Indeed. The Bible speaks only of ‘justice’. There’s a reason for that. As soon as the word is prefaced by some qualifying adjective you know that we are on a slippery slope.
I kept looking to see if he had a unique argument or at least one I have never read before, but I could not find one. He says science handles facts and that the resurrection and virgin birth are empirical claims, but he doesn’t make a scientific argument that neither of them happened. In fact, it is as far as I know impossible to make a scientific argument about two single events that happened millennia ago, that left essentially no physical evidence. I am very open to considering arguments that Christianity is false, but flat assertions are never persuasive. Honestly, the world “obvious” is my biggest red flag that someone is not interested in persuading.
Sad that all along the lack of empirical evidence was never challenged. It’s about time our intellectuals of all persuasions just googled ‘Shroud of Turin’ and ‘Fr Spitzer’. Then we might get a really interesting conversation going!
There are no unique arguments, atheists parrot the same arguments over and over even though they were answered over 150 years ago and the answers have been published many times. Richard Dawkins has made a fortune doing it. It's all very low tier stuff, you'd think they'd actually look up some debates to see if their points had been put before
I think the implicit argument is that these events would violate the known laws of physics, so... absent some fairly compelling empirical evidence to the contrary they would be assumed not-to-have-happened by default.
If the resurrection and virgin both obeyed the known laws of physics, then you would be saying that’s little evidence that God exists. In order to believe in religion, things that violate the laws of physics have to occur. You can say there is insufficient evidence for those events, but if you assume the laws of physics have never been violated, you are essentially begging the question that all religions are false.
I'm not saying evidence for the divine should be ruled out a-priori, but the bar for accepting the claim can reasonably be set higher than would be the case for other historical reported events. I've heard it plausibly argued that the evidence for Jesus' existence is stronger than the evidence for the life of Herodotus, but Herodotus isn't presently claimed to have returned from Hades or to be the literal Son of Zeus.
Again, so what? If you're claiming it is unlikely because there haven't been others then that is the point. You could also argue that the miracles didn't happen because they defied the "laws of the universe" but if they didn't they wouldn't be miracles would they?
If you don't believe in the existence of Jesus then you'd have to explain the martyrdom of the apostles (or maybe you don't believe they happened?).
I don't think the existence of charismatic religious/cult leaders is difficult to find historical precedent for, even in relatively recent history, and even to the point of having followers willing to die for the cause.
I agree that miracles which don't break physics aren't miracles, the question is whether miracles exist.
I think there are a few recorded cases of human parthenogenesis, but even if a full-term embryo developed (as opposed to a teratoma), it would lack a Y-chromosome.
I mean, okay, if you assume God a-priori then He can presumably handwave physics or tweak biology as required, but that's kinda the point in contention.
And how is that in any way similar to knowing the existence of God? Did you disprove the existence of God at some point in the past and not tell any one?
It's impossible to prove a negative. I can't prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist either. But I can come up with logical and consistent explanations for observations that don't require goddidit.
I understand your point, and it's valid, but it applies equally to the Japanese cultural belief that the present emperor, and all preceding emperors, have directly, and literally, descended from the sun goddess.
If we reject this claim, by the same grounds we can reject the claims of the resurrection and the virgin birth; if we accept these Christian claim, the logic dictates that we must accept the emperor's literal relation to the Shinto divinity.
I think the evidence for Christianity, including the resurrection and the virgin birth, is stronger than the evidence for Shintoism. You can probably find a million arguments on both sides, but I think this is one of the better, modern ones, and is written by someone Agnostic, so it might be more persuasive to you. https://open.substack.com/pub/benthams/p/steelmanning-christianity?r=1ivtg6&utm_medium=ios
I still admit the evidence for both is rather low, but it makes sense for the evidence to be low if a Christian god wanted to encourage his followers to adopt the virtue of faith. Once you admit Christianity is unlikely, not impossible, then arguments about what leads to a better society really matter.
I don't see how the two are connected? The evidence for Christianity could be ironclad and its social effects could be terrible, or vice versa, but neither is going to retroactively rewrite history.
You know, you are right, but I guess it’s weird for me to assume something is false, and then talk about why we should still believe it for prosocial reasons. Technically such a thing could be the case, but it makes me personally squeamish.
Heh.. the discussion made me think about some quotes by Gomez:
“Modern history is the dialogue between two men: one who believes in God, another who believes he is a god. “
And “The death of God is an interesting opinion, but it is not one that affects God” 😅… a shame we are limited by our languages - I have listened to some very interesting dialogues and conversations between orthodox elders and priests (in Russian) where these topics are explored. Somehow though I find this conversation very simple when focusing on virginity and resurrection.. but that’s probably because I’m more into the symbolic aspect that is being mentioned further down. It is way to simple to divide into “two types of Christianity”.. being in Portugal now, and simultaneously exploring the orthodox teachings these days.. there are so many nuances and differences. I’m fascinated by how differently my American friends view Christianity and the focus on Jesus though. Thank you for writing the piece!
Beautifully done. This article can be easily expanded into a book on the topic. It addresses two (of several) key aspects to the topic that are rarely addressed in the debates around christianity and the areligiosity that has taken hold of the modern world:
1. The futility (and infantility) of the argument against the metaphorical and metaphysical elements of christianity.
"asserting that they are false because they are narrowly or scientifically untrue is like asserting that the line “Or to take arms against a sea of troubles” is false because troubles are not actually a sea against which one can take arms. "
2. Christianity's effect on our society; how it urges and demands that we continue to strive for our higher selves...
"... another psychological benefit of Christianity, one that is important in a post-affluent society: Humility and discipline. One of our great temptations is hedonism, a life of indolent pleasure. And this temptation is especially strong in wealthy, comfortable societies, where, protected from the vagaries of nature, we survive not by hunting and gathering but by clicking buttons on a computer screen. Wealth engenders laziness and boredom; and laziness and boredom engender hedonism.
Christianity counters this process of degeneration."
Well done! I wish Ayaan Hirsiali had brought up these points during the debate with Hawkins at the Dissident Dialogues.
"First, Christianity explains the existence of the universe."
In light of Philo's ridiculous statement above, I will have to side with Meander. Christianity and no other religion explain the existence of the universe. That is preposterous. When major religions began, there was no concept of a universe.
If there is a God then He must predate all religion, indeed predate everything, exist outside time itself. Science is rapidly moving on, both cosmology and biology are now pointing to an intelligent creator with ever greater certainty. According to Pew Research back in 2009 just over half of scientists polled believe in a higher entity, the percentage among younger scientists being larger. I suspect as time moves on the % will grow.
Notably that's a much smaller percentage than the general public. I'm interested in seeing your source for the claim that younger scientists are more commonly theistic, and what new evidence from biology or cosmology points to intelligent design.
>"If there is a God then He must predate all religion, indeed predate everything, exist outside time itself."
The Christian conception of the universe was a flat circular Earth covered in a solid dome called the firmament, within which the sun and moon moved about. You can google "ancient Hebrew cosmology" or "Biblical cosmology" and choose any scholarly source, only apologetics ministries will dispute it. Even this Christian apologist relents, partially: https://biologos.org/articles/the-firmament-of-genesis-1-is-solid-but-thats-not-the-point (Likewise William Lane Craig, with caveats, in an interview wherein he misrepresents the scholarship of Othmar Keel)
The same book also has birds predating land animals, and Earth predating stars. It is very clear to everyone not employed by an apologetics ministry or emotionally invested in Christianity or Judaism that the authors of scripture had no conception of "space" and believed we lived in an obviously engineered terrarium.
At this point in my life I understand Christianity as a positive behavioral template that seeks to assert its authority to regulate human behavior by referencing mythology.
Its positive social aspects are reason enough to adopt the model.
Consequences include antivaxxers exacerbating Covid (believing vaccines are the mark of the beast), children of faith healer parents dying to medical neglect, Qanon familicides/attacks on federal buildings, attempted overthrow of 2020 election result, overturn of Roe v. Wade, anti-LGBT laws, suicides of adolescent inmates at gay to straight re-education camps, religious obstruction to climate action, religious obstruction to evolution education, Satanic panic, flat earth movement, long history of faith promoting hoaxes, many of which attempted to smear atheists (Cassie Bernall, Umpqua shooter) not tipping, treating waiters like shit (tongue in cheek, but only barely)
Meander wins, Philo arguments are all about mental-lifestyle health and metaphor card, Noah's ark, Adam and Eve, Jesus miracles etc... are written literal as hell in the bible
Firstly terms need to be properly defined - Which form of Christianity are you discussing? There are over 45,000 denominations worldwide, they differ (obviously or they would not exist separately)
"These assertions, which are crucial to Christianity, are obviously untrue. Jesus did not rise from the dead. And Mary did not conceive as a virgin."
And your assertion that these assertions are untrue is clearly untrue for the same reasons you give, "I assert". We have to take them on faith as you cannot prove them.
"Faith is an excuse for believing that which one cannot justify. And any ideology, any system of thought that requires subordinating logic and rationality to some supposedly higher good, e.g., the family, the nation, the Church, should be rejected."
Contradictory to the first point.
Can you justify the scientific method? How did you prove it? You can't, you take it on faith.
Because human beings are social animals, we evolved mechanisms to suppress a portion of our own individual needs for the good of society. Religion is simply a framework for encoding this behavior and providing a narrative basis for it. As the importance of religion diminishes, other control mechanisms will take its place. The reasons given for why people are abandoning religious participation (a trend that is accelerating) include no longer believing in the religion's stories, and being repelled by the disconnect between religious morality and the actions of others who claim to practice it.
Interesting dialogue. I suggest to both debaters to read this pamphlet wrote by a prominent French catholic philosopher. I think everyone will find it intellectally stimulating, though many ones could disagree with her analysis and conclusions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Fin_de_la_Chr%C3%A9tient%C3%A9
I think it applies to all religions that rely on supernatural events to assert its authority to proclaim a unique truth.
E.g., a religion may have a prophet who teaches X, and X is neither popular nor easy, but in the value system favored by the religion, Xis essential.
So to convince/intellectually coerce adherence to X, the prophet needs to have more authority than any simple human, otherwise the prophet's teaching ares simply one more opinion out of many others.
Not to get all postmodern (I'm not a postmodernist or a social constructionist, I'm an empiricist) but there are different kinds of truths which need to be parsed for essays like these. Eg, that a husband loves his wife is a truth, but it's a subjective truth.
Psychology as an attempted science began in 1875 in Germany with Wilhelm Wundt and his experiments on introspection. This is still a frontier science today.
Does Christianity even need to be defended now that it has brought within reach what it promised: a new heaven and a new earth?
The faith of our ancestors has clearly turned the world upside down. The evidence is all around us, on the basis of which it can plausibly be argued that Christ has in fact already returned, whatever the fate of those who made it all possible. Do you doubt me? See here for what the actual argument is: https://shorturl.at/KNoVA
There are two types of christianity, the devotee-ist version which we see in evangelical christianity with its direct relationship with jesus is lord type fealty, and the obedience machine we see in Orthodox & Catholic churches where faith in faith is a heresy that undermines the role of the church as thought police via the latterly invented conscience.
Christianity is important to consider because it was an Imperial government department of the Roman Empire (The Catholic Church is a govvie department gone rogue, e.g. Pope Boniface VIII "I am emporer" comments...) It was an attempt to emplace an imperial cult over the top of all local city allegiences and gods, and ethnic idiocyncracies. One size fits all, It didn't really work then or now.
"Cultural christianity" is just a failure to recognize that process. Modern pagans have more authenticity and that is not saying much.
[Social Justice is] "like a religion, but its only god is resentment"....is well said.
Indeed. The Bible speaks only of ‘justice’. There’s a reason for that. As soon as the word is prefaced by some qualifying adjective you know that we are on a slippery slope.
Which is also well said! Have you read my essay on this very theme? https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/love-of-the-people (I'm going to keep plugging away at you Gerry!)
I must admit I haven’t as yet, but will do so!
"These assertions, which are crucial to Christianity, are obviously untrue. Jesus did not rise from the dead. And Mary did not conceive as a virgin."
Assuming the conclusion, innit?
I kept looking to see if he had a unique argument or at least one I have never read before, but I could not find one. He says science handles facts and that the resurrection and virgin birth are empirical claims, but he doesn’t make a scientific argument that neither of them happened. In fact, it is as far as I know impossible to make a scientific argument about two single events that happened millennia ago, that left essentially no physical evidence. I am very open to considering arguments that Christianity is false, but flat assertions are never persuasive. Honestly, the world “obvious” is my biggest red flag that someone is not interested in persuading.
Sad that all along the lack of empirical evidence was never challenged. It’s about time our intellectuals of all persuasions just googled ‘Shroud of Turin’ and ‘Fr Spitzer’. Then we might get a really interesting conversation going!
There are no unique arguments, atheists parrot the same arguments over and over even though they were answered over 150 years ago and the answers have been published many times. Richard Dawkins has made a fortune doing it. It's all very low tier stuff, you'd think they'd actually look up some debates to see if their points had been put before
https://brainsqueezings.substack.com/p/yeshua-ben-yosef-the-galilean-carpenter
I think the implicit argument is that these events would violate the known laws of physics, so... absent some fairly compelling empirical evidence to the contrary they would be assumed not-to-have-happened by default.
If the resurrection and virgin both obeyed the known laws of physics, then you would be saying that’s little evidence that God exists. In order to believe in religion, things that violate the laws of physics have to occur. You can say there is insufficient evidence for those events, but if you assume the laws of physics have never been violated, you are essentially begging the question that all religions are false.
I'm not saying evidence for the divine should be ruled out a-priori, but the bar for accepting the claim can reasonably be set higher than would be the case for other historical reported events. I've heard it plausibly argued that the evidence for Jesus' existence is stronger than the evidence for the life of Herodotus, but Herodotus isn't presently claimed to have returned from Hades or to be the literal Son of Zeus.
Again, so what? If you're claiming it is unlikely because there haven't been others then that is the point. You could also argue that the miracles didn't happen because they defied the "laws of the universe" but if they didn't they wouldn't be miracles would they?
If you don't believe in the existence of Jesus then you'd have to explain the martyrdom of the apostles (or maybe you don't believe they happened?).
I don't think the existence of charismatic religious/cult leaders is difficult to find historical precedent for, even in relatively recent history, and even to the point of having followers willing to die for the cause.
I agree that miracles which don't break physics aren't miracles, the question is whether miracles exist.
Which law of physics prevents the son of God rising from the dead or being born of a virgin?
Reversal of the second law of thermodynamics?
I think there are a few recorded cases of human parthenogenesis, but even if a full-term embryo developed (as opposed to a teratoma), it would lack a Y-chromosome.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10227352/
I mean, okay, if you assume God a-priori then He can presumably handwave physics or tweak biology as required, but that's kinda the point in contention.
Of course I "assume" it because I said "God".
Which is why he said the most reasonable conclusion is agnosticism.
The most reasonable conclusion is based on what you think you know based on what you've been told and your experience.
Well, yes. If I drop a heavy weight on my foot. I'll feel it. It would be insane for me to expect you to feel it too.
And how is that in any way similar to knowing the existence of God? Did you disprove the existence of God at some point in the past and not tell any one?
It's impossible to prove a negative. I can't prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist either. But I can come up with logical and consistent explanations for observations that don't require goddidit.
I understand your point, and it's valid, but it applies equally to the Japanese cultural belief that the present emperor, and all preceding emperors, have directly, and literally, descended from the sun goddess.
If we reject this claim, by the same grounds we can reject the claims of the resurrection and the virgin birth; if we accept these Christian claim, the logic dictates that we must accept the emperor's literal relation to the Shinto divinity.
"I've proven Roy of the Rovers isn't a real footballer therefore I can prove every other footballer is also fake". The Faulty Analogy fallacy.
No, they are not related in any way.
I think the evidence for Christianity, including the resurrection and the virgin birth, is stronger than the evidence for Shintoism. You can probably find a million arguments on both sides, but I think this is one of the better, modern ones, and is written by someone Agnostic, so it might be more persuasive to you. https://open.substack.com/pub/benthams/p/steelmanning-christianity?r=1ivtg6&utm_medium=ios
I still admit the evidence for both is rather low, but it makes sense for the evidence to be low if a Christian god wanted to encourage his followers to adopt the virtue of faith. Once you admit Christianity is unlikely, not impossible, then arguments about what leads to a better society really matter.
I don't see how the two are connected? The evidence for Christianity could be ironclad and its social effects could be terrible, or vice versa, but neither is going to retroactively rewrite history.
You know, you are right, but I guess it’s weird for me to assume something is false, and then talk about why we should still believe it for prosocial reasons. Technically such a thing could be the case, but it makes me personally squeamish.
At least Caelsus made an explicit accuse (Jesus son of Panthera, I, 28).
https://brainsqueezings.substack.com/p/yeshua-ben-yosef-the-galilean-carpenter
Heh.. the discussion made me think about some quotes by Gomez:
“Modern history is the dialogue between two men: one who believes in God, another who believes he is a god. “
And “The death of God is an interesting opinion, but it is not one that affects God” 😅… a shame we are limited by our languages - I have listened to some very interesting dialogues and conversations between orthodox elders and priests (in Russian) where these topics are explored. Somehow though I find this conversation very simple when focusing on virginity and resurrection.. but that’s probably because I’m more into the symbolic aspect that is being mentioned further down. It is way to simple to divide into “two types of Christianity”.. being in Portugal now, and simultaneously exploring the orthodox teachings these days.. there are so many nuances and differences. I’m fascinated by how differently my American friends view Christianity and the focus on Jesus though. Thank you for writing the piece!
Excellent quotes Roxanne!
Beautifully done. This article can be easily expanded into a book on the topic. It addresses two (of several) key aspects to the topic that are rarely addressed in the debates around christianity and the areligiosity that has taken hold of the modern world:
1. The futility (and infantility) of the argument against the metaphorical and metaphysical elements of christianity.
"asserting that they are false because they are narrowly or scientifically untrue is like asserting that the line “Or to take arms against a sea of troubles” is false because troubles are not actually a sea against which one can take arms. "
2. Christianity's effect on our society; how it urges and demands that we continue to strive for our higher selves...
"... another psychological benefit of Christianity, one that is important in a post-affluent society: Humility and discipline. One of our great temptations is hedonism, a life of indolent pleasure. And this temptation is especially strong in wealthy, comfortable societies, where, protected from the vagaries of nature, we survive not by hunting and gathering but by clicking buttons on a computer screen. Wealth engenders laziness and boredom; and laziness and boredom engender hedonism.
Christianity counters this process of degeneration."
Well done! I wish Ayaan Hirsiali had brought up these points during the debate with Hawkins at the Dissident Dialogues.
"First, Christianity explains the existence of the universe."
In light of Philo's ridiculous statement above, I will have to side with Meander. Christianity and no other religion explain the existence of the universe. That is preposterous. When major religions began, there was no concept of a universe.
If there is a God then He must predate all religion, indeed predate everything, exist outside time itself. Science is rapidly moving on, both cosmology and biology are now pointing to an intelligent creator with ever greater certainty. According to Pew Research back in 2009 just over half of scientists polled believe in a higher entity, the percentage among younger scientists being larger. I suspect as time moves on the % will grow.
Notably that's a much smaller percentage than the general public. I'm interested in seeing your source for the claim that younger scientists are more commonly theistic, and what new evidence from biology or cosmology points to intelligent design.
>"If there is a God then He must predate all religion, indeed predate everything, exist outside time itself."
This is presuppositional.
Neither does science.
The Christian conception of the universe was a flat circular Earth covered in a solid dome called the firmament, within which the sun and moon moved about. You can google "ancient Hebrew cosmology" or "Biblical cosmology" and choose any scholarly source, only apologetics ministries will dispute it. Even this Christian apologist relents, partially: https://biologos.org/articles/the-firmament-of-genesis-1-is-solid-but-thats-not-the-point (Likewise William Lane Craig, with caveats, in an interview wherein he misrepresents the scholarship of Othmar Keel)
The same book also has birds predating land animals, and Earth predating stars. It is very clear to everyone not employed by an apologetics ministry or emotionally invested in Christianity or Judaism that the authors of scripture had no conception of "space" and believed we lived in an obviously engineered terrarium.
At this point in my life I understand Christianity as a positive behavioral template that seeks to assert its authority to regulate human behavior by referencing mythology.
Its positive social aspects are reason enough to adopt the model.
Consequences include antivaxxers exacerbating Covid (believing vaccines are the mark of the beast), children of faith healer parents dying to medical neglect, Qanon familicides/attacks on federal buildings, attempted overthrow of 2020 election result, overturn of Roe v. Wade, anti-LGBT laws, suicides of adolescent inmates at gay to straight re-education camps, religious obstruction to climate action, religious obstruction to evolution education, Satanic panic, flat earth movement, long history of faith promoting hoaxes, many of which attempted to smear atheists (Cassie Bernall, Umpqua shooter) not tipping, treating waiters like shit (tongue in cheek, but only barely)
OK, but what are the downsides?
Haha, good joke, face the wall please
Meander wins, Philo arguments are all about mental-lifestyle health and metaphor card, Noah's ark, Adam and Eve, Jesus miracles etc... are written literal as hell in the bible
Firstly terms need to be properly defined - Which form of Christianity are you discussing? There are over 45,000 denominations worldwide, they differ (obviously or they would not exist separately)
"These assertions, which are crucial to Christianity, are obviously untrue. Jesus did not rise from the dead. And Mary did not conceive as a virgin."
And your assertion that these assertions are untrue is clearly untrue for the same reasons you give, "I assert". We have to take them on faith as you cannot prove them.
"Faith is an excuse for believing that which one cannot justify. And any ideology, any system of thought that requires subordinating logic and rationality to some supposedly higher good, e.g., the family, the nation, the Church, should be rejected."
Contradictory to the first point.
Can you justify the scientific method? How did you prove it? You can't, you take it on faith.
Meander didn't do as good a job as one might wish for when arguing against the resurrection. I furnish what I feel are better arguments in this essay: https://brainsqueezings.substack.com/p/yeshua-ben-yosef-the-galilean-carpenter
Because human beings are social animals, we evolved mechanisms to suppress a portion of our own individual needs for the good of society. Religion is simply a framework for encoding this behavior and providing a narrative basis for it. As the importance of religion diminishes, other control mechanisms will take its place. The reasons given for why people are abandoning religious participation (a trend that is accelerating) include no longer believing in the religion's stories, and being repelled by the disconnect between religious morality and the actions of others who claim to practice it.
Interesting dialogue. I suggest to both debaters to read this pamphlet wrote by a prominent French catholic philosopher. I think everyone will find it intellectally stimulating, though many ones could disagree with her analysis and conclusions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Fin_de_la_Chr%C3%A9tient%C3%A9
If you assert the universe is godless then you're a strong atheist as an agnostic
will say is unknown
Yes. I would think that an agnostic would say that "the universe *appears* to be godless", but not with absolute certainty.
Is there a reason why this argument is limited to the Christian God?
I think it applies to all religions that rely on supernatural events to assert its authority to proclaim a unique truth.
E.g., a religion may have a prophet who teaches X, and X is neither popular nor easy, but in the value system favored by the religion, Xis essential.
So to convince/intellectually coerce adherence to X, the prophet needs to have more authority than any simple human, otherwise the prophet's teaching ares simply one more opinion out of many others.
Not to get all postmodern (I'm not a postmodernist or a social constructionist, I'm an empiricist) but there are different kinds of truths which need to be parsed for essays like these. Eg, that a husband loves his wife is a truth, but it's a subjective truth.
Psychology as an attempted science began in 1875 in Germany with Wilhelm Wundt and his experiments on introspection. This is still a frontier science today.
This was a very enjoyable read. I was rooting for Philo.
Does Christianity even need to be defended now that it has brought within reach what it promised: a new heaven and a new earth?
The faith of our ancestors has clearly turned the world upside down. The evidence is all around us, on the basis of which it can plausibly be argued that Christ has in fact already returned, whatever the fate of those who made it all possible. Do you doubt me? See here for what the actual argument is: https://shorturl.at/KNoVA
There are two types of christianity, the devotee-ist version which we see in evangelical christianity with its direct relationship with jesus is lord type fealty, and the obedience machine we see in Orthodox & Catholic churches where faith in faith is a heresy that undermines the role of the church as thought police via the latterly invented conscience.
https://whyweshould.substack.com/p/sister-wendy-on-love-as-an-obedient
https://whyweshould.substack.com/p/to-build-a-better-world-we-should
Christianity is important to consider because it was an Imperial government department of the Roman Empire (The Catholic Church is a govvie department gone rogue, e.g. Pope Boniface VIII "I am emporer" comments...) It was an attempt to emplace an imperial cult over the top of all local city allegiences and gods, and ethnic idiocyncracies. One size fits all, It didn't really work then or now.
"Cultural christianity" is just a failure to recognize that process. Modern pagans have more authenticity and that is not saying much.
Absolute rubbish.