prayer

Religion is False.

PNRJ core principles, ethics, Logic of Kindness , , , ,

Nov 24 JDN 2460639

In my previous post I wrote about some of the ways that religion can make people do terrible things. However, to be clear, as evil as actions like wiping out cities, torturing nonbelievers, and killing gays appear on their face—as transparently as they violate even the Hitler Principle—they might in fact be justified were religion actually true. So that requires us to ask the question: Is religion true?

Recall that I said that religion consists in three propositions: Super-human beings, afterlife, and prayer.

Super-human beings

There is basically no evidence at all of super-human beings—no booming voices in the sky, no beings who come down from heaven in beams of light. To be sure, there are reports of such things, but none of them can be in any way substantiated. Moreover, they only seem to have happened back in a time when there was no such thing as science as we know it, to people who were totally uneducated, with no physical evidence whatsoever. As soon as we invented technologies to record such events, they apparently stopped occurring? As soon as it might have been possible to prove they weren’t made up, they stopped? Clearly, they were made up all along, and once we were able to prove this, people stopped trying to lie to us.

Actually it’s worse than that—even before we had such technology, merely the fact that people were educated was sufficient to make them believe none of it. Quoth Lucretius in De Rerum Natura in 50 BC (my own translation)}:

Humana ante oculos foede cum vita iaceret

in terris oppressa gravi sub religione,

quae caput a caeli regionibus ostendebat

horribili super aspectu mortalibus instans,

[…]

quare religio pedibus subiecta vicissim

opteritur, nos exaequat victoria caelo.

[…]

sed casta inceste nubendi tempore in ipso

hostia concideret mactatu maesta parentis,

exitus ut classi felix faustusque daretur.

tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.

Before, humanity would cast down their eyes to the ground,

with a foul life oppressed beneath the burden of Religion,

who would show her head along the regional skies,

pressing upon mortals with a horrible view.

[…]

Therefore religion is now pressed under our feet,

and this victory equalizes us with heaven.

[…]

But at the very time of her wedding, a sinless woman

sinfully slain, an offering in sacrifice to omens,

gone in order to give happy and auspicious travels to ships.

Only religion could induce such evil.

Yes, before Jesus there were already scientists writing about how religion is false and immoral. I suppose you could argue that religion has gotten better since then… but I don’t think it’s gotten any more true.

Nor did Jesus provide some kind of compelling evidence that won the Romans over; indeed, other than the works of his followers (such as the Bible itself) there are hardly any records showing he even existed; he probably did, but we know very little about him. Modern scholars can still read classical Latin; we have extensive records of history and literature from that period. One of the reasons the Dark Ages were originally called that was because the historical record suddenly became much more scant after the fall of Rome—not so much dark as in “bad” as dark as in “you can’t see”. Yet despite this extensive historical record, we have only a handful of references to someone named Yeshua, probably Jewish, who may have been crucified (which was a standard method of punishment in Rome). By this line of reasoning you can prove Thor exists by finding an epitaph of some Viking blacksmith whose name was Thad. If Jesus had been going around performing astounding miracles for all the world to see—rather than, you know, playing parlor tricks to fool his gullible cult—don’t you think someone credible would have written that down?

If there were a theistic God (at least one who is morally good), we would expect that the world would be without suffering, without hunger, without harm to innocents—it is not. We would expect that good things never happen to bad people and bad things never happen to good people—but clearly they often do. Free will might—might—excuse God for allowing the Holocaust, but what about earthquakes? What about viruses? What about cancer? What about famine? In fact, why do we need to eat at all? Without digestive tracts (with some sort of internal power source run on fusion or antimatter reactions, perhaps?) we would never be hungry, never be tired, never starve in famine or grow sick from obesity. We limited humans are forced to deal with our own ecological needs, but why did God make us this way in the first place?

If a few eyewitness accounts of someone apparently performing miracles are sufficient to define an entire belief system, then we must all worship Appollonius of Tyana, L. Ron Hubbard, and Jose deLuis deJesus, and perhaps even Criss Angel and Uri Geller, as well as of course Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, Krishna, Herakles, Augustus Caesar, Joseph Smith, and so on. The way you explain “miracles” in every case other than your own religion—illusion, hallucination, deceit, exaggeration—is the way that I explain the “miracles” in your religion as well. Why can people all around the world with totally different ideas of which super-human beings they’re working for nonetheless perform all the same miracles? Because it’s all fake.

Prayer

Which brings me to the subject of prayer. The basic idea is that ritualized actions are meant to somehow influence the behavior of the universe by means other than natural law or human action. Performing a certain series of behaviors in a specific sequence will “bring you luck” or “appease the gods” or “share in the Eucharist”.

The problem here is basically that once you try to explain how this could possibly work, you just end up postulating different natural laws. The super-human being theory was a way out of that; if Yahweh somehow is looking down upon us and will do what you ask if you go through a certain sequence (a password, I guess?), then you have a reason for why prayer would work, because you have a sensible category of actions that isn’t either nature or humans. But if that’s not what’s happening—if there’s no someone doing these things, then there has to be a something—and now you need to explain how that’s different from the laws of nature.

Actually, the clearest distinction I can find is that prayer is the sort of action that doesn’t actually work. If something actually works, we don’t call it prayer or think of it as a ritual. Brushing your teeth is a sequence of actions that will actually make you healthier, because the fluoride remineralizes your teeth and kills bacteria that live in your mouth. Inserting and turning the ignition key will start a car, because that is how cars are designed to work. When you remove certain pieces of paper from your wallet and hand them over to a specific person, that person will give you goods in return, because that’s how our monetary system works. When we perform a specific sequence of actions toward achieving a goal that actually makes rational sense, nobody calls it a ritual anymore. But once again we’re back to the fact that “supernatural” is just a weird way of saying “non-existent”.

And indeed prayer does not work, at all, ever, period. There have been empirical studies on the subject, and all of the at all credible ones have shown effects indistinguishable from chance (including a 2006 randomized controlled medical trial) In fact telling sick people they’re being prayed for may make them sicker, so please stop telling people you’re praying for them! Instead, pray with your wallet—donate to medical research. Put your money where your mouth is.

There’s some evidence that prayer has psychological benefits, and that having a more positive attitude can be good for your health in some circumstances; but this is not evidence that prayer actually affects the world. It’s just a placebo effect, and you can get the same effect from lots of other things, like meditation, relaxation exercises, or just taking a sugar pill. Indeed, the fact that prayer works just as well regardless of your religion really proves that prayer is doing nothing but making people feel better.

Occasionally an experiment will seem to show a positive effect of some prayer or superstition, but these are clearly statistical flukes. If you keep testing things at random, eventually by pure coincidence some of them are going to appear related, even though they actually aren’t. If you run dozens and dozens of studies trying to correlate things, of course some of them would show up correlated—indeed, the really shocking thing, the evidence of miracles, would be if they didn’t. At the standard 95% confidence level, about 1 in 20 completely unrelated things will be statistically correlated just by chance. Even at 99.9% confidence, 1 in 1000 will be.

This same effect applies even if you aren’t formally testing, but are simply noticing coincidences in your daily life. You are visiting Disneyland and happen to meet someone from your alma mater; you’re thinking about Grandma just as she happens to call. What a coincidence! If you add up all the different possible events that might feel like a coincidence if they occurred, and then determine the probability that at least one of them will occur at some point in your life—or at least ten, or even a hundred—you’d find that the probability is, far from being tiny, virtually 100%.

And then even truly rare coincidences—one in a million, one in a billion—will still happen somewhere in the world, for there are over 8 billion people in the world. A one in a million chance happens 300 times a day in America alone. Combine this with our news media that loves to focus upon rare events, and it’s a virtual certainty that you will have heard of someone who survived a plane crash, or won $100 million in the lottery; and they will no doubt have a story to tell about the prayer they made as the plane was falling (nevermind the equally-sincere prayers of many of the hundred other passengers who died) or the lucky numbers they got off a fortune cookie (nevermind the millions of fortune cookies with numbers that haven’t won the lottery). The human mind craves explanation, and in general this is a good thing; but sometimes there is no rational explanation, because the event was just random.

I actually find it deeply disturbing when people say “Thank God” after surviving some horrible event that killed many other people. I understand why you are glad to be alive; but please, have enough respect for the people who didn’t survive that you don’t casually imply that the creator of the universe thinks they deserved to die. Oh, you didn’t realize that’s what you’re doing? Well, it is. If God saved you, that means he didn’t save everyone else. And God is supposed to be ultimately powerful, so if he is real, he could have saved everyone, he just chose not to. You’re saying he chose to let those other people die.

It’s quite different if you say “Thank you” to the individual person who helped you—the donor of your new kidney, the firefighter who pulled you from the wreckage. Those are human beings with human limitations, and they are doing their best—even going above and beyond the moral standards we normally expect, an act we rightly call heroism. It’s even different to say “Thank goodness”. This need not be a euphemism for “Thank God”; you can actually thank goodness—express gratitude for the moral capacities that have built human civilization and hold it together. Daniel Dennett wrote a very powerful peace about thanking goodness when he was suffering a heart problem and was saved by the intervention of expert medical staff and advanced medical technology, which I highly recommend reading.

What is Religion?

PNRJ core principles, ethics, Logic of Kindness, tribal paradigm , , , , , ,

Nov 3 JDN 2460618

In this and following posts I will be extensively criticizing religion and religious accounts of morality. Religious authorities have asserted a monopoly for themselves on moral knowledge; as a result most people seem to agree with statements like Dostoyevsky’s “If God does not exist, then everything is permitted.” The majority of people around the world—including the United States, but not including most other First World countries—believe that it is necessary to believe in God in order to be a moral person. Yet little could be further from the truth.

First, I must deal with the fact that in American culture, it is widely considered taboo to criticize religion. A level of criticism which would be unremarkable in other fields of discourse is viewed as “shrill”, “arrogant”, “strident”, “harsh”, and “offensive”.

For instance, I believe the following:

The Republican Party is overall harmful.

Most of Ayn Rand’s Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal is clearly false.

Did you find that offensive? I presume not! I’m sure many people would disagree with me on these things, but hardly anyone would seriously argue that I am being aggressive or intentionally provocative.

Indeed, if I chose less controversial examples, people would find my words positively charitable:

The Nazi Party is overall harmful.

Most of Mao Tse Tung’s The Little Red Book is clearly false.

Now, compare some other beliefs I have, also about ideologies and books:

Islam is overall harmful.

Most of the Bible is clearly false.

Suddenly, I’m being “strident”; I’m being an “angry atheist”, “intolerant” of religious believers—yet I’m using the same words! I must conclude that the objection of atheist “intolerance” comes not because my criticisms are genuinely harsh, but simply because they are criticisms of religion. We have been taught that criticizing religion is evil, regardless of whether the criticisms are valid. Once beliefs are wrapped in the shield of “religion”, they become invulnerable.

If I’d said that Muslim people are inherently evil, or that people who believe in the Bible are mentally defective, I can see why people would be offended. But I’m not saying that. On the contrary, I think the vast majority of religious people are good, reasonable, well-intentioned people who are honestly mistaken. There are some extremely intelligent theists in the world, and I do not dismiss their intelligence; I merely contend that they are mistaken about this issue. I don’t think religious people are evil or stupid or crazy; I just think they are wrong. I respect religious people as intelligent beings; that’s why I am trying to use reason to persuade them. I wouldn’t try to reason with a rock or even a tiger.

I will in future posts show that religion is false and morally harmful. But of course in order to do that, I must first explain what I mean by religion; while we use the word every day, we are far from consistent about what we mean.

There’s one meaning of “religion” that often is put forth by its defenders, on which “religion” seems to mean only “moral values”, or else “a sense of mystery and awe before the universe”. Einstein often spoke this way, which is why people who quote him out of context often get the impression that he is defending Judaism or Christianity:

I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

But in the original context, a very different picture emerges:

Even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Here, “religion” comes to mean little more than “moral values” or “aspiration toward truth”. In my own lexicon Einstein’s words would become “Fact without value is lame; value without fact is blind.” (I would add: both are the domain of science.)

Einstein did not believe in a personal deity of any kind. He was moved to awe by the mystery and grandeur of the universe, and motivated by moral duties to do good and seek truth. If that’s what you mean by “religion”, then of course I am entirely in favor of it. But that is not what most people mean by “religion”.

A much better meaning of the word “religion” is something like “cultural community of believers”; this is what we mean when we say that Catholicism is a religion or that Shi’a Islam is a religion. This is essentially the definition I will be using. But there is a problem with this meaning, because it doesn’t specify what constitutes a believer.

May any shared belief suffice? Then the Democratic Party is a “religion”, because it is a community of people with shared beliefs. Indeed, the scientific community is a “religion”. This sort of definition is so broad that it loses all usefulness.

So in order for “religion” to be a really meaningful concept, we must specify just what sort of beliefs qualify as religious rather than secular. Here I offer my definition; I have tried to be as charitable to religion as possible while remaining accurate in what I am criticizing.

Religion is a system of beliefs and practices that is based upon one or more of the following concepts:

  • Super-human beings: sentient beings that are much more powerful and long-lived than humans are.
  • Afterlife: a continued existence for human conscious experience that persists after death.
  • Prayer: a system of ritual behaviors that are expected to influence the outcome of phenomena through the mediation of something other than human action or laws of nature.

Note that I have specifically excluded from the definition claims that the super-human beings are “supernatural” or “magical”. Though many people, even religious people, would include these concepts, I do not, because I don’t think that the words supernatural and magical carry any well-defined meaning. Is “supernatural” what doesn’t follow the laws of nature? Well, do we mean the laws as we know them, or the laws as they are? It makes a big difference: The laws of nature as we know them have changed as science advances. 100 years ago, atoms were beyond our understanding; 200 years ago, electricity was beyond our understanding; 500 years ago, ballistics was beyond our understanding as well. The laws of nature as they are, on the other hand, are by definition the laws that everything in the universe must follow—hence, “supernatural” would be a funny way of saying “non-existent”.

I think ultimately “supernatural” and “magical” are just weird ways of saying “what I don’t understand”; but if that’s all they are, they clearly aren’t helpful. Today’s magic is tomorrow’s science. If Clarke’s Third Law is right that any sufficiently-advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, then what’s the point of being magic? It’s just technology we don’t understand! In fact I prefer the reformulation of Clarke’s Law by Mark Stanley: Any technology, no matter how primitive, is magic to those who don’t understand it. To an ape, a spear is magical; to a hunter-gatherer, a rifle is magical; and to us today, creating planets from dust and living a million years are magical. But that could very well change someday.

Similarly, I have excluded the hyperboles “omnipotent” and “omniscient”, because they are widely considered by philosophers to be outright incoherent, and in no cases are they actually believed. If you believed that God knows everything, then you would have to believe that God knows how to prove the statement “This statement is unprovable” (Gödel’s incompleteness theorems), and that God knows everything he doesn’t know. If you believed that God could do anything, you would have to believe that God can put four sides on a triangle, that God can heal the sick while leaving them sick, and that God can make a rock so big he can’t lift it. Even if you restrict God’s powers to what is logically coherent, you are still left trying to explain why he didn’t create a world of perfect happiness and peace to begin with, or how he can know the future if there is any randomness in the world at all. Furthermore, my definition is meant to include beings like Zeus and Thor, which were sincerely believed to be divine by millions of people for hundreds of years. Zeus is clearly neither omnipotent nor omniscient, but he is a lot more powerful and long-lived than we are; he’s not very benevolent, but nonetheless people called him God. (In fact, the Latin word for God, deus and the proper name Zeus are linguistically cognate. Zeus was thought to define or epitomize what it means to be God.) My definition is also meant to include non-divine super-humans like spirits and leprechauns, which similarly have been believed by many people for many centuries. The definition I have used is about as broad as I could make it without including things that obviously and uncontroversially exist, like “sentient beings other than humans” (animals?) or “forces beyond human power and comprehension” (gravity?) or “energy that animates life and permeates all things” (electricity?).

I have also excluded from my definition of “religion” anything that is obviously false or bad, like “believing things with no evidence”, “denying scientific facts”, “assenting to logical contradictions”, “hating those who disagree with them”, or “blaming natural disasters on people’s moral failings”. In fact, these are characteristic features of nearly all religions, and most religious people do them often; recall that 40% of Americans think that human beings were created by God less than 10,000 years ago, and note also that while the number has fallen over the decades, still 40% would not elect an atheist President, despite the fact that 93% of the National Academy of Science is atheist or agnostic. In the US, 32% of people believe in ghosts and 21% believe in witches. Views like “When people die they become ghosts”, “evolution is a lie” and “Earthquakes are caused by sexual immorality” are really quite mainstream in modern society. But criticism of religion is always countered by claims that we “New Atheists” (we are certainly not new, for Seneca and Epicurus would have qualified) lack philosophical sophistication, or focus too much on the obviously bad or ridiculous ideas.

Furthermore, note that I have formulated the definition of religion as a disjunction, not a conjunction; you must have at least one of these features, but need not have all of them. This is so that I can include in my criticism beliefs like Buddhism, which often does not involve prayer or super-human beings, but except in its most rarefied forms (which really aren’t recognizably religious!) invariably involves concepts of afterlife, and also New Age beliefs, which often do not involve afterlife or super-human beings but fit my definition of prayer—wearing a rabbit’s foot is a prayer, as is using a Ouiji board. It is incumbent upon me to show that all three are false, not merely that one of them is false. Of course, if you believe all three, then even if I only succeed in discrediting any of them, that is enough to show you are mistaken.

Finally, note that what I have just defined is a philosophy that, at least in principle, could be true. We can imagine a world in which there are super-human beings who control our fates; we can imagine a world in which consciousness persists after death; we can imagine a world where entreating to such super-human beings is a good way to get things done. On this definition, religion isn’t incoherent, it’s just incorrect. My point is not that these things are impossible—it is that they are not true.

And that is precisely what I intend to show in upcoming posts.