Is Christianity Dying?

The other day I wrote about the shortage of young priests in Ireland, which started me thinking (again) about the more general question: Why is Christianity slowly dying? It's clearly on the wane, especially in Europe but even in America things look grim. Just google for "decline of Christianity" and you'll even find major Christian writers lamenting this trend.

There are many hypotheses, most of which include news reports of pedophile priests, "militant" atheists, or a vague "decline in morals" of some sort. And I'm sure these are all contributing to some degree.

But I have my own theory, which I can sum up in one word: Education.

Education is the enemy of religion, plain and simple. Hundreds of years ago, it was easy to keep people "in the fold," because many couldn't read, and priests could pretty much tell them anything plausible and they'd believe it. The Bible's many inconsistencies and immoralities were easy to cover up.

Then came literacy, and with it a lot of questions. My fellow blogger Sarah Trachtenberg writes wonderful stories of people's journey from religion to atheism, and a large number of them tell of how, when they really read the Bible, it raised more questions than it answered, and when they tried to ask for help, were rebuffed, told to pray for guidance, or that "God works in mysterious ways." Julia Sweeney's Letting Go of God is a wonderful example of this.

So literacy itself proved a problem, but that was just the beginning. I believe the real decline of Christianity (and all organized religion) started in the 1950's when science became a priority in our schools. World War II had shown the world's leaders that scientists were critical to the war, on every front. Submarines, nuclear bombs, jet engines, cryptography, radio, and so many more scientific contributions were crucial to defeating the Nazi and Japanese war machines. That was followed by Sputnik and the "space race." American children started learning about science in record numbers.

And the simple fact is that, in spite of what the Pope and Francis Collins claim, Christianity is incompatible with science. You can believe one, or you can believe the other, but very few people (Collins being a notable exception) who truly understand science can believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God, performed miracles, and was resurrected. It just makes no sense.

Furthermore, the most fundamental rules of science teach us that amazing claims require amazing proofs, and the Christian religion is full of amazing claims that have no proof whatsoever. When someone is given a solid education in science, they almost inevitably begin to question what they learned in church.

To me, the decline of Christianity is no mystery at all. As long as we, as a society, continue our quest for knowledge, and continue to educate our children, to fill their heads with the latest wonders of science and mathematics, religion will continue to fade. I doubt it will ever disappear, but I predict that within my lifetime, America will become at least 50% non-Christian.

Francis Collins: It's Poor Reasoning, not Faith, that should Disqualify Him

A number of bloggers and editors have commented about President Obama's appointment of Dr. Francis Collins to head the National Institute of Health (NIH). Collins is a rare specimen, both a born-again Christian as well as a brilliant and accomplished scientist. Collins discovered the genetic flaw that causes cystic fibrosis, and later headed the Human Genome Project.

Comments from the likes of scientists Sam Harris and Steven Pinker express worry that Collins' religion will be used politically, or that it will interfere with a balanced management of NIH policies. In a reply, Lisa Miller of Newsweek claims that Collins' work should be the sole test of his qualifications, and by that test, she asserts that Collins is unquestionably fit for the job.

I disagree. Not with Miller's premise, but with her conclusion. Collins should indeed be judge by his work: All of it, not just his science.

If Francis Collins' 2006 book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, is included as part of his resumé, as it must be, then by any measure, he is unfit for the job. When evaluating the man's competence as a decision maker, you could take all of his science achievements and set them on one side of the scale, and set The Language of God on the other side, and that book alone would tip the scale into the negative territory.

I've never understood what all the hullabaloo is about The Language of God. It is so full of logical fallacies a kindergartner could find them. I bought the book hoping for a real challenge, a genuine, well-reasoned explanation of how a highly-respected scientist is able to separate the domains of religion and science. I was sorely disappointed.

Collins spends a good part of the book explaining why evangelicals and creationists simply can't be right, what the scientific method is and why we should respect it, and spends a great deal of time criticizing the "God in the Gaps" crowd. "God in the Gaps" happens when scientists are able to explain something that formerly seemed magical; God is pushed out of that domain, and squeezed into ever-narrowing gaps in science's understanding of the universe. Collins does an excellent job of explaining this, and of berating those who try to cling to their God by pointing to the few remaining gaps and crying "It must be God!"

Then, his entire thesis comes crashing down, as Collins starts to explain his own faith, which proves to be the most massive case of God-in-the-Gaps I've ever seen. Collins, one of the most brilliant and accomplished scientists of our times, simply gives up all logical thought, and makes up some of the most obvious rationalizations I've ever encountered. Collins squeezes God into every gap he can find, doing exactly the thing he spent so much energy warning us about in the first part of his book.

In my opinion, a man who is capable of such a gross breach of rational thought, and who can't even see the glaring flaws in his work when it's about religion instead of science, has a lot to answer for. His appointment by President Obama may make political sense, but if we were judging purely by scientific credibility, Dr. Collins would not make the cut.