50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God (19 page)

Progressing through the Body Worlds exhibit, I begin to pay more
attention to the people around me as they react to the displays. Some
of them never seem to get over their initial shock and horror. Others
are obviously thrilled by it all. And there are some who shake their
heads, as if in awe of the magnificent organic machine before them.
Awe, of course, often leads people to gods. As I stood in front of one
of the bodies I was okay with the fact that there are many things I do
not understand about the human body and life itself. We are still a
mystery in so many ways. One could graduate from medical school,
work a long career in medical science, and still have more questions
than answers. But is this reason enough to give up and declare that a
god must have placed the lungs above the stomach and hair atop the
head? I don't think so.

The human body is not quite as impressive as some of us assume,
anyway. It is certainly not a perfect creation. Anthropologist Scott
Atran makes that case in his essay "Unintelligent Design":

Creationists and proponents of ID often point to the human body as
evidence of God's plan-of his intelligent design and benevolence
toward his creatures. A closer look at our parts reveals that the Deity may never have been wholly pleased with his preferred creations.
Why did he invert the retina and give humans (but not the octopus)
a blind spot? Why, in making us upright, did he render us so liable
to back problems? Why did he give us just one head, heart, and liver,
instead of two, like the lungs and kidneys? After all, having two
lungs and kidneys is surely better than having one of each: If you
have one and it fails, you die; if you have two and one fails, you live.
(Atran 2006, 131)

Atran picks the anatomy involved in childbirth as the most imperfect
design of all. He writes that it results from "evolution's having
jammed the outlets of three major expulsive functions into a narrow
basin [pelvis]: the expulsion of the large-headed human fetus though
a narrow region at childbirth occurs at considerable cost. The `design
flaw' of human childbirth has had cascading effects: Human offspring
profit from having big brains, but only at substantial cost-to-fitness of
relatively high fatality rates for child and mother, long periods of postnatal care, reduction in fertility rates, decrease in resource procurement, and so forth." No sensible god ever would have designed it this
way, Atran concludes.

I remember my first reaction upon entering the Body Worlds
exhibit was to cringe a bit, as one naturally does in a room full of
corpses. But the desire to learn pushed aside that reflex. I began
working hard to see every detail and absorb as much of the experience
as I could. Lungs, brains, livers, muscles, bones, teeth, blood vessels,
hearts-it was all fascinating. How impressive, I thought. So many
parts work so well together, allowing us to do so many things. This
human machine of ours has climbed Mount Everest, swum the English
Channel, walked on the moon, invented calculus, and run one hundred
meters in less than 9.8 seconds. It really is wonderful. But during my
over-the-top adulation of human flesh and bone I suddenly remembered that my "glorious" human body is no more special than that of
a dog or a rat. We're all just mammals. Size and proportion varies and
we have a much more complex brain, of course, but overall we are far
more alike than different. My initial excitement over Body Worlds is fading and I notice a shift in my thinking. These bodies all around me
are not perfect. They were not magical creations. They were not miracles. They were convenient arrangements of atoms, shaped by evolution and made beautiful only by the whims of personal taste. These
bodies represent the current version of fortunate meat whose ancestors
managed to survive a gauntlet of natural selection spanning a few billion years or more. All bodies, not just the dead ones on display, are
evidence of human evolution. We all walk around every day with the
evidence of evolution. We are the proof. We have been designed by
nature over millions of years. Our many imperfections reveal the
absence of intelligence in the process. Our more impressive features,
the brain in particular, reveal the blind but immensely creative potential of evolution. This explanation for who we are and where we come
from may lack the satisfying simplicity and glory of a typical god
story but at least it is an explanation that is supported by the reality of
what we see when we look in the mirror.

I walked away from the Body Worlds exhibit convinced that the
human body is no more special than any other warm-blooded, furry
Earth creature. This vehicle we ride around in is more like plumbing
and Tinker Toys than magic from the sky. But there is one exception.
Our brains truly are something special. We sing songs, write books,
and dream of things that can never be. We also use these brains to seek
answers. I see no justification to ever slow or shut down this wonderful organ. All believers who claim that the "miraculous" human
body is evidence of magic might consider calling on that "miraculous"
brain of theirs to learn more and think more before giving all credit to
the gods.

Atran, Scott. "Unintelligent Design." In Intelligent Thought, edited by John
Brockman, 126-41. New York: Vintage Books, 2006.

"Gunther von Hagen's Body Worlds: The Original Exposition of Real Human
Bodies." Institute for Plastination, 2007. http://www.bodyworlds.com.

Howell, F. Clark. Early Man. Life Nature Library, New York: Time Life
Books, 1965.

Johanson, Donald, and Blake Edgar. From Lucy to Language. New York:
Simon & Schuster, 1996. This large-format book presents brilliant color
photographs of many important hominid fossils.

Tattersall, Ian. The Human Odyssey: Four Million Years of Human Evolution. New York: Prentice Hall, 1993.

ne of the most popular stories of all time is the one about a
god who sent his only child on a mission to save the world,
but in doing so allowed him to be killed so that all the people of the
earth might know peace and salvation. After his brutal death, the son
magically rose up to heaven where he lives with his father today. We
may all go to heaven and be with him after we die, but only if we
believe in him and repent our sins. This, of course, is the core belief of
Christianity. It must be very a good story because Christianity is currently the planet's most popular religion with more than two billion
followers. Although that leaves some four billion people who don't
believe the story, it's still the most numerically successful religion of
all time. As such, I thought it deserved comment, even though this justification for belief is specific to just one religion.

The story of Jesus is appealing to many people who see it as the
ultimate example of love, sacrifice, and God's overwhelming goodness. Many believers have told me how it touches them and how
inspired they are by it. It is especially powerful when you consider a
typical father's love for his child. God must really love me, some
Christians say, if he would let his only son suffer and die for me. If one
thinks a little bit deeper about this story, however, some problems
emerge.

First, what is the great sacrifice that God made? Was it really a
sacrifice in the way a human father giving up his son would be? I have
a young son and I cannot imagine the pain I would feel if, for some
extraordinary reason, I had to let him suffer and die. I think it would
be more than I could bear. But God did not lose his son; at least not in
the way I or any other human would lose a son. God made no sacrifice. God lost nothing.

The Christian doctrine known as the Holy Trinity claims that God
exists in three forms: the Father (the God of Abraham), the Son
(Jesus), and the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost). Despite the fact that
many Christians speak and worship as if these three are separate gods,
Christianity considers itself a monotheistic religion, meaning it has
just one god. So if one accepts the Holy Trinity doctrine, then one has
to admit that God (the father) did not really sacrifice his son (Jesus).
If anything, he was sacrificing himself or part of himself-but not
really. Even if it somehow were a distinct and separate son that died,
it wouldn't make sense as a great sacrifice because God the Father
knows the future. How, then, can it be claimed that he "gave up his
only son for us" when he knew that Jesus would rise from the dead and
join him in heaven soon after? What is the sacrifice?

I love my son as much or more than any father ever has. There is
nothing superhuman or supernatural about me, but I believe I would
do precisely what many believers say God the Father did two thousand
years ago. I would agree to sacrifice my son if I was confronted with
the bizarre proposition of allowing him to die in order to save billions
of humans now and for generations to come from eternal torment in
hell. Like God, I would know that my son would be fine and back with
me a few days later anyway. I would be saving him from hell as well.
So the correct decision is obvious. I would be highly upset about
having to put him through the suffering part of it but I would have to
agree to the deal. Looking at the big picture-billions of people saved,
including my son, and I get him back healthy and happy-would make
it a no-brainer. And I certainly would not feel that I deserved heroic or
godlike status for making the decision.

Many Christians emphasize the suffering endured by Jesus prior to
his death. According to the story, Jesus was tortured by Roman guards
and then nailed to a cross. That's a bad day by any measure. The pain
and terror he felt would have been unimaginable. No one who saw
Mel Gibson's blood-spattered, bone-crunching film, Passion of the
Christ, will ever take crucifixion lightly. The courageous suffering of
Jesus adds a great deal to the story's power and appeal. He could have
opted out, say believers. He could have been selfish, forgotten all
about saving souls, and avoided the crucifixion, but he didn't. He took
the pain for us, believers claim. However, it is fair to point out that
many other people have suffered horrible deaths as bad or even worse
than what Jesus is supposed to have endured. And their suffering did
not even save billions of people across future generations to come.

More than one hundred firefighters die on the job during a typical
year in the United States, according to the US Fire Administration.
They die trying to save the lives and property of strangers. Usually
firefighters are not responding to massive disasters such as the World
Trade Center attacks or dramatic chemical plant explosions. More
often they are rushing into small, smoke-filled homes, hoping to pull
out one or two unconscious occupants. Sometimes the firefighters die.
They do this without divine powers or knowledge of the future. These
are people who are far less capable than gods, yet they are able to
summon up the necessary courage and compassion to risk it all for
people they don't even know.

Throughout history there have been warriors who were willing to
sacrifice their lives for the lives of comrades. Of course, most soldiers
are no different than anyone else: they want to live. They would rather
be a hero and survive than be a hero and die. Most expect or hope that
their heroic deeds on behalf of someone else will not get them killed.
But surely there have been many cases over the last several centuries
when warriors were in situations where they knew they would die but
still acted out of a sense of loyalty to a friend or for the sake of their
society. How do these people compare to Jesus? They did not give
their lives for billions and they did not have the absolute assurance that they would rise from the dead and be fine afterward. They suffered
and died for a handful of lives, or maybe just one. Yes, many of them
may have believed they would go to heaven, but they could not have
known it as confidently as a god would. So how are we to describe
these brave self-sacrificing mortals? Compared to Jesus, they gave up
so much for so little. Don't we have to admit that the sacrifice they
made was far greater than a god's?

There is something even more troubling about this dramatic tale of
love, death, and resurrection. If it really did happen, why did it have
to happen that way? I first asked this question as a child many years
ago and have yet to hear a good answer. Why would somebody, anybody, have to be nailed up on a cross in order for me to go heaven?
Was that really the best arrangement God could come up with? It
makes no sense because he is the one who is writing the rules. Didn't
he know how his creation was going to turn out? If so, then why would
he make this whole redemption thing so cruel and barbaric? Why
would a God set up a system that requires someone to be tortured and
killed? I certainly wouldn't want anyone to have to suffer and die for
me. It is odd that not all but many Christians today view animal sacrifice as a terrible ritual that no one should have anything to do with. But
when the human sacrifice story of Jesus is presented as evidence of
God's moral greatness, two and a half billion people applaud it.