No Sacred Cows

by David G. McAfee

  WHAT DOES “RELIGIOUS FAITH” MEAN?

  With enough study of religious history, one becomes acutely aware that confidence in the unknowable and unprovable is not a virtue—and that it isn’t unique to any particular culture or group. In fact, every supernatural religion seems to utilize the same type of spiritual faith, which in many cases is nothing more than a justification for believing in (and often worshiping) that which is unverifiable based only on tradition or emotion. Some believers might argue that faith just means trust (with evidence), in the way we might have faith in engineering or in physics. While this may be one of many valid definitions, this isn’t the only type of faith religions rely on. Biology professor Jerry Coyne has also called attention to the varying definitions of faith, and how many people (mostly religious believers) insist that scientists rely on the same wishful thinking as those who promote religions. He says the “faith” he has in science is “completely different from the faith believers have in God and the dogmas of their creed.”10 He illustrates this by putting forth four separate statements:

  1. “I have faith that, because I accept Jesus as my personal savior, I will join my friends and family in Heaven.”

  2. “My faith tells me that the Messiah has not yet come, but will someday.”

  3. “I have strep throat, but I have faith that this penicillin will clear it up.”

  4. “I have faith that when I martyr myself for Allah, I will receive 72 virgins in Paradise.”

  Coyne, currently a professor emeritus at the University of Chicago in the Department of Ecology and Evolution, notes that, while each sentence uses the word “faith,” number three used it differently. The remaining religious claims, he said, used faith as defined by philosopher Walter Kaufmann: “intense, usually confident, belief that is not based on evidence sufficient to command assent from every reasonable person.”

  “Indeed, there is no evidence beyond revelation, authority, and scripture to support the religious claims above, and most of the world’s believers would reject at least one of them. To state it bluntly, such faith involves pretending to know things you don’t,” Coyne wrote for Slate. “In contrast, the third statement relies on evidence: penicillin almost invariably kills streptococcus bacteria. In such cases the word faith doesn’t mean ‘belief without good evidence,’ but ‘confidence derived from scientific tests and repeated, documented experience.’”

  Paul Bloom, the Brooks and Suzanne Ragen Professor of Psychology at Yale University, explains why some people see faith and science as though they are on the same footing. He says that, while science and religion are “as different as can be,” for most people their scientific and religious views often feel the same. That’s because these beliefs are “learned, understood, and mentally encoded in similar ways.”

  “Scientific practices—observation and experiment; the development of falsifiable hypotheses; the relentless questioning of established views—have proven uniquely powerful in revealing the surprising, underlying structure of the world we live in, including subatomic particles, the role of germs in the spread of disease, and the neural basis of mental life,” Bloom wrote for The Atlantic.11 “Religion has no equivalent record of discovering hidden truths.”

  The word “faith” can be used in a number of different ways, and I think it’s important to differentiate them because one usage—religious or spiritual faith—acts as an excuse to believe despite a lack of evidence. In researching this distinct type of faith, I was able to draw a clear line between blind faith and what might be considered supported faith. I began by analyzing the first two definitions of faith provided by the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:

  1) Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

  2) Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.12

  My argument is that everyone, including scientists, use the first version of faith. We’re all confident, for instance, that the sun will set tonight and rise again tomorrow. We believe this because it has been shown to be reliable over time. We have scientific backing for that notion. The second description of faith, while perhaps equally widespread, can be dangerous when used to justify worldly actions. I saw this second meaning, which is often tied to religions and other supernatural concepts, again when I looked at Dictionary.com’s second definition of faith: “Belief that is not based on proof.”13 I then moved on to Merriam-Webster’s second definition, which is “belief and trust in and loyalty to God,” and looked at its subsection just below. Webster’s 2b(1) defines faith as “firm belief in something for which there is no proof.”14 I already saw a pattern emerging, but Oxford Dictionaries had perhaps the clearest definition of religious faith. In the number two spot, Oxford defines faith as “Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.”15

  There are also definitions of this type of blind religious faith that come straight from religious leaders and holy texts themselves. Hebrews 11:1, for example, defines faith as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.”16 Martin Luther, founder of the Protestant Reformation, said, “Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but—more frequently than not—struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”17

  The definition of religious faith seems pretty undisputed in these contexts, but even if you define faith as spiritual hope, or something similar, it stands in opposition to methodological scrutiny. On the opposite side of the faith spectrum, we have scientific skepticism, or the search for whether claims are supported by empirical research and have reproducibility. There are only two options when you properly apply this mentality to faith-based claims: the process will either eradicate the belief through a systematic uncovering of evidence against it or (in theory) it will render faith useless by verifying the underlying facts that support the initial claim. This is why, while not every atheist is a scientific skeptic, scientific skepticism will always lead a person to reject god-claims; they can’t be established scientifically. It’s worth mentioning that a number of faithful scientists do believe in god(s) (and other unsubstantiated forces), but they aren’t applying scientific skepticism to claims made by religions. Not many scientists are truly scientific skeptics, and even fewer apply the rigorous methodology to everything in their lives (see chapter 7).

  The bottom line is that the vast majority of religions, historically and in modern times, are based on blind trust in unverifiable texts—and not expectations held based on lifetimes of testing and observation. In this way, religious faith is inherently unscientific: it is based on ancient and unsupported reports. Having faith in humanity or in an idea—like honesty or love—is great, but if a concept needs your faith to exist, then that should make you think twice about holding onto it so tightly.

  “IT TAKES FAITH TO BE AN ATHEIST!”

  Some religious believers insist that atheism takes faith, or that nonbelief itself is a religion, but these attempts to use religion and faith as derogatory terms are often nothing more than deflections from the real issue: faith alone isn’t evidence of anything. I think these assertions sometimes stem from defensiveness, and other times they come from a fundamental misunderstanding of what atheism means. When I say I’m an atheist, I’m not necessarily making a positive claim … I do not believe in atheism and there’s no religion or doctrine associated with the label. I am merely rejecting faith-based claims put forth by others—claims that lack solid evidence and therefore rely on the same spiritual apprehension as do all religions. My rejection of a belief in all deities is no different from a Christian, Muslim, or Jew who rejects Thor, Zeus, or any other man-made deity. Does it take faith for modern religious believers to not believe in these gods? No. Their existence is asserted without evidence, and therefore it can be rejected in the same fashion.18 When it comes to supernatural religious claims, the so-called eviden
ce put forth by the Bible is equal to that put forth by the Qur’an, which is equal to that put forth by the Bhagavad Gita. In practical terms, what separates a Christian’s faith from the faith of a Muslim, a Scientologist, a Mormon, or a member of some obscure cult? If the criterion for faith is believing what you can’t see, there are many organizations and groups who fit the bill. So, why is this considered a good thing?

  I reject all religions and all superstitions. I don’t pray to any idols, I don’t believe in supernatural forces, I don’t congregate with other atheists to worship atheism, and I don’t tithe to an atheist church. The only requirement for one to be an atheist is to simply not believe in gods. I do think it’s possible for my atheistic and naturalistic worldview to be altered, but not by something as trivial and arbitrary as blind faith. If there were evidence for one or more deities that was substantial enough to warrant peer review and strong enough to withstand rigorous testing, I’d become a believer—but I still wouldn’t be a worshiper. So far, deities have only been shown to exist in the imaginations of humans, and no independent act or force has ever been proven to involve divine intervention.

  RELIGION ISN’T SPECIAL

  If a superstition is a belief or way of behaving that is based on fear of the unknown and faith in magic,19 then I think it’s fair to describe religions as (mostly archaic) organized superstitions. Superstition isn’t an insult; it’s just the broader umbrella term, under which some religious practices and beliefs most certainly fit. When asked which church I attend or which religion I follow, for instance, I often say, “I’m not superstitious,” just to cover all the potential bases. It might be difficult for some believers—and even former believers—to accept it, but, whether you carry a four-leafed clover for good luck or worship Jesus for salvation, the faith-based belief stems from the same place and follows the same format:

  SUPERSTITION: “IF I CARRY THIS CHARM, I’LL HAVE GOOD LUCK IN ALL MY ENDEAVORS!”

  RELIGION: “IF I ACCEPT JESUS, I’LL LIVE FOREVER IN HEAVEN AFTER DEATH!”

  There are important connections that link all superstitions, along with other flawed but potentially comforting beliefs, and that’s why personal religious or mystical experiences can and should be treated the same way as the alleged experiences of those who believe they saw ghosts or were abducted by aliens. Religion does enjoy some special cultural protections, but that’s where the differences between it and other supernatural belief systems end, because religion is itself a form of organized and enculturated woo that has been making adults believe in magic for all of recorded history. In that sense, letting the Bible or the Qur’an dictate how our governments manage things like stem-cell research and human rights is like letting a Ouija board govern the creation and enforcement of our most important laws.

  While the title of this chapter is “Religion Is Organized Superstition,” religions can more accurately be described as collections of superstitions and other beliefs—often accompanied by moral teachings and creation myths. To make this connection clear, it’s important to note that superstition itself—the tendency to falsely link a cause to an effect20—is a natural impulse that is well understood within an evolutionary context.21 Humans are pattern-seeking creatures by nature, which means we search for what’s familiar about our surroundings to help us make sense of them. For instance, our ancient ancestors may have (falsely) associated all rustling grass with a predator’s approach. In most instances, the wind was likely the cause, but that doesn’t take away from the lives that were saved because of that assumption of danger. Petitionary prayer—defined as an act in which one person (who is by definition unworthy) asks that the laws of the universe be altered to achieve an earthly result—a common practice in the Christian religion and a number of other faiths,22 is just one example of a superstitious principle that many religions share. The individual saying the prayer (no matter to which deity or supernatural force it is directed) sees the positive results (or hits) as divine intervention, and ignores those prayers that remain unanswered (misses), much like a gambler would. While it may make the believer feel better psychologically, this form of intercessory prayer, much like witchcraft, prophecies, homeopathy, mediums, and astrology, has been debunked time and time again as a solution to real-world problems.23 And it—just like the other supernatural and result-seeking spiritual activities and practices—relies on the false connections between cause and effect that are at the core of superstitious behavior. In other words, prayer is just another superstition—and it affects the future in the same way fortune cookies accurately predict it.

  Prayer isn’t the only superstition found within Christianity, Islam, and other religions, and depending on the specific denomination or sect, there may be a whole slew of archaic traditions and idols that are supposed to invoke divine (supernatural) acts yet have never been shown to do so in a scientific setting. I decided to emphasize prayer because belief in it is common across a number of belief systems and because, by understanding the nature of one superstitious experience or belief, we can give ourselves greater insight into why people may believe in the others. All of these claims can and should be independently analyzed and tested, as well as traced back to their roots during the religion’s early formation and sometimes much earlier, in an attempt to discern a possible value. But so far, no supernatural practice or religious rite has been shown to have any predictable effect on the outside world.

  WHERE RELIGION MEETS SUPERSTITION

  Many religious scriptures, including the Christian Bible,2425 actually condemn other supernatural practices—such as sorcery, communication with the dead, and witchcraft. The problem for religious believers here is that none of those things have actually been shown to exist, so the fact that their holy books call for their dismissal and cast them as evil and sinful doesn’t work very well to convince a thinking person that the religions are really rooted in reality.26 Another issue is that dogmatic condemnations of other supernatural forces don’t actually keep all religious believers from embracing those mysterious (and unfounded) powers. Clinical psychologist and professor Jonathan C. Smith wrote about this in his book, Pseudoscience and Extraordinary Claims of the Paranormal:

  Jesus rejected temptations from Satan to turn stones into bread and fly off mountains to impress the masses. Buddha warned against meditation distractions of psychic powers. Mohammad condemned magic as deceptive evil contrary to God’s will. Yet virtually every major world religion has devotees that are passionate advocates of the paranormal.27

  Religious texts often say mediums are real and even caution believers to kill those who practice witchcraft (see chapter 6). That says a lot about those who hold those scriptures to be divine in modern times, but it might tell us even more about those who wrote the books in the first place. For example, it’s possible that the Bible condemns these other supernatural practices for the same reason that many religions consider all competing faiths evil: competition. I’ve often argued, for instance, that petitionary prayer is in many ways the same as summoning, witchcraft, and other practices that allegedly bring manifestations of earthly desires through supernatural intervention. So, by condemning competing imaginary forces (and even ordering the deaths of those who practice them), such as request-based magic, a religion can more easily ensure the progression of belief in another—like prayer. This conflict between religion and witchcraft was in the media spotlight in July 2015 when Pope Francis visited Bolivia, a nation that “cherishes animal sacrifices and pagan worship.”28

  SUPERSTITION IN PRACTICE

  Superstitious behavior is an evolutionary adaptation that, much like religion, probably served an important role in our ancestors’ early development. But if superstition is rooted in our desire to survive in a dangerous world—our assumption of danger in the rustling grass—then what does that mean for the curious doubters? Skepticism may be a valuable trait in modern times, but that wasn’t always the case, necessarily. Perhaps my desire to know the unknown would have led me to investigat
e the noise in the bush, which could have ended my bloodline. Superstition might have saved my life, and it may have been responsible for our ancestors’ survival in general. Even evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, known for his strict adherence to science over faith, once joked about how “being too scientific is a bad thing.”

  “I had a cousin who as a little boy put his finger in the mains and got a shock,” Dawkins said. “So, he did it again just to make sure. He’s a real scientist, but not very good for survival.”

  The fact is that, today, superstitions aren’t about survival as much as they are about comfort. Some researchers even suggest the physical movements associated with certain superstitions, like knocking on wood or throwing salt, have an effect on us that is inherently reassuring. The authors of that study say those rituals “reduce the perceived likelihood of anticipated negative outcomes because they involve avoidant actions that exert force away from one’s representation of self, which simulates the experience of pushing away bad luck.”29 In other words, those who don’t even believe in superstitious rituals could benefit (psychologically) from acting on them.