As this atheist turns 60

I recently had my 60th birthday. Whoopee for me, right? Well, I was thinking that it has been some time since I posted a particularly thoughtful article on topic here and I thought this occasion would be a good time to get back into the swing of it and continue my blog posts. So I started considering what I might have to say that would be interesting or noteworthy. In an election year there are a lot of things I could discuss but for the moment I’m going to steer clear of that can of worms. I could talk about atheists being slaughtered in Bangladesh and elsewhere or the insidious and otherwise silly notion of a national day of prayer. However, I’m not ready to tackle those just yet. Nor am I ready to discuss the plethora of terrorist attacks in Florida, France and elsewhere. I’m working on those, to be sure. I’m just not quite ready to put those down in a post.
One of the things I’ve noticed as I enter my seventh decade is that as people get older a lot of them tend to double down on their religious beliefs. Either that or they seek to reconnect with their religious roots. For me, as an atheist, this makes no sense. I don’t understand why magical thinking would suddenly seem sensible just because one gets old. There are those who become senile or experience dementia when they get old and I would never make an issue of someone going back to religion if their mind is going. But when you still have all of your faculties intact, why would you abandon reason just because time is growing short? If reason, facts and evidence were important to you as a twenty year old, why would they suddenly become less important just because you have started to get grey and wrinkled? Nevertheless some people expect that we atheists will also start to drift back to god or gods as we reach senior citizen status. Well, some religious people think that everyone gets concerned about god when they are getting close to death no matter what age they are. Like the notion that I’ve heard from several people over the years that there are no atheists in foxholes. A large number of the religious assume that everyone begins to pray when in imminent danger or under extreme duress. It’s a comforting myth that many theists hold on to because it reassures them that they are the ones who have been doing it right. It’s just another part of the delusion of religion as far as I’m concerned.
There seems little doubt that for a lot of people fear of death becomes more of an immediate concern as it gets closer to the end. It's understandable that feeling your mortality leads to such thoughts. Death looms larger as you get older like the opening of a tunnel that seems barely visible when you are far away but begins to fill your field of vision as you get close to it. In your teens, death is a far-off, nebulous concept but when you reach my age it is a very substantial impending threat. The dread of death often manifests as a particular interest in what, if anything, happens after life ends. Many people tend to become increasingly fearful about it. For some, apparently this leads to religion although I can’t figure out why it would be that way for an atheist especially if that atheist’s lack of belief stems from reason and intellect as opposed to mere unfamiliarity and a lack of exposure to religious ideas.
One thing I want to do in this post is to make sure that I announce, loud and clearly, that I have not remotely come near to entertaining religion as I have begun to feel my final days approaching. If anything, religion is less attractive to me as I get older. The detrimental effects of religion in the modern world are, if anything, far more striking than ever before in my life. I still don’t buy the pseudo-logic of Pascal’s Wager or any other argument for belief. My rationale for becoming an atheist in the first place has not faded nor has my resolve to seek knowledge through the scientific method weakened in the slightest. I’m still not likely to fall for false promises or placebos. I won’t deny that death has become a far greater concern to me these days and I have been careful to eat a healthy diet and I’m trying to exercise in order to forestall this inevitable fate for as long as possible. However, fear of death is not going to make me opine for the old notions of heaven and eternal life I was raised to believe in.
While exended life is something I would choose to pursue if there was some scientific basis for that pursuit, I find those concepts to actually be unattractive as they are presented in religious dogma even if they were true. To spend an eternity in obiescence to some repugnant deity like the Christian or Muslim god is a nauseating idea. If life after death turned out to be a reality I would be happy as long as it didn’t come at the expense of others or mean that any of the traditional god concepts I’ve encountered turned out to be real. To spend eternity in slavery to one of those egomaniacal monsters isn’t something I would care to endure. I don’t actually think there is any chance of that but I do consider all possibilities when I think about such things.
In a humanities class I had back in 1998, one of the questions we were asked to consider was whether we would want to live forever if we could. It was an exercise that revealed a lot about the people in my class and led to some interesting discussions as well as a couple of heated arguments. The majority of my classmates said they would not want to live forever even if they could although it would depend to some extent on whether they would have to live a life of weakness and frailty or could live that time in youthful vigor. I agree with this concern. I would not want to live forever frail, weak and sickly. Who would? In fact, I was almost the only one there who responded in the affirmative even given the guarantee of being able to live that life in good health with full faculties. I would even consider having my consciousness transferred to a robot or computer simulation if those options where available. I think having many more years in which to learn and experience new things would be something I would like. One of the major concerns would be having to live long enough to see loved ones, even children, die before you. I recognize that this would be a painful thing to endure but it would not disuade me from choosing such an extended life.
For me, life is desireable for its own sake and preferable to the oblivion that I am sure is the only alternative. But as I said, even though I would want to be able to go on living as long as possible given reasonable health, I don’t see religion as having anything to offer on that topic. I find the idea of resurrection in perfection to be particularly silly and not worthy of consideration. It is clearly an empty promise. Having been a Mormon for the last few years of my prior religious life I think the additional notion of living in heavenly families is even more of a stretch of wishful thinking. I’m embarrassed to say that it was one of the things that attracted Mormonism to me as my final attempt to find something salvagable in religion before I came to my senses and admitted it was all nonsense.
No matter how old I get, as long as my mental faculties are intact, I will continue to follow the facts where they lead no matter whether I like the answers or not. If others find false promises attractive in their dotage, that is their business. I don’t see the attraction but I don’t expect everyone to be sensible. I just know that I’m not going to be one of those who will jump back into the mire of religious nonsense no matter what promises it makes. Until there is the slightest evidence that any of it is true, it remains completely useless to me. I will never abandon reason to chase rainbows pointlessly nor would I want to encourage others to do so.

Euphemisms for STUPID

We hear them all the time, sometimes cautiously whispered and other times as “in your face” insults. I would guess that people usually question the intelligence of others with a simple statement like: “She’s not too smart” or “He’s rather stupid” or even “You’re a dumb ass.” However, it just seems to make more impact when it’s done in a creative manner. Besides, I think it’s a lot more entertaining than bland statements of fact/opinion. Also, if the reference is sufficiently oblique, you can say it right in front of the person in question and they won’t get it. That makes it all the more entertaining.

Euphemisms abound in spoken language and even in a lot of fiction, at least in English. I can’t speak about many other languages but I know there are as many euphemisms if not more in Russian so I presume it’s pretty much a worldwide phenomenon. I have heard or read a lot of euphemisms for “Stupid” and I suspect there aren't many other topics where more euphemisms are used. Without doing a survey, I think there are probably more euphemisms for genitalia and sex. Other than that I don’t think there is a larger variety than those used to question someone’s intelligence. So I began a search for all of the creative ones I could find. Currently this list contains more than 400 examples.

Perhaps not surprisingly, many euphemisms for STUPID are kind of formulaic. Some forms are very common while others lag a little behind in popularity. This list starts with some of the more formulaic ones. I’ll put a few examples of them under the formulae and then put the majority in appendices at the end. Apparently anything goes and some people really seem to stretch just a bit too much for some of these but I’m going to try not to be too judgmental about it. My intent is to list the expressions that are in common usage, or at least used to be. Some are things I may not have heard before but I just considered them too funny not to include. Sometimes if the comparison is a little far off the beaten path (so to speak) you can help get the point across by following it up by saying, “If you know what I mean.” Some of these are not even euphemisms but just a little obscure or oblique.

While a lot euphemisms take the form of a metaphor, similes are very common as well. Some are sarcastic like the following ones which often start with an ambiguous synonym for smart: Sharp, Bright, Quick or the opposites: Slow, Dull, Dim and take something like the following form:

As ______ as a ______.

Examples:

About as sharp as a bowling ball.
As bright as a burned out bulb.
As quick as a snail on Quaaludes.

Alternatively they may just be straightforward comparisons using “Smart”, ”Intelligent”, “Dumb”, “Stupid”, etc.

Examples:

Smart as a box of rocks.
Dumb as a stump.
Dumber than a bag of hammers.

See more examples in Appendix A

A whole bunch of these euphemisms take the form below. Looking through older writings you will see that this form has been around for a long time. One of the reasons this is so common is that the possible variations are practically limitless. You can see what I mean if you look at appendix C. Personally I think the best use of this form takes into account the context. For instance if you’re talking about a very religious Catholic or a Nun saying that “She’s a few beads short of a rosary” fits better than saying “She’s a few whiskers short of a beard.” Anyway, without further ado, here’s the formula:

A few _____ short of a ______.
A _____ short of a _______.

(sometimes ‘shy’ is used instead of ‘short’)

Examples:

A few sandwiches short of a picnic.
A few cowboys short of a rodeo.
A few bricks shy of a load.
A cup and a saucer short of a place setting.
A few french fries short of a Happy Meal.

See more examples in Appendix C

Another very common form for these insults is the one below. This is another one where the possibilities are virtually endless. They are easy to create. I made up a few of my own during the time I was working on this list. They go like this:

Not the _____est _____ on/in the _______.

Examples:

Not the sharpest tool in the shed.
Not the brightest bulb on the porch.

I’ve seen some more unusual ones like these but for me they are trying a bit too hard to be clever.

Not the crunchiest chip in the bag.
Not the crispest shirt in the closet.

See more examples in Appendix B

A form that is less common but still seen quite a bit is this:

Doesn’t have all their ______ in one/a ________.

I put ‘in’ in the pattern but variations can use other prepositions like ‘on’ or ‘at’ etc. Actually this form is one of the most flexible and I’m sure some expressions only loosely fit the pattern but that’s ok. I think this gets my point across.

Examples:

He doesn't have all his dogs on one leash.
She doesn’t have all her chairs at the table.

See more examples in Appendix D

There are a wide range of metaphors as well as every other kind of reference and comparison found in these expressions Comparisons are made to everything imaginable. Check these out:

Tools and machinery (usually malfunctioning or broken)

Automotive/Transportation
His car is fine but there’s a loose nut behind the wheel.
The engine is running but nobody is behind the wheel.
The choke is stuck on his mental carburetor.
His trolley ran off the tracks.
He parked his head and forgot where he left it.
Body by Fisher (God) - brains by Mattel.
His little red choo choo has jumped the track.
The oil doesn't reach his dipstick.
His dipstick doesn't quite reach the oil.
Her wipers don't touch the glass.
His mind runs on sailboat fuel.
The caboose seems to be pulling the engine.
Her axel is a little bit off camber.
Your little red choo-choo's gone chugging 'round the bend.
He’s not firing on all cylinders.
She’s running on 3 (5,7) cylinders.
He has some lug nuts rattling in his hubcaps.
She's running about a quart low.
His seat back is not in the full upright and locked position.
He’s driving with two wheels in the sand.
She's a lap behind the field.
She ran out of gas before her car.
He's all booster, no payload.
He’s not exactly running on all thrusters. (Star Trek said by Dr. McCoy)
She only has one oar in the water.
His boat doesn’t have all its oars in the water.
Both ofhis oars are in the water, but on the same side of the boat.
Her bicycle works but the training wheels wobble.
The gates are down and the lights are flashing, but the train isn't coming.
If he went any slower he'd have to speed up to stop.
He has the parachute but is missing the ripcord.
Her elevator doesn't go all the way to the top floor (penthouse).
His elevator is stuck between floors.
His elevator goes to the top but the doors don't open.
She’s got a screw loose (or a few screws loose).
When he was a kid, his tricycle had training wheels.

Electronics
Her battery isn’t fully charged.
His antenna doesn't pick up all the channels.
Her receiver is off the hook.
Her batteries weren't included.
His screen has a permanent test pattern.
His modem only runs at 400 baud.
His hard drive is spinning but the OS hasn't been installed.
Her brain’s sending packets, but the checksums are wrong.
There are some bugs in his software.
His CPU isn't connected to the bus.
Her phone is on but there's no reception.
His laptop's on but there's no internet connection.
He’s missing a few buttons on his remote control.
She’s all phone, no receiver.
His strip is demagnetized.

Household
The cheese slid off his cracker.
Her pilot light has gone out.
He has a leak in his skylight.
She’s about half a bubble off plumb.
His rope slipped off its pulley.
He’s a few degrees off square.
He’s dumber than paint.
His belt doesn't go through all the loops.
Her sewing machine is out of thread.
The logs are ablaze but the chimney is clogged.
He would lose a debate with a doorknob.
A few too many lights are out on his Christmas tree.
He writes blank checks on a closed account.
His mind is on vacation but his mouth is working overtime.
There are too many birds on her antenna.
There’s a whole lot of chopping, but no chips are flying.
She has a mind like a steel sieve.
He’s a dim bulb.
He just uses his head for a hatrack.
Nice house, not much furniture.
The lights are on but nobody's home.
His porch light ain’t on.
The porch light’s on but nobody's home.
His attic's a little dusty.
She has a few cobwebs in her attic.
He’s got the mental agility of a soap dish. (can also use most any other inanimate object)
He hasn't got enough sense to come in out of the rain.
She’s off her rocker.
He’s clearly off his nut.
He’s a real whack job.
The smoke doesn't make it to the top of his chimney.
She’s thick as a brick.
He has a vacancy on the top floor.

Music & Sports
He’s conducting without an orchestra.
Her fiddle's not in tune.
The spit valve's fallen off his trumpet.
She’s not singing from the same hymn book.
All the lights don't shine in his marquis
He’s playing hockey with a warped puck.
He wouldn't know if he was on foot or horseback.
He's got a bow but no arrows.
He has too much yardage between his goal posts.
He hasn't seen the ball since kickoff.
She’s not playing with a full deck.
Her slinky has a kink or two.

References to IQ & Intellect

He has an IQ of room temperature. (or south of room temperature)
Her IQ is lower than plant life.
He has the relative IQ of a deck chair.
She has an IQ lower than her shoe size.
If her IQ goes up to 40, she should sell.
He is one IQ point above brain death.
His IQ is lower than a snake's belly in a wagon-rut.
Hers is an intellect rivaled only by garden tools.
A .22 caliber intellect in a .357 Magnum world.
She’s intellectually challenged.
If "What you don't know can't hurt you," he's practically superman.

References to Insufficiency

His driveway doesn’t go all the way to the road.
His driveway doesn't quite reach the garage.
Her mooring lines don't reach the dock.
He’s all foam, no beer.
...all lime and salt, no tequila.
...all shot, no powder.
...all wax and no wick.
Her phone doesn't quite reach her desk.
He’s as smart as a lawyer is honest.
She’s overdrawn at the brain bank.
Her dock doesn't quite reach the water.
He doesn't have a round in every chamber.
He doesn't have elastic in both of his socks.
She doesn't have the sense God gave an animal cracker.
He has insufficient funds in the brain bank.
He has delusions of adequacy.
She forgot to pay her brain bill.
There’s no hay in the loft.
She’s sitting in the right pew, but in the wrong church.
Somebody lend her a quarter to buy a clue.
His jack can't get the car off the ground.
There’s not enough salt in her shaker.
She has plenty of salt in the shaker, but no holes in the cap.
There’s no grain in his silo.
He’s paralyzed from the neck up.
There are echoes between her ears.
There’s too much air between her ears.
His brain tank is running on empty.
Not all his soldiers are marching in line.
She’s knitting with only one needle.
If you gave him a penny for his thoughts, you'd get change back.
He’s got a leak in his think-tank.
There is only half a cord in his woodshed.
His corn bread isn't done in the middle.
You’re not wrapped too tight.
Nice cage, but no bird
His candy bowl is not quite full.
Her biscuits aren't quite baked.
She’s an open book but the pages are blank.
He’s missing a few cards from his catalog.
He’s missing a few marbles.

Missing & Lost References

He doesn't know whether to scratch his watch or wind his butt.
He couldn't hit the floor if he fell on it.
He couldn't find his way out of a paper bag.
He couldn’t find his butt with two hands and a road map. (both hands and a flashlight)
She’s lost contact with the mothership.
He left the scene before his body.
He’s out in left field without a mitt.
You’ve lost your marbles.
He’s a lost ball in high weeds.
She couldn't pour water out of a boot with instructions on the heel.

Brain References

If brains were dynamite, he couldn't blow his hat off.
If brains were dynamite, he wouldn't have enough to blow his nose.
If brains were electricity, she wouldn't have enough to light a firefly.
If he had another brain it would be lonely.
Donated his brain to science before he was done with it.
If he had a brain he’d be on the floor playing with it.
She has a Teflon brain (nothing sticks)
You could fit all her brains in a thimble and still have room for the Mormon Tabernacle Choir!
He had two brains but he lost one and the other went out looking for it.
Her brain is like a BB in a boxcar.
His brain on a razor’s edge would look like a BB on a two lane highway.
He has a Neanderthal brain in a Cro-Magnon body.
He has vacuum-tube brain in a microchip world.
Her brain is permanently in power saving mode.
She has varicose brains.
He doesn't have two neurons to rub together. (or brain cells)
He got his brains as a stocking stuffer.
He got his brains in a Cracker Jack box.
His brain was sold separately and they were out of stock.
If brains were water, hers wouldn't be enough to baptize a flea.
If her brains were put in a hummingbird, it would fly backwards.
With another brain he would be a half-wit.
His brain has one boot stuck in the sand.
He has a brain only a mother could love?
His only brain cell finally died of loneliness.

Possible Causes

He fell out of the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down.
He’s proof that evolution CAN go in reverse.
She has to take turns using the family brain-cell.
They all have one brain on a time share.
There was too much chlorine in his gene pool.
Most people drink from the fountain of knowledge, she only gargled.
She was hiding behind the door when they passed out brains.
He suffers from cranio-rectal inversion. (see below)
His head is up his ass.
She rode the short bus to school.
If ignorance is bliss, she must be in heaven.
He'd come in third in a duel.
She answers the door when the phone rings.
His head whistles in a cross wind.
He’s living proof that nature does not abhor a vacuum.
He suffers from ano-fossal ambiguity. (see below)
He can't tell his ass from a hole in the ground.
She fell out of her family tree.
She’s just differently clued.
He was left on the Tilt-A-Whirl a bit too long as a baby.
She got into the gene pool while the lifeguard wasn't watching.
She’s an experiment in Artificial Stupidity.
As a baby his parents stood him on his soft spot.
His head went on holiday.
Contents settled some during shipping.
Born during low tide in the gene pool.
His mind wandered and never came back.
On permanent leave of absence from his senses.
During evolution his ancestors were in the control group.
He’s the goalie for his dart team.
She suffers from Clue Deficit Disorder.
He just fell off the turnip truck.

Animal & Plant References

The bats are out of her belfry.
Ignoramus Rex.
He has bats in his belfry.
His dog teaches him new tricks.
The wheel is spinning but the hamster fell off (or is dead).
Any slower and he'd need to be watered once a week.
He has a kangaroo (roo) loose in the top paddock.
He doesn't have all his dogs barking.

How Dumb is He/She?

He is depriving some village of its idiot.
She’s a few shades beyond blonde.
He’s a Mensa reject.
She’s a shining example of why you should avoid inbreeding.
She would argue with a signpost.
You’re a monosynaptic cretin (If you don't understand it my point is made)
She’s like a pair of children’s scissors, bright and colorful, but not too sharp.
He’s a poster child for birth control.
People around her are at risk of second hand idiocy.
It takes him an hour and a half to watch "60 Minutes".
He plays solitaire for cash.
She's immune from any serious head injury.
He can't count his balls and get the same answer twice.
She cheats when filling out opinion polls.
He couldn't count to 21 if he were barefoot with no pants.
He thinks Plato is a friend of Mickey Mouse.
Her ears serve the same function as holes in a dribble glass.
He always loses battles of wits because he's unarmed.
I could outwit him with half my brain tied behind my back.
If you put a lens in each of her ears you've got a telescope.
Guillotining him would only make an aesthetic difference.
He has signs on both ears saying "Space for Rent."
Her dentist went deaf from the drill's echoes.
He’s sort of like an inverse Einstein.
He views mold as a higher life form.
She's so stupid, mind readers charge her half price.
He sets the lowest possible goals, and consistently fails to achieve them.
She couldn’t tell which way an elevator was going if she had two guesses.
If you stand close enough to her you can hear the sea.
If his nose was on upside down he'd drown in the rain.
You can have more meaningful conversations with a brick wall.
He’s a member in good standing at the church of Duh. In fact, I think he’s a deacon.
She eats soup with a fork.
He’s a mental midget.
He’s so dense light bends around him.
If brains were taxed, she’d get a rebate.
If stupid were a talent, she would be considered gifted.
It’s hard to believe that he beat out half a billion other sperm.
Calling him an idiot would be an insult to all the idiots in the world.
She would be out of her depth in a mud puddle.
He uses his head to keep the rain out of his neck.

And Then There’s always Scatology

He’s got shit for brains.
He doesn’t have all his shit in one sock.
He's as useless as crap on a cracker.
He’s not the fastest fly in the shit.
He doesn’t know shit from Shinola.

Appending A

About as sharp as a marble. As sharp as a bowling ball. As sharp as a bowl of Jello. As sharp as a thimble. As sharp as a banana. As sharp as a pound of liver. As sharp as a sack of wet mice. As sharp as a sack of wet leather. As bright as a burned out bulb. As bright as a lump of coal. As bright as a lamp in Aladdin's cave. As quick as a snail on Quaaludes. As quick as a turtle on Xanax. As quick as a snail crossing super-glue. As smart as a bag of socks.

As smart as bait. As smart as a box of rocks. As bright as a nightlight. As bright as mud. As focused as a fart. As dumb as a donkey. As dumb as a stump. As dumb as a corn cob. As dumb as a salt shaker. As dumb as a bag of hammers. As dumb as a box of hair. As nutty as a fruitcake. As deep as a saucer of milk. As dense as Sherwood Forest. As dense as the Amazon Rainforest.

Appending B

Not the brightest light in the harbor. Not the brightest bulb on the porch. Not the brightest bulb in the box. Not the brightest bulb in the chandelier. Not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree. Not the brightest crayon in the box. Not the brightest paint on the palette. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Not the sharpest arrow in the quiver. Not the sharpest pencil in the box. Not the sharpest crayon in the box.

Not the sharpest tool in the shed. Not the sharpest sword in the armory. Not the sharpest hook in the tackle box. Not the sharpest pitchfork in the barn. Not the quickest bunny in the forest. Not the quickest cheetah on the savannah. Not the quickest horse in the stable. Not the quickest ship in the fleet. Not the quickest car on the track. Not the crunchiest chip in the bag. Not the crispest shirt in the closet.

Appending C

A few bales short of a wagon load. A few bananas short of a bunch. A few beers short of a six-pack. A few bits short of a byte. A few boats short of a fleet. A few boxes short of a pallet. A few bricks short of a load. A few bristles short of a broom. A few board members short of a quorum. A few Bradys short of a bunch. A burger short of a combo meal. Four cents short of a nickel. A few burgers short of a barbecue. A few cards short of a deck. A few cents short of a dollar. A few clowns short of a circus. A few colors short of a rainbow. A few cowboys short of a rodeo. A few cracker jacks short of a full box. A few crayons short of a full box. A few dollars short of a paycheck. A few dogs short of a sled team. A few electrons short of an isotope. A few feathers short of a duck. A few fuses short of a full circuit. A few fries short of a Happy Meal. A few fruit loops shy of a full bowl. A few grams short of a pound. A few grapes short of a fruit salad. A few gunmen short of a posse. A few ice bricks shy of an igloo. A few keys short of a keyboard. A few leaves short of a bush. A few leftovers short of a bread pudding. A few links missing from his chain. A few tiles missing from his space shuttle. A flower short of an arrangement.

A few marshmallows short of a bowl of Lucky Charms. A few megabytes short of a gig. A few needles short of a sewing kit. A few peas short of a casserole. A few people short of a party. A few pineapples shy of a luau. A few players short of a team. A few teachers short of a faculty. A few plums short of a pie. A few Prozac short of a prescription. A few twists short of a slinky. A few threads short of a sweater. A few sandwiches short of a picnic. A few screws short of a hardware store. A few whiskers short of a beard. A few tacos short of a fiesta platter. A few watts short of a light bulb. A few pecans short of a fruitcake. A few toppings short of a Deluxe Pizza. A few sheep short of a flock. A few springs short of a watch. A few slices shy of a loaf. A few yards short of a touchdown. A few roots shy of an apple tree. A few whiskers short of a kitten. A few tires short of an eighteen wheeler. A cup and a saucer short of a place setting. A few eggs shy of a dozen. A few ants short of a picnic. A few trucks short of a convoy. A few beads short of a rosary. A few birds shy of a flock. A few guppies short of an aquarium. A few chickens short of a henhouse. A few chapters short of a novel. A few saucers short of a tea-service. A couple eggs short of an omelet.

Appending D
He doesn't have all his dogs on one leash. She doesn’t have all her chairs at the table. He doesn’t have both oars in the water. He doesn't have all the dots on his dice. He doesn’t have all his monkeys in the barrel. She doesn’t have all her ducks in a row.	She doesn’t have all her china in the cupboard. She doesn't have all of her groceries in the same bag. He doesn’t have all his cornflakes in one box. He doesn’t have all his soldiers marching in one line. She doesn't have all her peas in one pod. He doesn’t have all his stuff in one sack.

10 Commandments better than God's

Author Sam Harris says that we probably all know that we could come up with a much better set of ten commandments than God did in the Bible. He said, "Consider the possibility of improving the Ten Commandments. This would appear to be setting the bar rather high, as these are the only passages in the Bible that the Creator of the universe felt the need to physically write himself." One would think these would be unquestioningly the most important rules we could possibly find. We should be awed at the wisdom of these laws. But instead we find a bunch of nonsense along with some proscriptions against murder, lying and theft. Does anyone really think the ten commandments as found in the Bible are really the best an omniscient god could come up with? I won't go into the sheer lunacy of the commandment "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk," found in Exodus 34. I'm not claiming to be God. I'm just saying that I agree with Sam that the average person could come up with ten rules for life that are far superior to God's. Of course, God needed to use many of his ten to reinforce his dominance with things like "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" and "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image." And I don't' think most of us would feel the need to include hygiene or dietary laws either. I suspect that some believers will argue that these were laws given to the Hebrews and can't be expected to apply exactly with the world we live in today. If so many people did not think it was appropriate to post these "commandments" in public places like courthouses insisting that our laws are based upon God's law, I might agree. But obviously many believers think the ten commandments are the ultimate law. So I took some time to think about this and discussed it with friends. The following is what I came up with. Maybe they aren't the ultimate laws of the world and you might be able to come up with some better ideas but that only proves the point of this post.

1. Thou shalt treat other people with fairness and kindness as you would like them to treat you.
   
2. Thou shalt not abuse any person physically, sexually, psychologically, economically, emotionally or any other way regardless of their age, sex, color, nationality or creed.
   
3. Thou shalt never consider another person to be your property nor force or coerce them to serve you.
   
4. Thou shalt not kill any person unless you must to defend yourself or other people from grievous harm.
   
5. Thou shalt be truthful in dealing with other people unless the truth serves no purpose but to harm.
   
6. Thou shalt not cheat, exploit, extort or impose your will upon other people.
   
7. Thou shalt not steal the property of another person unless you must to survive and taking it will not endanger the owner. Try asking first.
   
8. Thou shalt not harm another person unless you must to defend yourself or other people from harm.
   
9. Thou shalt endeavor to contribute your talents and energies to the betterment of the entire community of humans.
   
10. Thou shalt endeavor to provide at least the necessities of life to those people who are unable to fend for themselves.

Obama's Presidency like the Second Coming?

I've found that most atheists are as far left leaning as you can get. It's understandable inasmuch as we are extremely liberal on so many issues. Naturally most of us align ourselves politically with the party that seems most attuned to our viewpoints on religious and social issues such as racism, sexism and homosexuality. However much I agree with them on these issues, I can't bring myself to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I cannot accept the tendency toward socialism and the Robin Hood mentality of the Democrat party. I'm a registered libertarian but I realize that my party is not seriously in competition for the presidency. This always makes for a difficult decision for me at the polls. On the one hand I want my country's leader to be opposed to bigotry of all kinds and not to kowtow to the dictates of religion and all of its ridiculous notions. On the other hand, I do not want America to become like the failed and failing socialist nations in Europe. It is clear to me that socialism is not the answer to our problems. Obama is right that we need change. But the change we need is not to turn our nation into another third world nation or socialist regime. For instance, socialized medicine is nothing more than a way to insure that everyone has free access to equally pathetic healthcare.

One of the ballot propositions in my state this year was put forth to keep our freedom of choice in healthcare from being overridden by well-meaning advocates of universal healthcare. The measure specifically and unequivocally stated that its intent was only to preserve our freedom to choose our own healthcare. And yet, the proposition was defeated because its opponents successfully convinced the electorate that it would prevent them from providing healthcare to those who are poor and on public assistance. No one has ever made a cogent argument for that position but voters fell for it. So we are now likely to have healthcare insurance foisted on us that will provide us with no choice and, just like Canada, we will be told that we will have to wait in a queue for important surgery or other treatment because our freedom to choose has been denied us. Freedom is what this nation was founded upon and that is exactly what is draining away like sand through our fingers.

And what have the Democrats given us atheists to be happy about with this election? Obama is just as much a religious person as the other candidates. He has promised to enhance the Bush doctrine of giving tax dollars to religious institutions. Just how have we gained any ground in the fight to secure real religious freedom? Sure, he pays lip service to the notion that people of every faith or no faith at all are all equal, but I am left to wonder how a man who sat for two decades in Reverend Wright's fundamentalist church and espouses a "growing" Christian spirituality can be serious about this. And the hate-filled racist diatribes of Reverend Wright didn't seem to bother Obama. So what kind of a champion against bigotry can we expect President Obama to be? Obama has been marketed as if he is the second coming of Jesus Christ and I think a lot of people are going to be woefully disappointed in what they got for their vote, especially atheists.

I am extremely tired of people who claim to be colorblind and eschew racism with their words but demonstrate a completely different attitude with their actions. I can't even count the number of people I heard in the national media stating flatly during the presidential campaign that they were voting for Obama simply because he is black. If anyone had said they were voting for his opponent because he was white, they would have been almost burned at the stake. But it's perfectly OK to say you're voting for someone because he is black. What kind of sense does that make? How is that not racism? Who cares what color a candidate is? In my opinion, color is not an issue and should not be a criterion for being elected to public office. While I understand the emotions of people like Tiger Wood's who was tearfully joyful at having the first black president, I think they are missing the entire point of a free nation. Of course it is excellent news that our country has risen above bigotry enough to elect a black person to the highest office. This event should encourage everyone of every race that they can achieve whatever they want if they work for it. The barriers are gone. However, if we have elected a man simply because he is black, we are only indulging in racism by that fact.

It dismays me that people can be blinded to the other real and important issues we face as a nation and elect someone who is not prepared to handle these issues or lead us to be a better and stronger nation just to prove we are not bigots. We have a black president. That’s fantastic. But have we just elected a symbol? Obama has never done anything of substance politically or otherwise. He was helped to every position in life by affirmative action and not completely on his own merit. He seems to have been living in a fantasy world and his politics are all theory based, not experiential. His complete lack of experience is a serious problem looming for his presidency and for us as a nation.

The real problem is that Obama's stated goals are completely impossible. He and Joe Biden want to indulge in rampant redistribution of wealth. They want to tax the hell out of anyone who they deem to be "rich." They want to increase taxes on businesses so they can implement their socialist agenda. But all they will succeed in doing is chasing more businesses offshore and their taxes on the rich will increase the costs of goods and services on the rest of us. Jobs will leak out of our country like water through a colander and they will be forced to define “rich” further and further down to keep funding their ridiculous plans for social engineering. They simply do not see what the country really needs to change in order to give people equal opportunity and to give incentives to make more progress.

Instead of growing government to massive proportions with ever greater grasping for revenue by an onerous tax burden, we need to shrink government and stick to the constitution. The government needs to be there to protect people from harm. It's that simple. The free market system is our best bet as China and other such nations have discovered. Of course we need regulations and protections in place to keep the populace from being abused by corporations and individuals who are unscrupulous. Of course we need to protect and provide for the less fortunate. But you cannot take away the incentive to be productive and expect people to keep forging ahead. As it stands now, our tax rates are confiscatory and unevenly applied. That needs to change. The government wouldn't need to have such preposterously high revenues if it wasn't trying to be everything to everyone. I hear people complaining all the time about our Big Brother government and yet they keep voting for more and bigger government. What do they think will happen? They want to give more and more power and control to the government and yet they want their freedom to be protected. It just doesn't make sense.

I wish President Obama well and I will enthusiastically support him when he is right but I will oppose him when he is wrong just as enthusiastically. I hope that as a nation we can be wise enough to insist on real substantive, useful and productive change from his administration and not just be happily mollified with the pabulum he served up in his campaign speeches. We certainly need change in this country but we don't need to change what made us a great nation that people all over the world flock to for protection from oppression and tyranny. Freedom is what made this country a great place to live. Socialism can only destroy that freedom. It is at least as bad as religion on that count. It cannot help us. Like Jesus Christ, Obama seems to be bringing tyranny disguised as utopia. I just don't see how so many atheists cannot make the connection. I am forced to think that they have given up thinking for themselves and want a nanny government to do it for them. The irony would be funny if it weren't so sad.

Beyond Belief - Food for Thought

In response to the recent books by people like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, many theists are complaining about the tone of the debate. This also rankles some scientists who think that such arguments only serve to make the debate about religion more contentious and confrontational. I can see their point but I am with Sam Harris when he says that it is time to stop making it taboo to criticize religious dogma.

In 2006, Dr. Melvin Konner, the Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor of Anthropology and Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Neurology at Emory University, expressed a desire for more sensitivity in the debate between rational scientists and the theists of the world. Whether or not there is any real validity to this approach, even the most sensitive approach cannot avoid the conclusions below. These are the statements of accepted fact that were put forth by Dr. Konner.

• There is no verifiable evidence to support religious claims and all testable claims fail.
• Science continually closes all the gaps in knowledge that religion has been used to fill.
• What is called the soul is just brain activity.
• Religion is divisive and causes bigotry, violence, hatred and war.
• Religion is the "opium of the masses."
• God is the product of human yearnings for:
  • A perfect parent
  • Reward and punishment
  • Companionship
  • Meaning
  • Escape from death
  • and other human penchants for agency-detection and imagining other minds.
• More generally in psychological and psychosocial terms religion is a product of human yearnings for:
  • Identity
  • Belonging
  • A sense of superiority
  • Blameworthy enemies
  • Narrative


• All "sacred" texts are characterized by:
  • Errors and lies
  • Internal contradictions
  • Mutual contradictions
  • Supernatural (i.e. highly implausible) origins
  • Silly or cruel behavior of gods and religious heroes

To validate his contention that arguing with theists is pointless, Konner points out, and I'm paraphrasing somewhat:

1. Most religious people don't care about and are not swayed by proof.
2. They do not generally care that religion has been the cause of great harm and injustice.
3. They do not generally care that religious texts are fatally flawed.
4. They do not generally care that they cannot even define God.
5. They have been developing rationalizations and subtly fallacious arguments against all these things for millennia.

For different reasons, Dr. Konner and I don't accept the notion put forth by Steven J. Gould that religion and science are simply areas of nonoverlapping magisteria. He says "Neither one is magisteria." I agree that neither is magisteria, partially because that is a religious term. I say that science and religion do overlap and that science is better because it is the only one of the two based on evidence.

Atheism is not a religion but it is a perfect substitute for religion when it proposes to explain purpose or origins. It may not be as comforting to some when confronted with harsh reality but I don't think the vacuous promises of religion are any better. I do not mean to imply that atheism per se explains the origins of life or that it ascribes purpose to the universe. What I should say is that when religion fails to explain origins and purpose, atheism is naturally the correct conclusion.

The aim of science is not to open the door to infinite wisdom but to set some limits on infinite error. - Bertolt Brecht's Life of Galileo

It's also commonly imagined that atheists think there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding. The truth of it is that atheists are free to admit that there's much about the universe that we don't understand. I mean it is obvious we don't understand the universe. But it is even more obvious that neither the Bible or the Qu'ran reflects our best understanding of it. - Sam Harris

Is God Imaginary?

I am responding here to a blogger named Thom (The Beauty of Grace). Although I intend to respond to some of his posts here, I don’t plan to quote everything he said. If any reader wants to see Thom’s comments please click on the links below the main articles.

Hello Thom. Welcome to my blog. Thank you for your comments. I’m interested to find the path you took to reach me because I had never heard of godisimaginary.blogspot.com although I am quite familiar with GodisImaginary.com as evidenced by the fact that I provide links to that site in multiple places. But the blogosphere is too vast for anyone to keep track of it. Anyway, I’m glad you pointed it out to me.

I appreciate your cordiality and graciousness in your posts. Sadly that is not always the case with theists who post here. However, I have a feeling that you will soon become frustrated with my blog because it is clearly and without question atheistic while having a firm grounding in Judeo-Christian theology. It will be nigh impossible to sneak simple theistic arguments by me since I have been a master of such arguments myself in my past life. When you say that you are interested in reading what I have written I interpret that to mean that you are interested in seeing how you can attack my premises and circumvent the purpose of my blog. I don’t intend to discourage you from this endeavor. In fact, I welcome it. I am confident that you have nothing new to offer in the way of Christian apologetics or theistic rationalization. Do your worst. I have no fear. You are fighting from a position of weakness and will fail miserably. And I love you no less for all that.

Now, let’s get down to brass tacks. You make a proposition that needs to be addressed. You say “I am assuming that anyone who claims Atheism is asserting at least some confidence in the non-existence of any God.” That’s stating the obvious but okay. You go on to say, “Now, from a science perspective, I hear that God is un-provable, so therefore He does not exist.” I would go even further and say that whether inside or outside of science God is unverifiable. It is all hearsay and opinion. But without further ado, let us proceed to your proposition.

You say, “I propose that since science, by definition, is limited to the ‘natural’ world, that by declaring the possibility of the existence of a ‘supernatural’ world - meaning a world that is not bound by nor even operating under natural law - the possibility, then, of God does exist.” That’s quite a mouthful. Basically you wish to declare the existence of an unknowable and unexplainable realm (apparently by fiat) in order to justify the existence of an unknowable and unexplainable being. Have you ever heard of Occam’s Razor? I suppose we could go on infinitely positing fantastical ideas but how does that make it any more likely to be true? It seems to me that the more we multiply entities (or realms) the more farfetched the whole notion becomes. With a supernatural being we have one item for which we have neither adequate description nor validation. After you posit your “supernatural world”, we have simply added an item to that list. It sounds to me like we are doing nothing but making our task more difficult. Aside from that, I think the very concept of “supernatural” is nonsense.

There is nothing except nature. We define what exists as nature. It’s very simply put thus: Existents exist. Nature is what is. Additionally, all things are defined by their nature. It doesn’t mean anything to say something is outside of or above or beyond nature. We obviously don’t know the extent of existence nor do we completely understand everything of which we are aware, but the natural universe is the sum total of all that exists – by any definition of existence. Let’s say that something exists or functions in some way outside of the laws we have heretofore recognized. That does not put it outside of the universe or outside of nature. It just means that we need to re-evaluate our understanding of the universe. But there wouldn’t be much point in modifying our understanding of natural reality on pure speculation. Perhaps there is a being that can create things by sheer force of will. Perhaps it can somehow defy the currently understood limitations of nature. If so, these abilities would be part of that beings nature – its attributes. But it would only be unnatural if we were to cling to our outdated understanding of nature. Once a being like that is discovered, everything about it would need to be incorporated into our understanding of nature. There would never be a need for a supernatural realm.

Your casual dismissal of the example of the Flying Spaghetti Monster tells me you don’t even understand the point of it. I hope you do not think anyone seriously believes in the FSM. It was created as a demonstration of how one could posit any being at all and claim that it was supernatural with just as much validity as any god. The only thing that makes the notion of God more respectable is how long that particular myth has persisted. It makes no difference if we are positing gods, unicorns, leprechauns, the FSM or a fire-breathing chicken. If one must rely on tradition or the testimony of others to ascertain the existence of any such being, they all have the same chance of being real. I say the chance is, at best, negligible. That’s being very generous. It is so unlikely that the only sensible thing to do is to ignore it. As my Dad used to say, “The chances are slim and none. And slim just left town.” By your reasoning, anything at all might exist. We should be open to the possibility that it might rain gumdrops next Tuesday. What we are talking about here is the logical fallacy known as “The Argument from Ignorance.” The classic example is Bertrand Russell’s china teapot orbiting the Sun between Earth and Mars. It might exist. You cannot prove that it doesn’t.

Theists have probably always argued that since you can’t prove God does not exist you should assume he does exist. If we grant there is a chance that God exists, the next step is to say, “Do you want to risk his wrath by assuming that he doesn’t?” Pascal’s Wager is a prime example of this rationale. This is the way that many people are suckered into religion. The point is that it is not up to the atheist to disprove anything. People just don’t operate on the “Believe whatever is not disproven” philosophy. We would be crazy to do so. In the case of any proposition, it is up to the claimant to substantiate his claim. There is no substantiation for the claim that God exists and therefore we have no need to even entertain it as a possibility. Whether you assume God does exist or that he does not exist, there is no difference at all in the way the universe works. The entire idea has zero value.

You repeat that science is, by definition, limited to the five natural senses. I disagree with this statement. Science is not limited to the five natural senses. Only our ability to observe is thus limited. We are limited to our natural senses but only for direct observation. Since we are humans, human science is primarily based on what we can perceive in some way. But it is not limited to mere observation. Reason is a much more important part of science than simple observation. By couching your argument this way you try to eliminate reason and rationality as major components of our understanding.

Now let’s look at your example of the ancient belief that the earth was flat and compare it to belief in God. When people were so ignorant of the facts that they believed the earth was flat and the center of the universe, they also believed, at this time, that there was a magical being in the sky called God who would answer prayers and promised an afterlife and blessings for obedience to him. The notions about the earth were based on what limited observations the people could make along with a limited amount of deductive reasoning. The notions of God were based on no observation at all but on what was passed down through tradition.

Today, we have many more facts about the earth and we know that it is an oblate spheroid that rotates on its axis and orbits a star we call the Sun or Sol which is one of billions of stars in the spiral galaxy we call the Milky Way. Our observations and reasoning about the earth have grown exponentially over the span of a few thousand years. Human understanding of God has had the same amount of time to evolve and grow, but nothing has changed. People still believe there is a magical being in the sky called God who answers prayers and promises an afterlife and blessings for obedience to him.

I just don’t see the sense in clinging to such stagnant superstitions. The only effects of belief are psychological. Some might be considered beneficial. Many are impediments to progress. Some are outright dangerous. I personally think the time has come for people to stop perpetuating useless ancient myths and superstitions. Reality is not a maleable concept.

Pastafarians in the News

Common Misconceptions

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Nothing demonstrates that better than the way some religious fundamentalists with little or no familiarity with science use random bits of information from the popular press or casual conversation to claim that science validates God and religious dogma. A few weeks ago, I had a conversation with a theist who had apparently heard about work being done in physical anthropology to trace the genetic ancestry of the human race. She ecstatically proclaimed that it had been scientifically proven that Adam and Eve were real. For anyone actually following the research this kind of statement is stunning in its ignorance. Of course I will say that many researchers tend to fan the ardent fire of these believers when they use Biblical names or Biblical references in their research. And journalists can’t resist headlines like; Have Scientists Discovered Adam and Eve? It’s a sure way to sell magazines. The problem is that many lay people don’t get past the title and a quick skim of the opening paragraph. Their conclusions aren’t really surprising. It actually seems that people are telling them that science has found Adam and Eve.

Of course, if they bothered to read the actual research (assuming they could understand it) they would see that it does not remotely support Biblical genesis stories – nor could it. Yes, we do all have common ancestors but no one is seriously claiming that two people suddenly appeared and started a family that led to the entire human race. Even if that had happened, this research is statistical analysis of a fairly small number of DNA samples and there is no way for it to trace back to specific people. It is abundantly clear that we did not all descend from one mated pair of humans a long time ago. However, this kind of research has concluded that all living humans have two common ancestors, one female who is a everyone’s common ancestor and one male who is a common ancestor of all living men. These are called our most recent common ancestors (MRCA). This does not imply that we have found their bodies. As I said, it has only been calculated through DNA analysis.

The analysis suggests that our female MRCA lived about 140,000 to 200,000 years ago and our male MRCA lived about 60,000 - 90,000 years ago (determined through molecular clock and genetic marker studies). They were obviously not contemporaries. They were separated in time by tens of thousands of years. I think it's safe to say that these two people didn't even know each other, much less have babies together. Mitochondrial-Eve is the female MRCA of all humans as traced via mitochondrial DNA passed only through the maternal line. Y Chromosome Adam is the male MRCA all living men as traced via the Y Chromosome passed only through the paternal line. We all have Mitochondrial DNA but only men have the Y Chromosome.

Another misconception theists take from this research is that it is tracing lines back to when only one set of people lived. However, Mitochondrial Eve was not the only woman in her day and Y Chromosome Adam was not the only living man in his day. If that had been the case, the human race would be extinct. The existence of a most recent common ancestor does not imply that there was a population bottleneck or a first couple. It is very likely that they were part of large populations. Each of these other people who were their contemporaries potentially has living descendents today although some lines have died out. As a matter of fact, the MRCA will change when a line dies out. This all might seem like a paradox but it can be easily explained, if the nature of genetic lineage is taken into account. I won't go into it. You can look it up if you are interested. There is something about this that theists can gloat about if they want. For what it’s worth this research does indicate that humans originated in Africa which is the continent where the Bible stories take place.

Note: I will be on vacation for the next week so don't expect any new posts or responses for a while. WF

The Question of the Soul

One of the basic tenets of religion is the idea that humans have souls (or spirits) that are separate and distinct from our physical bodies, integrated only during life and freed after physical death to some fate or another. It would take volumes to discuss all the dogma religions have contrived regarding souls but that’s it in a nutshell. However, “soul” is not an exclusively religious term so talking about it can result in misunderstanding. The soul is generally considered to be the unique, self-aware, inner essence of a living person. But in religion, it has a supernatural basis. It is implanted or “breathed” into the body by God. Thus it is thought by some to be part of (or akin to) the supernatural essence of God, including immortality. To avoid confusion, I will be referring to the immortal soul here and not the poetic or philosophical notion of soul unless I specify otherwise. Some of my readers have expressed a belief in reincarnation. So let me just say that the question of the soul’s existence is not affected by its possible migration to other bodies before attaining its final goal. If anything, this provides even more ways to disprove it. I don’t plan to discuss reincarnation further. If souls don’t exist, that point is moot.

The soul is generally considered to be the true basis of sapience and one’s sense of identity. In a secular context, soul is just a convenient name for these attributes. Aristotle described the soul as the core essence of a being - that which defines a being. Although he did not believe the soul could continue after death, oddly enough, he was inclined to believe the intellect was eternal. However, he didn’t have the benefit of our current understanding of the role of the physical brain in cognition, memory and reason which form the basis of intellect. Humans have long used the term “soul” in folklore, poetry, art and philosophy. It permeates our culture. While much of this is intended to be metaphorical, that is seldom clear. Considering all this, I think it’s easy to understand why the idea of the immortality of souls is so pervasive, especially since so few people are aware of the current scientific understanding of the human neocortex and its relationship to consciousness and higher brain function. But I think close examination shows that the immortal soul is a fundamental misunderstanding of what life is and, and even more importantly, what the mind is.

It is clear that humans are conscious and self-aware. Even with our advanced understanding of the brain, we still have many different theories, conceptions and misconceptions about consciousness. My view of consciousness is that it is really nothing more than perception - awareness of reality including self-awareness. I certainly agree that consciousness is a rare thing in nature. Other animals have varying degrees of consciousness but nothing like the primate ability to think in terms of “I” and “me.” Of the primates, humans have the most developed example of this kind of self-awareness. In evolutionary terms, the most significant recent development in brain structure is the highly developed human neocortex. But for all the mystery in which we shroud these concepts, the functions of perception, sensation, memory, reason and emotion as well as maintenance of bodily functions are performed by our physical brain. How else would we lose consciousness when the brain is shut down as during surgery, brain damage or simply from a blow to the head? There are volumes of information that demonstrate inconsistency in the concept of the soul. Skeptical literature often cites phenomena such as brain lesions (as in Broca's aphasia) and conditions like Alzheimer's disease as evidence that personality is material, and exists in discrete physical components, contrary to the philosophy of the immortal soul. Owing to its complexity, most people are completely in awe of the brain as an organ and consider it, and the very act of thought, significant mysteries. To discuss all of the scientific literature would turn this already lengthy article into an unwieldy project that few would have time to read. I will try to confine my discussion to the conscious and volitional part of the human brain as I think it is the key argument for the existence of the immortal soul.

It is important to note that we naturally have difficulty analyzing the nature of our own consciousness because of our perspective. We have the same difficulty as we do when analyzing the entire universe. We can't get a “bird’s eye view” or examine it under a microscope. We also can’t avoid the observer effect. We can only know that we are conscious and self-aware. It is the irreducible basis of who we are. We know we think, but we don’t really understand how we think. We can observe others from an external perspective. But then we lose the internal perspective. To view this problem circumspectly we must consider our internal perspective to be generally equivalent with that of others who we can observe externally. This is not really a problem. As I said in a previous discussion, humans vary only trivially in our genetic structure. Our physical bodies are essentially identical. This applies to our brains as well. Why wouldn’t our cognitive awareness be effectively the same from one individual to another? We may arrive at different conclusions based on different experience and other conditions but the underlying mechanisms are identical for the purpose of study.

I think the brain/body dichotomy seems obvious to us because we understand and relate to the brain and body in different ways. To us, our consciousness seems to be completely separate from our physical body. They appear to be in totally different categories. One is obviously material and the other seems ethereal. The body is measurable. Consciousness is as nebulous as thought. Furthermore, we cannot see a connection between our brain and our consciousness. We don’t feel ourselves think. We know our brain is connected to our body because we receive the messages of our sense organs. But even with the greatest effort of will, we cannot sense that consciousness is a mere function of our brain. It is more difficult than trying to look at the inside of our own eyelids. So it is natural to speculate that it might be something different and special. We are clearly more than the sum of our parts. So, when we hear about spirits, it seems to make sense. We begin to think that maybe the mystics are right. Maybe there is such a thing as an immortal soul. After all, it is intangible and mysterious but definitely real. It doesn’t seem to get hungry or thirsty like our body. And perhaps it has a supernatural existence independent of the old “mortal coil.”

Our brain does some things that appear magical or mystical until they are understood. For instance, in the eyes of vertebrates the photo-sensitive cells called rods and cones lie behind the optic nerves and a layer of blood vessels resulting in loss of visual acuity. These nerves and blood vessels must emerge through the back of the retina, leaving a hole in the organ with no light-sensitive cells, and forming a blind spot. But our mind compensates for these blind spots by extrapolating and filling in the missing data. We don’t do this consciously but completely without thinking about it. Our mind does this in other circumstances, also without conscious effort. In any scene of our experience there are many elements including visual, tactile, auditory, and olfactory. And these are not all on one level. There are background elements and foreground elements as well as peripheral elements. There are also conditions that affect the amount of information received such as the level and intensity of each stimulus. If anything in the scene is incongruous or essentially missing, our mind can and usually does fill in the scene with what seems most likely based on our experience and expectations. If, for some reason, we are concentrating on certain specific details and don’t think about others at the moment of the experience, our memory may be a bit patchy on some details. But our mind helpfully fills in those details and sometimes when we recall the scenes for reexamination, we get the filled in details and cannot reasonably tell them from the clearly perceived data.

The cold hard fact of the matter is that when we die, our brain ceases to function. This is an observable and verifiable fact. We may be able to revive a dead body if we get to it soon enough, but dead bodies decompose rather rapidly if not preserved. Sometimes we can revive a dead body even after decomposition has started. But when we do this, we invariably find there is a significant loss of brain function. All victims of brain damage are observably not the same person they were before. The point is that all of our sensations, feelings, thoughts, memories and dreams are due to brain function. When that is damaged, there is often little left of the person we were. When we die, the body, the brain and the whole universe of matter continue to exist but the personality, intellect and consciousness of that person is gone. It is easy to see that a dead body is incapable of being aware of anything much less being self-aware. The more difficult concept to grasp is that a disembodied soul could not be self-aware. That is simply because it would have no self to be aware of. The question is: Why is this disputable? There is the notion promoted by such stories as the recent “Matrix” movies that say the mind retains a residual self-image. However, if the mind is the function of a physical brain, there is nowhere for this residual self-image to be retained. Even if we imagine a spiritual body, why can’t we detect the function of such bodies? For any information to be stored and processed requires power and substance. Where is this power and substance that allows a soul to perform the activity originally managed by the brain? If a spirit is invisible and immaterial, it cannot do what a brain can do. If it could, why would we need a brain in the first place?

I’m sure some will bring up the idea of Near Death Experience (NDE) and Out of Body Experience (OBE). Sometimes people who die are revived before any significant brain damage can occur. And some people report the ability to move their “soul” out of their body. Under these circumstances, odd things have been reported to occur. If you read the anecdotal evidence about these things, it can sound rather convincing. People are said to report all kinds of things they “couldn’t possibly have known” that occurred during their “death” or in remote locations. But all serious scientific studies into NDEs and OBEs have shown that the reported phenomena are fabrications, guesswork or otherwise easily explainable. If you believe in these claims, I suggest you read both sides of the issue and use critical thinking. If you are one who contends there is some kind of conspiracy on the part of scientists to cover up such real events, you don’t know much about scientists. Such a discovery, if sufficiently validated by double blind studies, could make the career of a scientist. It would be big news and guarantee the fame of anyone who proved it. But consider the incentives of profit and fame that might motivate the purveyors of such claims. Many people have made lucrative careers out of writing books and lecturing about this kind of thing. They are hucksters preying on the gullible and the hopeful people of the world. The idea of the soul as a separate ghostly occupant inhabiting the body also gives rise to other notions like haunting and demonic possession. I think it is obvious that we need to develop what Carl Sagan called a “Baloney detector” that will allow us to use knowledge and critical thinking skills to relegate these absurd ideas to the category of mystical quackery and pseudoscience where they belong.

Probably the main attraction of the notion of immortal souls is that it is comforting to think of loved ones continuing to live on in some peaceful way after their bodily death. This is perfectly understandable. When we lose a loved one, it’s natural to grieve and wish that things were different. Even the desire for personal immortality is natural. But wishing and hoping for things doesn’t make them happen. There is no correlation between desire and actuality. Facts are facts. We can’t change what is. The healthier thing to do is to come to terms with mortality. We all die. Life is too short. It sucks. Get over it. Sometimes we are left alone. Sometimes children die. It is heartbreaking, but it is reality. Besides, I think the notion of an afterlife causes people to put things off assuming there will be time later in another place to do things. Fortunately, they will never have the opportunity to regret this waste of their lives. But their children and friends might.

Personally, I find the whole idea of life after death to be demeaning to actual life. One of the worst examples of this is the idea that if you kill someone, it isn’t really that bad. That is how tyrants and terrorists can justify killing innocent people. They can just say that God knows his own and will give them a new life in heaven (or the paradise of your choice). It is actually an insidious rationalization. Religions sometimes even encourage this kind of thinking especially when it applies to unbelievers. The witch hunts are a good example. Ironically, this quick path to paradise doesn’t generally apply to suicides. This has to be a serious sin that would keep you out of heaven. The churches want you to believe in a glorious afterlife, but they don’t want too many people trying to take the short way out. That would seriously curtail their revenue if it got popular. They also depend on numbers of believers to give them power. Dead believers aren’t as useful as live ones. They can’t vote or protest or proselytize.

Most believers in the soul think of it as completely spiritual, supernatural and immaterial. However there have been those who think it has some material component. Some have even tried to establish mass or weight of the soul. Many of you may have heard it said that the weight of the soul is 21 grams. This was the inspiration for the title of a 2003 movie. The origin of this 21 gram weight comes from the work of one Dr. Duncan MacDougall of Haverhill Massachusetts in 1903. Believing the soul must have some sort of corporeal mass, Dr. MacDougall conducted a series of experiments to determine if the moment of the soul’s departure could be detected. He never concluded that the weight of the soul was 21 grams. In fact, he admitted that his experiments could not be considered conclusive of anything and no one has been able to duplicate his results. But 21 grams was his measurement of weight loss at the moment of expiration of his first test subject. While this is an interesting story, it clearly doesn’t help our understanding of the question of the soul. It also goes to show you that even if you rely on the claims of scientists, you still need to use critical thinking.

Of course, the only way to believe a God that is pure consciousness could give rise to the entire physical universe is to believe that consciousness can exist outside of a living body and is itself able to be a cause. First of all, we have no experience of such a thing. Every conscious being ever known is a living being. To the believer, disembodied souls are considered invisible and immaterial. In essence they are thought of as a force of some kind. But force is not a cause, it is an effect. Just like the mind is not a cause but an effect. The law of causality is how the universe works. You can’t have a cause, without an effect or an effect without a cause. No matter how attractive or popular these ideas are, they have no basis in fact.

The Question of Morality

As an atheist, I am often asked about morality. Specifically, religious people ask if I have any morals and if so, what I base them on. To most believers, all morality comes from God. I not only disagree with this, I find it repugnant. If I do something considered immoral, I certainly get the blame. And that’s fine with me because I accept responsibility for all my actions. But if I act morally, it is all God’s doing and I get no credit. I am responsible for those actions too. But God even gets credit for my good deeds. I hate it when I go out of my way to help someone just to have them say “Thank God.” That is just ridiculous. We are all responsible for what we do for good or ill. We deserve the blame and the credit.

A lot of religious people find it inconceivable that an atheist can have any moral standards. They often assume that we choose to be atheists specifically to avoid having to follow any moral code. Some bizarre people even ask why we don’t just run around killing and raping indiscriminately. This demonstrates a profound ignorance that I find nauseating. One wonders if that is what they would do if they didn’t feel constrained by God. They are basically saying that only God is capable of caring about people. Thankfully, these people are in the minority. But even those who accept that atheists can be moral usually make the assumption that if an atheist does have moral standards they are invariably due to religious upbringing or at least exposure to the religious influence permeating society. Some find it to be validation of the theory that God built a conscience into all humans so we would know right from wrong. And since religion has been monopolizing the arena of moral ethics worldwide for thousands of years, I can see why they are confused. But, if anything, atheists are more moral than religious people. And we have better reasons to be so. As my Dad used to say, “Don’t shit in your own backyard.” It’s crude but makes a point. We atheists know that this is our only chance at life. There are no mulligans, no do-overs. We don’t expect a glorious afterlife. If we foul the social climate or wind up in jail, we have wasted the gift of life on nothing. Not to mention that if we take a life, we know it is gone forever. There is no heaven and no ultimate justice. There is no reward.

Thinking themselves experts on morality, religious people often decry what they call moral relativism - the notion that what constitutes right and wrong or good and evil are not absolute but depend on the individual, group and circumstances. In some respects, they are right. All human cultures have developed strikingly similar moral codes. But moral questions don’t fit in categories of absolute black and white. There are many situations that even people of good conscious disagree about such as the death penalty, war, foreign aid, criminal justice and abortion. Even in the Bible and other scriptures there are clearly situations that demonstrate moral gray areas.

We humans do certainly view some specific behaviors as good or bad with fair consistency. But does that indicate the existence of a god-given moral law? Superficially, it is easy to see how one might think so, especially if one is predisposed to accept the notion of God in the first place. But I think we need to look at humans as a species and consider the long history of human evolution along with our interaction with our environment and each other. Looking at the miniscule variation in our genes from any individual to any other, one will realize that there is no reason to infer supernaturally mandated moral law. It seems reasonable to say that we think alike because we are alike. Humans vary no more than 0.2 percent in the active coding regions of our DNA. For all practical purposes, we are identical on a functional level. The major differences between human cultures are due to effects of our environment and experience.

I don’t want to perpetuate a false dichotomy. I’m sure there are other schools of thought. But let’s consider the two possibilities mentioned so far. One says that humans have a God-given, universal system of moral laws somehow imprinted on us that gives us the ability to tell right from wrong. It tells us how God wants us to act. This has nothing to do with what we value but what God values. It is a spiritual thing unrelated to our physical being or even our cognitive process. The common religious view is that people are naturally evil and can only act appropriately through the good graces of a benevolent deity. All wrongdoing is due to the conflict between our immoral nature and the divine spirit of God he puts inside us. Like I said, if we are good, the credit goes to God. If we are bad, we get the blame. Why we couldn’t be made with a better nature is not explained.

The second of these possible explanations for our general agreement about moral rules is that humans have evolved as a species with specific common instincts, behaviors, desires and values that cause us to care about our fellow humans and our own life. We have also evolved a complex intellect that allows us to see the benefit to ourselves in creating and abiding by moral laws and ethical codes so we can live in peace and happiness. The result of all this is that our moral codes turn out to be amazingly similar across cultures. In this view morals and ethics are evolved behaviors which give our species a better chance of survival. It doesn’t mean we are mindless meat puppets without choice but that we are predisposed to cooperate and value not only our lives but the lives of those of our social groups and, to some extent, all members of our species.

As biological organisms, humans cannot compete physically with most other species because we don’t have claws, fangs, armor, speed, size or strength like they have. Our major asset is our superior brain. We are tribal creatures that live and work together cooperatively for the mutual benefit of all. We don't operate totally on instinct. We can recognize that this behavior is necessary and it should be reinforced with rules. We can sympathize with the problems and needs of others. This is true even now when we are competing with other humans more often than wild animals. Not only do we have little genetic difference, but most of coding differences in our DNA are very minor and superficial. We are amazingly like each other no matter how outwardly different we appear.

Given these facts, and that the biggest determinant for differences in moral viewpoints is the heterogeneity of our cultures, it seems that the more compelling of the two possibilities is the scientific one. And even if the two possibilities were equally feasible, the scientific one invokes no unverifiable, unexplainable supernatural entities. On the level of pure reason, the religious notion of morality is unsupportable.

There is a very good website that explains morality from a logical and rational perspective that you might want to peruse. I covers a lot more than I did here and has some excellent references that can be helpful in your study of this question. It is called, The Bible of the Good and Moral Atheist I highly recommend it.

Just God, Hold The Religion

One of the most frequent comments I have heard from believers regarding this blog (and my arguments in general) goes something like this: “Sure religions cause a lot of problems but it’s not God’s fault. There’s nothing wrong with believing in God. You should be arguing against religion, not God.” I have to scratch my head when people make such statements. Where do they think the concept of God comes from? What do they think religion is? The fact of the matter is that belief in God IS religion. God concepts are codified and perpetuated by organized religions. Left to themselves people would never come up with a consistent view of God if they did it at all. And organized religion is nothing more than groups of people who agree on a certain definition of God. The beliefs are their religion. The organization is secondary. The dogma that goes along with belief in God merely differentiates the groups.

It seems that a lot of people these days are noticing the hypocrisy, oppression, bigotry, intolerance, cruelty and greed associated with organized religion. But instead of questioning the core concept of God, they simply take their God with them and step away from the organization. (Julia Sweeney has recorded a great comedy routine where she talks about this) Some people are even raising their children with this God-only religion. They think this somehow makes them non-religious. And it is important to note that the God concept they take with them is almost invariably the one their religion gave them. When you ask them to describe God and what he wants or what he does, their answers usually sound just like the religion they left. If they were Christians, they usually keep Jesus and all the dogma of virgin birth, resurrection and salvation. They may be physically disassociated with the group but mentally they might as well be right back in church.

I can certainly see the attraction in this approach. You only have to give up what you don’t like. The great thing about this is that no one can question your beliefs because they aren’t tied to some label with all its ancient dogma, ritual and pageantry. It is appealing because it allows a person to modify their beliefs anytime they feel like it. You can say Jesus was gay if you want to because it’s no one’s business but yours. Too bad most of these people don’t change their beliefs noticeably. That seems rather pointless to me. For those who have the confidence to actually make a real change it turns out to be one of the first steps in becoming an atheist or agnostic. Whether consciously or not, what they have usually done is switch from thinking emotionally to thinking rationally. They have analyzed the claims of religion and cleared away a lot of unexplainable and incoherent nonsense. That is a good thing, but it’s only the beginning.

I think there are several reasons people hang onto God when they abandon organized religion.

1. To let go of God is like saying goodbye to an old friend or a family member. They have normally grown up with this God as their ready companion or confidant or confessor. Even if they don’t always think about God, he has been a fixture in their lives - albeit an imaginary fixture.
2. It’s built in. God concepts are part of human evolutionary development. It is a basic human instinct to anthropomorphize things like forces of nature and infinity that we don’t understand. But being a rational, civilized human means we have to overcome many of our natural instincts.
   
3. The problems of religion are obviously the fault of people, not God. They think God is as much a victim of religion as they are. But if God does exist, who are they do decide this for him and if God doesn’t exist they are just keeping their imaginary friend.
   
4. They are hedging their bets. According to many, the one truly unforgivable sin is to turn your back on God once you’ve known him. Leaving a church is bad enough but leaving God is like worshipping the devil. So they are covered if it turns out there is something to this God thing. These people probably aren’t very committed to it. They need to just fish or cut bait.
   
5. They are worried about what their family would think if they were to announce that they had become atheists. That is a serious concern. Many families have disowned people for becoming atheist. I remember the story of a young man who told his mother he had something to tell her about himself that she wasn’t going to like. When he finally got to the point and said he was an atheist, she said she could have accepted it if he said he was gay or a pedophile or a gangster but he was no longer her son if he insisted on being an atheist. She would have rather found out he was terminally ill. In some parts of the world it is legal to kill your child if they deny God.

A person who leaves organized religion is usually a more observant, analytical person who likes to do their own thinking rather than blindly and obediently following ritual and custom. Either they are turned off by the hypocrisy and intolerance or they see the contradictions and circular thinking of religion and don’t want to be associated with obvious nonsense. But when you leave the realm of organized religion and start to analyze the things you know about God, you realize that you know absolutely nothing about it. God is completely unknowable. You may have imagined what God is like. It’s not as if there is such a thing as God that can be discovered. Usually all you have is the dogma you were taught or absorbed from your culture. A very thoughtful person will eventually realize that the concept of God is intellectually bankrupt and childish as Santa Claus. Leaving organized religion does not make you a non-religious person unless you rid yourself of the mystical magical nonsense called God.

Without a Prayer

I was raised from birth as a Christian and taught to believe in a God that cared about people. Naturally I believed it was true. Our culture was steeped in Christian beliefs and virtually no one questioned them. I had no reason to doubt the authority of my parents, relatives, pastors, and teachers. As a kid I just accepted it all without question. In my early teens I began trying to establish a personal relationship with God and Christ. Prayer was a huge part of this process. At that time, it was an integral part of life for our family. We said grace when we sat down to eat. We prayed for help when times were hard or when someone was ill. We also said bedtime prayers. It was part of our daily routine. In those days, we even said prayers in school.

I’m not looking for sympathy here but I had a pretty rough childhood. Sometime during my youth, I began to think of prayer as a way to try to escape my problems. We were poor and times were hard. My parents fought a lot. Dad drank too much and was abusive. Also, I was not popular as a kid. I had a weight problem and kids picked on me. Dad was a marine and we moved a lot. I had very few friends. And none of my friends were girls although I began thinking romantically about girls at an early age. I didn’t fit into most groups because I wasn’t athletic and I didn’t follow the fads. I drew pictures, read books and wrote poetry or short stories. I was a daydreamer and not really very interested in the real world most of the time. I usually lived in a fantasy world.

Religion was much like the other fantasy worlds I created in my mind. It was exciting because it was full of emotion, stories and camaraderie. I could feel accepted there. It was magical. One could have the power to change the world. I believed what Jesus said in Matthew 17:20 "For verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you." I recall several times when I prayed for specific things in my youth. Praying gave me confidence because I thought God was on my side. I prayed to get out of trouble. I prayed for a girlfriend. I prayed to succeed in sports. When these things eventually happened I believed that my prayers were answered. I prayed that my Dad would survive Viet Nam and he did. Lots of people survived Viet Nam but, in true Christian fashion, I considered this an answer to my prayers.

Looking back on it I can see that it was having confidence that enabled me to make some things happen. If people had been teaching me how to build self-confidence and how to believe in myself as a child, I wouldn’t have needed religion. I don’t need it now. Other than what I made happen myself, what happened was pure chance. My prayers were naïve. I trusted God to be there for me and I was shaken when I began to realize that it wasn’t really so. When prayer failed, I was confused. I prayed for God to help my parents resolve their problems and stay together. But they got divorced. I prayed for my baby brother to get well. But he died before he was a year old. I didn’t see the difference between the prayers that I believed were answered and those that were not answered. I knew that the things I was asking for were good things. I didn’t ask for riches or fame. I wasn’t trying to test God.

I had not yet learned the rationalization that God sometimes says “No” to prayers. It wouldn’t have made sense to me even then because I had read the scriptures that made it clear that God would give you whatever you asked for in faith and righteousness. These and many more scriptures say it in no uncertain terms.
Matthew 7: 7-8; “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened”
Mark 11:24;"Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them."
John 14:12-14 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it."

I believed that then. For God to refuse such a request made no sense. How could God say “No” when I asked for my baby brother to get better? I had no idea why God would want him to die. What conceivable plan could God have in letting an infant die? And if everything is going to happen the way God wants it to happen, what’s the point of prayer?

These questions haunted me for a very long time. However, I didn’t give up on God. I thought it would make sense some day when I learned more. I was told; “God works in mysterious ways.” And everyone else seemed to accept it as normal. I continued to be faithful and even felt that I had received a call to the Baptist ministry when I was fifteen. Looking back on it I am sure that I was responding to suggestions in the pastor’s sermons but then I attributed it to a call from God. I eventually got ordained. However, it was in a different religion. My questions about religious dogma had caused me to switch religions a couple of times by then. I was never a pastor because I entered the military under a different specialty but I did work as a lay minister for several years. I taught classes, counseled people and helped with the services. All this time I read the Bible and the scriptures of other religions. I read apologetics and religious discourses. And, of course, I prayed. I wanted to be sure I was doing what God wanted and serving the right church.

I struggled on with my questions and growing doubts for many years. The more I thought about the results of prayer, the more I realized that it just didn’t seem to make any difference. People were always praying and these prayers were about as effective as wishing on a star. I had thought that God would answer the prayers of those who were truly faithful and sincerely believed. What I began to see was that people could rationalize anything into an answer for a prayer. I talked to a lot of people about prayer and they all had different ways of looking at it. But their experiences were all the same no matter what their faith. When they prayed, whatever happened was the same thing that would have happened by sheer chance. Statistically speaking, there wasn’t any difference.

When I talked to people about what they experienced as answers to prayers, some people said they heard a voice in their head. Others said they felt a warm feeling in their chest or other part of their body. Some people just said they felt calm. I had never experienced that kind of answer. I wondered if there was something wrong with me. When I prayed, I just talked to God silently or vocally but never got any response. The only way I ever had to determine if a prayer was answered was by the results. And I could see that was no help. When I told people this they sometimes said that I wasn’t faithful enough or that I needed to pray for God’s will to be done. As for the faith part, I knew that I had at least started out with unquestioning faith. And to pray for God’s will to be done seemed pointless. If no one ever prayed, wouldn’t God manifest his will anyway? There seemed to be no end of suggestions for rationalizing away the failure of prayer.

One of the most common things people said that confirmed prayer to them was the miraculous remission of disease they had actually seen as the result of prayer. Well my family and I had often prayed over sick people and the recovery rate for all diseases in my experience is precisely the same with prayer as it is for the disease normally. People died from the diseases that were fatal and they recovered from those that weren’t. I never saw a miraculous cure. People have said they believe in the power of prayer because one of their friends or family members recovered from something like cancer when the odds were 1000 to 1 against it. But that doesn’t prove anything because if a disease is not 100% fatal, some people will survive. It might seem miraculous but it is just that some people will recover even given terrible odds. That’s just the way it works.

A lot of people have told me of experiences where they or their loved ones were destitute and prayed for help. Lo and behold someone just came to the door or stepped up to them and gave them money or some other kind of aid. They always say it was just out of the blue and that no one had any reason to help them out. They say; “it must have been from God.” I guess they lived in a vacuum and no one had any idea they were poor. But I’ve been on both sides of this kind of situation. When we were poor there were times when people just showed up with food or money. And since I’ve become relatively successful in my life, I’ve done the same thing for others. People know who the poor people are. There are many groups who take up collections for the poor and, if they don’t already have someone in mind, they find them by checking with welfare organizations or churches or they just drive around until they see someone in need. It’s not a miracle. It is just people caring for people.

Some say that since most of this aid comes from churches, that makes religion a good thing. They say that in effect it is God who is helping. I applaud the humanitarian works of churches especially when there are no strings attached. But I don’t think it takes religion for this to happen. It would be hard to determine the difference in the amount of humanitarian work done by non-religious people and religious people. But since more than 90% of the people in this country believe in God, no one can use the fact that most aid is given by churches as an indicator of anything. For example, if 90% of the people are religious and they provide 75% of the aid, then the 10% who are non-religious people are providing 25% of the aid. That would mean non-religious people are more generous and would not look good for religion. Even if we could determine the exact amount of humanitarian aid provided by churches, it is not clear whether the people who contribute are themselves believers. Many non-religious people donate to religious charities. There are also secular sources of humanitarian aid and we cannot know whether religious belief motivates those who donate to those charities. Anyway, who cares about the source of aid provided when you are in desperate need? The point is that good people care about others and that is who is providing the help. It doesn’t matter if they believe in God. To attribute humanitarian work to God is gratuitously crediting God for what people do.

The Bible and the scriptures of other religions make it clear that those who follow a religion other than the “true religion” will not receive help from God. In fact they are reviled. They are sinful unbelievers. Their prayers will fall on deaf ears. Christians are told in the Bible by Jesus to hate even their family members who don’t follow him (Consider Matthew 10:35-37 and Luke 12:51-53). Even so, the efficacy of prayer is the same no matter the religion of the person praying. If there was a true religion then the followers of that religion should benefit more from their supplications. But there is no difference. So there is no one true religion and it is quite obvious that they can’t all be right.

Recently there has been a lot of buzz among people of faith about studies that supposedly show the efficacy of prayer in helping people overcome disease. I’ve seen many an article by the likes of Dr. Uwe Siemon-Netto touting 1,200 studies at research centers around the world that show a correlation between faith, prayer and recovery from illness. While Siemon-Netto has a Ph.D, it should not surprise anyone to find out that it is a theology degree. That’s like being a doctor of astrology. I don’t know why people can get a doctorate in a field that is based completely on superstition. But this is getting to be a long article and I’ll save that for another day. What I’m saying is that there is no scientific evidence of the efficacy of prayer. The studies people refer to and that you may have read about in the news are not scientific. They are not double-blind studies that can achieve meaningful results (even when they claim to be). I’ve read as many as I can find and even the most hopeful ones have a margin of error that makes them statistically insignificant. They also totally ignore the placebo effect. For more on this see:
Straight Dope about Prayer Studies

For those of you who are tempted to say that God should not be tested I refer you to the Bible: Malachi 3:10 "Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in My house, and test Me now in this," says the LORD of hosts, "if I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you a blessing until it overflows."

God doesn’t appear to have a problem being tested.

For more in-depth discussion of the failure of prayer see:
WhyDoesGodHateAmputees.com