It sort of hit my wife and me suddenly late in our process of deconverting. Every Christian rejects something (or a lot of things) in the Bible. Particular things. Things about which the Bible is very clear. It turns out, there’s no other choice.

The Bible contains a lot of paradoxical statements, conflicting accounts that cannot be unraveled and even a formal contradiction or two. It also has commands that the Christian does not wish to obey and descriptions of God that the Christian does not want to worship.

Still, Christians can’t reject the Bible entirely. That would be throwing out the baby Jesus with the holy water. The Bible is the only reason to believe certain things they do hold dear. So, in one way or another, they reject what they don’t like.

Some Christians will dismiss more of the Bible, others less. Some in pious sounding ways, and others more flagrantly. The better educated, more articulate Christians might perform mental genuflections to explain biblical contradictions and write grand systematic theologies to describe their gods, while the uneducated ones might tell you only what they feel in their hearts and the religious yuppies will tell you what meaning they take from the Bible. What each Christian is telling you, though, in her or his own way, is that he or she is god.

The result is a rank and unique pride that claims a divine stamp of approval upon the Christian’s own life, while rejecting both all of the Bible that doesn’t appeal to her or his liking and the gods constructed by other Christians, reflecting other parts of the bible.

It’s an arrogant syncretism of life and religion that we call Self-Projection as God (SPAG).

For a practical demonstration, just pick a pair of contrary or contradictory Bible verses that are on either side of a sensitive issue and ask a Christian what she or he thinks about them. The better you know the Bible and the Christian, the easier it will be to pick the appropriately contrary verses, but the result will always be the same: The Christian will start rationalizing and explaining the contradiction in a way that accommodates them to his or her own life.

Understand that we’re not merely intending to demonstrate simply that the Bible is an inconsistent hodgepodge of ancient mythology and antiquated ethics rife with error. That’s obvious and it’s not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is that because the Bible is such mishmash, SPAG is the necessary and universal form of Christianity in practice, an absolute identity: All Christianity is Self-Projection as God.

Vincent Skolny is an entrepreneur and founder of The Avangelism Project

This is a continuation of my review for Robert Kunzman’s Write These Laws on Your Children: Inside the World of Conservative Christian Homeschooling.

Getting Testy about Testing

For an atheist who’s only experience with Christian home-schooling is the movie Jesus Camp, this book may come as a surprise. Many of the families are open minded and flexible — but only up to a point. It’s clear that they all fall on the right side of the political and religious spectrum.

None of the families are exactly getting a NCSE approved education on evolution. The families use books like Eagle’s Wings: Considering God’s Creation (A Creative Biblical Approach to Natural Science), books which are laced with biblical quotes and which give the standard arguments against natural selection.

Pullquote: “We’re going to be opening up our Kingfisher History Encyclopedia and read about how people evolved thirty million years ago from a speck of dust or whatever”

While Kunzman spends only a few paragraphs talking about this problem — really, does anyone find the above surprising? — it’s one of the most frustrating things about the conservative Christian home-school movement. Evolution is at once very simple (”dead organisms don’t breed”), and at the same time very difficult to really understand. As evidence, I suggest looking at all the misunderstandings we see from commentators on the science blogs.

Since evolution is so easy to misunderstand or caricature, it seems important that kids get an accurate explanation at the outset. It doesn’t bode well when one parent promises to discuss evolution with their child by saying, “We’re going to be opening up our Kingfisher History Encyclopedia and read about how people evolved thirty million years ago from a speck of dust or whatever; those are not things from which I’ll shelter them.” (203)

It would be wonderful to see some standardized testing that would ensure that the child has received an accurate understanding of the principles, even if they do not accept them. This will happen the day Billy Graham Jr. french-kisses the Pope.

Throughout the book, Kunzman suggests standardized testing for basic things like reading and math. The tests would be method neutral, but give an assessment of how much of the basics that child understands. While at least one mother subscribes to a service that provides such tests, most are actively hostile to the notion of any regulation or outside group interfering in their education process.

Passing on the Traditions

Pullquote: “I want my kids to think like me, not because I’m perfect, but because I love God and I want to follow him.”

Most of us are good pluralists, and want our children to grow up and have certain basic things: health, happiness, stability, and a willingness to allow others to have the same. How they go about achieving those things is negotiable. While most of us feel that we’ve found a way that works, we’re usually willing to allow that other ways may work better for other people. In other words, there is no single right path to take in life.

Broadly speaking, most to the parents in this book believe that there is one right way. While they pay lip-service to allowing their kids to choose their own path, they adamantly ensuring their kids learn all about the single correct path. They make little or no distinction between education and upbringing; the child does not learn math at school and morality at home, but should get everything as one package. Home-schooling is a way of life, a seamless part of the the whole.

Here’s how one mother put it:

“I want my kids to think like me, not because I’m perfect, but because I love God and I want to follow him. [...] I want them to look and say, ‘Mom and Dad showed us how to know God; they’re not perfect, they screw up, but they showed us’ — and I want those beliefs to become theirs, obviously. (212)

Contrast this with Robert M. Price. On a recent podcast discussing atheist parenting, Price suggested that parents teach their kids their own religious traditions and beliefs, but say, “This is what I believe, but I may be wrong and many people believe other things for many good reasons. You have to figure out what you believe yourself.”

This conflict is at the center of the debate: how does the parent ensure that their child understands the “right” way, while still allowing them the freedom to come to their own conclusions? What is the dividing line between education and indoctrination?

Each of the six families in this book are still grappling with this question, each fitfully answering it as best they can. Kunzman admirably allows each family to tell their own story, while still evaluating each with the eye of a parent and an educator. He provides no solid answers, but the insight he provides is absolutely essential to the ongoing debate.

Vorjack is a librarian/archivist and a public historian, living with his wife in history-soaked Albany, New York.

My mother recently admitted to me that if she had it to do over again, I would have been home-schooled. This was a shock, since my mother recently retired after 40 years of being a middle school science teacher. My mother has resisted all attempts to get her to teach outside her field, yet she wanted to teach me math and history?

But she probably could have done better than the soccer coach who taught me health, or the English teacher who simply had us read from the history text book. There’s no way around the fact that our local school system was below average. There’s also the fact that I was an unmotivated student. Perhaps if she could have controlled my education herself, she could have kept me interested. Or at least insured that I got my homework done.

There are many reasons why parents might wish to home-school. On one side you have the liberal-ish “unschool” movement, which stresses the benefits of an individualized education. Even more extreme are the “no-schoolers,” who reject curriculum and allow the kids to study what they want, how they want. On the other end you have the religious sects who want to insure that their children receive an education that is compatible with their traditions, and prevent their kids from being exposed to harmful influences.

Home-schooling as a movement remains poorly studied. It can be traced back just over forty years, or just over twenty for the conservative Christian version. Differing reasons for home-schooling meet with different school systems and differing state regulations for home-schooling, resulting in a complex and diverse mix of experiences for both parents and children.

Studies of Studying

Pullquote: “The more of the system’s tentacles that you can break off from you, the healthier you’re going to be.”

That’s what makes Robert Kunzman’s book, Write These Laws on Your Children, so valuable right now. Kunzman has spent two years traveling across the country and visiting six families of conservative Christian home-schoolers. He provides us with six case studies, interlaced with essays about various aspects of the home-school movement, like the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) and Generation Joshua. While we still lack data about the movement as a whole, we can at least get a look at what’s going on inside those homes.

What we immediately find is that “what’s going on” depends on which home you look in. There is tremendous variety within the movement, and Kunzman looks at how each family deals with issues of education, citizenship, diversity and home-school regulations.

The families range from the Palmer family in a LA suburb to the Branson family in Tennessee. Debbie Palmer has a degree in Child Psychology and several years of teaching experience. Her nine children benefit from this, but one girl wanted art classes her mother couldn’t provide, so she was allowed to go to a public high school. Several of the children correspond with non-Christian friends, and the parents play hands-off.

The Branson family is different. Kunzman handles each case with balance and humanity, but it’s clear that sometimes things just aren’t working. The mother seems strained and impatient, and her teaching is haphazard. She’s dealing with seven kids, and has an older child in the hospital following a car accident; there are no substitutes for this teacher.

The father is a frequent distraction and an actual impediment to learning. He’s a big fan of corporal punishment, and a follower of Michael & Debi Pearl, authors of the extremely controversial To Train Up a Child. The father is also extremely anti-authoritarian — “The more of the system’s tentacles that you can break off from you, the healthier you’re going to be” — at least, he’s against every authority not his own.

As a mother who home-schools once said to me, “To be an effective home-schooler, you have to have the right teacher and the right student.” In other words, sometimes the best of intentions and all the resources in the world aren’t enough. What works for one family won’t necessarily work for another, nor will the same techniques work for every child in the family. The Palmer family has its problems, but seems to function smoothly. The Branson family does not.

To Be Continued …

As this is turning into a hefty review, I’ll break it up into two sections. Next time, home-schooling and evolution.

Vorjack is a librarian/archivist and a public historian, living with his wife in history-soaked Albany, New York.

Consider a lion. A creationist looks at one and thinks, “What agility! What speed! What skills! This must be created by God.” It’s a common sense explanation, and people believed such things for thousands of years, because they didn’t have a better explanation. The best they could come up with was “magic man done it.”

Killing Machines

Pullquote: Life is based on death. And that realization should make any honest creationist pause.

But after a while the thoughtful observer notices that these amazing creatures cause an immense amount of death and suffering. Indeed, they are very quick — the better to catch living things and snuff the life out of them. They have beautiful sharp teeth — the better to eat you with, my dear.

If lions were designed, they were designed to be killing machines. Life is based on death. And that realization should make any honest creationist pause.

I’m reminded of Mark Twain’s observation in The Diary of Adam:

[Eve] engages herself in many foolish things; among others; to study out why the animals called lions and tigers live on grass and flowers, when, as she says, the sort of teeth they wear would indicate that they were intended to eat each other. This is foolish, because to do that would be to kill each other, and that would introduce what, as I understand, is called “death”; and death, as I have been told, has not yet entered the Park. Which is a pity, on some accounts.

Once a creationist realizes life is designed to kill, they are faced with a theological problem: what kind of malevolent, sadistic designer would design this?

Hello, Superstition

Pullquote: The myth of Adam & Eve was a noble attempt to explain death and suffering, but it is ultimately a theological nightmare and at odds with all our scientific evidence.

This is where the common sense stops, and the superstition begins. If you ask most creationists why there is death in the world, they will tell you the ancient story of Adam and Eve. They believe there was no death before the forbidden fruit was munched on. You might find it a satisfying answer, as long as you don’t think about it too much and are the type to believe in stories with talking snakes.

But if you start getting specific, the mythic spell is broken and you’re left with absurdity. Before “The Fall,” how could carnivores have survived on only plants when they were biologically “designed” to eat meat? Why would they have sharp teeth designed to pierce skin if they were supposed to eat grass? And if they didn’t die or eat each other, wouldn’t the earth be overflowing with insects and animals within a few weeks? What did the venus flytrap eat if it couldn’t eat insects? How did mosquitoes suck on plants instead of blood? What about parasites? There are thousands of questions like this, all requiring a creationist to to perform amazing feats of logical gymnastics.

The myth of Adam & Eve was a noble attempt to explain death and suffering, but it is ultimately a theological nightmare and at odds with all our scientific evidence. It is, in other words, completely unconvincing to the modern rationalist.

Occam’s Razor says the simplest theory that answers all the problems is the best choice. Creationism requires jumping through so many theological and scientific hoops that it is anything but simple.

Use Science, Not Myths

The simpler answer, of course, is based on science, not common sense and ancient myths — the explanation that evolution did it without supernatural intervention. Then all the theological problems go away, and they become scientific and philosophical issues to discover or formulate.

So next time you see a mosquito sucking blood and spreading diseases, or a lion catching and devouring prey, be thankful we have a better explanation than that our ancestors ate some fruit.

One of the standard arguments we hear for the historicity of the resurrection is the martyrdom of the apostles. Would the followers of Jesus really have sacrificed themselves for a lie?

The argument has a number of weaknesses. One of the greatest is the fact that all the details of this martyrdom comes down to us through tradition, and we have no way of knowing when the traditions originated. They may be early or late, literary or historical.

Acts gives a few stories, like the stoning of Stephen (Act 8:54-60) or the death of James, brother of John (Acts 12:1-2), but nothing of the deaths of the major apostles. The first mention we get of the deaths of Paul and Peter come from First Clement, one of the first popular works of the community, dated between 90-140 CE. But the story is extremely vague, told to fit the theme of jealousy:

There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one not one but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory. By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the prize of patient endurance.

After that he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the reward of his faith, having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place, having been found notable pattern of patient endurance. (1 Clem 5:4-6, Lightfoot)

Pullquote: There may also be a kernel of history about the execution of the apostles — or there may not. We just don’t know.

Notice there are no details. As far as we can tell from this text the two chief apostles may have died of old age. And what sort of jealousy are we talking about here? The jealousy of the Jews is one traditional answer. The jealousy between their rival factions is another guess. But maybe it was a more prosaic kind of jealousy.

Consider the apocryphal Acts of Peter, dated to the last half of the second century. Look at what is has to say about the persecution of Peter:

And a certain woman which was exceeding beautiful, the wife of Albinus, Caesar’s friend, by name Xanthippe, came, she also, unto Peter, with the rest of the matrons, and withdrew herself, she also, from Albinus. He therefore being mad, and loving Xanthippe, and marvelling that she would not sleep even upon the same bed with him, raged like a wild beast and would have dispatched Peter; for he knew that he was the cause of her separating from his bed. [...]

And whereas there was great trouble in Rome, Albinus made known his state unto Agrippa, saying to him: Either do thou avenge me of Peter that hath withdrawn my wife, or I will avenge myself. And Agrippa said: I have suffered the same at his hand, for he hath withdrawn my concubines. And Albinus said unto him: Why then tarriest thou, Agrippa? let us find him and put him to death for a dealer in curious arts, that we may have our wives again, and avenge them also which are not able to put him to death, whose wives also he hath parted from them. (Acts of Peter, XXXIV, MR James)

Peter is executed for convincing women not to marry or have sex. The same theme is found in the apocryphal Acts of Andrew, with Andrew being executed for coming between a woman and her fiancee. The Acts of Paul has a similar story, with Paul being imprisoned for preaching that maidens shouldn’t marry. Paul isn’t executed until much later, when he mouths off to Emperor Nero.

Is this the sort of jealousy to which First Clement refers? The jealousy of a man spurned by his betrothed? I’d guess not. These three noncannocical works all date last half of the second century, and probably represent the arguments that were going on at the time. These stories may only tell us that there was a faction of the community that considered celibacy extremely important, and so they wove that theme into their traditions about the apostles.

There may also be a kernel of history about the execution of the apostles — or there may not. We just don’t know.

Related Post: Martyrdom Does Not Establish Truth

1. We should believe the Bible because Christ believed the Bible.
2. We should believe the Bible because it accurately explains and powerfully changes our lives.

As far as arguments go, I’m afraid I must classify both as terrible.

Christ Believed It

Pullquote: Christ is trustworthy and He trusted God’s Word. So should we.
Aaron Menikoff

Regarding the first point, Menikoff says:

Such reasoning may sound circuitous or circular. It is not…. If Jesus Christ is trustworthy, then His words about the authority of the Bible should be trusted as well. Christ is trustworthy and He trusted God’s Word. So should we. Without faith in Christ, you will not believe the Bible is the self-disclosure of God. With faith in Christ, you cannot help but believe the Bible is God’s Word.

So we should believe the Bible is a reliable guide to the truth about Jesus… because Jesus believed the Bible? Sounds like a circular argument to me. And even if it could be shown that Jesus thought the Bible was reliable, what Bible would he be referring to? Certainly the New Testament wasn’t written when Jesus was alive, so he can’t be referring to that, which is the topic of discussion. We’re asking if the New Testament can be trusted about it’s extraordinary claims about Jesus — you can’t answer it by saying the Jesus of the New Testament trusts the Old Testament, therefore we know we can trust the New Testament. Only a believer could swallow that kind of circular reasoning and then have the audacity to repeat it, insisting it’s not circular.

Menikoff may want the logic to not be circular, but wishing doesn’t make it so. You can’t make logical fallacies go away simply by closing your eyes and insisting they don’t exist.

It’s Life Changing!

Pullquote: People of all religions — and even those of us who are not religious — have life-changing experiences. It’s part of being human.

In my experience there is only one argument that remains for why people believe in the Bible and Christianity — the argument from personal experience. This is known as a “testimony” and evangelism classes teach proselytizers to use them because “they are the one thing that cannot be argued against.”

Which is true, in a way. There’s no reason to argue that a person didn’t have an experience. People of all religions — and even those of us who are not religious — have life-changing experiences. It’s part of being human.

But they don’t always interpret their experiences rationally. A person may have stopped drinking a bottle of vodka a night, but that doesn’t mean Jesus had anything to do with it. They might claim that at first, saying “I once was a drunk, until Jesus picked me up out of the miry clay and changed my life. Thank you Jesus!” Yet if you dig a little deeper, it ends up there is a lot more to the story — usually you’ll find they had the help of a substance abuse program, a new community of friends to help keep them accountable, and/or a new-found religious obsession to take the place of their old addiction.

My life was changed by Christianity. It has also been changed by books I’ve read and experiences I’ve had. One of my favorite books is East of Eden by John Steinbeck, which powerfully describes human nature. Does that mean it’s divinely inspired because it gives insight into our common struggles? Of course not — it’s just a good book.

The Bible is a myth — a sweeping narrative that tries to explain the human condition. Some people (including myself at one time), find it speaks powerfully and provides a framework for understanding the world. It’s a superstitious framework, but it’s better than nothing. For people who are wandering aimlessly, have trouble being moral, or are in a time of crisis, it can be a stabilizing influence. And I’m glad it works for them!

Yet people have the same experience with the Koran, the Book of Mormon, the Vedas, and others. Does that mean we must take them all to be reliable guides to truth and their holy prophets? If so, then what truth should we believe — they all contradict each other!

These arguments will not convince someone who is searching for truth. His points will get head nods from the choir, but they are not challenging or persuasive to a skeptic. He’s talking in a different epistemological language that unfortunately makes us talk past each other.

Menikoff already knows his arguments fail. That’s why he says, “Without faith in Christ, you will not believe the Bible is the self-disclosure of God.” In other words, you have to already believe the Bible is reliable to know it’s reliable — which doesn’t help any of us who question it’s reliability.

But who needs facts, when you can stick your head in the sands of faith?

There has been some publicity lately about the Dictator and his Czars taking over the control of the Internet…and believe it people, if he could, he would! One of the main reasons [Obama] would like to control the Internet would be to stifle the truth about him and his henchman. The other objective is that which is not too highly publicized, and that is the United Nations.

Another blogger said, “Yet another unconstitutional assault on our liberty is being passed around the senate” and tagged his post under communism, corruption and socialism.

This is a pretty typical response from these kinds of conservatives. Notice the loaded language they use — “Dictator,” “Czars,” “henchman” — they aren’t really talking about issues, but using an issue superficially understood to make their constant point about how evil Obama is. The more radical liberals used the same kind of tactics when referring to Bush, which was equally ineffective at promoting intelligent discourse.

So what is this internet kill switch? Let’s get the facts from a fair and balanced news source, FOX News (did I hear snickering?):

A Senate bill would offer President Obama emergency control of the Internet and may give him a “kill switch” to shut down online traffic by seizing private networks — a move cybersecurity experts worry will choke off industry and civil liberties.

That’s the first sentence, and the first thing I notice is they use the phrase “seizing private networks” which sounds pretty bad and that “experts” are afraid it will hurt civil liberties. Yikes!

The new legislation allows the president to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” relating to “non-governmental” computer networks and make a plan to respond to the danger, according to an excerpt published online — a broad license that rights experts worry would give the president “amorphous powers” over private users….

A Senate source familiar with the bill likened the new power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when he grounded all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001, CNET News reported….

But Rockefeller, who introduced the bill in April with bipartisan support, said the legislation was critical to protecting everything from water and electricity to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records.

“I know the threats we face,” Rockefeller said in a prepared statement when the legislation was introduced. “Our enemies are real. They are sophisticated, they are determined and they will not rest.”

I very concerned with civil liberties, but it’s absurd to point to this as evidence Obama is trying to silence freedom of speech. Obama has been very vocal in his support of all kinds of freedom — which is one reason why conservatives hate him so, because he even supports reproductive freedom. This isn’t about squelching presidential criticism — it’s about protecting ourselves in a crisis.

The government uses the internet for a lot of things. During a crisis, if traffic was sabotaged and/or overloaded, and the government couldn’t communicate effectively, they would need something like this — and without systems in place, it would be too late. Hopefully that will never happen, but let’s face it — it’s more important for the government to use the internet if a large disaster strikes, than for your Uncle Ted to be streaming HD porn videos.

The bill was introduced in April, and is just now getting attention. It has been reworked and will continue to be. I agree it’s a bill that needs to be carefully worded so that the government cannot turn off private networks unless there was a real crisis, and only for a short period of time.

But seriously folks, don’t make this into a free speech issue or about Obama’s supposed corruption. It’s a bill designed to protect people by keeping government communication open during a crisis. By all means, let’s protect civil liberties and keep government restrictions off the internet as much as possible. But let’s also not jump to conclusions and bray fanatically about corruption and communism. It just makes you look like a jackass.

I’m reading Robert Jensen’s work All My Bones Shake for an eventual review here, but I’d like to discuss one concept now, since I don’t think a full discussion would fit in the review.

A Relabeling of the Unknown

Pullquote: God is what we call all those things about the universe that we don’t or can’t understand.

Jensen describes himself as a Christian atheist, or a secular Christian. I think the “secular” label is most useful, since Jensen is seeking a universal way to be Christian rather than a sectarian way. Part of his mission is to find a way that everyone can participate, even naturalists. To that end, he brings in the concept of “God as Mystery.” As he puts it:

I believe God is a name we give to the mystery of the world that is beyond our capacity to understand. I believe that the energy of the universe is ordered by forces I cannot comprehend. (p. 47)

Jensen is not saying that God is a mystery. Instead, he is saying that God is mystery itself. God is what we call all those things about the universe that we don’t or can’t understand.

Let me put it in a more familiar way. This isn’t a God is in the gaps argument. This is an argument that God IS the gap. God is simply another name for all the gaps.

Poetry and Consequences

Pullquote: There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know.
Donald Rumsfeld

I can appreciate the poetry of it. And it allows Jensen to hammer on an idea dear to my heart: the need for humility in the face of the universe.

To seek to always love God means, from this view, to seek always to accept our place in a Creation that will always be a mystery, no matter how much science teaches us about specific parts of that Creation around us and in us, through physics and biology…. Nothing in this view demands that we reject science, but instead reminds us to be aware not only of what science illuminates but also what is beyond its reach. (p. 48)

As I’ve said before, as an atheist I don’t believe that the universe is under any obligation to make itself comprehensible to us. There are things we don’t know, but that we will come to know. But there are also things which will likely be beyond the ability of our tools to measure, or our minds to understand.

But I do have a couple of problems with the “God as Mystery” idea. I don’t see what we’ve gained by relabeling all the mystery as “God.” Why is the word “mystery” itself not good enough to describe the situation? If nothing else, “mystery” is a better platform for adjectives; we can speak of solvable and insolvable mysteries, and even ultimate mysteries.

Frankly, I can’t think of a word in the English language that comes with more baggage that the word “God.” We’ve spent the past several thousand years associating Gods with big powerful versions of humans living in the heavens. Generations of philosophical theologians preaching that God is beyond human understanding haven’t broken us of the habit of viewing God as the ultimate monarch. Bringing it into the discussion is just begging us to start personifying again.

This seems to be one of those compromises that manages to offend both sides. Christians are being asked to give up their personal, interventionist God, while atheists are asked to obfuscate a fairly simple concept. So while I feel there’s something to admire in the idea of “God as Mystery,” I doubt its going to spark the next Great Awakening.

[The atheist's] worldview lacks all appeal. They get hung up on the last remaining absolute: Atheism is not beautiful. It is so depressing.

If there is no God and this physical realm is all there is, life is pretty much pointless. A person might believe such a bleak worldview, but no one is going to like it.

I’ve been on both sides now. I was a Christian for over a decade and made arguments similar to Veith. In fact, I have read most of Veith’s books and once agreed heartily with him.

I thought life was beautiful and exciting when I was a Christian. So now that I’m an atheist, do I see life as depressing and ugly? Of course not. Life is just as beautiful and exciting as it ever was — in fact, sometimes I wonder if I feel it is more so.

Depressing Atheism; Depressing Calvinism

Pullquote: I have seen everything that is done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind.
Ecclesiastes 1:14

It’s easy and fun to tell other people what you think their logical conclusions should be. For instance, Veith is a Calvinist. Calvinists believe God predestined everything. I could insist that believing this makes life depressing and meaningless. After all, everything will happen anyway. Your actions are insignificant. If you do it, it was meant to be. If you don’t do it, it was meant to be.

That seems to make life depressing and pointless — but Veith wouldn’t agree. He’s a Calvinist and still sees life as beautiful and meaningful. Who am I to tell him he can’t find beauty and meaning in it?

In other words, you can insist that someone’s worldview makes life depressing and meaningless, but that doesn’t make it so.

Beauty and Meaning in Atheism

Pullquote: Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
Douglas Adams

I find Veith’s assumption that “no one is going to like [atheism]” insulting. I certainly don’t find the other option — that there is a God in this mess of a world — any better. But not liking something has nothing to do with whether it is true or false. After all, I don’t like Ray Comfort, but he and his banana still exist.

I find life as beautiful and as meaningful as I did when I was a Christian. I marvel at the world and the progress we make in understanding it.  I love being with those I love. I cherish good food, good books, and yes, good sex. It is true I do not have an absolute purpose in life — I am not dedicated to “glorifying God” anymore. But I find creating my own purpose thrilling. I am the author of a novel, and the book is my life. The freedom is exhilarating.

Atheism can be depressing for some people, just like Calvinism can be depressing. So what? Riches can make some people depressed, and so can poverty. It all depends on your perspective.

Life is as happy and meaningful as you make it. You can be a depressed Christian or a depressed atheist; you can be a happy Christian or a happy atheist. Some of the unhappiest people I’ve known have been Christians — as well as some of the happiest.

Both Christians and atheists can agree on one thing: there is only one life to live.

Let’s take time to enjoy it. I know I will.

Early in 2005, I found out that god was in fact, a pedophile. Curiously, this discovery occurred through an expose on the Internet by a British pianist I had met in India several years ago.

David was a staunch devotee then and we had both belonged to the Sai Baba cult. He had grown weary of Western Rationalism and had traveled halfway around the world for less depressing answers to questions about the “meaning of life,” whereas I had just stumbled upon the cult by an accident of geography. In the late nineties, David had spent an afternoon at my house in India. He was entirely unremarkable and the only reason I remembered him was because I was told by an uncle that he was an extremely skilled pianist who performed for the royal family.

An Introduction to Sai Baba

Pullquote: The conglomerate has also built up a massive network of influence and power, which they have used ruthlessly to preserve the illusion as well as the illusionist, whose failings have made the occasional murder necessary.

With the highest per-capita number of godmen on the planet, India is a (pardon the mixed metaphor) Mecca for spiritual wanderers. Our particular godman, Sathya Sai Baba, had a following in excess of six million (the devotees will quote a hundred million). From an early age the Baba was convinced that he was a reincarnated god and along the way, he had managed to convince a few other people as well.

This fanciful delusion was powerful in a land where no one has a coherent idea of what it means to be Hindu, although Hinduism is the religion they profess to practice. As a result, they are extremely susceptible to almost anything that will ease the pain of their existence. This confused polytheistic condition is, I imagine, similar in some small way to those that preceded the birth of monotheism and is probably responsible for the surplus of godmen found in India.

On a daily basis since 1940, people have queued up and waited patiently for hours to watch a small man in a saffron gown and an oversized afro wander around while doing mightily impressive sleight-of-hand “miracles.” This phenomenon is called a “darshan” (translated as a viewing).

Among the assembled thousands are wanderers like David, who, if initially dubious, are eventually convinced by the massive spectacle of the thousands of adoring throngs. Over the past half century the Baba’s religious empire, henceforth referred to as the Baba conglomerate, has amassed considerable wealth and power and invested in socially conscious projects while simultaneously defrauding thousands spiritually and financially. The conglomerate has also built up a fanbase – a massive network of influence and power, which they have used ruthlessly to preserve the illusion as well as the illusionist, whose failings have made the occasional murder necessary.

My Own Nefarious History

So what was David doing at my house all those years ago? To help you understand, I must reveal my own nefarious history. My grandfather was a self-made wealthy agricultural baron in Andhra Pradesh, India, where Sathyanarayana Raju, later to become Sai Baba, was born. My grandmother had given birth to ten children and successfully raised six. In the late 1950’s, suffering from empty-nest syndrome, she discovered Sai Baba (he wasn’t very far away) and became an instant convert.

Godmen, like most entrepreneurs, need to form powerful alliances, and our influence meant that there were benefits to be had from our support. The Baba himself visited us on a few occasions, and many years later my cancer-stricken dying grandmother refused to die until she was taken to the Baba’s darshan where she then peacefully passed away. Since then, however, even as our collective devotion to the Baba grew, the family’s wealth and stature declined, and subsequent generations were pushed down the pecking order of the Baba juggernaut that was turning into a worldwide phenomenon.

My uncles turned from trusted lieutenants into tour guides and traveling salesmen. Their responsibilities now included entertaining “special guests.” Broadly speaking, if you were white and weren’t a hippie, you were a special guest. If you weren’t white, you had to be a politician, a bureaucrat, an industrialist, a movie actor, or a famous sports personality to qualify as special. Although my father wasn’t involved with the Baba Conglomerate, close family ties meant that his brothers, my uncles, frequently brought visitors. It was during one of these chance encounters that I met David. He had just been introduced by the Baba to his future wife, a wanderer like himself and had seemed, like everyone else, to be completely in awe of the Baba.

The Findings: Child Abuse and Murder

Pullquote: The Baba was not only responsible for child abuse but also complicit in murders that had ostensibly resulted from these events.

I thought little of David for the next several years until I heard of him in dramatically altered circumstances in 2005. He had published a book titled “The Findings” which contained details of his investigations into child abuse allegations against the Baba. His thesis was that the Baba was not only responsible for child abuse but also complicit in murders that had ostensibly resulted from these events. The hydra that had once cradled him in its tentacles had now begun an all out attack aimed at discrediting him and destroying his reputation.

At this point in time, I was still firmly entrenched in the Sai Baba cult. Upon reading David’s document, I was shaken as a number of loose threads of information began to fit together for the first time. I knew of the corruption within the conglomerate. I had even met the Baba’s nephew, the crown prince to the sprawling Empire his father had built with his demagogue brother’s talents. I had wondered several times whether divinity was genetic and if so, how it was possible that people so closely related to the Baba could be so soundly unqualified.

Everything David had written seemed not only plausible but unmistakably true. I proceeded to be as iconoclastic as I possibly could as I raised a stink within the family about what I had found.

Persecution

Pullquote: David began to attract death threats, as well as slander and defamation aimed at discrediting him.

Most people didn’t care if it was true. They had already committed themselves to disbelieving it. Some seriously warned me to “stay out of trouble.” These were very powerful people I was dealing with, and I was related to some of them by blood. The few doubters were reluctant to actually acknowledge that their fears had been accurate. There were consequences to free speech that I was ill-equipped to understand, they said. This was also quite possibly the first time my family began to think I was crazy.

David received thousands of letters detailing similar abuses, confirming the credibility of his findings. He also began to attract death threats, as well as slander and defamation aimed at discrediting him. The “devotees” who had sworn by the Baba’s slogan “Help ever hurt never” were now coming after the pianist in droves with pitchforks in hand. The recrimination was bad enough to force David and his wife to relocate to an undisclosed location in France.

The Baba conglomerate also decided to pursue an alternate course of damage control in the form of “debunkings” of David’s argument on their official website. I can only imagine business must have suffered, otherwise it really is horrible PR to put such damning information on an official website. Some of the essays and comments posted by the “debunkers” are fascinating for the insight they provide into the lengths people will go to to protect their crumbling understanding of the universe.

Unbelief

Pullquote: Any actively involved guardian or intelligent “supreme being” must either be completely inept, or a cruel and sadistic son of a bitch, to tolerate the horrors committed by the false idols in his name.

Without the powerful shackles of blind faith, my fidgety mind was free to graze on other questions as I wandered away from the Sai Baba problem. I had seen a real-life example of how mass hysteria can perpetrate itself and how people can be completely powerless to discard false but long-held beliefs. It seemed completely plausible for such a process to occur on a much larger scale, particularly if it weren’t crippled by such a flawed idol.

This radically altered perspective led to several spells of depression and considerable substance abuse along with the occasional moment of clarity. I found that rational thought was staggeringly powerful but simultaneously ridiculously depressing. Escapism comes in many flavors, and religion just happens to be one of the more addictive and mentally damaging ones.

The Baba himself is now a decrepit old man. My father has attempted to convince me there is no way the Baba is still molesting children. “Think about it,” he said, “Do you really think he can get it up anymore?” Perhaps not, but there are other forms of abuse.

And of what of the hundreds that have already suffered that fate? Or the many that were swindled of their life’s earnings? What about those that were murdered? These aren’t easily rationalized moral conundrums. The universe cannot possibly be a moral place. Any actively involved guardian or intelligent “supreme being” must either be completely inept, or a cruel and sadistic son of a bitch, to tolerate the horrors committed by the false idols in his name.

There is, however, pleasure to be taken at the state of disarray in which the conglomerate finds itself. Now that the deity is nearly dead, the hunt is on for a successor to replace him. Viewer ratings are almost certain to decline. Crucial cast member changes can often be difficult to stomach for an audience. But the producers are hopeful and there are several subplots to the Baba saga that are likely to be compelling — Is the new Baba going to keep the Afro? Is he going to continue the tradition of wearing saffron gowns? And what of the powerful blood-relatives of the Baba? Can they logically be related to the new Baba? And if not, will they keep their position of prominence? And finally, what about the gigantic empire of self-interest that they have assembled over the years? How will it adapt? Will it splinter and die or will it evolve, and perpetrate an even greater hoax?

It seems silly now to even contemplate the existence of a god. The term itself is so distorted and is such an amalgam that it has no real meaning. “God” is merely what people choose to call their psychoses, which are occasionally manifested as an imaginary friend that they need to talk to in order to remain sane.

Related: BBC Documentary on Sai Baba

Ernst Hayim blogs at Writing Sedition.

Though he worked with, prayed with, praised, and preached the message of Reconstructionists, Dr. D. James Kennedy insisted he was not “guilty by association.” Call it what you want: the man was devoted to all aspects of reconstructing Old Testament law and merging church and state, and he was militant in his campaigns to abolish different or un-believers from court and public policy.

Clerical Fascism

On the surface, the founder of mega-media-empire Coral Ridge Ministries was a devout preacher and a passionate, skilled leader, with no sex scandals to distract from the message of hope. But some detected something more sinister underpinning the ra-ra-God schtick many of us tuned out. Rolling Stone called him the godfather of Dominionism, guilty by his own acts, not by association. Ethics prof John Swomley believes he was a man to be feared, whose vast ministry wealth and skillful military manipulation strategies pressured politics to his sway. He called it “clerical fascism.”

And fascism was a word used again by veteran war journalist and Christian Chris Hedges, who features Kennedy as a main player in his book American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. Hedges refers to Kennedy’s ministry techniques as brainwashing, calling the preacher’s Evangelism Explosion program “love bombing” — a famous cult recruit technique. He compares EE to advanced Russian and Chinese communist tactics.

Hedges went through the military-style program, taught by Kennedy himself, and observed that this means of spreading the gospel was “totalitarian” and “deceptive.” He was taught to use psychological manipulations and scare tactics, and to pinpoint vulnerabilities and prey on them. He reported that “recruits” were not left alone after salvation, but began a process of losing autonomy and outside ties to the new church family.

The War of the Word

Kennedy died two years ago, but he left an army of carefully trained soldiers to intercept reason at all levels of the social stratosphere- church, home, school, and state. He was a busy man — there’s The Coral Ridge Hour televangelism show, the daily Truths That Transform radio, both syndicated globally. There’s the Coral Ridge megachurch in Florida — population ten grand. He wrote countless books on the popular but absurd idea that the founding fathers/constitution were fundamentalism Christian props.

He helped found the Alliance Defense Fund which busies itself fighting the war on Christmas and the gay agenda and other such urgencies. He founded the Center for Christian Statesmanship, whose goal is the conversion of congress to Evangelical Dominionism. There is no space to list the dozens of other groups and programs founded or supported by this Christ crusader — all with the aim to “unify” and homogenize America and the world into one theology.

One Man One Woman

Pullquote: Kennedy likened homosex to “polygamy, bestiality, and child marriage,” perhaps forgetting that two of the three were Old Testament staples.

No big surprise that a pet cause is spreading anti-gay, Christian “liberty” propaganda. Kennedy likened homosex to “polygamy, bestiality, and child marriage,” perhaps forgetting that two of the three were Old Testament staples. He spread similar hate vitriol about how sex with children is a “crucial component of the homosexual movement.” He was outspoken in favour of the right to discriminate against employing gays. But he was silent about whether or not it was okay to employ other kinds of sinners, such as those with more hetero-style lusts, or those who work on Sundays.

But nothing compares to the absurdity of this new earth creationist’s scare tactics against science. Kennedy spread some interesting gospel — that belief in evolution is what caused the holocaust. Conveniently forgetting that anti-Semitism predated Darwin by 1800 years, and that it was a rather Christian institution, he made a film called Darwin’s Deadly Legacy.

That Hitler was a “Christian” and that the church was in part behind him was not part of the film. But the film did falsely feature theist genome scientist Frances Collins as a creationist, which was a fraud the evolutionary scientist tried to undo. Kennedy’s “no-Darwin, no Hitler” philosophy also neglects the vast amount of genocide stuffing the pages of the Good Book, 32 centuries before Darwin was born.

Was Darwin responsible, too, for the terrorism of the right wing against women and gays? Kennedy dutifully stood for male headship and female submission as declared by God personally. And what’s a man to do with his leadership role? He answered in the Christian Science Monitor: “As the vice-regents of God, we are to bring His truth and His … dominion … over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government… our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors – in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.”

Lorette C. Luzajic writes about all kinds of interesting people at Fascinating People.

I recently had a job interview for an IT position with the Church of Scientology.

Let me explain. I wasn’t aware of my potential employer going in. The company in the advertisement was Narconon, who bill themselves as “the world’s most successful drug rehab,” and apparently have been in the business of narcotic rehabilitation since 1966.

I know, I know – some of you are screaming, “What!? How could you not have known that Narconon was a Scientology front?” Well, I didn’t. I have no real excuse – I simply did not know. You probably don’t know, for example, that there are four different models of the IG-88 assassin droid in the Star Wars universe.

Oh, you did? Ah.

I should have done more research. I did some research, but I didn’t look up Narconon on Wikipedia. My mistake — it won’t happen again.

The Interview

I live in East Sussex, which is on the South East coast of England, and my interview with Narconon was on Wednesday morning at one of their main drug rehabilitation centres. The building, a Tudor mansion that is well over one hundred years old, is quite simply magnificent.

I’d arrived a little early and took a moment to sit on a bench outside, soaking up the majesty of the surroundings. Very impressive indeed; must have cost a fortune.

Moments later, somebody came out to see me, and introduced himself. It was Bob, the chap I’d spoken to on the telephone when arranging my interview. We entered the building via the reception – the inside was as pretty as the out – and Bob handed me an application form.

I was taken to another room, and there I met Adam, who was also applying for the position. Bob explained that even though Adam had arrived first we would be interviewing together. The importance of this unity – that Adam and I needed to stay together – was reinforced upon me on several occasions thereafter, to the point where, looking back, I have to wonder if Adam was actually a genuine applicant, or somebody they had used to watch over me. But that’s crazy, paranoid thinking. Right?

I finished the application form and returned it to Bob. Adam followed. Now back in the reception area, I was admiring the beautiful fireplace when I noticed a large, fairly old-fashioned looking book on the mantle. The author’s name grabbed my immediate attention.

L. Ron Hubbard

The book was still shrink-wrapped – it was available for purchase. It’s not unusual to find an association between religion and rehab programs, but this still caught me a off-guard. My mind drifted back to the application, and a section therein that asked if I represented a newspaper or had the intention of writing a story about the facility. I had assumed this was a legal procedure to protect the guests, and I’d ticked the box marked “no.” Hindsight is, of course, 20-20.

Bob then led Adam and myself into a private room, and said we needed to watch a video that explained the history of Narconon. Fine; this was not the first time I’d had to sit through introductory materials for a new job. What Bob neglected to mention, however, was that the video was essentially an introduction to Scientology. Sure, it was mostly about Narconon, but L. Ron Hubbard and/or Scientology were typically given a very specific (and often congratulatory) mention at the beginning of every new scene.

Introductions

The video traced the history of Narconon through founder William “Willy” Benitez, a former inmate at Arizona State Prison who, in 1988, started a program for recovering addicts after reading Hubbard’s 1966 work, The Fundamentals of Thought. Hubbard would then go on to sponsor the incorporation of Narconon as an organization, and it wasn’t long before new programs were opening all around the world.

Numerous “celebrities” made appearances on the tape at various points, but it wasn’t until Kirstie Alley showed up that I was finally presented with a name I actually recognized. Indeed, the producers of the show obviously realized this, too, as she then appeared again. And again. And again. Before we had a moment with Kelly Preston. And then more Kirstie Alley.

Alley, it turns out, is a national spokesperson for Narconon, and thanks to her Scientology training has now achieved the level of “OT VII,” or “Operating Thetan Level 7.” Impressive stuff. Incidentally, Alley is the only cast member of Cheers never to appear on Frasier, allegedly because of that show’s positive portrayal of psychiatry, the practice of which Scientology is decidedly opposed.

As for the program itself, the gist of it involves the use of vitamins and minerals alongside exercise and lots of time in the sauna, to cleanse the body of toxins. Patients are then rehabilitated using the principles of Scientology.

The video lasted for 30 minutes. I was quiet throughout, but Adam kept saying odd things, like, “Wow, they’re really doing well for themselves,” and, “They’ve mentioned everywhere but here!” when the show had failed to say anything about the St Leonards building in which we were seated. He seemed quite interested in the information, and this odd behaviour on his part prevented me from making any obnoxious jokes. Quite clearly he either didn’t know who or what Scientology represented, or he didn’t care. Or both.

His attitude fascinated me. The situation was becoming increasingly surreal; with my mounting paranoia, I’d begun to check the room for hidden cameras. I was torn between my curiosity to see where this was going, and the blossoming worry that any time now somebody was going to start injecting me with chemicals until I declared allegiance to The Leader. Whatever happened, assuming I got out alive, and with my mental faculties otherwise intact, I was sure of one thing: I would have a half-decent story to tell.

As soon as the video finished, Adam was out of his chair, off to tell Bob. He returned to the room a few moments later, alone, and proceeded to switch off the DVD player and the television, a decision on his part I thought more than a little presumptuous.

Bob arrived, and asked us what we thought of the presentation. “Hmmm,” I said, nodding. “Hmmm?” asked Bob. “Hmmm,” I replied. He didn’t press the matter any further.

Personality Testing

Pullquote: By now I’d accepted that Adam was going to kill me.

We were then informed that we needed to take a personality test. Two hundred questions, all of which needed to be answered in one of the familiar three ways: definitely yes; unsure; and definitely no. The instructions made it clear that, where possible, we should always strive for a yes or no answer.

What made me laugh is how so many of these “personality” questions were deliberately leading. They’d be like, “Do you sometimes wish you could advocate all responsibility to a greater power?” or “Do you often feel the world is a dreamy place?”

Several times the test asked if my muscles twitched during certain events, like when I’m in a situation that might turn hostile – I mean, they do, but I put “no” to be safe, in case it led to injections – and of course like all personality tests there were lots of the same question delivered repeatedly in different ways, and I made sure I answered each of these in the opposite manner to which I had before.

This took about half an hour. I finished before Adam, and took my answers out to Bob. He had a quick look-over, seemed pleased, and then announced that we now had to take an IQ test. This was timed over 30 minutes, and meant another 80 questions. The paper proudly stated it was an “Oxford IQ Test” on the front sheet, but many of the questions were, once again, more than a little leading. Between the standard fare about which shape comes next and the usual mathematical queries were some strange word pairing problems, and one question – and I swear this is true – actually asked you a brainteaser about the letters that make up the word “lobotomized.”

Still, eighty questions is eighty questions, and part of me likes to do well in these things, no matter who I’m representing – if the Devil himself gave me a quiz I’d want to get an A – and I finished with literally seconds to spare. Adam didn’t finish, and Bob had to come and make him stop. Neither seemed enormously bothered by this fact. By now I’d accepted that Adam was going to kill me.

The Truth Laid Bare

Back at reception, we were told we’d need to speak with Dawn, the boss, before we left. She duly arrived, happened to pick up my file first, and led me into another room. This was the first time I’d been separated from Adam or Bob. It’s worth noting that nobody apart from the narrator on the video had mentioned Scientology up to this point, but Dawn didn’t hold back, immediately launching into her pitch. The teachings of L. Ron Hubbard, I was told, were pivotal to both the Narconon foundation, and the occupants of the building.

She then asked me what I knew about Scientology. Unlike Adam, I knew a fair bit, but I’m inclined to be polite to those who are polite to me, and responded to her questions with courtesy. I told her I was essentially an atheist at heart, to which she nodded approvingly, which confused me a little. Did she believe that one already with religion is a harder convert than one without? Perhaps this is true.

When she asked me what I could do for the program, I told her that I had some ideas regarding using social media to build a “loyal following.” These perhaps weren’t the best choice of words, but I didn’t offer them with humour or malice – I was being sincere. I’d checked out Narconon USA’s Twitter account and found it decidedly lacking. Of course, I’d done all this on the assumption that Narconon was just a drug rehabilitation centre.

Oddly, Dawn told me she had never heard of Twitter, but that the organization stayed away from social media because, quote, “there is so much bullshit out there.” All of this explained how such an obviously popular search query as “drug rehab” yielded so little traffic for Narconon; evidently, most of the visitors did a little more research than I did, and never went back again. And probably warned their friends.

I still didn’t know an awful lot about my duties or anything about the package that came with the position, so I asked Dawn about the remuneration involved. I was shocked to hear that Narconon were expecting a 48-hour week, over six days, and were paying exactly the national minimum wage of £5.73 per hour. Nothing more. No perks; no extras. That was it. “We all work for minimum wage,” she told me, which was almost certainly not true. Still, somebody was picking up the tab for the building, and every penny counts. Tom Cruise’s money has to go somewhere – why waste money on the staff?

Still, this irked me, and even though I attempted to maintain a civil tone, clearly I’d let something slip as she started to wrap up the interview, adding that she’d keep my details “on file” if I was interested. I said that I was – in the back of my mind, Bob was waiting outside the door with his needles, and from here on there were only wrong answers. Of course, even if they are crazy enough to offer the job to me, there is no way I’m going to accept.

The Other Side of Narconon

Narconon now has a presence virtually everywhere in the world. Its program and methods have caused considerable controversy, and despite Narconon’s claims of a success rate of over 70%, one Swedish study found that the organization’s numbers were closer to 6.6%. Each independent Narconon centre pays 10% of its gross to Narconon International, an institution that is part of the Association for Better Living and Education (ABLE), a promoter of Scientology. Narconon International has been accused of everything from website plagiarism to lawsuits involving wrongful death, and their targeting of children through the UK school system has particularly come under fire.

The Church of Scientology has a lot of money. Patients at a Narconon centre in the USA stay for 3-4 months at a cost of up to $30,000, typically paid for by quickly-disillusioned parents. You think they’d know better. You think they’d have a little more savvy when it comes to making believers out of ordinary folk.

So, 48 hours each and every week to help in the publication of propaganda for a religious cult? No thanks. I mean, for fifty, maybe sixty thousand a year, I’ll “believe” whatever you want me to, up to a point. I may not ever openly acknowledge the existence of Xenu – you know, like most Scientologists – but I could maybe look the other way when he’s doing his rounds. Somebody has to do the website – might as well be me. For a hundred grand, I might even do a little door-to-door. You know, on the QT.

But, I’m sorry – I have some scruples, and it takes a lot more than minimum wage, a lovely old building and, yes, some happy shiny people, to make me a convert.

While the events in this article are reported accurately, the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

Unlike most people of “faith,” she says she has actual evidence for a miracle. That’s quite a claim — let’s see what she’s got.

An Unreasonable Story

She starts off telling the story of The Miracle of Lanciano, where a doubting Basilian monk in 700 CE turned the bread & wine into real flesh and blood during a mass.

That’s interesting and all… but this story is from an anonymous source in the 17th century — almost 1,000 years after the alleged event was said to happen.

In other words, it’s yet another fantastical story with no evidence.

Things aren’t looking reasonable so far.

A Reportedly Rigorous Investigation by an Allegedly Eminent Scientist

What else does she have?

Various ecclesiastical investigation [sic] (”Recognitions”) were conducted since 1574. Then, with permission from Rome in 1970-’71 and taken up again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by the “most illustrious scientist” Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy, and assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena.

Dr. Linoli, an alleged cynic in regards to the Miracle, reportedly sent a telegram to the Franciscan Friars who tend the church where the Miracle had been kept in 1970, reiterating the Gospel of John: “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was made Flesh.” But, Dr. Linoli quickly became convinced that the mystery before him was of a miraculous nature.

I’ve bolded two words in that second paragraph that stick out like a sore thumb. Allegedly? I thought we were talking about evidence strong enough to convince atheists?

But when it comes to miracles, I’ve found it always boils down to “allegedly.”

By the way, who is this “most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli”? I can’t find anything about him on Google, other than Catholics raving about this study. What exactly has he contributed to science to make him a “most illustrious scientist”? It seems like they’re building up an argument from authority, but this person certainly doesn’t seem eminent in his field — no one has even heard of him.

I also find it suspicious that it was under “various ecclesiastical investigations” from 1574 – 1970. What exactly did they do? How can we be sure no one tampered with the evidence — if there was any to begin with? With how corrupt things were back then, it would surprise me if someone didn’t!

How do we know what the scientists were studying had anything to do with this alleged miracle?

The Shocking Evidence!

The evidence seems to be the conclusion of this study. Here is how Dyan summarizes it:

The analyses on the samples extracted from the miraculous host were conducted with absolute and unquestionable scientific precision and they were documented with a series of microscopic photographs…

• The Flesh is real flesh and the Blood is real blood.
• Both the Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species….
• The preservation of the Flesh and the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.
• [etc]

So the tests claim there is real flesh and blood in a Catholic museum. I can do tests and show you something is real flesh and blood, too. Does that mean you’d believe me if I said it came from a twinkie and orange juice?

That is, just because they have flesh and blood locked up somewhere doesn’t mean it was magically transformed by a doubting priest in 700 CE from a cracker and wine.

When someone claims something is done with “absolute and unquestionable scientific precision” I wonder if they are operating in the same universe as me. Can anything be done with “absolute and unquestionable scientific precision,” especially a study regarding an alleged miracle? It makes me suspicious.

WHO Cares?

Another claim is that the World Health Organization did a 15-month scientific study confirming this miracle:

In 1973, the World Health Organization (WHO) appointed its own scientific commission to scrutinize Dr. Linoli’s findings. During a 15-month period, over 500 tests were conducted, all of which supported the conclusions listed above. WHO’s scientific research was published in New York and Geneva in 1976, confirming “science’s failure to explain the Miracle.”

Bu can anyone confirm this? I can’t find anything official about it, and I doubt the WHO would say “science’s failure to explain the Miracle” — only a Catholic would write like that (can you really imagine WHO saying the Miracle, like a fawning monk?).

In looking this up, I found numerous articles that are almost identical to Dyan’s article, but with small details changed — it’s like chasing down the source of an email forward. For instance:

In the extract summarizing the scientific investigations of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations (UN), published in December of 1976 in New York and Geneva, it was declared that “science, aware of its limitations, is forced to admit the impossibility of giving an explanation.” (source)

That sounds more plausible, but if that quote is correct (which is different from Dyan’s), I wonder what the context was. What is the source of their quote and where can we see it?

“Will Atheists Accept This Science?”

So when Dyan asks, “Will Atheists accept this science?” the answer is yes and no.

Yes, I can preliminarily accept that what was studied was flesh and blood (though of course more studies must be done and this study should be critically examined for bias and rigor — if anyone can find the original study).

But no, the evidence does not lead me to accept something magical happened, and I don’t know why anyone would find it convincing, unless they already believed in the first place.

Is Anyone Convinced?

As much as I would love to believe miracles happen, this isn’t compelling evidence.

As Thomas Paine said, is this more likely to be truth, or a lie? These sort of stories are rampant throughout history, throughout all religions. I see no reason to accept any of them, this one included.

What about you? Does this sway any of you atheists?

What about our Protestant readers? Has this convinced you of transubstantiation?

(Also, if you’re a wikipedia contributor, please consider making The Miracle of Lanciano more neutral.)

Update 5/30: Dyan has completely changed her post, without annotation, removing all her previous claims about the eucharist miracle. It is now an evangelistic tract about why “God hides,” which is the opposite of her point before (that God was revealed through scientifically studying this miracle). She hasn’t admitted to being wrong or her claims not standing up to scrutiny. Typical slimy Christian tactics!

A fine story, I guess, for a son of a god dying on a cross, as long as you don’t nitpick the details. Which is exactly what I propose to do about the timing of the torn veil.

Mark: After

The only “early” sources in history that claim the curtain was ripped are the synoptic gospels. Mark, the earliest gospel (written around 70AD), says it takes place after the death of Jesus:

Then Jesus gave a loud cry and breathed his last. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. (Mark 15:37-38, NRSV)

That seems pretty straightforward. Jesus dies, and then after the curtain was torn. But what do the other gospels say?

Matthew: During or After

Matthew is based on Mark, and thus we can expect it to agree. And we would be almost right:

Then Jesus cried again with a loud voice and breathed his last. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. (Matthew 27:50-51)

The author of Matthew is a little more specific as to when the curtain was torn — the exact moment Jesus took his last breath. It’s a nice touch of drama, only slightly different from the first source in emphasis.

Luke: Before

Pullquote: According to the Bible, the curtain ripped before, during, and after Jesus’ death, depending on which writer you read.

Now let’s look at Luke. Luke is a compilation, and so it occasionally disagrees with Matthew and Mark. Here is Luke’s version:

It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon, while the sun’s light failed; and the curtain of the temple was torn in two. Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.” Having said this, he breathed his last. (Luke 23:44-46)

According to the Bible, the curtain ripped before, during, and after Jesus’ death, depending on which writer you read. So which is it?

How Would They Know?

Here’s question to consider: Assuming the veil did rip, how would the writers know when it ripped? They didn’t have watches. There wasn’t a video. Jesus didn’t die near the veil, so it would be very difficult if not impossible to know the sequence of events.

Who is their source (if they had one)? How do they know their source is reliable? Why didn’t any of the Jews or Romans write about it? How did they know it was ripped from the top to the bottom, instead of the bottom to the top? We are left with many questions, and no answers except “take it on faith!”

But It Didn’t Happen

Pullquote: The temple veil didn’t rip. It’s a storytelling device — it adds drama and makes the story more interesting, with the added benefit of heavy Jewish symbolism.

The temple veil didn’t rip. It’s a storytelling device — it adds drama and makes the story more interesting, with the added benefit of heavy Jewish symbolism.

But surely this event would not have gone unnoticed until 70 AD! It would have been a scandalous event in the Jewish world. A 4 inch thick veil, covering the Holy of Holies, supernaturally rips in two around the same time as the death of Jesus — don’t you think that would have been worth mentioning?

The first mention of it is by an anonymous Christian biographer penning the life of Jesus — someone who has incentive to make an interesting story that centers on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

There is no reason to believe this event happened. The only source is the Bible, written a decades after the event happened, by a writer who had reason to embellish the story. It is not mentioned by any Jewish or Roman sources. And the Bible contradicts itself as to when it happened.

Why should anyone believe it?

“Too great praise challenges attention, and often brings to light a thousand faults that otherwise the general eye would never see.

Were we allowed to read the Bible as we do all other books, we would admire its beauties, treasure its worthy thoughts, and account for all its absurd, grotesque and cruel things, by saying that its authors lived in rude, barbaric times. But we are told that it was written by inspired men; that it contains the will of God; that it is perfect, pure, and true in all its parts; the source and standard of all moral and religious truth; that it is the star and anchor of all human hope; the only guide for man, the only torch in Nature’s night.

These claims are so at variance with every known recorded fact, so palpably absurd, that every free, unbiased soul is forced to raise the standard of revolt.”

—Robert Ingersoll, Some Mistakes of Moses

I think old “injure-soul” just about nails it. We atheists spend a lot of time pointing out the absurdities, the atrocities and the contradictions within the Bible. But these are not really attacks on the Bible itself. Instead, these are aimed at the pedestal the Bible is placed upon. Making extravagant claims for the bible, even in the form of praise language, sets the bible up for this kind of criticism.

Pullquote: The Bible is a mixture of beauty and ugliness, wisdom and absurdity, history and fable — like all ancient documents.

The Bible is a mixture of beauty and ugliness, wisdom and absurdity, history and fable. In that regard it is like all ancient documents. We don’t heap scorn upon the Odyssey or the Iliad, despite the central place they have in western literature. We don’t mock the Epic of Gilgamesh, despite the fact that it’s even more ancient than the Bible. But the claims made for the Bible are of a type and a degree that we must respond.

Despite all that, I hope that American Christians continue to lavishly praise their holy book. I’ve met so many ex-evangelicals who left their church because they’ve finally gotten around to reading the Bible. They grew up hearing nothing but the PR spin from the pulpit. They only encountered a few, pre-approved, pre-digested selections from the Bible. When they finally read the work for themselves, expecting something transcendent and inspiring, their resulting disappointment sent them right out the church door.

So whenever I hear a preacher describe the Bible as the perfect book, I have to smile. Somewhere in the pews another freethinker is about to be born.