Consistently Inconsistent 

As we have seen, Richard’s logical flaws are enough to cast doubt upon his entire opus.  Yet he repeatedly commits an error even more dreadful than those listed above—the dreaded fallacy of inconsistency. Indeed, his book is possibly the most inconsistent work I have ever read. Lest my readers think I am exaggerating, I will present two examples of Richard’s illogic. 

On the last page of his book, Richard says that atheists “gain a sense of community and conviction through fighting together against our common enemies—the foes of reason, truth, and liberty.”[i] He then pleads for his readers to join him in his battle against Christianity. Remarkably, half way down the page he adds, “Failing that, if you’d rather pass, then I would like to extend another plea: for tolerance, acceptance, and understanding.” Thus, Richard’s message at the conclusion of his book seems to be: “Let’s all join together and destroy Christianity, our greatest enemy, until it is gone from the earth! But for those of you who don’t agree with me, let’s all be tolerant and understanding toward one another.” 

This inconsistent message is consistently expressed. Throughout Sense and Goodness, Richard praises tolerance and condemns intolerance.[ii] Yet nearly everything that can be said of an intolerant person can be said of Richard, for he ridicules in the harshest terms the views of those who disagree with him. For instance, he calls Christianity “the ultimate memetic virus”[iii] and “a genuine plague upon the earth.”[iv] (He defines “memetic virus” as a meme that “impairs or kills your mind, your power of reason.”[v]) Christianity suppresses free thought, fosters “war and violence of every kind,”[vi] and is one of the two “most warlike and intolerant religions in history”[vii] (Islam is the other).  Indeed, Christianity has enslaved the minds of billions of people: 

The fact is that we believe in God and an immortal soul because of the missionary zeal and religious intolerance intrinsic to the Christian religion. We owe our superstitious ideas to sword and gun and flame. In this corner of the globe, the Christian church was the victor, and our minds were the spoil.[viii] 

Thus, Christianity is a horrible disease that has infected the minds of people everywhere. It has trapped humanity in perpetual darkness and is preventing our advance into new frontiers. So how should intelligent people react to this Christian infection, this ultimate mind-destroying cancer? Richard calls for war, a battle “to defeat the nonsense and lies” that Christians have spread.[ix] He even refers to his campaign against Christianity as a “crusade” and says that “it would be immoral not to fight it.”[x] 

Even if we assume that Richard is correct in everything he says and that Christianity is the most dreadful sickness that’s ever come upon us, can we trust him when he calls himself tolerant? Can a person who has dedicated his life to attacking and ridiculing Jesus and his followers accuse Christianity of being intolerant? Can a man simultaneously call people to fight and to lay down their arms, on the same page of the same book? Should a man desperate to display his philosophical abilities be permitted to say, in a single breath, “Join me in my crusade against my enemies, and may my enemies be tolerant and understanding of my efforts to destroy them”? Perhaps. But only in a world where logic doesn’t matter. Welcome to Carrier Country (Population: 1).  

Richard’s inconsistency can even be seen in his efforts to cover up his inconsistencies:  

If what I say anywhere in this book appears to contradict, directly or indirectly, something else I say here, the principle of interpretive charity should be applied: assume you are misreading the meaning of what I said in each or either case.[xi] 

Hence, if he demands tolerance while reeking of intolerance, we should simply assume that we are misunderstanding him. The problem with applying the principle of interpretive charity to Richard’s writings is that his writings rarely apply the very principle they demand. Anyone familiar with Richard’s book or other writings knows that his interpretations of Christianity, for instance, are among the most uncharitable anywhere. 

Consider a few of his criticisms of Jesus and the New Testament: 

Note, also, that Jesus is never said to have laughed, and by all accounts he had no family life, no children or wife. Is that really an image we ought to follow? And contrary to popular belief, he was not a peace-loving man (Mt. 10:33-6). He could not even restrain himself from violence in the marketplace (Jn. 2:13-16), and this makes even Gandhi a better man than Jesus.[xii] 

And the New Testament was only marginally better [than the Old Testament], though it too had its inexcusable features, from commands to hate (Luke 14:26) to arrogantly sexist teachings about women (1 Timothy 2:12), from Jesus saying he “came not to bring peace, but the sword,” setting even families against each other (Matthew 10:34-36) and approving the murder of disobedient children (Mark 7:6-13), to making blasphemy the worst possible crime (Matthew 12:31-32), even worse than murder or molesting a child. It, too, supported slavery rather than condemning it (Luke 12:47, 1 Timothy 6:1-2).[xiii] 

Since my purpose here is only to show that Richard is being inconsistent, I will briefly respond to a couple of his accusations. On multiple occasions, he accuses Jesus of being a violent person.  To support his claim, he appeals to the following passages: 

[Jesus said]: “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.”[xiv] 

The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. And He found in the temple those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables. And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables; and to those who were selling the doves He said, “Take these things away; stop making My Father’s house a place of business.”[xv] 

In the first passage, Jesus is addressing the idea that he had come to usher in a golden age of peace. Contrary to Jewish expectations, the purpose of Jesus’ first coming was to die on the cross for the sins of the world and to tear down the barrier of separation between God and man. But not everyone would believe this message of salvation. Hence, families would be divided. Picture a Jewish son converting to Christianity against the will of his father and mother. The result would be a divided family. That Jesus here uses the word “sword” figuratively to represent the division brought by the Gospel is obvious to anyone whose last name isn’t Carrier. Richard may respond by complaining that Christianity is bad because it sometimes divides families, but dividing families is very different from Jesus suggesting that family members should hack one another to death with swords (as Richard’s interpretation implies). Needless to say, I wouldn’t call this a “charitable” interpretation of the text. 

Richard is just as uncharitable with the other passage he uses to call Jesus a violent man. He says that Jesus couldn’t restrain himself from violence in the marketplace.  But Jesus wasn’t in the marketplace!  He was in God’s Temple, which unscrupulous merchants were using as a marketplace. Since no one else would do it, Jesus expelled the merchants and the moneychangers with a whip. I’m fully aware that, to Richard, it is absolutely ridiculous for a person to be zealous for God. But to suggest that Jesus couldn’t control his thirst for bloodshed because he removed people who were profaning God’s Temple is uncharitable in the extreme. 

Consider also Richard’s claim that the New Testament condones slavery. He offers two proof texts for his accusation: 

And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and sensible steward, whom his master will put in charge of his servants, to give them their rations at the proper time? Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes. Truly I say to you that he will put him in charge of all his possessions. But if that slave says in his heart, ‘My master will be a long time in coming,’ and begins to beat the slaves, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk; the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and assign him a place with the unbelievers. And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.”[xvi] 

All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved.[xvii] 

It should be noted that, in the first proof text, Jesus is speaking in parable. He tells a story of a rich master who went on a journey and then returned. Servants who behaved poorly would be punished; servants who behaved well would be rewarded. The story is meant to illustrate Jesus’ immanent departure. Jesus was leaving, but he would one day return. In the meantime, people can either serve Christ or they can rebel against him. We can do as we like, but we mustn’t forget that one day Jesus will return, and that we will all be judged. That’s the obvious meaning of the passage. 

Yet, strangely, Richard sees the passage as a campaign speech for the continuation of slavery. Is this a charitable interpretation? Jesus tells a story about a master and his slaves. Richard might as well accuse anyone who has ever written a story about slavery of being advocates of slavery. At best, Richard can say that it’s immoral of God to compare our relationship to Jesus as that of slaves to their master, but he can’t say that the passage commends the slave trade, since the passage is about Jesus and those who either follow or reject him.  

In the other passage, Richard calls Paul an advocate of slavery. But notice what Paul says. He tells his readers that slaves shouldn’t rebel against their masters “so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against.” Paul doesn’t say, “Accept slavery because slavery is right.” Richard seems to think that Paul should have said, “Slaves, you need to start a tremendous uprising. Slavery is wrong! Rebel against it! Kill your masters while they sleep and flee to the hills!” I’m glad that it was Paul advising the Christians. If Richard had been writing the letters, slaves would have rebelled, and Christianity wouldn’t have lasted very long. Perhaps this is why Richard wishes that Paul had advocated open rebellion. On the other hand, Richard may only mean that Paul should have told Christian slave-owners to release their slaves. However, this could also have adversely affected the spread of the Gospel (“You want me to believe in this stuff that’s destroying our society?”). Paul made it a policy, as much as possible, to avoid adding any offense to the Gospel (which was offensive enough). Besides, in his letter to Philemon, Paul does ask a slave-owner to free his slave.[xviii] 

Additionally, if Richard were to interpret the New Testament favorably, he would note that the Bible contains the very notion that eventually led to the end of slavery: 

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.[xix] 

Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free. And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.[xx] 

Paul says that we are all one. He tells slaves to render service with good will, then turns around and says that masters should do the same things for their slaves. He adds that our true Master is in heaven, and that there is no favoritism with God. In other words, we are all equal in God’s sight. This idea ultimately resulted in the Founding Fathers’ declaration that “All men are created equal,” which in turn gave birth to democracy in America and to the eventual abolition of slavery. Richard can argue that the New Testament should have made its anti-slavery message more explicit, but he can’t claim that it isn’t there. The bottom line is that Jesus came to change men’s hearts. Political change came as a result of people’s minds being renewed, so Jesus’ method seems to have worked quite well. Richard, however, focuses only on political changes that he thinks Jesus and Paul should have demanded, in a world where Christians had no political power whatsoever. This is most likely a result of his moral theory, which declares (in some places) that a person’s inner life doesn’t matter, so long as he does his part in society (see below). 

As we investigate Richard’s claims, a pattern should be coming into view. Richard goes to the Bible searching for the most unfavorable interpretation he can find. It’s fine if that’s his method, but remember that he demands that the principle of interpretive charity be applied to his writings. He says that we should assume that any contradictions we find in his book are only in our own minds, yet he’s quick to point out apparent contradictions in the Bible. He even does this when the “contradictions” can easily be reconciled: 

Instead, the earliest account, in Mark (Paul records none of these events, not even vaguely), contradicts Matthew: there are three women, not two, and they go to anoint the body, not just “to look at the grave” (Mark 16:1 v. Matt. 28:1) . . . Then there is Luke’s account (24:1-10), which contradicts the other two: it follows Mark’s less-fantastic version, but records that there are two men, not one, in “dazzling apparel” (rather than simply wearing white).[xxi] 

Are these really contradictions? I’m not so sure. Consider the following statements: 

1. Yesterday morning, Aunt Ginger came to my house to visit me.

2. Last night, Aunt Ginger and Uncle Tony came to Virginia to visit my father.

3. Yesterday afternoon, my aunt came to town to go to the beach.

4. Yesterday, my aunt and uncle came to my house to get a dog. 

Believe it or not, these four statements are all true. Yesterday morning, my aunt left North Carolina to come to Virginia. I could describe the event as a visit from Aunt Ginger and Uncle Tony, but I could also describe it as a visit from Aunt Ginger, since I know her very well but don’t know Uncle Tony. I could say that she came yesterday morning, since that’s when she left. I could also say that she came yesterday afternoon, since that’s when she arrived in Virginia Beach. I could even say that she came last night, because that’s when she went to see my father. Further, she came to town for several reasons. My wife and I are moving, and we can’t bring our dog, so Aunt Ginger volunteered to come to town and take her. When I told Ginger that I would gladly bring the dog to her house in North Carolina, she replied that she would rather come to us, since she would like to see my wife, kids, and dad, and go to the beach as well. Hence, I could describe the same event in many different ways, though all of these descriptions would be true. 

Of course, someone who is desperate to prove that I am a vicious deceiver could point to my statements and say, “Look at this liar! He says that his aunt came in the morning and then says that she came in the evening. At first he says that just one person came to visit, but he later contradicts himself and says that it was two people. What’s more, he says that his aunt came to see him, then he contradicts himself and says that she came to see his father, then he contradicts himself again and says that she came to go to the beach, then he contradicts himself yet again and says that she came to get a dog. These contradictions are so many and so strong that no one should ever believe anything that David says.” 

Atheists are free to accuse me (or the Bible) of gross contradiction, and in fact this is a very common approach in atheist apologetics. But for Richard to interpret obviously reconcilable statements (i.e. one passage mentions two women at the tomb, while another mentions three women, etc.) as horrible contradictions and then to demand that the principle of interpretive charity be applied to all of his writings would require a completely different type of charity. It would require us to say, “No matter how unfavorably Richard interprets the writings of others, everyone should always assume that Richard is right.” While he would be elated if everyone said that, I’m just not that generous. 

We can see, then, from Richard’s “intolerant tolerance” and from his “uncharitable charity” that he has little thought for coherence. However, accusing a self-proclaimed philosopher of being inconsistent is a serious charge, and some readers may think that two examples are insufficient to warrant such a conclusion. Hence, for Richard’s dedicated followers, I offer seven more. 

First, throughout Sense and Goodness, Richard attacks Christians for being mean and immoral, and he blames Christianity for producing these bad Christians. 

I became ever more acquainted with the horrible history of Christianity and the sorts of things Christians have done and are still doing around even this country in places less liberal than my First Methodist neighborhood, from trying to pass blasphemy laws to murdering doctors, from throwing eggs at atheists to killing their cats, from trying to dumb-down science education to acting holier-than-thou in pushing their skewed moral agenda upon government and industry alike.[xxii] 

Most people in ancient times believed it was proper to respect the gods of other peoples. This changed on a global scale when Christianity was spread, quite literally, by the sword. Those who attempted to assert their religious differences were harassed, tortured, robbed of their land and belongings, even killed.[xxiii] 

When a man has run out of arguments because his position is indefensible, he will often resort to idle but mean-spirited threats (“You’ll burn for not believing!”) which are the hallmark of a wicked creed, the faith of a cruel, merciless, and unjust heart. . . . A religion that breeds such people is a genuine plague on earth.[xxiv] 

Since some Christians have done bad things, Christianity must be bad. For Richard, any bad deed that a Christian does is evidence against Christianity, even if the deed is contrary to Jesus’ teachings. Yet, strangely, nothing an atheist does counts against atheism. Stalin killed millions of people because he had no respect for the sanctity of life, but should this affect our opinion of atheism?  Hitler tried to apply atheistic evolution to society, concluded that the Jews needed to be removed from the gene pool because they were interfering with human evolution, and killed millions of people. But Richard would never think of relating this to Hitler’s atheism. Mao Tse-Tung also constructed an atheist regime, fueling the deaths of millions more. We could also look at individual atheists. Jeffrey Dahmer killed and ate 17 people because he realized that, as an atheist, he didn’t have to follow the moral principles of others. The Columbine massacre was wrought by the hands of atheists who decided that life doesn’t matter. But does Richard ever point out the misdeeds of atheists? 

Hence, immoral acts by Christians (keep your eyes peeled for that notorious ring of egg-throwing, cat-murdering evangelicals) always count against Christianity, even when Jesus told his followers not to do them. But immoral acts by atheists never count against atheism, even when many immoral acts are completely consistent with atheism. 

Second, Richard says that the Bible is useless, childish, and boring, for it contains “extensive genealogies of no relevance to the meaning of life . . ., long digressions on barbaric rituals . . ., lengthy diatribes against long-dead nations and constant harping on doom and gloom.”[xxv] Since Richard finds things like genealogies unimportant, he concludes that the Bible is boring and useless. But what about his own book? I would be shocked if one-tenth of one percent of the American population could finish reading it, even if they wanted to. With sections such as “Beauty as Emotional Appraisal,” “The Meaning of Normative Propositions,” “General Brain Function Correlation,” and “Reducible and Irreducible Sensation,” it is clear that most people would find his book incredibly boring. Consider his meditation on the topic “The Meaning of Words”: 

What do words mean? Words are code signals that human societies made up, because it was useful in thought and communication to categorize everything in some consistent way. Words are the names of things that we experience or imagine, and by sharing the same codebook we can use these codes to communicate our imaginings and experiences to others, and we can organize and study our own thoughts more effectively this way, too.[xxvi] 

Obviously, very few people lay awake at night tormented by the question “What do words mean?” Nor do they care about analyzing normative propositions or studying the differences between reducible and irreducible sensations. I’m sure Richard would respond by saying, “But these topics are important! If someone finds them unimportant, then something must be wrong with him!” Perhaps. But aside from Richard and a few of his followers, very few people are interested in probing the depths of his political speculations. He can always say, “But I find this stuff interesting!” Yet I can respond by noting that I find the Bible interesting, as do millions of others. In other words, Richard argues that the Bible is childish and useless because he doesn’t find much of the material applicable to his life. But if he were to apply the same reasoning to his own book, he would have to conclude that Sense and Goodness is a boring and useless book, since it contains passages that have little to do with the lives of most people.  

Third, Richard criticizes Christians and Muslims because they believe that their faiths are true and want to spread them all over the world: 

Christians view their faith and ideology as “right” and all other religions as just superstitions, whose followers are misguided. . . . Most religions in history had plenty of room to accept other views as valid. . . . [T]he three most widely practiced religions—Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism—root themselves in the idea that the “faith” must be spread to all people. . . . So the new idea that only one religion is true and all others are evil or false, and the idea that this true faith must be carried across the globe in order to save everyone from doom, are the very attributes that guaranteed the survival of Christianity and Islam, and the elimination of nearly all other religions in the world.[xxvii] 

Thus, Christianity is bad because Christians believe that it’s true and that all other systems of belief are false. But what does Richard believe? There’s an entire section in his book titled “Metaphysical Naturalism is True,” and most of his book is dedicated to showing that all religions, especially Christianity, are false. He says that his worldview is “supported by all the evidence of all the sciences” and is the only one consistent with reason, but that “No other worldview . . . is supported by any evidence of any of the sciences.”[xxviii] He also longs for the “adoption of Metaphysical Naturalism,” which he says will be a tremendous benefit to any society.[xxix] 

Hence, Richard (1) believes that his worldview is true, (2) believes that all other worldviews are false, and (3) wants to spread his worldview to everyone. Yet he condemns Christianity for these same three aspects, making him not only inconsistent, but also hypocritical.

Fourth, Richard also chastises Christianity for its arrogance in suggesting that man is supreme in the universe: 

[T]he ultimate memetic virus [i.e. Christianity] has less to do with things as harsh and difficult as the truth, but more to do with silencing competing memes, and stirring purely emotional attachment to other memes instead. For instance, some memes play to our ego by telling us that we are the center of the universe, the purpose for which the whole cosmos was made.[xxx] 

[I]t is easy to see how the ultimate memetic equivalent of a virus would have nothing to do with things as harsh and difficult as the truth, but everything to do with silencing competing memes, preying upon our fallible intuitions, our ignorance, and our intellectual laziness, and stirring purely emotional attachment to the viral memes, which, sometimes, play to one’s selfish ego—like memes that tell a man he has the authority of Truth behind his every desire, and is the center of the universe, the purpose for which the whole cosmos was made.[xxxi] 

In our [i.e. atheists’] worldview, we are just another tiny byproduct of nature, special in no sense to anyone but among ourselves, subject to a plethora of random accidents and forces, and there is no perfect or supreme being at all, least of all us. In contrast, it is theism that often encourages arrogance, making man the center of the universe, exaggerating his importance in the grand scheme of things.[xxxii] 

So, when Richard is attacking Christianity, he notes that it encourages arrogance by making man the most important thing in the universe. By contrast, it is atheism that teaches our true place in the cosmos—we are “just another tiny byproduct of nature.” So far so good. But watch what happens when Richard has to defend his own worldview: 

It is important to stress the role of self-worth in [my moral] picture, for that is more important and more potent for maintaining happiness than any other factor. Amidst all other forms of misery, fear, and pain, a strong sense of self-worth can preserve happiness like a sturdy ship in a storm.[xxxiii] 

The loss of a human mind is a truly profound loss to the entire universe, and the development of a human mind is the greatest, most marvelous thing the universe may ever realize.[xxxiv] 

In Part V, “Natural Morality,” I surveyed and defended the ethical philosophy of “Secular Humanism,” which I defined as any philosophy that holds to two basic doctrines: that humankind is the most important thing in the universe and the welfare and betterment of all human beings is a fundamental good, and that only secular solutions to our problems are credible, not religious or mystical ones.[xxxv] 

When Christianity teaches that man is center-stage in our universe, it is only playing upon our ignorance and arrogance by telling us that we are important. But as soon as Richard needs to defend his ethical philosophy, he says that “humankind is the most important thing in the universe.” To be sure, on Richard’s view, it is only adult humans who are the center of the universe. Babies aren’t quite as important: 

And a newborn human baby, deserving even greater compassion and respect, has more value than any animal on Earth, with the possible exception of adult apes or dolphins (or, perhaps, elephants).[xxxvi] 

Fifth, Richard argues that Christianity is far too passive, for it “would have us believe that letting people rob and beat us is moral (Matt. 5:38-42).”[xxxvii] (A more charitable reader would note that Jesus is here referring to someone slapping us, presumably as an insult, and to someone suing us in court.)  Because of such demands, telling Christians not to strike back, even in the face of violence, Richard concludes that the morality of the Bible “is unlivable.”[xxxviii]  

Yet, as we have already seen, Richard says that Christianity is one of the two most violent religions in the world, with a violent founder bent on hacking families into little pieces. It seems, then, that Christianity is the most violent religion of all time, yet so incredibly peaceful that no one can live up to its ideals.  

Nearly a hundred years ago, G. K. Chesterton noticed the same inconsistent accusation, and it is perhaps worthwhile to quote him at length: 

I felt that a strong case against Christianity lay in the charge that there is something timid, monkish, and unmanly about all that is called “Christian,” especially in its attitude towards resistance and fighting. . . . The Gospel paradox about the other cheek, the fact that priests never fought, a hundred things made plausible the accusation that Christianity was an attempt to make a man too like a sheep. I read it and believed it, and if I had read nothing different, I should have gone on believing it. But I read something very different. I turned the next page in my agnostic manual, and my brain turned upside down. Now I found that I was to hate Christianity not for fighting too little, but for fighting too much. Christianity, it seemed, was the mother of wars. Christianity had deluged the world with blood. I had got thoroughly angry with the Christian, because he was never angry. And now I was told to be angry with him because his anger had been the most huge and horrible thing in human history . . . The very people who reproached Christianity with the meekness and non-resistance of the monasteries were the very people who reproached it also with the violence and valour of the Crusades. It was the fault of poor old Christianity (somehow or other) both that Edward the Confessor did not fight and that Richard Coeur de Leon did. The Quakers (we were told) were the only characteristic Christians; and yet the massacres of Cromwell and Alva were characteristic Christian crimes. What could it all mean? What was this Christianity which always forbade war and always produced wars?[xxxix] 

Sixth, a related inconsistency concerns Richard’s charge that Jesus taught his followers that “If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.”[xl] Richard complains that this teaches us to allow people to rob us. He also complains that Jesus’ command to the rich young ruler to “go and sell your possessions and give to the poor”[xli] suggests that surrendering all our wealth and time is moral. Richard apparently feels that our property is extremely important, and so any command to give it away is appalling. 

But again, watch what happens when Richard needs to defend his own worldview: 

A person of informed moral character knows it is detrimental to happiness to have too great a care for material things—or even worse, to base one’s happiness on their possession—and knows that it is beneficial to happiness to care less about objects than more substantive sources of pleasure, such as peace and friendship and satisfying work.[xlii] 

In the end, what sacrifices you must make to be good are usually in the long run trivial, such as the loss of material goods or eating crow, things which have no relation to real human happiness anyway.[xliii]

I care more about my ideals and human happiness than about material things.[xliv] 

Thus, both Jesus and Richard tell us not to worry about material possessions. The only difference (according to Richard) is that Jesus is horribly wrong when he says it, while Richard is absolutely correct. 

Seventh, Richard claims that the “surest reason of all to be an atheist” is that theists can only offer absurd arguments in defense of theism: 

Last but not least is the coup de gras. . . . No fact that people need such ridiculous contrivances to defend is ever likely to be true. If it were true, the facts would speak to it. You would not need to resort to the absurd.[xlv] 

Since theists must resort to weak arguments, theism must be false. But what if Richard, in a brief flash of consistency, were to apply the same reasoning to his own position? He would say to himself, “Wow. My belief is based on arguments about big breasts and blue monkeys flying out of my butt. I have to constantly rip Bible verses out of context and distort them in order to make my criticisms stick. I have to contradict myself over and over again to support my position. It’s time to face the truth. If my beliefs were correct, the facts would speak to them. I wouldn’t need to resort to the absurd.” 

Does such a thought ever cross Richard’s mind? This type of thinking would require a consistency which he clearly lacks. As we have seen, Richard has one method for investigating Christianity, but a completely different method for investigating his own worldview: “If Christianity is intolerant, it is because it is a wicked and false religion; if I am intolerant, it is because I’m right about everything. If you’re reading my book, give whatever interpretation helps me most; if you’re reading the Bible, pick the most harmful interpretation and pretend that it’s the only one possible. If a Christian does something bad, it’s because he’s a Christian and Christianity is evil; if an atheist does something wrong, it’s because he hasn’t truly understood the glories of atheism. If the Bible contains a boring passage, it’s because the Bible is a boring and useless book; if my book contains a boring passage, you’re an idiot for thinking it’s boring. Christianity is bad because Christians believe that it’s true; they should all convert to atheism, the only true system of belief. We should all reject Christianity because it is too peaceful to be of any real use to society; we should also reject it because it teaches nothing but violence and bloodshed. Christianity is evil because it teaches that we shouldn’t worry about material possessions; people should instead accept my view, which teaches that we shouldn’t worry about material possessions. I can’t believe that people believe in something like Christianity, which is based on flawed logic and bad arguments; they should instead believe in my flawed logic and bad arguments, because whatever is based on my illogic must be true.” 

Much like the skeptics of Chesterton’s day, Richard is so anxious to prove that Christianity is illogical that he’s willing to be illogical himself. Thoughtful readers will wonder why this is so, and will ask, along with Chesterton, “What again could this astonishing thing be like which people were so anxious to contradict, that in doing so they did not mind contradicting themselves?”[xlvi]  If we really live in an atheistic universe, it makes no sense for an intelligent, educated man to become frighteningly illogical whenever Christianity is mentioned. Richard claims to be an expert in history, science, and philosophy; surely such a man should be sober enough to accurately reflect on a topic that has consumed his life and studies. On the other hand, if we live in a universe where Jesus is Lord, a universe in which man has rebelled against his Creator, then it makes perfect sense for Richard to turn off his reason whenever reason won’t help him against his Enemy—the God who gave him the freedom to rebel.

Go to chapter 4