religion


Teaching the Bible (if necessary)   Recently updated !

Some school districts now require teaching the Bible. The First Amendment requires not teaching it as religious indoctrination. What approach can a teacher take? Here are some thoughts, covering just the first chapter of Genesis. I’m not a teacher and have no teaching skills, so if you’re a teacher, apply whatever adjustments might be necessary.

The translation I’m using is the New Jerusalem Bible. It seems like a pretty good translation, avoiding the problems of outdated language. Other translations should work, as long as they’re accurate.

These questions should be raised in a spirit of inquiry, not mockery. I may not be a teacher, and I’m going against the spirit of the times, but I’m confident that ridiculing people’s beliefs isn’t an effective way to educate them.

“In the beginning God created heaven and earth. Now the earth was a formless void, there was darkness over the deep, with a divine wind sweeping over the waters.”

At this point there was no light and no sun. What would the Earth have been like? What does “a formless void” mean? “Waters” are mentioned, but without a star, would they have been solid ice?

“God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light. … God called light ‘day’, and darkness he called ‘night’. Evening came and morning came: the first day.”

There was no Sun until the fourth day, so how is this interpreted? Was there another light source? Why does it say he called the light day and the darkness night? Was he coining words for future humans?

“God said, ‘Let there be a vault through the middle of the waters to divide the waters in two.’ And so it was.” God made the vault, and it divided the waters under the vault from the waters above the vault. God called the vault ‘heaven’.”

What waters are being divided here? Perhaps the liquid water and the clouds? Keep in mind there is still no sun, so could water evaporate to form clouds?

“God said, ‘Let the waters under heaven come together into a single mass, and let dry land appear.’ And so it was.”

Same questions. This suggests that the Earth’s land was originally all under water. It also suggests that the water wasn’t solid ice, in spite of the lack of a star to warm the planet.

“God said, ‘Let the earth produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants, and fruit trees on earth, bearing fruit with their seed inside, each corresponding to its own species.’ And so it was.”

Again, were plants, including trees, growing without sunlight?

“God said, ‘Let there be lights in the vault of heaven to divide day from night, and let them indicate festivals, days and years. Let them be lights in the vault of heaven to shine on the earth.’ And so it was. God made the two great lights: the greater light to govern the day, the smaller light to govern the night, and the stars.”

Until this point, there were no stars in the universe, and in particular no Sun. The Earth was hurtling through empty, dark space. The existence of light is mentioned, but without identifying its source. The Sun’s stated purpose isn’t to warm the Earth, but to enable a calendar. At this point there are still no people to hold festivals. Why are those purposes mentioned without reference to the Sun’s life-enabling role?

“God said, ‘Let the waters be alive with a swarm of living creatures, and let birds wing their way above the earth across the vault of heaven.’ And so it was.”

Animal life now appears. What is the reason for this sequence? Is it saying sunlight is necessary for animals but not for plants?

“God said, ‘Let us make man in our own image, in the likeness of ourselves, and let them be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven, the cattle, all the wild animals and all the creatures that creep along the ground. God created man in the image of himself, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them.”

What does “in the image of God” mean? Does God have a human-like appearance, or is “likeness” intended in a more abstract sense, such as the ability to think?

“God saw all he had made, and indeed it was very good. Evening came and morning came: the sixth day.”

What are these “days”? Does this chapter mean God literally made everything from the universe to Homo sapiens in a week? What was a “day” before the Sun was created?

Are there alternative readings beyond a literal account that make this narrative more comprehensible? Could it, for example, have been consciously offered as a myth? Some say the Bible is literally true throughout, in which case the account is difficult to understand. If infallibility isn’t assumed, we have to read it in the context of the scientific knowledge of the time. If we read it as mythology, then we have to look at the ancient Hebrew culture rather than science to understand it.

 
Teaching anything resembling this approach will probably get a teacher in a lot of trouble in any district that requires teaching the Bible. In principle, this is a way for teachers to follow the requirements while keeping their integrity. I can’t say whether it’s feasible. Proceed at your own risk.


SUBSCRIBE

Enter your email address to subscribe and get notifications of new posts by email.


Where do atheists in America stand?

Atheists in modern America enjoy a high level of religious freedom. In New England, where I live, we also enjoy a good level of acceptance. I don’t encounter hostility for being an atheist. Once the Eagle Tribune in Massachusetts mentioned on its front page that I am one; no one minded. But conditions can change, and there have been some signs of growing hostility to people who don’t think there’s a deity.

Pausing for a definition: I define “atheist” as a person who does not believe in a deity, not as a person who affirmatively believes there isn’t a God. Arguing for the non-existence of a vaguely defined being is a hopeless task; let those who claim there is one define their terms and offer their arguments.

There has always been hostility to atheism. Lately, though, it’s become a bit bolder, with backing by the White House. On June 24, 2023, Donald Trump said, “Together, we’re warriors in a righteous crusade to stop the arsonists, the atheists, globalists, and the Marxists.” In 2025, Trump formed a so-called “Religious Liberty Commission” with the ostensible purpose of identifying threats to religious freedom. Every member appointed to it was Christian or Jewish (with an overwhelming Christian majority). No Muslims, atheists, Hindus, or pagans. That’s like having a coastal flooding commission whose members are all from Colorado, North Dakota, and Kansas.

A White House report on domestic terrorism claimed that “anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity” animate violent conduct against American institutions.

At a White House Faith Office luncheon, Trump threatened any atheists who might be in the room: “Is there an atheist in the room? Any atheists? I don’t think so. I wouldn’t want to raise my hand if I were. You’d be in big trouble.”

Eight state constitutions, mostly in the South, specify religious tests for holding office. They’re dead letters at present, but it was only in 1961 that the Supreme Court ruled that states couldn’t require a statement of religious belief before a person could hold public office.

What are the actual risks? Outright denial of religious freedom isn’t likely to become a major problem. There are always bigots in local offices who abuse their power, but they’ll lose when challenged in court. A greater risk is that views outside Christianity may be lowered in some ways to second-class status. In some ways, they have been for a long time. The currency says “In God we trust” and the pledge to the flag says we’re “one nation, under God.” Those are just annoyances, though. It’s more ominous that a large minority wants to turn the US into a “Christian nation.” The First Amendment and mountains of legal precedent stand in their way, but a determined government can make life difficult for the non-religious without explicitly targeting them. The non-profit status of irreligious organizations and non-theistic churches can be attacked for made-up reasons. Religious affiliation is often a de facto qualification for high-level appointments, and the situation could get worse.

I’m not particularly worried at present, but things can change with alarming speed. It’s important to watch for signs.


Quebec’s prayer ban

With Worldcon coming up in Montreal next year, fans who go there will have to be aware of Quebec’s anti-prayer law. It imposes serious restrictions on religious freedom. Group prayer in public requires government permission. People have had to choose between wearing religious symbols and quitting their jobs. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) has condemned the law as an “attack on freedom of religion, freedom of expression, protest rights, and equality.”

The law is touted as promoting religious neutrality, but it’s no more neutral than a ban on all protests is.

The law has been challenged in Canada’s Supreme Court, so it might not be an issue when the convention comes around.

Some of its provisions will affect just people living and working in the province. I’ll focus here on the impact on visitors.

Scene from Faust, Mephistopheles commanding Marguerite not to prayA lot depends on the word “public.” What is a “public place”? The streets of Montreal are certainly public, but what about the Palais de Congrès, where the convention will take place? What about hotels where fans will stay? Will the convention be able to schedule religious gatherings? This is a question for lawyers, and I hope the con will have some answers for the public. I wrote to the convention’s address for asking questions, and so far I’ve gotten an acknowledgement but no other response. Probably they’re still working on it.

In practice, there’s a good chance only Muslims will be targeted for enforcement. As an atheist, I’m not directly affected by a prayer ban, but laws denying freedom of expression undermine the principle and have a chilling effect on all discourse. In 2025, Montreal slapped a church with a $2,500 fine for hosting a concert by a singer the government didn’t like. I think Sean Feucht is all wet (bonus pun for German speakers!), but that’s not the point. If the city can fine private organizations for hosting singers or speakers based on the ideas they support, it can silence anyone, and events such as fan conventions aren’t safe.


Book discussion: How Jesus Became God

Christianity is a big part of our culture, and even non-Christians have to make some sense of it. I like Bart Ehrman’s treatments of Biblical research. He’s skeptical but not belligerent. I’ve previously read his Misquoting Jesus and enjoyed it. How Jesus Became God addresses questions I’ve been curious about: Why do Christians think he was God incarnate? What exactly do they mean by it? The average Christian isn’t sure, and the more you dig into the questions, the weirder it gets.

Ehrman accepts the existence of the historical Jesus but says he never claimed to be divine. His status gradually grew after his death. Jesus’s followers believed he had risen from the dead, so he was the “Son of God” in some sense, at least after his resurrection. By steps which Ehrman traces, the idea expanded. First he gained special status after the resurrection; then he was anointed of God through his ministry, then from his birth, and at last from the beginning of time. Many variations of these views existed side by side, with their advocates calling each other heretics. The Nicean Council tried to standardize the belief, but it wasn’t till years later that Christianity mostly settled down to the currently standard view.

Cover of How Jesus Became GodThis view is that Jesus is God but isn’t God the Father; that God is one but also three; that the Son was begotten of the Father but always existed from the beginning of time. Make sense of that if you can. For most Christians, these details don’t matter, but early Christians thought that if they didn’t get Jesus’s nature exactly right, they might go to Hell for blasphemy. Apparently God is full of mercy but will torture believers forever if they don’t pass a theology quiz.

Ehrman notes that the only Gospel in which Jesus claims to be a divine being is John, which scholars think was written later than the others. If he really made such claims, he notes, it’s strange that Matthew, Mark, and Luke don’t mention them.

In Ehrman’s view, Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher, expecting the world to end soon and be replaced by the Kingdom of God under his leadership. He thought he was a Messiah but not a divine being. There were many others like him. Ehrman thinks the reason Christianity was so successful was that Jesus’s followers had “visions” of him as a resurrected person. He uses the term as a neutral one, not taking a position on whether they were real or not. There comes one of the problems with the book: it promotes a compartmentalized way of thinking. Ehrman refuses to take a stand as a historian on whether the resurrection happened or not.

He writes: “Religious faith and historical knowledge are two different ways of ‘knowing.’ This effectively grants equal validity to both. Elsewhere he claims, “University intellectuals almost never speak of ‘objectivity’ any more, unless they happen to live on the margins of intellectual life.” If objectivity is impossible, if research and bald assertion have equal epistemological status, then anything goes.

Ehrman’s description of the official Christian (or at least Catholic) position on Jesus’s nature makes it sound even crazier than I had thought. He argues convincingly that Jesus probably didn’t have a proper burial but was just thrown on a pile of bodies; that was what the Romans did with crucified people. But if Jesus wasn’t buried in a tomb, there couldn’t have been an empty tomb to find. The whole account unravels, yet Ehrman won’t say that the claims of Jesus’s recognition are groundless fantasy.

These notions aren’t harmless stories. As Ehrman notes, Christian authorities have had many people tortured and executed for heresy. The Jewish people were persecuted for centuries for killing the immortal God. Nonsense should be called out as nonsense when it affects people’s lives.

Even so, How Jesus Became God is very readable, and Ehrman’s explanation of the development of Christian beliefs is fascinating. If that’s a subject that interests you, I think you’ll like the book.


The apocalyptic mindset 3

It’s hard for me to understand the popularity of authoritarian movements. Why would people willingly cede power to someone whose overriding goal is power? Yet it’s happened over and over. Lately I’ve been looking at comments on the Internet and seeing a strong pattern. They see the world as facing an apocalyptic battle between two utterly opposed forces. Their side is good, and anyone who opposes it must be evil. Not only that, their opponents are all on the same side. It’s hard to think of immigrants, Constitutional lawyers, liberals (in all the senses of the word), Muslims, socialists, and the Pope all as a unified front, but to orthodox MAGAs they are.

Evangelical Christianity, which is the heart of Trump’s support, loves the idea that history is a struggle between Satanic and divine forces, and they expect it to culminate in a world war which God, of course, will win. It colors people’s worldview even when they aren’t thinking of supernatural forces. It’s their habit to think of political conflicts as fights between two fully consistent and completely opposed forces. It’s a view that doesn’t leave much room for good people who disagree, honestly mistaken ideas, and people who aren’t wholly on one side or the other.

When you accept this view, it’s reasonable to think anyone on your side is completely trustworthy, anyone opposed is a thorough liar, and anything which supports your side must be right. Anything your side does is good, including threatening to destroy a civilization. It helps if the civilization to be destroyed is aligned with a non-Christian religion.

In praying to God from the Pentagon, “Secretary of War” Hegseth raged: “Let every round find its mark against the enemies of righteousness and our great nation. Give them wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy.”

Jackson Lahmeyer, a Trump-aligned candidate from Oklahoma who is also an Evangelical pastor, proclaimed, “Good and evil, that’s the story of the Bible. The good news is that at the end good always wins.” Look at chapter 16 of Revelation, if you have the stomach for it. Angels spread skin disease, pollute the seas and fresh water, cause deadly heat waves, and dry up a major river. They’re allegedly working for God, so this makes them “good.”

The Crusades were run on the same mindset. Armies set out to take Jerusalem and the surrounding area because “God wills it!” When the Crusaders took the city in 1099, they massacred thousands of people, mostly Muslims and Jews. They considered their own side “good” not because of their character or deeds, but because they claimed to be on God’s side. They could cite Biblical precedents, such as the genocide of the Canaanites.

Communicating with people who look at the world that way is hard. By the very fact of disagreeing with them, you’re on the side of “evil.” The important thing is to reject their worldview vocally and persistently.