This week people all over the world will celebrate Christmas, the date that Christians believe was the birth of Jesus Christ. Both Christians and non-Christians celebrate the occasion.
I think it points to something very interesting: people have all kinds of different beliefs about Jesus, yet they all seem agree that he was a real person. Pretty much everyone agrees that he was born near Jerusalem, most likely in a stable, about 2000 years ago, to a teenage girl. He grew up near Nazareth, became a carpenter, then spent three years as a teacher, prophet and healer. He was betrayed by one of his followers, crucified on a cross, and died. Not only that, people of widely different beliefs – even atheists – acknowledge that he had a profound message that possesses great merit to this day.
What they don't agree upon is whether Jesus was God coming to Earth as a man. Not only that, lots of people definitely don't think that after being crucified, Jesus rose from the dead and ascended back into Heaven. There are disagreements about lots of things, such as whether Jesus was born to a virgin, but those are really mere details to the big question about Jesus as Son of God.
So if pretty much everyone agrees on the basic facts about the life of Jesus, why do Christians believe what I'll call "additional facts" (i.e., that He was the Son of God coming to Earth, dying, and rising again)?
Christians like me believe these "additional facts" because we believe two other things. First, that humankind, from the very first humans onward, is sinful. Second, we believe that humans can't by themselves overcome this inherent sinfulness. They can only do it through the help of God. If you don't believe in the "additional facts", there's no reason for you to believe Jesus was the Son of God. If you do believe them, then you hope and pray that Jesus is in fact the Son of God.
These ideas are at the core of what Christians believe, so what evidence is there of this? Historically, the evidence of these beliefs has come from the Christian Bible. Of course, lots and lots of people don't believe that people are inherently sinful and that humans can't overcome their basic sinfulness on their own. Thus, the big question: other than what's in the Bible, is there any evidence to support what Christians claim?
For the past 150 or so years, many people have claimed that modern science has debunked the Christian Bible. They've told everyone there's an either/or choice: you can either believe what modern science says, or you can believe what the Christian Bible says. So if you accept modern science, you can't believe the Bible. For many who believe in modern science, it became time to give up on Christianity. The funny thing is, besides atheists, many evangelical Christians have bought into the same "either/or", just approaching it from the opposite direction: if you're a Christian, you can't believe in "atheistic science".
The problem is, it's a false choice, but lots of people have bought into this "false choice", chosen science, and given up their Christian beliefs; or they stuck with the Bible and decided that Darwin must be a "tool of the devil".
But here's the surprising thing: one can make an argument that that very same science actually supports the Christian ideas that humans are inherently sinful and that they can't overcome it on their own. Mind you, I'm not talking about "junk science" like Intelligent Design. I'm talking about taking the exact same science embraced by people like Richard Dawkins. For years, everyone has been trying to build the case that science proves that religion is bunk, but what if that science actually appears to back up what Christians have said all along?
What? How can that be?
Let me show you how and why.
It starts with the Big Bang. The obvious question is, what caused the Big Bang? Christians, and adherents of other religions, of course say that it was God. Atheists tend to say, it all just happened by chance, or the universe has always existed. Neither side can prove the case one way or another. Ultimately, each side has a set of beliefs about the cause, but absolutely no proof. In effect, both atheists and religious people make faith claims about the cause of the Big Bang. So when it comes to the Big Bang, neither side can claim that science is conclusively on their side. A draw.
But some interesting things happened soon after the Big Bang: a series of scientific laws quickly emerged to govern the behavior of all matter and energy. Among other things, these include gravity, electromagnetism, and what's called the "strong nuclear force". If any of these constants were just slightly different, our universe would be drastically different. In fact, the universe as we know it may never have formed. For example, if the strong nuclear force were just a tiny bit different, stars could never have formed.
The fact that such tiny changes could so drastically change the universe suggests the hand of a Creator God. Doesn't prove it, just makes it highly suggestive. The conclusion: science, at least in this case, points towards the reality of a pre-existent God. Score one point for the religiously inclined.
But that's still a long way from the claims Christians make about Jesus. After all, you could easily have God cause the Big Bang, establish the scientific constants, then have God sit back, relax, or "go play a round of cosmic golf". That's pretty much what Deists believe. They believe God created the universe, but soon thereafter took a completely hands off attitude about the creation, one that continues to this day. And it's a long way from what Christians claim about Jesus.
So what could possibly be the scientific evidence that backs up those core ideas that Christians believe, namely that humans are inherently sinful and that they can't overcome that on their own?
The surprising answer is the science that lots of people have been trying to use as a bludgeon against Christianity for 150 years: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.
What? Are you serious? How could that be?
Here's how. Supporters of Darwin make that argument that all life has emerged as the result of evolution through natural selection. Homo sapiens – we humans – have emerged in the very same way as every other form of life. Our nearest genetic cousins are the non-human mammals such as apes, monkeys, and baboons. We humans share about 98% of our DNA with these non-human mammals. We're not direct descendants of monkeys, as so many people have feared, but we are actually genetic "cousins". We all share a common ancestor who lived about 100 million years ago.
Many scientists study monkeys, apes, and similar mammals. They've made the interesting observation that these animals often steal things and practice deception. Why do they do these things? Obviously, they steal and deceive in order to survive. The better they are at theft and deception, the more likely they are to survive.
The argument is that our human ancestors – and their ancestors - did the same kinds of things in order to survive.
So you can think about something like deception in terms of a coin. Every coin has a head and a tail. The head of the coin represents the positive side of the behavior. The positive side, of course, is that the behavior let's the animal survive another day, maybe long enough to reproduce. The tail – the opposite side of the coin – represents the negative side of the behavior. In this case, we all know what's wrong with theft.
Though we humans share a lot of DNA with our non-human "cousins", we're obviously different. What's the real difference? Of course, humans have much bigger, more sophisticated brains. These brains give us a higher level of consciousness, the ability to know the difference between right and wrong, and most importantly, the ability to do something even when we know it's wrong!
Thus the theory: what Christians call sin is really just a by-product of evolution. The behaviors that have helped us to survive are also the very things that we call sin. In theory, we humans, given our bigger brains, should know when we shouldn't do certain things, but we all still do those wrong things from time to time. Welcome to "being human". You can apply the coin analogy to pretty much every human behavior. Each behavior has a positive side that is evolutionarily beneficial, but each behavior also has a negative, sinful side.
So Darwin's theory can be used to explain why Christians believe humankind is inherently sinful. Which leads to the second part: what can we do about it? Well if human behavior is like a coin, with a head and a tail, then the answer is: nothing! That's because bad behavior is really just the flip side of the good behavior that helped us to survive and reproduce. Get rid of one and you get rid of the other!
Thus, the argument becomes, humans can know that some things are wrong, but we can't stop doing those things. Oh, on any given day we can know we shouldn't do certain things and actually don't do those bad things. Unfortunately, on other days, we seem to forget and each of us does bad things. Nobody's perfect. Thus, we can each vow to be better, and actually behavior a little bit better, but we never overcome our inherent nature. We all have the capacity to do and be good, but we also have our bad sides.
Which is precisely the argument that Christians make: we are this way, and we can never overcome it on our own. We need the help of God.
Now that in no way proves that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. It merely suggests that humankind needs someone like Jesus. Of course, Christians like me say that Jesus did exactly what was needed: died to atone for the sins of humanity, then rose again. Can't prove it, I, and my fellow Christians, can just believe it.
What it also says is that humans aren't inherently good. If we were inherently good, we likely wouldn't have survived. While we have the capacity to be good, the necessity to survive long enough to reproduce has always meant we've each got a bad side.
Looks like science scores another point for religion.
Thus, in my mind, there is a supreme irony in all of this. People of all backgrounds and beliefs have no problem believing and accepting the historical reality of Jesus. The irony is that non-Christians have claimed science as the backstop for their beliefs that Jesus wasn't who he claimed to be, but science may actually point in the direction that Jesus really was necessary for the world.
But remember, Christmas is still a birthday party, not a science lecture. We should all celebrate in the manner we believe appropriate. For Christians who are skeptical of the science about evolution, I hope you'll pause long enough to reconsider some of your fears and objections. Charles Darwin may actually be your new best friend. For non-Christians who do embrace modern science, I hope you'll pause long enough to consider that modern science isn't showing that humans are basically good and that religion is inherently bad. For the atheist, faith in Darwin and other modern science might actually point down a different path.
Whatever your beliefs, I wish you and your loved ones a safe and joyful Christmas. After all, it's a birthday party.
