acceptable within his standard and see himself as “morally perfect”.) As far as belief alone not being enough for salvation, that is of course true. The belief itself does not save you. It was Christ’s sacrifice that paid the proper price and accomplished the saving. According to Christianity, every human has a soul, and whether one “believes in God” or not is much more than a simple statement of opinion. A true Christian/believer is one who is entering a relationship with God in his heart, beyond simply the physical realm. For example, Christians trust that in “believing in” God, He is in turn working within their hearts to help them desire to sin less and seek God even more. All in all, it’s much more than just a head-based “belief” — it’s a commitment to trusting and loving God, and a commitment toward turning away from sin (which is the opposite of God) because you recognize sin as contrary to your best interests. If someone “does not believe in God/Christianity”, they are choosing to sever the relationship between God and themselves within their heart. Assuming God is a perfect and just God, why would He give mercy from death to those who refuse to acknowledge and trust His payment sacrifice?

    Like

    Reply

  12. It is valid but I do not think it is sound as writen.

    Because it flys in the face of law of idenity.

    The perfect being can’t do two things at once and I think you might be using the idea of contradaction to make this work but I do not think that is a proper use of that more formal logic.

    As it is you seem to have z be also not z. I think it could be writen in a way that makes more intutive sense for people who are more used to informal logic and/or just normal languge in general.

    For example you could say:

    p1: In order to exist, the god of christanity must be perfect, a perfect god would never commit logical fallacies.

    p2: the christan god commits at least one logical fallacy of ad baculum (hell).

    c: therefor christanity’s god does not exist.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment