‘Finally, something we agree on.’

My children love repeating Mrs Tweedy’s classic line from the awesome movie Chicken Run. ‘Finally, something we agree on.’ Her lovely drawl of the word finally is something to be relished. Finally something we agree on was my thought, drawl included, when I read this statement from Richard Dawkins in his book The God Delusion.

“But my belief in evolution is not fundamentalism, and it is not faith, because I know what it would take to change my mind and I would gladly do so if the necessary evidence were forthcoming.”

I just thought this was a great definition of fundamentalism and perhaps an insight into what Richard Dawkins is critiquing. A fundamentalist is someone who does not know what it would take to change their mind and would not do so even if evidence were forthcoming. Religious people (according to Dawkins and not me) are fundamentalist by definition because they believe in stuff without evidence.

In the spirit of finally having something to agree on I thought I’d outline what would change my mind about Christianity, such that I could no longer be a Christian.

1. If evidence was forthcoming that proved Jesus did not rise from the dead or at the very least accounted for what happened to the body of Jesus. (Yes, it would probably have to be historical evidence rather than physical given the passing of time.)

2. Related to this, the ‘non Christian’ historical sources that speak of Jesus’ life and death were proven to be fakes. eg Tacitus’s writings.

3. If evidence were forthcoming that the apostles and early disciples made up stories about Jesus. ie They lied.

4. Related to the above, if the multiple historical documents that make up the New Testament were proved to be false accounts of what happened.

5. If multiple historical documents that make up the New Testament were proved to be contradictory in a significant way.*

6. If the historical documents were written so many years after the life time of those involved such that they could not be challenged or critiqued by those who would have witnessed the events.

7. If there was proof that the historical documents had been changed significantly in transmission.

8. If the description in the Bible of the human condition did not match my experience. For instance, how do we explain the human propensity for evil, our deep desire for justice or even our sense of purpose and meaning. ( I know, I know, this one certainly has a subjective element.)

9. If a good explanation could be found to account for the dramatic historical rise of the early church other than Jesus and his life.

* 2 Small sub points on this one: Yes, there are apparent inconsistencies but they are those that you’d expect from people who were not colluding and were telling their story from their angle. Yes, there are a couple of ‘contradictions’ that I have noticed that trouble me, however, I’m happy to give some benefit of the doubt given a) other contradictions I’ve had in the past have been resolved fairly easily once I dug around for answers b) the massive consistency in so many other areas.

What do you think? Is there anything here that you finally agree on or would like to refute? What would it take to change your mind on your position whatever it is?

BTW - The more I think about this and some of Richard Dawkin’s other statements I think he might actually be a fundamentalist, despite his assertion. Looks like I need to write another piece.