“A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence.” David Hume, Of Miracles

In the incessant debate over the “Christian” basis of the founding of this country, there are several characteristics of the argument for the concept by those who endorse it.

First, the assumption that there is a Christian God. That this Christian God is the one true God (as opposed to the thousands of other “one true Gods” worshiped over the centuries.) And, this is the biggie, we are supposed to just accept the premise.

I choose not to. I like to hear arguments based on evidence I can independently verify. And when we consider government policy and political strategies, unexamined religious doctrine has no place in the discourse except, perhaps, as one’s private consideration.

What brought this about was a book put out by the State of Arizona containing information on all of the Propositions in the upcoming election. The book prints the full proposals, a legislative analysis, and arguments from a variety of individuals and entities for and against each proposal.

Among these arguments opposing Proposition 139, which would create a Constitutional Right to abortion access by limiting government interference in the process until the point of viability, are a plethora of religious arguments. It is these contentions, citing the Bible and other religious sources and doctrines that trouble me.

If it wasn’t such a serious matter, some would be downright comical. I’ll give one example. In the section about arguments opposed to Proposition 139 is this gem.

“it legalizes abortion THROUGH ALL NINE MONTHS as indicated in A2 where it says “AFTER FETAL VIABILITY.
Underage girls could get an abortion without parental knowledge or consent.
HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS means it does not have to be a doctor. It could be a podiatrist, practice manager, veterinarian…”

Catholic Grassroots Decline to Sign Team.

First, the contentions are wrong about at will abortions after fetal liability. And no one in their right mind actually believes they’ll be a rush of podiatrists performing abortions. Although, who knows, it may be an opportunity for all those “medical professionals” wearing scrubs in the supermarket after their day of medical coding to expand their skills.

The writers pick and choose partial sections and take them out of context. The law addresses conditions where an abortion may be necessary after viability such as the mother’s health or fatal or significant developmental issues of the fetus which likely lead to inability to survive.

But it is the expectation that since they are Catholic and speak from this platform that we should blindly accept their position. The book is full of similar entries. When religion creeps into government unexamined therein lies danger. Just look at the Middle East. An entire region embroiled in centuries long wars over differing interpretations of what mythical being granted the land to which people.

Carl Sagan, among others, used a most appropriate phrase for this situation. If one wants others to accept God exists, intervenes in daily lives, and is the basis of government, one should offer something other than one’s faith, no matter how sincere.

Sagan said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”(commonly known as ECREE.)

Others concur with the ECREE standard, Occam’s Razor and David Hume’s “Of Miracles” (an excellent read) are two of the many examples.

Hume said,

 ” “the fact … partakes of the extraordinary and the marvelous … the evidence … received a diminution, greater or less, in proportion as the fact is more or less unusual.”

He also said, about a claim of someone rising from the dead,

“When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened…. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.”

I think it reasonable for those who would offer the Christian argument for the founding of the United States (particularly if an omniscient God saw fit to allow the indigenous natives to practice their religion for thousands of years before the arrival of Europeans) they would offer proof of the claim. Some evidence their God is different than Zeus or Thor.

Maybe just a smidgen of verifiable evidence of divine existence.

Yet they offer none. We are to just accept the contention without examining the source.

But let’s take it one logical step further. Let’s assume they are correct that the founding fathers wanted to base the country on Christian principles. How does that alter the need for evidence of the validity of the Christian doctrine?

They also didn’t see the need to allow women to vote and accepted the practice of slavery. Do we revert to that policy?

That they wanted a Christian country is no more evidence of the foundational validity of the principals contained therein than unexamined acceptance.

One’s religion is more a matter of place of birth than doctrinal superiority. I was born into an Irish Catholic family and raised on the tradition. I can still recite almost  the entire Latin Mass.

In that world, the Catholic philosophy was quaquaversal. It spread out in all directions without regard for any contradictions. As a matter of fact, it ignored them and ostracized anyone who pointed them out.

Yet over time, as I examined the foundations of the faith, learned of the flaws in the arguments—the God of the gaps, The Uncaused Cause, Fine Tuning of the Universe—studying more about each of them peeled away the shroud of mystery in light of rational discourse.

Or, to refer to an even better philosophical argument against religion, I quote the wise George Carlin.

“Religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ’til the end of time!
But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He’s all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can’t handle money!”

Speaking from my own experience, I see religion as a memetic virus passed on from host to host. A human version of a computer virus that co-ops the rational part of the brain and replaces it with myth as fact. In the early education CCD forced on us, we never explored deep philosophy or meaning. We were simply expected to accept it. That is the most dangerous aspect of faith.

In the words of Benjamin Franklin, one of those very same founding fathers, “To follow on faith alone is to follow blindly.”

Even to this day, on the extremely rare moments when I find myself in a Catholic Church (which nowadays means someone is dead) I must fight the urge to genuflect when in front of the altar.

The residual brainwashing persists.

I mean no disrespect to those who embrace the faith. I would expect the same acknowledgement of my right to not believe. Which leads us to the basis of our freedom.

We are free to practice any religion we choose, and we are free to expect others to allow us our freedom from religion. No one knows the whole truth, certainly not an alleged truth based on writings and rewritings and translations from 1^st century Israel.

Hume said,

“Our evidence, then, for the truth of the Christian religion is less than the evidence for the truth of our senses; because, even in the first authors of our religion, it was no greater; and it is evident it must diminish in passing from them to their disciples; nor can anyone rest such confidence in their testimony, as in the immediate object of his senses.” 

I will say this. The fine-tuning argument, that the universe seems to be custom made for our existence, is the closest thing to evidence of divine origin. But this may be more a reflection of our limited knowledge than actual proof. Thirty years ago the idea of exoplanets was uncertain, today we’ve discovered thousands.

I would add that a being capable of designing the universe, which anyone who has ever looked at the stars cannot help but be amazed by the beauty and wonder, would have better things to do than worry about the day-to-day “sins” of one organism on a small planet orbiting a medium sized star in an average sized galaxy among the trillions of other galaxies. Let alone be glorified by its prayers and worship.

Sagan said he was 99% sure there was no God. I find myself believing the same thing, except I belief that in the 1% possibility of a God, there is little chance he/she is exclusively Christian.

Shakespeare wrote, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” And it means more than one approach to faith.

Let’s put aside the argument that this country is a “Christian Nation.” The risks to embracing such a philosophy far outweigh what many see as the benign benefit.