And Tom’s “why are you struggling with this” when it is so obvious? position is also not convincing. Consider:
1) passed down from parents (often a byproduct of geographical location) and a construct of social phenomena:
It is a fundamental error to dismiss a claim based on its origin, independent of the claim itself. This is the genetic fallacy. What if your parents teach you that there is no God and that knowledge of reality is obtained solely through scientific, empirical observation? Then we track the development of this line of thinking back to the Enlightenment and the development of the scientific method which arose “from normal human social mechanisms in a particular set of circumstances.” Whatever the ultimate truth is, it can be passed down from generation to generation and the development of “social mechanisms” in support of this truth can be examined and discussed.

Tom claims Christianity and other faiths have “equally unsupported beliefs.” This claim would need to be defended. It holds no weight based simply on the assertion that each faith is passed down from generation to generation. I believe Mark is wading through an evaluation of the claim that Christianity is an unsupported belief system.

2) “The only protection against it is looking openmindedly at the evidence – there is abundant evidence that the things Christians have believed over the centuries have been full of error falsehood and (yes !) blasphemy.”
Error and falsehood are relevant here; blasphemy would have no meaning from the standpoint of concluding there is no God. Again, the claim for this “abundant evidence” needs to be evaluated, which Mark is attempting to do. Reading too much material from one side or the other makes the conclusion seem so clear, but an honest evaluation of both sides in dialogue reveals that there are no irrefutable arguments or pieces of evidence on either side.

SIDE NOTE: One must be aware that popular Christianity is not the ultimate expression of the Christian faith. Rejection of this form of Christianity is often easily done. I think Tom’s parenthetical comments show that this is the Christianity he is rejecting:

( I consider that if I believed in God I would find it supremely offensive to believe that he would punish every succeeding generation for the crime of eating an apple, and that he would then be placated by the murder of an innocent).

I would not be fond of this God either. But this depiction does not take into account alternative views. This doctrine of “the fall” arose from Augustine and continues through Reformed churches today. But it is a mistaken, non-biblical understanding which attributes retributive punishment the “original guilt” passed to each human. Also, the view that God “would then be placated by the murder of an innocent” makes one theory of the atonement, known as the “penal satisfaction” or “penal substitution” theory – as the one and only atonement theory. I side with Tom in rejecting “original guilt” and “penal satisfaction,” but I do not equate these with Christianity. Christian theologians also recognize these inadequate expressions of the faith, and have addressed these issues through other strands of historical development, other biblical interpretations, and application of better moral philosophy.

3) “The world looks just like it would if there wasn’t this big daddy keeping an eye.”
It is a bold claim by Tom, Richard Dawkins, and many others to assert that you know what the world would look like if there was or was not a God. There are so, so many assumptions made when people dismiss God on this basis. This assumes knowing God’s intentions for creating this world, how he intends to interact with the world, etc. If someone making this claim were open to their assumptions being challenged (and not set on arguing against a caricature of the Christian faith), I would recommend reading The Work of Love: Creation and Kenosis edited by John Polkinghorne.

Suppose we were to modify the question and ask whether human nature looks like it would if Christianity were true, a subset of “the world looks just like it would…”. Is there is evidence in support of the Christian understanding that human nature is prideful and self-promoting? Consider (tongue-in-cheek): “but when I’ve talked to any of you who have enough sense to be worth talking to.” A tinge of pride?

Finally:
“Carry on behaving ethically.”
“Live a good life.”
I’m not going to say there can be no “ethics” or “good” without God. But we need to recognize that in the atheist materialist view these are now merely social constructs, and there needs to be a deeper exploration as to why we feel the need to behave ethically and live good lives.

Mark, I applaud your effort and your desire to hear out both sides. I hope the search does not consume you and that you are able to live semi-peacefully through your uncertainty. Henri Nouwen said that we live best not with answers, but when we embrace and live the question.

Kyle

There are many beliefs that flank (Insert old Religion Here) on both sides that aren’t believed today.

Perhaps it’s only different because it’s much, much older.

By the way, how did you run across this site?

Good luck
Tom

“God is a concept by which we measure our pain” John Lennon
Wrong, dude!

Peace,
Reto