We can answer this question by subdividing sin into two broad categories: that which is evil and that which is wrong. These two concepts are interconnected, but sin is not always considered evil.

Evil is sometimes difficult to define in humanistic terms. It’s terribly contextual and often very personal. The moral philosophies of an individual or a society often dictate what’s evil and what’s not. Evil is often a denomination given to people who disagree strongly with one or many morals, or even merely ideas of another individual or group. It is therefore often thrown around quite trivially and in a generalising manner. The famous philosopher Socrates states that which we call evil is merely ignorance.

On the other hand, evil can also be defined as wilful harm to others, no matter what reason. The psychologist Philip Zimbardo (you might know him from the Stanford Prison Experiment) defines evil as:

… the exercise of power to intentionally harm, hurt, destroy or commit crimes against humanity.

I personally like this definition as it is, in any context, very hard to disagree with. It also classifies evil as an intrinsic behavioural infliction, which comes from our ability to emphasize with beings around us. To put it differently: from their own standpoint, humans can be cruel, (most) animals cannot.

Back to sin. This word is often used in religious circles. In this framework, sin is a violation of one or many of the moral rules or divine laws of a religious creed for which often punishment should be received. So sin does not have to be morally dire but it can still be wrong, although what is considered against the rules is often automatically considered morally bad in many religions. Sin is not always in violation of secular law but in religious context sin is almost always a consequence of evil forces.

In Christian philosophy sin can be forgiven (salvation). To Christians this salvation came in the form of Jesus of Nazareth and his suffering. Repentance is the recognition of your own sins and accepting the sacrifice of Jesus. This view on sin is central to Christianity and in this story Jesus is the subject of his fate and destiny.

Preaching about sin was elemental to the missions of John the Baptist and his teachings motivated Jesus to preach the same and with relation to John. So what did Jesus teach us? Terrot Glover wrote a chapter on this in his excellent book The Jesus of History. He mentions the preaching of repentance and subsequential acceptance into the “Kingdom of God” as being important to Jesus’ teachings. This is irrelevant to Christian atheists. More relevant are perhaps Jesus’ moral teachings love and kindness and his clear-cut views of right and wrong. Glover discusses Jesus’ perspective on the Last Judgement (Matt. 25:31-46), itself a possible metaphor of this dichotomy. Jesus perspective shows that not the most devoted and religious Jews, but the common men and woman who instinctively lived, benevolently, a life of generosity and kindness to others will find eternal bliss. The people on the left hand were not the non-religious and the Gentiles, but the people who embraced a mean-spirited character and an ignorance of compassion. This morality is that of deeds, but Jesus’ teachings also encompass the ethics of thought.

Jesus considered anger and unclean thought sin. He meant with this, people who had strong desires for sinful acts, even if they would not follow up on these deeds. If the mind becomes tainted with these thoughts, it will function sinfully. From a Christian atheist perspective I personally believe that it is not deeds but thoughts that separate moral people from moralistic people and I therefore often condemn religiously motivated benevolence as being moralistic and often not truly genuine. I believe Jesus condemned this too.

I will not further delve into this topic for now. In my family we include Jesus’ views on sin which we consider relevant to our situation and time. Many of his moral philosophies on sin were, from secular humanist standpoint, very intrinsic to man. Much as modern-day psychologist, Jesus emphasises the fallacy of all of us to easily tip from good to evil. His teachings might provide some guidance.

The Historical Jesus

Crossan uses three types of study to reconstruct who Jesus probably was, what he did and what he said. He uses a social anthropological approach, a historical approach and textual research. He uses these approaches to visualize a world and the time in which Jesus lived and narrows the story down to the person himself. The final chapter contains “stratum sources”, being events and sayings which have multiple direct references.

The book starts with a reconstruction of first century Mediterranean life to give the reader a backdrop in which the events around Jesus can be contextually placed. Crossan also details the society and traditions of the Roman Empire, specifically that of slavery. He covers the Cynical movement, a philosophical group advocating withdrawal from the world.

The second part of the book deals with the first century Judea and the Jewish-Roman relationship. The Jewish religious traditions of the time and the emergence of first century prophets are described. The book also refers to the Roman-Jewish war to picture the tense and rebellious nature of the region.

The final part of the book describes the life of Jesus himself by studying relationships and descriptions of the people around him (e.g. John the Baptist). Crossan also draws parallels with the canonical New Testament he even details the accounts of Jesus’ Resurrection.

Crossan concludes that Jesus had:

an ecstatic vision and social program sought to rebuild a society upwards from its grass roots but on principles of religious and economic egalitarianism

Jesus opposed contemporary morality and tried to break down the barriers of power structures in society. As opposed to the Christian account, none of his followers witnessed his death and his burial place is unknown. Crossan explains that many miracle stories surrounding Jesus are reproduced accounts pre-dating Jesus’ life and resurrection.

As expected, The Historical Jesus diverges significantly from the viewpoints of later Church history. It is a valuable book for Christian atheists, as it gives a more detailed description of Jesus as a prophet and a philosopher, rather than the Son of God. The book also manages to discard most of the supernatural aspects of Christianity, leaving behind the moral philosophical and humanist side of Jesus. We can also form a picture of why Jesus’ sayings and morals were so successful compared to other philosophies of the time. If the Bible lays the groundwork for Christian belief, this book can do something similar for Christian atheism.

(find the book here)

Many have either read or at least heard of The Selfish Gene by the famously vocal atheist, Richard Dawkins (if you have not, you can find it here. I really recommend it!). This hugely popular book stipulated genes to be the central players in evolution and that any entity beyond the level of genes (such as insects or humans). Organisms are merely evolving tools to ensure the success of these genes in terms of global copy number. In other words: to maximise the inclusive fitness of genes globally.

This elegant theory has been studied and continued since The Selfish Gene was published more than thirty years ago. However, besides the biological side of gene-centred inclusive fitness, Dawkins made a very important anthropological contribution by applying this theory to so-called ‘cultural evolution’.

In The Selfish Gene, Dawkins uses the concept of a ‘meme’ (the cultural version of a gene) to explain that cultural ideas such as melodies, catch-phrases or beliefs can be transferred to or imitated by a larger population. More popular (more fit) ideas propagate successfully. The less culturally fit ideas lose the Darwinian race and cease to exist. ‘Memetics’ is now a widely studied theory and can be applied not only to human culture, but also to e.g. tool-making by great apes.

Religion can be memetic and genetic. It is a particular successful ‘gene’. This claim has been supported by anthropologists and psychologists. Pascal Boyer argues the persistence of religion from a psychological standpoint in his book Religion Explained (can be found here). He argues religion to be a natural product humans have gained during the evolutionary development of the cognitive mind. We, as humans, are perhaps evolutionarily primed to have faith.

Religion has also proven itself to be a particular successful meme. Dawkins has himself supported this claim. Susan Blackmore studies this concept in greater detail in her excellent book, The Meme Machine (get it here). In the chapter ‘Religion as memeplexes’ she discusses religions to have mechanisms to prevent people from using reason, thus they convert to faith-based explanations. However, many religions have guidelines and doctrines that benefit individuals and societies. These can range from altruism (‘love thy neighbour’) to personal care (circumcision) and are generally based on the religious texts.

Aside from strong historical, auspicious and liberating reasons for the success of Christianity, I would like to argue for the triumph of the Christian belief from an anthropogenic and sociological perspective. Christianity has many guidelines benefitting people, even in modern times. The non-violent nature of Jesus’ teachings was appealing in a time when the world was a very violent place. Benevolent moral philosophies such as equality and love have promoted this belief and its clear, acceptable values taught by a single philosopher ameliorated its adoption. Original Christian teachings abolished hierarchy and gave spiritual wealth to those who followed.

Christian humanism has led to the establishment of welfare institutions which has benefitted many, who in turn dedicated their lives to helping others. The needs of the community were provided by the community by Jesus’ humanitarian principles. This put Christianity on a higher moral plain than, perhaps, other religions of the time. It also gave people a sense of belonging and with this, support during hard times.

In modern times we can adopt the altruistic and social nature of Christianity and outgrow the supernatural and religious side of it. This, together with an intrinsic humanism, can lead to a continuation of Jesus’ teachings as they were originally intended. This is what Christian atheism is about.

Although not as wide spread as many other forms of atheism or indeed Christianity, Christian atheists are in numbers. They often identify themselves as Christian atheist in one way or another and some are quite open about their lifestyle and their views on society. I’ll give a few examples:

Atheists For Jesus are a noble organization who are trying to ‘save’ Jesus from the Religious Right in America. Ken Schei, the group’s founder and president, has been reinterpreting the New Testament without its references to the supernatural. Just like I do, he refers to the Jefferson Bible as a source of inspiration. Schei believes that the (self-appointed) Apostle, Paul and his followers have polluted the word of Jesus for their own motives. For years he has been on a venerable quest to clarify Jesus’ true word from the distortions of the Religious Right. Schei has even published a book on the topic.

Russ Belville is a writer for the Oregon Herald. He describes himself to be a Positive Christian Atheist. In his own words he describes:

The “positive” part of Positive Christian Atheism means blending the positive aspects of Christian teaching with the positive reality of atheism. The admonition to treat others well means so much more when you realize this is the only life we’ve got, and the only heaven we’ll experience is the one we strive to create here on earth. A Positive Christian Atheist has to avoid sin not because he fears retribution in an afterlife, but rather because it creates poverty, death, mistrust, and despair in the real life. A Positive Christian Atheist doesn’t do good works to impress God; he does good works because they help people, just as Christ would have done.

This is what Christian atheism is all about: using the moral philosophies of Jesus to live a sinless life.

My family strives for this and many others do too. Although Christian atheists are not (yet) a tight nit community, many atheists do adopt Christian philosophy. Even on atheist forums and blogs, when we look past the raging atheism vs Christianity debate, we find people with similar moral philosophies. From personal to global problems, Christian humanism can sometimes show a solution.

In the US we live in what I see as a period of Christian atheism or agnosticism. In the previous article I described Christian atheists to be Christians who reject the existence of God. Some folks are indeed active, or theoretical, atheists and they can be quite outspoken about their views. However, many of us practice a form of passive atheism, also called apatheism.

Many Christian families have few specific views and opinions on their religion. They do adhere to many of the traditions and moral principles of Christianity such as celebrating Christmas and going to church. My own family participates in similar things and I realize we do this for the same traditional reasons many Americans do and I like it this way.

One can argue that our country has been founded on Judeo-Christian values, with a healthy dose of other influences. Although I believe many of our Founding Fathers were probably secular humanists – despite what some television pundits might tell you, many were agnostic, deists or atheists –, the core moral philosophies of our constitution are based on the principles of Christian humanism.

Centuries of severe religious constriction in Europe subjected people to an induced form of practical religious doctrine. America was founded on a religious freedom that has given us the option of choosing the best aspects of Christianity, Judaism, Islam and all others that fit our societies. Gladly this trend has been continued in much of the world (although some countries have opted out). Christian atheism is more present and influential than you think…

Christian Atheism

The acceptance of the teachings of Jesus in the absence of a belief in God.

We can therefore call Christian atheism a brand of atheism, which lies closer to theism in a more traditional and moral sense than spiritual sense (although there are plenty of Christian atheists who lean more towards agnosticism).

Many Christian atheists hold a contemporary vision of a modern society without God, but include the importance of Judeo-Christian values and the moral philosophies of Jesus. Others (e.g. Megan and me) try to actively bring the teachings of Jesus and those from the Bible into our daily lives. Christian atheists generally support a secular society and don’t often adhere to a particular Christian denomination such as Catholicism. I personally prefer to study the word of Jesus from as many different sources as I can find and try to make up my own mind about which ones I believe are closest to original Christian philosophy.

One can say that Christian atheism is similar to humanism, or more specifically Christian humanism. However, a humanist can also be a deist (one who believes in a supernatural entity). This is generally not the case for Christian atheists, who reject God. Humanists and Christian atheists do believe in an intrinsic human nature from an ethical stance, but the latter is more open to guidance from a Biblical perspective.

I will talk more about the definition of Christian atheism in following posts. I invite you to also contribute to this Christian atheist blog.

I was born and bred in San Jose and have lived all my life on the West Coast. Although my father is Jewish, I grew up in a Catholic family and had a very moderate Catholic education. We did not go to church much and prayer was not an everyday thing. We did, however, have a traditional ‘moment of silence’ before dinner as always insisted by my mother, although this was mostly spent on inspecting our food. Nonetheless, we did enjoy a stable and loving upbringing and the Christian belief did help me when the times were tough.

In my college years I lost what little religious belief I had and focused on atheism. I was a regular contributor to atheist forums and blogs and munched through many atheists books. I enjoyed the discussions on moral philosophies of atheism and secularism I had with my sorority.

It was only after I met Bruce when we started talking about the values of Christian Atheism. When our first child was born, we, as uncertain parents, had trouble deciding what values we should teach her. We decided to bring Sandra up on the same, solid moral values we were taught ourselves, with the absence of an omnipotent entity. Our family are happy and we would like to share this with others.

I would be excited to talk with you about our experiences and I hope you will contribute no matter what denomination or life philosophy.

I grew up in a Presbyterian family and my parents educated my 3 brothers and 2 sisters with a strict moral code based on the Bible and the Christian belief. I’ll be honest in saying that my parents weren’t very deep about their religion. We were told to believe first, do not ask questions later. These, among other moral philosophies were taught not only by my parents, but also by other members in our community and congregation. My parents are very loving people and I owe the world to them for being raised with a proper set of values which I try every day to pass on to my family.

My conversion to Christian atheism was, looking back, a long time coming. Despite my fundamental upbringing, I realized from an early age that I was repeatedly questioning the contradictions of my faith. When I moved to California (where I met Megan), this doubt ballooned to a larger dispute of the tenets of religion and a higher power. I started reading atheist books and joining discussions on atheist forums. The whole atheism vs Christianity debate I found enthralling. When I started dating Megan I found a person who had a very similar mind.

Both of us, however, had a religious background and felt that this certainly had given us a moral baggage we would like to continue carrying and pass on to our children. I believe that the Bible and the teachings of Jesus, not as the son of God, but as a philosopher are valuable instructions for a happy and fulfilling life. I think much of Christian philosophy stems not from a single religious belief system, but from more intrinsic humanistic needs. Christian atheism has given us a way to still learn and follow that of the Christian faith which is good and to what I believe Jesus intended on teaching.