Atheism and the Case Against Christ

by Matthew S. McCormick

Hundreds of millions of people believe that Jesus came back from the dead. This cogent, forcefully argued book presents a decidedly unpopular view -namely, that the central tenet of Christianity, the resurrection of Jesus, is false. The author asks a number of probing Is the evidence about Jesus as it has been relayed to us over the centuries of sufficient quantity and quality to justify belief in the resurrection? How can we accept the resurrection but reject magic at the Salem witch trials? What light does contemporary research about human rationality from the fields of behavioral economics, empirical psychology, cognitive science, and philosophy shed on the resurrection and religious belief? Can we use contemporary research about the reliability of people's beliefs in the supernatural, miracles, and the paranormal to shed light on the origins of Christianity and other religions? Does it make sense that the all-powerful creator of the universe would employ miracles to achieve his ends? Can a Christian believe by faith alone and yet reasonably deny the supernatural claims of other religions? Do the arguments against Christianity support atheism? By carefully answering each of these questions, this book undermines Christianity and theism at their foundations; it gives us a powerful model for better critical reasoning; and it builds a compelling case for atheism. Without stooping to condescension or arrogance, the author offers persuasive arguments that are accessible, thoughtful, and new.

Genres: Atheism, Religion, Philosophy, Nonfiction

332 pages, Paperback

First published June 1, 2010

About the author

Matt McCormick (Sacramento, CA) is professor of philosophy at California State University, Sacramento. He has contributed chapters to The Impossibility of God, edited by Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier, and to The End of Christianity, edited by John W. Loftus; and he has published widely in philosophy, particularly on atheism. He writes a well-regarded blog at: provingthenegative.com He frequently gives lectures, does radio interviews, debates, and gives invited presentations on atheism.

He is also an accomplished rock climber and avid cyclist.

Reviews

[Book Shark · Rating 5 out of 5]

Atheism and the Case Against Christ by Mathew S. McCormick

“Atheism and the Case Against Christ" is a thought-provoking book that provides new perspectives that undermine the resurrection of Jesus. The author concludes quite convincingly through a convergence of ideas, some quite unique and all the information we have today that the reasonable conclusion is that there is not enough evidence to believe in gods. Professor of philosophy and well regarded blogger, Mathew S. McCormick has provided readers with a refreshing new take on atheism. This entertaining 330-page book is composed of the following thirteen chapters: 1. Speaking Ill of Jesus, 2. The History of the Jesus Story, 3. You already Don't Believe in Jesus: The Salem Witch Trials, 4. Believing the Believers, 5. The Repeaters and the Money-Bag Problem, 6. Abducted by Aliens and a False Murder Conviction, 7. The Counterevidence Problem, 8. Why Are All of the Gods Hiding?, 9. Would God Do Miracles?, 10. Five Hundred Dead Gods and the Problem of Other Religions, 11. The F-Word, 12. Why So Serious? and 13. Atheism and the Case against Christ.

Positives:
1. Well written book, respectful and pleasant tone used throughout. It's direct and accessible.
2. A fascinating topic and kudos to the author for bringing some new ideas to the table.
3. The book revolves around two main ideas: "we should not believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead", and building the case for atheism.
4. Dissecting the concept of faith. The author dismantles faith from many angles and in doing so provides a plate of quotable goodies.
5. A look into the historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection. Questioning miracles.
6. Great use of the best current knowledge available such as neuroscience to bolster arguments.
7. Succeeds in showing that the biblical evidence is lacking to support essential Christian doctrines. A look into the history of information about Jesus. The sources themselves as being copies of copies...Interesting stuff here.
8. Addresses the issue of insulating religion from criticism.
9. Compares what we know about the Salem Witch Trials with what we know of the resurrection in terms of quantity and quality. Evidence is the key.
10. Eyewitness testimony as weak and unreliable. "Generally, people living in an agrarian, Iron Age society with very low levels of scientific knowledge, education, and literacy will have a low level of skepticism for what we would identify as supernatural, miraculous, or paranormal claims". Furthermore, "religiousness, superstition, and supernaturalism are positively correlated with ignorance; when people have more education, they are less likely to believe". That works for me.
11. Once again the author provides more examples to the resurrection: alien abduction and the false murder conviction.
12. The counterevidence problem, interesting take. "As far as we know, there was no substantial investigation of the Jesus miracles conducted by a disinterested third party". Furthermore, "the person who deeply wants the conclusion to be true should not be the same person who investigates the evidence that might prove it to be false".
13. No doubt that the problem of hiddenness is a very strong argument. "If you were God and you were going to pick an audience with the intention of proving your existence and communicating your desires, you almost could not find a more gullible, easily impressed, and more ignorant group." Agreed and what took "God" so long?
14. Miracles and a very interesting take here. Thought-provoking chapter..." Omniscience appears to be consistent with miracles, but it is not necessary."
15. Problems with other religions.
16. My favorite chapter of the entire book, "The F-Word". Word indeed. Excellent and worth the price of admission. "By refusing to believe by faith, the nonbeliever may be only seeking to accept that which is supported by the evidence."
17. Comparing fundamentalists with liberal-minded theists. Good stuff regarding what one believes and how one behaves. A section on atheist preachers.
18. A good summary of the book and a strong case for atheism.
19. An excellent notes and bibliography.

Negatives:
1. As with any book of this ilk, and particularly one quite novel as this one you are not going to agree with every argument. As an example, I found the topic of miracles though interesting a little lacking and not quite as strong as lucid as some of the other chapters.
2. Use of tables and illustrations would have added value. A table listing popular religious beliefs by era would have added spice not to mention energize the flow of the book.

In summary, I really enjoyed this book. The author provides new ideas that makes the strong case that the resurrection should not be believed. Given all the information we have today the reasonable conclusion is that there is not enough evidence to believe in gods let alone the Christian one. The book is not perfect in all its details, some of the arguments could have been stronger and that an ambitious book of this ilk could have warranted a collaborative effort to shore up the weaker spots. Be that as it may, what's here is really good and Mr. McCormick must be commended for providing a fresh set of ideas and an excellent philosophical framework to build from. I look forward to more books of this ilk from Mr. McCormick and would respectfully recommend a collaborative effort involving a biblical scholar and a scientist to build even a stronger case. I highly recommend it!

Further suggestions: "Atheist Universe" by David Mills, "god is not Great" by Christopher Hitchens, "The New Atheist" and "God and the Folly of Faith" by Victor Stenger, "Atheism Advanced" by David Eller, "Atheism Explained" by David Ramsay Steele, "Bible Thumper to Atheist" by Tom Crawford, "The Bible Unearthed" by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, "Why I Became an Atheist" and "The Christian Delusion" by John Loftus, "Decoding the Language of God" by George C. Cunningham, "Forged" and "God's Problem" by Bart D. Ehrman, "God? A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist" by William Lane Craig, "Godless" by Dan Barker, "The Invention of the Jewish People" by Shlomo Sand, "The Invention of God" by Bill Lauritzen, "Man Made God" by Barbara G. Walker, "Moral Combat" by Sikivu Hutchinson, "Sense and Goodness Without God" and "Why I'm Not a Christian" by Richard Carrier, and "Why Are You Atheists So Angry?" by Greta Christina.

[Todd · Rating 5 out of 5]

I heard Professor McCormick say during a podcast that he liked to think he was reasonable first, an atheist second. This book takes the reasonable approach to examining the evidence we have to support the supernatural claims of Christianity. In other words given the challenges we have with the historical method in proving the existence of Christ and what our experience tells us about the world we live in, is it reasonable to accept the supernatural claims of the church, most especially the resurrection and ascension into heaven and so forth.

This is an excellent take on the subject written by a religious philosopher and atheist who takes on the subject without the rhetorical bite of the New Atheism approach of anti-Christian polemics. I highly recommend it to my atheist and theist friends alike.

The whole tone is about what is reasonable to believe based on evidence. You may not like Professor McCormick's conclusion, but you cannot find a more well reasoned and "reasonable" examination of the core arguments used by Christian apologists and theologians and why those arguments simply cannot stand up against scrutiny.

[Sarah · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've read a number of books on atheism, and this was by far the best. The author delves into the evidence about Christianity's truth or falsity and examines it from all angles. Rather than focusing on biblical inconsistencies or flaws in the text, he discusses alternate reasons why Christianity became a dominant religion. He addresses the arguments that Christians put forth for Jesus' resurrectionand the way the apostles rallied around the story. So many Christians say that the apostles of Jesus would not have died for a lie, and would not have believed so strongly. The author uses psychological studies and philosophical arguments to debunk these arguments completely. The book is easy to understand and uses plain language, but is fascinating and thorough in its rejection of Christianity and by extension, the existence of God. The author makes an extremely strong case. He also discusses why and how Christians tend to hold onto their faith even when there is so much evidence to the contrary. He discusses the psychological reasons why people believe and why do so difficult to shake a belief that one has grown up with or that one holds as so important. I felt like I gained many insights into religion but also into the human mind and the way that memories form and conclusions are made. This is an extremely valuable book.

[James Scheid · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book very methodically sifted to the myths many of us were raised with and presented and in a very logical manner put in to question the resurrection of Christ. The "witnesses" and even written documentation of these events occurred decades after the supposed death of Christ that the writings are unreliable. The author mentioned "grief hallucinations" in which the grieving think they see a loved one after death. I've experienced this years after my parents death and know that is was a dream or hallucination and not reality. Part of me fully understands why I believed and people still do but the other part of me can't believe I believed in God and Jesus well into adulthood. All people who believe should challenge their faith and read this book. I just don't think many will.

[Rancy Breece · Rating 5 out of 5]

Like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and others McCormick makes a very convincing argument in favor of atheism. He also ups the ante by challenging the reader to adopt a wide positive atheism, a view that rejects all forms of belief not just Christianity. But because Christianty has the most sway over Western culture, thought and world view he focuses on questioning the founding stories from which it grew and providing ample evidence that human infallibility and unreliable accounts and more make the belief in Christ and the resurrection story foolish. Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ used the analogy of a court case to make an argument for the Christ story and asked readers (the jury) to decide in favor of it. McCormick is the opposing lawyer convincingly proving evidence that refutes Strobel’s case. I don’t know that was McCormick’s intention, Strobel’s book is never mentioned. Moreover, McCormick urges readers to move beyond agnosticism and limited atheism; nothing less than a fully realized commitment to moving beyond belief in any form of god and religious practice will help humanity cure itself of the stupor that any faith puts us in.

[Alan · Rating 4 out of 5]

There is no way a believer will get far in this cogent & comprehensive critique of religions and justification for Atheism.

[Matthew William · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great!!!

[Travis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Atheism and the Case Against Christ is much more an assault on Christianity (and particularly an attack on the Christian case for the resurrection of Jesus) than a philosophical argument for atheism. Now, I'm not saying that that's a bad thing: it's just that the thrust of this book is less what one would find in typical atheistic philosophical treatise (examining the flaws in the teleological, cosmological, and ontological arguments and arguing for atheism from the problem of evil or the incoherence of the concept of God) and more of what one would expect in a debate between a Christian apologist and an atheist. And the case that the author, Matthew McCormick, presents, is solid.

McCormick argues against both Christian evidentialism (the idea that Christianity can be proved to be true from the historical data) and Christian fideism (the idea that, regardless of the evidence, believers are epistemologically entitled to believe in Christ on the basis of faith). In the latter case, McCormick makes strong arguments, but there is nothing really novel in what he presents. However, in his attack on Christian evidentialism, McCormick takes a new and intriguing tact.

McCormick asks us to contrast the resurrection of Jesus with the Salem witch trials. The Salem witch trials were actually very well documented: we have eye-witness accounts of those who claimed to observe the witches' power; we have sworn testimony about the activity of the witches offered at the trials; we have men of great standing and repute in the community, men of integrity and honor, who investigated and presided over the trials and had no reason to dissimulate. We have reams and reams of first-hand (not mere copies) written documentation that argue that there were witches in Salem who practiced the dark arts. And yet we do not believe that there really were witches with supernatural powers in Salem.

In contrast, the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is much, much weaker: we have only hearsay evidence written down at third-hand or fourth-hand or even later; we have none of the original New Testament documents; we have no direct reports from anyone other than Paul, and even he didn't witness the resurrection but only had later visions; we know nothing of the character of the alleged witnesses--in fact, we know next to nothing about most of the alleged witnesses. McCormick argues that if we reject the notion that there really were witches in Salem despite the evidence in favor of their being witches, then we must also reject the notion that Jesus was raised from the dead. The case in favor of witchcraft at Salem is far stronger than the case in favor of Jesus's resurrection; to be consistent, if we reject the former, we must also reject the latter.

McCormick also goes on to point out the problem that all of the evidence we have for Jesus's resurrection has been carefully sifted and selected by clerical authorities. Any alternate stories (like those of the Gnostics) were suppressed and destroyed whenever possible by those who would become the orthodox. Is it not likely, McCormick asks, that there were still other stories about Jesus and what really happened to him that were repressed? We have no unbiased, objective accounts of the resurrection: all the reports we have come from believers, who certainly had a stake in what they were reporting. Practically all the surviving textual evidence we have was filtered through these biased believers. The New Testament does not present a fair, objective, reliable, first-hand account of the resurrection. As such, we should be exceedingly skeptical of the claims of the New Testament.

I found McCormick's arguments against Christian evidentialism extremely persuasive. I think many atheists (myself included) have had intuitively similar ideas to McCormick's, but McCormick is the first (the first, at least, of whom I am aware) to make such a strong case using a detailed, apt analogy with the Salem witch trials.

[Graham]

I had gotten to the point in my research in theism (i.e. reading too many of these types of books) where I had few unanswered questions left. The use of historical evidence was the only argument supporting theism I had encountered for which I did not have a satisfactory answer. I picked up this book because I was looking for a good counter for using historical evidence to justify belief in the existence of the supernatural. Atheism and the Case Against Christ not only contains an excellent argument against using historical evidence as proof of Christianity and religion in general, it also does a wonderful job of containing the best arguments from other books.

The main argument of the book, and the one against historical evidence, is the historicity of the Salem Witch Trials. There is copious documentation of first-person eyewitness testimony of the witchcraft that allegedly occurred in Salem in the 1600s. The historical documentation of witchcraft in Salem is stronger than the Bible for the resurrection of Jesus both qualitatively and quantitatively. There were first hand accounts for the Salem Witch Trials. We have no first hand documentation from the alleged eyewitnesses in the Gospels. The Gospels were not written by their namesakes. The oldest versions we have were written decades after the alleged original event. There were several intermediaries between the alleged eyewitnesses and the authors of the earliest known versions. Such “games of telephone” are known to be inaccurate and have been demonstrated as such in scientific studies, with the Challenger Study being one of the more famous. Additionally, there are differences between the earliest and latest pre-canonized versions of the Gospels we have, demonstrating that even with written as opposed to oral history, the contents of the texts were not preserved. Second, there are far more sources for the Salem Witch Trial. For the Gospels we have the author of the end of Mark (Mark did not originally contain the resurrection), the author of Q (the common source used for Matthew and Luke), and the author of John for a total of four. One could also include the author of the Pauline letters, as Paul allegedly had a vision of Jesus after he rose. We have hundreds that were involved (eyewitnesses, investigators, husbands of the accused, magistrates, judges, those that confessed, respected members of the community) in concluding that there were witches in Salem. In summary we have the testimonies of five unknown authors that went through several intermediaries to support the resurrection of Jesus and we have hundreds of known authors with testimonies that went through no intermediaries for the existence of witches in Salem. No one still believes there were witches in Salem, yet many still believe that Jesus was resurrected.

The later chapters go over the problem of faith vs. knowledge, the problems of eyewitness testimony in general, the epistemological problems of falsifiability, and the problem of personal and subjective evidence in light of multiple religions. These are good arguments that can be also found in other books (Seven Sins of Memory, On Being Certain, The Christian Delusion, A Demon Haunted World), but the author does them justice here as well. The only problem I found with this book is that the author is long-winded. He takes a while to get to his point, so I found it hard to pay attention at parts. If you are looking to read one book on atheism, Atheism and the Case Against Christ is a comprehensive work of modern arguments refuting the existence of the supernatural.

[William Nist · Rating 5 out of 5]

This work details the case for a wide atheism by looking specifically at the possibility of the Resurrection of Jesus. Working his way through the initial reporting problems and the transmission problems, McCormick addresses the coherence of miraculous phenomenon generally. His section of the inadequacy of biblical and post-biblical miracles as a proof of divine presence(even if true), is worth the read alone.

I also enjoyed the section of the epistemic status of 'faith' (the F-word).

Most texts of this sort address the case against fundamentalist religion, but the author take on the "Ground of Being" crowd also. Liberal religionists are not sparred responsibility of the activities and results of their more prevalent literalists.

A welcome addition of my freethinking bookshelf.

[David Melbie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Indeed. This book (and the Bible, which the author's best quote is "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" --John 8:32) makes the best case for atheism that I have read to date. Awesome work. I am going to read this again. And again. and. . .
12/20/2012: started reading this again.
01/24/2013: finished. Lots of family issues occurred after I started reading this again . . . after reading this book for the second time I can officially declare myself a wide positive atheist.

[Justin Powell · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was expecting more from this, but that doesn't deter me from giving it 5 stars. The style is very much for a wider audience, especially those uninformed in the complexities of specific studies mentioned, or philosophical argumentation discussed. Sadly, I think this will be another one of those A-theist books targeted towards believers, but only read by those already A-theists.

[Gerry Lennox · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's a bit of a slog in places, but overall, I thought it was brilliant. There were some excellent points, that I would like to read over a few more times. It made me re-think some of my own thoughts on my atheism.