The Jesus myth is alive and well, and its fascination for the faithful grows with time. Two examples of this intense interest are Mel Gibson’s blockbuster movie The Passion of the Christ and Dan Brown’s novel The Da Vinci Code. This novel sold, as of March 2006, 40 million copies. It espouses provocative heretical ideas including the opinion that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and embarked on a course of sacred copulation producing a daughter. Unfortunately, the enthusiastic supporters of these new twists on the standard Jesus myth will have to fall back on the standard model, since the TV program Sixty Minutes produced convincing evidence that documents used in creating this book were fraudulent.

The debate about whether Jesus was an actual historical figure was initiated in 1778 in Germany by Reimarus, who was not a theologian. Actually, the most objective investigations into the subject have often been done by non-theologians, who avoid the bias of Christian investigators. Research continues to accumulate since 1778, but seldom does any of this information reach the public, and the small amount that does is usually downplayed and belittled by the media and religious leaders.

Personally, as one who attended many Protestant churches early in my life, I accepted the fact that Jesus was a historical figure without question, much like the 2.2 billion Christians in the world today. Even when I began to research and question my religious beliefs, I found it difficult to believe that so many people could have been deceived about Jesus’ existence for so long. But, as the accumulated body of evidence now clearly shows, they have definitely been deceived.

Many people who have looked at a portion of the modern evidence on a historical Jesus have concluded that surely there was at least a wandering Jewish religious teacher named Jesus Christ who perhaps had a small cult following and that onto this actual historical figure a heavy layer of mythology was added. But a review of all the evidence indicates there was no person at all behind the myth.

I’ve seen no studies on why the public doesn’t know about the lack of evidence of a historical Jesus. Nevertheless, we can do some reasonable speculating. An obvious reason is that this information never reaches the public. Even some freethinkers (not members of our group, of course) are unaware of some of this information.

A number of reasons come to mind as to why this research is repressed: the media are mainly composed of believers; many people employed in the religious field might lose their jobs; often the public doesn’t want to hear evidence that contradicts their cherished beliefs; many feel that people would run amuck without a religious basis for ethics; much of the information is in books, and the current frenetic pace of daily life leaves some feeling they don’t have time to read an entire book.

There is a paucity of articles covering the subject completely and concisely. I hope this article will provide such a source.

After reading this article, some of you may be motivated to follow-up with these essential books for freethinkers: Did Jesus Exist? By G.A. Wells, first published in Great Britain in 1975, revised edition published in 1986; The Jesus Puzzle, by Earl Doherty, first published in Canada in 1999 and reprinted in 2000 and 2001; The Jesus The Jews Never Knew by Frank Zindler, published in the U.S. in 2003.

If you have time for only one of these books, read The Jesus Puzzle, which is comprehensive, written in an accessible style, and elaborates on evidence originally presented in the more academic Did Jesus Exist? Frank Zindler’s masterful The Jesus The Jews Never Knew wraps up the package so convincingly that it is hard to think that any rational fair-minded person would come away thinking there was a historical Jesus.

Now let’s proceed with evidence that Jesus Christ never existed as a flesh and blood human-being (more accurately, lack of evidence):

Savior Gods. Many Christians believe that Jesus stories in the New Testament were unique. The fact that these stories were remarkably similar to those of previous savior gods has been a source of embarrassment to Christianity since its inception. One explanation the early Christian founders offered for the striking similarities was that the devil had gone back in history and planted the stories.

There were as many as 29 savior gods before Jesus Christ. Examples of a few of them are: Attis (Phyrgia); Horus (Egypt) – described in detail below; Khrishna (India); Marduk (Babylonia); Mithra (Persia).   A standardized form could be constructed listing the identical elements in the stories of these savior gods, and the name of Jesus or any one of these gods could often be interchanged at the top of the list.

Horus, an Egyptian savior god, who was worshipped thousands of years before the time of Jesus, will serve as an example of the remarkable similarities in life events between Jesus and the savior gods. Horus was considered to be the son of two major Egyptian deities, the god Osirus and the goddess Isis.

Horus and Jesus (Horus listed first when there are any differences) shared these life events: conception (virgin birth); father (only begotten son of a god, Orsiris and Jehovah); similar mother’s names (Meri and Mary); foster father (Jo-Seph and Joseph); foster father’s ancestry (royal descent); birth location (in a cave and in a cave or stable); annunciation (by an angel to each mother); birth heralded (by a star): birth dates (birth celebrated at time of winter solstice – typically December 21 – and December 25); birth announcements (angels); birth witnesses (shepherds); later witnesses to birth (three solar deities and three wise men); death threat during infancy (Herut tried to have Horus murdered and Herod tried to have Jesus murdered); age at right of passage ritual (12); break in life history (between ages 12 and 30); baptism locations (in the river Eridanus and in the river Jordan); age at baptism (30); baptised by (Anup the Baptiser and John the Baptist); subsequent fate of baptiser (beheaded); close followers (twelve disciples); performed miracles (often identical ones such as walking on water and raising the dead); key address (sermon on the mount); method of death (crucifixion); crucifixion companions (two thieves); burial (in a tomb); fate after death (resurrected after three days); resurrection announced by (women); future (reign for 1,000 years).

In addition to this list of striking similarities in life events, another comparably long and tedious list can be constructed of personal characteristics of Horus and Jesus, but I think by now you get the picture.

Miracles. Clear evidence of mythology is provided by stories that incorporate miracles. There are many such stories in the story of Jesus. The occurrence of a single miracle has never been documented by science, nor would we expect it to be, since a fundamental premise of science is that the Universe operates only by natural laws.

Historians. Not one historian, Jewish, Greek, or Roman, who allegedly lived at the same time as Christ, mentioned him. And there were plenty of them, erudite and skilled, who wrote about everything, trivial and profound. Any mention of Christ by a historian occurred after Christ’s supposed earthly existence and was therefore Christian hearsay provided to historians or fraudulent Christian insertions in texts.

And this total lack of mention is particularly noteworthy since, according to the Gospels, Christ was known far and wide. The Gospels describe numerous times the masses of people that Jesus attracted. For example, Matthew 4:25 states: “Large crowds from Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea, and the region across the Jordan followed him.”

Epistles. The New Testament epistles, misleadingly placed after the Gospels, were letters written on a specific subject that could be just dashed off or sometimes composed with polish, or were sometimes well-written treatises. Even though the epistles were written closest to the time that Jesus allegedly lived, they made no mention of an earthly Jesus.

Paul is given credit for founding Christianity, and 13 of the 22 epistles have been ascribed to him, although the authentic number is 7 or even less. He never saw or knew a human Christ. His Christ was strictly a spiritual entity modeled after the savior gods.

Gospels. Christian churches have traditionally portrayed the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the work of four of Christ’s disciples and are called the “Synoptic Gospels.”   Critical biblical research has revealed that each Gospel was written by one or more anonymous authors, none of whom was a disciple of Christ or an eyewitness to him. Also, about 50 inconsistent gospels were widely circulated in the early Christian movement, but only the four “Synoptic Gospels” were selected from the approximately 50 by Paul’s Christianity.

Many biblical researchers put the dating of Mark, the first Gospel, at no earlier than 70 CE and the last, John, at around 140 CE. The first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke by a Christian founder, St. Irenaeus, was about 190 CE.

Mark, which was written at least forty years after the alleged death of Christ, is especially noteworthy since it is the first time a human Jesus was described. It was written in a bare-bones manner, and the author(s) of Matthew and Luke largely copied the sparse information from Mark and embellished it. John, the last one written, is quite different from the other three. It describes long theological discourses by Jesus that could not be literal words from a historical Jesus, and it contradicts the other three Gospels.

In Earl Doherty’s brilliant masterpiece, The Jesus Puzzle, he explains how a mythical Christ was created: “All the Gospels derive their basic story of Jesus of Nazareth from one source: whoever wrote the Gospel of Mark…. The Gospels are not historical accounts, but constructed through a process of ‘midrash,’ a Jewish method of reworking old Biblical passages and tales to reflect new beliefs…. Well into the second century, many Christian documents lack or reject the notion of a human man as an element of their faith. Only gradually did the Jesus of Nazareth portrayed in the Gospels come to be accepted as historical.”

Relics. Historical figures usually leave behind some relics that attest to their earthy existence. In the case of Jesus, we come up with a big zero. Items of clothing, tools, documents that he wrote or signed, eating utensils, nails or pieces of wood from the cross, a cup from the Last Supper, a thorn from the bloody crown – none of these items or any others were ever scientifically authenticated (although there was a lively market in phony items) .

Nazareth. Christ in the Gospels is often referred to as Jesus of Nazareth. There is a major problem with this designation. Nazareth did not exist until well after the second century CE.

Name. Jesus Christ is not the name of a specific individual. Christ is not a last name. It is simply the Greek name for “Messiah” or “anointed one.” Joshua would have been a better translation of Yeshua than Jesus, and Joshua was a very common first name at the time lacking any historical specificity.

Religious claims that reside exclusively in a supernatural realm often can not be clearly confirmed or refuted by critical biblical research and scientific investigations. But when the claims reside in the material world, they usually can be confirmed or refuted convincingly. Such is the case with the claim of Jesus Christ being a historical person. It is difficult to imagine on reviewing the evidence available currently that any intelligent, objective person could still believe that Jesus Christ ever existed as an actual historic figure. Nevertheless, I feel sure that most people who depend on faith for the confirmation of their conclusions will continue to fervently believe that he was historical.

Nonetheless, I think those who have reached rational conclusions on this subject have an obligation to try to convey this information to the public, since many are completely unaware of the current research findings. Eventually, I hope many people will feel that living a life based on mythology is living a lie and is unacceptable.

Related posts:

1. “Today I Quit Being a Christian” By Jesus Christ
2. Was Jesus a Stone Mason?
3. Jesus in the Football Huddle

The Bible’s appraisal of male homosexuality is clear. Leviticus 20:13 states: “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” It is not surprising that this sort of pronouncement sometimes leads to intolerance and in extreme cases to assaults and even murder.

In a study done at Kent State University on nursing students in 1999, researchers found there was a significant correlation between homophobia, frequency of church attendance, and Christian Orthodoxy.The Christian religion, especially the Catholic and the Fundamentalist Protestant branches, has contended that homosexuality is a sinful life-style choice, one that is voluntarily entered into, and one than can be abandoned if desired.

Unfortunately, I seldom hear individuals quoting scientific evidence but only biblical references and long held prejudices. Even my fellow physicians are often unaware of the scientific literature on this subject.

Sexual orientation refers to whether a person’s erotic desires are directed toward the same sex (homosexuality), the opposite sex (heterosexuality), or both sexes (bisexuality). A person’s actions may not always match his or her sexual orientation, such as when a person conceals his sexual orientation for practical  reasons. In this discussion we will be focused on sexual orientation.

Seldom do we hear from psychiatrists and psychologists, who encounter homosexuals in their practices, or from scientific researchers. In 1973, on the basis of research findings, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality as a disorder from their official manual, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Their conclusion was: “The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.” They further added: “There is no  published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of ‘reparative therapy’ as a treatment to change one’s sexual orientation.” In 1975, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting the conclusions of the American Psychiatric Association. The World Health Organization passed a resolution in 1990 to remove homosexuality as a mental illness from its official manual. In 2000, the American Psychiatric Association reaffirmed its position of 1973 and stated that “in the last four decades, ‘reparative’ therapists have not produced any rigorous scientific research to substantiate their claims of cure.” In 2001, The United States Surgeon General, David Satcher M.D., issued a report maintaining that “there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.”

In considering the cause of homosexuality, there are three possibilities: environmental, intrauterine effects during pregnancy, or genetic.

First, let’s discuss the longstanding and firmly held belief that there is something different in the environment that causes a person to be gay. Sigmund Freud, Alfred Kinsey, William Masters, and Virginia Johnson held that homosexuality was socially learned. Bailey and Pillard, however, researchers that have published the most studies in the field, reviewed all the scientific evidence in 1991 in the Archives of General Psychiatry and concluded: “Previous attempts to test psychodynamic and psychosocial theories have largely yielded negative findings and emphasize the necessity of considering causal factors arising within the individual and not just his psychosexual environment.” This very cautiously phrased scientific statement is basically saying that these researchers reviewed all of the studies and the evidence for any environmental cause of homosexuality is lacking.

Although intrauterine influences are suggested as a factor in homosexuality by a few researchers, the limited amount of scientific evidence available is too fragmentary to determine if it is significant or not. Most of the scientific findings strongly favor a genetic origin. At any rate, sexual orientation is something that people are born with and is not acquired.

Evidence Supporting a Genetic Cause of Homosexuality:

Twin Studies.

Multiple twin studies have demonstrated a hereditary component to homosexuality. Monozygotic twins (ones from a single ovum) share exactly the same genes, whereas dizygotic twins (one from two different ova) share 50% of their genes, the same as any non-twin sibling). The number of gays in the U.S. Population is 3-4% for males and 1-2% for females.

Since monozygotic (also called identical) twins share identical genes, the chance of a match in sexual preference should be evident if heredity is operative. In the case of dizygotic (also called fraternal) twins, since only half the genes is shared, a figure of about one half of that for identical twins would be expected.

As examples, the results of two studies by Bailey and Pillard, are presented, but other twin studies have yielded similar results. One study was limited to males where it was revealed that if one identical twin was gay, the other was gay 52% of the time. If one fraternal twin was gay,the remaining twin was gay 22% of the time. In the other twin study, which was limited to females, if one identical twin was gay, the other one was also gay 48% of the time, and if one fraternal twin was gay, the other was also 16% of the time.

Even though the observation that the approximately 50% concordance in homosexuality in identical twins points to a strong heredity component, this figure could also suggest that genetics  might not be the entire explanation. But this 50% figure is still consistent with genetics  alone being the cause. Two examples of hereditary diseases in identical twins will show why.

If identical twins have the genes for Huntington’s Disease, both twins will develop the disease 100% of the time. However, if identical twins have the genes for Type 1 Diabetes, both will have only a 30% chance of developing the disorder. Therefore, even though identical twins have identical genes, the manifesting of the genes can vary, a process called variable penetrance, a phenomenon that is poorly understood at this time.

Animal Studies.

- Recent genetic studies on the geneticists’  favorite subject, the fruit fly (drosophila melanogaster), has provided valuable information to scientists about homosexuality. The fruit fly has a recognizable match with 75% of known human disease genes and has contributed valuable genetic information to scientists for almost 100 years.  Manipulation of a single gene called “fruitless” induces homosexual behavior in either sex. Normally, a male fruit flies’ ritual for the seduction of the female fruit is dramatic and involves such maneuvers as tapping her with his foreleg, extending and vibrating his wings in song, and then brazenly licking her. This male sexual behavior is exactly reproduced in females with the manipulation of the “fruitless” gene. In another recent study on fruit flies, David Featherstone and coworkers discovered that a mutation in a gene they call “genderblind” turns fruitflies bisexual.

- Studies on animal sexual behavior have been revealing. Homosexual behavior has now been well documented in 500 animal species.

Anatomical and Physiological Differences in Gays.

These associated findings are further evidence that homosexuality is biological, something that people are born with. I’ll just list the differences since the list is long:

- Gays are 39% more likely to be left-handed than straight people.

- Men typically have a ring finger that is longer than the index finger, while in women the two are about the same length. Two studies have shown that in lesbians the ratios between the two fingers are similar to those in men.

- One study compared fingerprints in men of the thumb and index fingers. 30% of homosexuals had an excess of ridges on the left hand, whereas only 14% of heterosexuals did. This finding is particularly interesting since fingerprints are fully determined in a fetus before the 17^th week of pregnancy and do not change thereafter throughout life.

- The startle response (eye blink following a loud noise) is masculinized in lesbians and bisexual women.)

- Gay and non-gay people emit different armpit odors.

- There are anatomical and physiological differences in the brain: The average size of the INAH-3 (a part of the hypothalamus) in the brains of gay men is approximately the same size as the significantly smaller one of women. The anterior commissure is larger in gay men than in non-gay men. Three regions of the brain (medial prefrontal cortex, left hippocampus, and right amygdala) are more active in gay men than non-gay men when exposed to sexually arousing material. Gay and non-gay brains respond differently to two human sex pheromones (AND, found in male armpit secretions, and EST, found in female urine).

Behavioral traits.

To varying degrees, gays often show characteristic behavior that appears to be a biological part of their nature. Gay males tend to show variable degrees of feminine behavior and lesbians variable degrees of masculine behavior, and these findings often are discernible in early childhood.  Of course, in some cases gay individuals show behavior that is indistinguishable from heterosexuals.

Casual observers can often judge sexual orientation with very limited information. A 1999 Harvard study found that by simply looking at photographs of seated strangers that undergraduates could identify the sexual orientation accurately 55% of the time. In another study, 112 undergraduate observers saw only the backsides of subjects as they walked on treadmills. The observers correctly identified the sexual orientation of males with over 60% accuracy, but the categorization of women did not exceed chance. As another example of readily available behavioral clues to a person’s sexual orientation, a researcher, Gerulf Rieger shows videotapes of men and women discussing the weather, and observers are able to tell who is gay and who is straight with great accuracy. Rieger states that “even within seconds, people are pretty good at figuring out who’s gay and who’s not.” Rieger thinks his research points to genetics as the source of sexual orientation.

Finally, as has been shown, scientific studies strongly indicate that homosexual orientation is something people are born with. Available evidence favors mostly a genetic cause but some intrauterine effect before birth can not be excluded. As genetic research continues to advance, considerable light should be shed on the subject. A single gay gene is very unlikely to be found to explain a phenomenon as complex as human sexuality. Most likely the interaction of multiple genes will be involved.

Understanding the science behind homosexuality is no mere academic exercise but has practical consequences. Studies have shown that the public is more tolerant of gays and legislators are more likely to pass laws protecting their rights when the scientific facts are known.

Related posts:

1. Scientific Conclusion: Prayer Doesn’t Work – Part 2
2. Scientific Conclusion: Prayer Doesn’t Work – Part 1

According to the drumbeat from religious leaders and the media, religion and science are heading for a profound reconciliation and synthesis that will benefit all humanity.  The purpose of this discussion is to expose the irrationality of this contention and state the proper relationship of the two.

Let’s deal first with the claims that religion and science deal with entirely different aspects of human existence, complement each other, and are not in conflict.

• A recent letter signed by 10,200 clergy from across the nation stated: “We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist.”
• Pope Benedict has also recently come out with similar statements. Speaking to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Pope stated that the dialog between religion and science would actually help the faithful see “the logic of faith in God.”
• An article in The Oberlin Review entitled “Religion and Science” by science columnist Margaret Putney is typical of the thinking of many in the media: “First of all, science cannot answer religious questions. Science can only address the observable. Professor of Physics Dan Styer heard once that a ‘question is trivial if it can be answered with scientific inquiry,’ implying that the questions humans truly care about are those that cannot be answered through observation and physical tests – the basis of all science.”
• The John Templeton Foundation, a powerful voice promoting the compatibility of religion and science, finances scientific research (but only if the study demonstrates compatibility) and its vast Templeton Foundation Press with provocative book titles like Evolution: The Disguised Friend of Faith? and Creative Tension: Essays on Science and Religion.

Many freethinkers will immediately see the obvious fallacy underlying the above ideas: the major conflicts between religion and science have actually not resided in a spiritual realm but in a material one. And the material Universe – how it originated and how it functions – is the exclusive province of science.

As is so often the case, Richard Dawkins has expressed this idea with unexcelled clarity and succinctness: “Most religions offer a cosmology and a biology, a theory of life, a theory of origins, and reasons for existence. In doing so, they demonstrate that religion is, in a sense, science; it’s just bad science. Don’t fall for the argument that religion and science operate on separate dimensions and are concerned with quite separate sorts of questions. Religions have historically always attempted to answer the questions that properly belong to science. Thus religions should not be allowed to retreat away from the ground upon which they have traditionally attempted to fight. They do offer both a cosmology and a biology; however, in both cases it is false.”

I’ve previously mentioned a classic book, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom by Andrew D. White published by Prometheus. Don’t be put off by the ponderous title. I recommend this book as a must-read by all freethinkers. White extensively documents how Christianity made major pronouncements about the material Universe and how it has been proven wrong in each and every case.

Frequently, the church stated that disproving their beliefs about the natural Universe, thought to be infallible, such as the Earth being flat or the Sun rotating around the Earth, would cause their religion to collapse. In each case, however, religion crawled off, licked its wounds, and returned cowed but with a new contorted rationale to continue its beliefs.

The reason religion is consistently wrong in offering explanations about the natural Universe can be summed up in one word: faith. It is the Achilles heel of religion – the ultimate copout (I’ve written about this in a previous post on this site).  Any belief, no matter how absurd, can be justified by faith.  Science, on the other hand, must reach its conclusions using rules of logic and collection of incontrovertible evidence that can be replicated by other scientists. Scientific findings are always subject to revision if contradictory evidence is found, whereas an impervious wall of faith usually justifies religious beliefs.

Religious fundamentalists, of course, are the most vehemently anti-science, at least on issues that conflict with their religious beliefs, while not disputing and reaping the benefits of scientific discoveries not conflicting with these beliefs. Generally, fundamentalists have no interest in changing any of their religious beliefs that clash with science since they believe their religious convictions are infallible.

Gradually, many non-fundamentalist religions have come to “accept” scientific findings as a fallback position, yet they still try to save some remnant of their former religious convictions by saying that a deity is behind the creation and the workings of the natural Universe. This manner of “accepting” scientific findings is bogus and shows an ignorance of the main premise of science that no iota of the supernatural is accepted in any scientific explanation. Non-fundamentalist religion, not science, has usually been the initiator when dialogue is attempted between science and religion.

But if religion and science are irretrievably and fundamentally incompatible, why do the media give the impression that many scientists are religious and find no conflict between religion and science? Again, let’s look at the evidence.

The media often cite the religiosity of great scientists, especially Albert Einstein, as compelling evidence of religion-science compatibility. Like other scientists, Einstein sometimes used the word “god” as synonymous with the laws of nature. He never believed in an anthropomorphic god; biographical accounts record that he rejected religion from an early age.

Upon being asked if he believed in God by Rabbi Herbert Goldstein, Einstein replied: “I believe in Spinoza’s god who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.” In the book Albert Einstein: The Human Side is this quote: “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

The beliefs of scientists as a group are much less religious than the general public, particularly those in the natural sciences.  The very best and most prestigious scientists are barely religious at all.

A Harris Poll in 2003 found 90% of the general public believes in God, a figure that can be used to compare with the beliefs of scientists described below.

In 1998, an important report appeared in Nature entitled “Leading Scientists Still Reject God” by Edward Larson and Larry Witham, who did a follow-up study on two landmark studies by psychologist James H. Leuba done in 1914 and 1933. Larson and Witham stated: “Our latest survey finds that, among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever – almost total.”

Leuba found in his initial 1914 study that 40% of scientists in general believed in God; Larson and Witham found this figure unchanged. The story was different and highly significant in the case of “greater scientists,” defined in the 1998 study as members of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, where 93% (72% atheists and 21% agnostic) did not believe in God.

Among the “greater scientists,” belief in God decreased steadily over the years (1914, 28%; 1933, 15%; 1998, 7%). Larson and Witham included in their report this explanatory quote from Oxford University scientist Peter Atkins: “You clearly can be a scientist and have religious beliefs. But I don’t think you can be a real scientist in the deepest sense of the word because they are such alien categories of knowledge.”

In a 2005 scientific conference at City College of New York, a student in the audience rose to ask the panelists, all Nobel laureates, this question: “Can you be a good scientist and believe in God?” Herbert A. Hauptman, speaking for the panel, replied rapidly and forcefully with an unequivocal, “No!” He explained that belief in the supernatural, especially belief in God, is not only incompatible with good science but also that, “this kind of belief is damaging to the well-being of the human race.”

Stephen Weinberg, a physicist at the University of Texas, a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a winner of the Nobel Prize in 1979 for his work in particle physics, expresses views that are typical for the academy.  In regard to the effect of science on religion, he observes, “I think one of the great historical contributions of science is to weaken the hold of religion. That’s a good thing.”

Weinberg further notes that, “The experience of being a scientist makes religion seem fairly irrelevant. Most scientists I know simply don’t think about it very much. They don’t think about religion enough to qualify as practicing atheists.” He added that most scientists he knows who do believe in God believe in “a God who is behind the laws of nature but who is not intervening.”

The effect of science on scientists’ religious beliefs now seems clear. It leads to a progressive loss of these beliefs, and among really top-level scientists, dramatically so. This weakening hold on scientists has increased as the explanatory prowess of science has increased about the material Universe and as scientific investigations of the historical claims of sacred texts have shown them to be grossly unreliable.

Science has come a long way since Isaac Newton wrote a lot more about the Bible than the laws of nature, and scientists thought their primary function was to glorify God by elucidating the workings of his marvelous creation.

Given this evidence, what can be done about religion’s efforts to force reconciliation with science in explaining the natural world?

First, our best scientists have to improve communications with the general public to explain clearly why science and science alone has dominion in the natural Universe.

Second, responding with lawsuits can be effective, as in Dover, Pennsylvania, where an effort to introduce “intelligent design” into a science curriculum was resoundingly defeated. The courts, where conclusions are supposed to be based on logic and evidence much like science, can expose the irrationality of many religious claims.

Third, not only the findings of science but also its basic nature in relation to religion must be better taught in schools.

Fourth, scientific knowledge must be imparted to all of society and more skillfully than it is presently. Most polls show a woeful lack of scientific knowledge in the general population.

Science must stand firm and resist the encroachment of religious explanations of the natural world. As the history of the relationship between religion and science reveals, religion always gradually readjusts its beliefs to accommodate new scientific findings. This interplay eventually results in a progressive weakening of the hold of religion on society, much to the benefit of all.

When the natural world is legitimately ceded to science, religion can freely romp in whatever illusory supernatural world is left to them.

Related posts:

1. What Science Says about Morality
2. Spot the Flaws: Unpacking the Religion Variable

The word “faith” is short and appears innocuous. But it has caused much human misery in history and continues to do so presently. A good first step in addressing this problem is to appreciate that “faith,” like most words, has multiple meanings. The type of faith discussed in this essay will be confined to religious beliefs without supporting logic and evidence. The explanation of how faith developed will be about the Christian religion, but many of the concepts apply to religion in general.

The idea that any conclusion should be reached without evidence is uniquely bizarre. A person who professes belief without evidence in other than a religious context is thought of as a fool. But in the case of religion, turning a fatal logical flaw into a concept that is revered and held in awe is a remarkable achievement.

Faith is the very lifeblood of religion. Faith gives people license to believe in the imaginary world of the supernatural where the dead rise out of their graves and snakes talk. It provides almost impregnable protection for religion against critical inquiry. Faith is the ultimate cop-out. Completely absurd and contradictory beliefs can be justified. If it weren’t for faith, religion could not exist. Doctrine provides the foundation of religion but without faith the doctrine would be meaningless. Lacking faith, we would never have seen the many abuses associated with monotheistic religion throughout history.

But how did such a foolish idea as religious faith ever come to be regarded with such awe and respect?

One of the major factors promoting faith was the Bible. Faith was mentioned only twice in the Old Testament but several hundred times in the New Testament. Jesus reportedly said, “If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible.” And Paul states that faith is the only way a person can be “saved” when he said, “For by grace are ye saved through faith … not of works, lest any man should boast.”

Nowhere in the Bible does it state that the truth would be revealed through logic and evidence. In fact, it consistently discourages the acquisition of knowledge by these means and instead touts the superiority of knowledge arrived at by faith. The story about Thomas the doubter is a dramatic example of the glorifying of faith. Alone among the disciples, Thomas asked for proof of the extraordinary claim of resurrection, a request that most rational people would consider quite reasonable. Jesus accepted the challenge and provided proof that satisfied Thomas. But then in John 20:29 Christ demolishes the idea of religious skepticism and elevates faith to a profound virtue with this irrational statement: “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” With this passage, Christians would hence regard anyone who exhibited skepticism about their religious claims as “a doubting Thomas.” Religious skepticism became a sin.

Tertullian (c.160-c.230), a Roman theologian and Christian, pushed the virtue of faith to its ultimate. He was the son of a centurion and well educated, especially in law. Tertullian is mainly famous for the quote: “It is certain because it is impossible,” often incorrectly quoted as, “I believe it because it is impossible.” In other words, he thought that if a religious belief seemed impossible, that seeming impossibility made it certain. He believed that the more impossible a religious belief seemed, the more it would strengthen a person’s faith.

Christian leaders through the centuries further fortified the idea of the power of faith by continued propaganda. However, as science in the last few centuries began explaining the working of the Universe through natural means and religion began losing every battle with science, faith began taking a beating.

To counteract this negative trend, conservative Christians staged a series of meetings called the “Niagara Conferences.” The people attracted to the cause were generally poor, rural, and not well educated. It was ironic that two rich, urban, well educated oil tycoons, the Stewart brothers, Lyman and Milton, gave the movement its biggest boost. They financed a series of twelve booklets entitled The Fundamentals (1910-1915). In these booklets the five basic fundamentals necessary to be a “true” Christian were publicized, the ones that had been agreed on at the Niagara conferences. These fundamentals included:

(1) The virgin birth of Jesus Christ
(2) The complete inerrancy of the Bible
(3) Christ’s atonement for the sins of man on the cross
(4) The divine status of Christ
(5) The Resurrection and the Second Coming of Christ.

Christian Fundamentalists with their dogmatic claims were now in a position to answer the conclusions reached by scientific (critical) thinking. Since the Fundamentalists’ conclusions were based on an inerrant source, the direct word of God as revealed in the Bible, then henceforth their conclusions would trump any amount of conclusions reached by logic and evidence. And what was it that rendered this Fundamentalist doctrine valid? Faith, of course. Faith and only faith.

And this strategy from a numerical standpoint has been successful. The Christian Fundamentalist denominations, energized by the renewed empowerment of faith, have been the most rapidly growing of all Christian denominations.

This renewed glorification of faith produces major problems for society. Religious claims based on faith cannot be resolved. The citing of an infallible source ends all rational discussion and sets one group in society against another, or is even divisive within a religious group itself.

A few examples show the detrimental effects of faith-based decisions:

Evolution. Despite being one of the most thoroughly documented conclusions in all of science, Christian Fundamentalists return again and again with some version of Creationism. Belief in Creationism is also behind Fundamentalists’ denial of the scientifically well documented “big bang theory.” In effect, they are claiming that the Bible is a scientific textbook. The denial of the scientific evidence can lead to a type of child abuse since their children don’t receive proper scientific educations and are launched into a scientifically-oriented society with a major handicap.

Homosexuality. There is now much scientific evidence that sexual preference is inborn. But those holding faith-based conclusions don’t want to hear any of the scientific information. They want to hear only what the Bible says. Again, they are using the Bible as a pseudo-scientific textbook.

Abortion and Stem Cell Therapy. Whatever one’s conclusions are on these subjects, they should not be based on an embryo having a soul. There is no scientific evidence that a soul exists in an embryo or any other living organism.

Women’s Rights. The Biblical view is the one that those relying on religious faith use as a guideline for the treatment of women. They show little interest in the scientific studies about women.

Science. Although those using faith-based conclusions readily accept the benefits provided by science, they otherwise have an antipathy toward it since scientific conclusions are regularly in conflict with their faith-based ones. They tend to minimize scientific study for themselves and their children.

Church-State Separation. The true believers have faith in the infallibility of their beliefs and see no reason why they shouldn’t impose them on everybody. They are just doing God’s work.

Abstinence-Only Programs for Teenagers. The faith-based conclusion is that premarital sex is sinful and that abstinence-only programs should be promoted using religious zealotry. Recent scientific studies show that these programs simply don’t work.

Although Christian Fundamentalists rely on and glorify faith more than moderate Christian denominations, the latter also base their religious conclusions on faith, but usually with less dogmatism. Nevertheless, moderate Christians also help perpetuate the idea that faith is a valid way to arrive at truth about the material Universe. In doing so, they encourage the extreme views of the Christian Fundamentalists by seldom criticizing these views.

Most faith-based religious conclusions that are detrimental to society involve the material Universe, not what many freethinkers would regard as an imaginary spiritual region. Science with its use of logic and evidence has earned the right to be the sole interpreter of how the material Universe works by always being right in its numerous fights with religion.

Imagine an ideal world where people realize that faith is a bogus way to reach any valid conclusion, even a religious one. Conflicts would only be resolved using logic and evidence. No longer would debates end when a believer slammed a faith-based door in another person’s face. This dream can be realized by explaining to the media and the public the reasons that conclusions based on faith are irrational and detrimental to society.

Related posts:

1. Are Religion and Science Reconciling?

[The second and third large, prospective, randomized, double blind studies that pass muster as valid scientific investigations of the effects of prayer on human health.]

The second study that appears to meet the “gold standard” for scientific studies was one entitled “A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients Admitted to the Coronary Care Unit.” It was published in the October 25, 1999 edition of the Archives of Internal Medicine, and the investigators were William S. Harris, Ph.D. plus eight others of the Mid America Heart Institute. The study was done at Saint Luke’s Hospital, Kansas City, Missouri, a private, university-associated hospital.

The investigators stated: ”The purpose of the present study was to attempt to replicate Byrd’s findings by testing the hypothesis that patients who are unknowingly and remotely prayed for by blinded intercessors will experience fewer complications and have a shorter hospital stay than patients not receiving such prayer.” The intercessors, five to pray for each patient (compared to three to seven in Byrd’s study), were to pray for “a speedy recovery with no complications” plus “anything else that seemed appropriate to them.”  1013 patients were randomized, 484 to the prayer group, and 529 to the usual care group. After removal of those patients who spent less than 24 hours in the CCU (prayer was not started until 24 hours after admission), 524 remained in the usual care group and 466 in the prayer group (I’ll mention this high drop-out rate in the prayer group shortly).

A list of events after entry into the study was compiled, much like the one in the Byrd study, but with 34 events instead of the 26 in the Byrd Study. Again, a scheme was devised to evaluate the overall hospital course, a totally new and untested system, but different from the also new and untested one devised by Byrd. The Harris study scheme was called the Mid America Heart Institute-Cardiac Care Unit (MAHI-CCU) Scoring System, and its criteria are presented in “Table 1” of his paper.

The only finding in the Harris study that indicated the prayer group outperformed the control group was in using the MAHI-CCU Scoring System and then only at a probability level of (.04), a figure very close to the cut-off level of (.05).

The Harris study is a much better study than the Byrd study because the number of patients is larger, it appears to be completely blinded, and the degree of religiosity of the investigators appears to be less (although Dr. Harris supposedly supports the idea of “intelligent design”). Nevertheless, scientific investigators have noted flaws: 1) As already noted, the MAHI-CCU Scoring System has never been previously scientifically validated. Without such validation, any result produced by it is subject to question. 2) The much higher dropout rate in the first 24 hours in the prayer group is a very serious criticism of the study. The statistical probability that this finding would appear by chance is (.001), or 1 chance in a 1000, a statistically very significant finding.  This higher dropout rate, since the mortality rate in the two groups was the same, suggests that the prayer group, for unknown reasons, was not quite as ill as the control group since patients discharged within a day often turn out not to have serious problems. If they were a little less ill at the start, we would expect them to have a more favorable course.  3) The conclusions stated in this investigation, as I’ll describe shortly, are not justified by the data.

Positive findings in a scientific study are not considered valid until replicated by independent investigators. So did the Harris study replicate the positive findings of the Byrd study? The answer is a resounding no! In the 6 items in the list of 26 that I previously described in the Byrd study where the prayed for group did better, not one of these items was statistically significant in the Harris study. When the Harris study subjected its data to the same scheme that Byrd had used in his evaluation of the hospital course of the patients (Table 3 in the Byrd study), the Harris study found the difference between the two groups of (.29) was not even close to being statistically significant. The Harris study did replicate the negative findings from the Byrd Study. There was no statistically difference in days in the CCU, days in the hospital, or mortality.

In remarks at the end of the Harris study, the investigators stated: “Our findings support Byrd’s conclusions despite the fact that we could not document an effect of prayer using his scoring system.” This statement is erroneous. Their findings not only don’t support Byrd’s conclusions but directly refute them. How the editorial board that agreed to publish this article allowed this statement to stand is a mystery to me.

The most recent study, and, I believe, the best designed one, was published in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings in December, 2001, and was entitled “Intercessory Prayer and Cardiovascular Disease Progression in a Coronary Care Unit Population: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” This third “gold standard” study should settle the matter once and for all scientifically. The investigators that wrote the study were Jennifer M. Aviles, MD and six others. This trial was done on patients immediately after discharge from the Coronary Care Unit, a time when the intensity of extraneous intercessory praying by family and friends would generally be waning.

Here is their summary of the findings: “Patients and Methods: In this randomized controlled trial conducted between 1997 and 1999, a total of 799 coronary care unit patients were randomized at hospital discharge to the intercessory prayer group or to the control group. … The primary end point after 26 weeks was any of the following: death, cardiac arrest, rehospitalization for cardiovascular disease, coronary revascularization, or an emergency department visit for cardiovascular disease. Patients were divided into a high-group based on the presence of any of 5 risk factors (age > or = 70 years, diabetes mellitus, prior myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular disease, or peripheral vascular disease) or a low-risk group (absence of risk factors) for subsequent primary events.” The investigators summarized their findings as follows: “Conclusions: As delivered in this study, intercessory prayer had no significant effect on medical outcomes after hospitalization in a coronary care unit.” Not even one difference showed up between the control group and the prayed-for group.

The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs. But now that you have the scientific information, don’t let the statement that the efficacy of prayer has been proven by scientific studies go unchallenged. It’s simply untrue.

Related posts:

1. Scientific Conclusion: Prayer Doesn’t Work – Part 1
2. Scientific Evidence on Homosexuality
3. The Skeptrack Experience at DragonCon – Part 2

Many religious people want to cling to the ancient belief in the supernatural, including prayer, and yet accept the conclusions and benefits of modern science. They can’t have it both ways. To study the natural world, scientists must have an implicit understanding that science operates only by natural, predictable processes, ones that can not be affected arbitrarily by an all-powerful deity.

One of the major ways that scientists provide proof of theories is by doing well designed studies, of which the “gold standard” is the large, randomized, prospective, controlled, double blind type. If such a study could be influenced by a personal god who responded to prayers to change the results, science would be in shambles. There would be no way to ever do a valid experiment since investigators couldn’t be sure that someone, somewhere, hadn’t uttered a specific or generic prayer that would affect the study. In short, science by its very nature, rejects any influence of prayer on the physical world.

Even though prayer is an irrational concept, could it nevertheless be tested scientifically? Francis Galton, the brilliant and eccentric half cousin of Charles Darwin, thought so and gave the idea scientific legitimacy. Galton was the father of biometry and a central figure in the founding of modern statistical analysis. He argued that regardless of how the prayers “may be supposed to operate,” the efficacy of prayer … is a perfectly appropriate and legitimate subject of scientific inquiry” because it can be tested statistically. He then proceeded to set up such studies.

In one statistical study, Galton examined data from a previous study by Guy on longevity. Galton first focused on clergy. He reasoned that clergy should be the longest lived of all since they were the most “prayerful class” of all and among the most prayed for. When Galton compared the longevity of eminent clergy with eminent doctors and lawyers, the clergy were the shortest lived of the three groups. Galton next focused on royalty, who were much prayed for, when compared to other members of the aristocracy. In analyzing the data on royalty, Galton concluded: “Sovereigns are literally the shortest lived of all who have the advantage of affluence.”

Galton looked for other statistical data. He examined the insurance rates for ships. He reasoned that ships carrying missionaries and pilgrims should have lower rates since frequent praying by the occupants should decrease the number of accidents. He found that the rates were the same; ships carrying missionaries and pilgrims sank just as often as other ships.

Following up on Galton’s statistical studies on prayer, Rupert Sheldrake, a Cambridge trained plant biologist, did one of his own. He examined the effects of prayer in India. Most people there prefer having a son, and a tremendous amount of praying goes into the effort to produce one. Sheldrake examined statistics of live male births in India and used data from England as a control where the preference for sons was less strong. He found that in both England and India there were 106 males to 100 females, just as in every other country. He stated, “If this enormous amount of psychic effort and praying of holy men were working, you would expect on average the percentage of live male births to be higher.”

Although these statistical studies from the nineteenth century strongly suggest that prayer is not effective, they do not meet the “gold standard,” as I previously described it, of a completely valid scientific study. But the media regularly mention a large number of contemporary studies that supposedly scientifically validate the beneficial effects of prayer on human health. So what is the truth in this matter? Actually, there are only three that meet the “gold standard.” Happily, the fact that there are only three studies considerably reduces the amount of information freethinkers need to acquire to refute frequent and erroneous claims.

Before we get into subjecting these three studies to critical analysis, let’s be sure that everyone understands what it means when we say that a finding in a scientific study is statistically significant. “Significant” has a very specific statistical meaning that applies in all scientific studies. A finding to be considered significant must be (.05) or less, which means the probability that it could be due to chance is 5 in 100. The main point to appreciate is that this figure, although reasonable, is strictly arbitrary. Therefore, the figure of (.05) is borderline significant, .04 (a probability of 4 in a 100 of being due to chance) is considered significant, and .06 (6 in 100) is considered not significant. I’ll bring out the importance of appreciating that the definition of “significant” is arbitrary in the Harris study.

The figure (.05) is the one accepted for “ordinary” scientific studies. But what criterion should be applied in proving a supernatural finding?  After all, as the old saw goes, extraordinary claims should require extraordinary proof, and this requirement should especially apply to claims of the supernatural. The James Randi Educational Foundation has a standing offer of one million dollars to anyone who can demonstrate any supernatural event under carefully controlled scientific conditions. The foundation has never had a single person who even got past the preliminary testing. Its members think that a study that would prove a claim of the supernatural should eliminate the possibility that the result could be by chance. They think a test should be devised where the possibility of a supernatural event happening would be in the range of 1 in 10,000,000, a far cry from 5 in 100.

One other point to be particularly aware of before we analyze the three studies is one that Robert Park brings out in his excellent book entitled Voodoo Science. He observes that a characteristic of voodoo science is that there are always very small differences in studies, ones that are just barely detectable, and ones that can’t be amplified in further investigations. These barely detectable positive results usually indicate flaws in the studies themselves rather than real findings.

Now let’s examine in some detail the three studies on intercessory prayer that were large, prospective, randomized, double blind ones, the only three that pass muster as valid scientific investigations of the effects of prayer on human health. Intercessory prayer (prayer at a distance) was chosen so that the placebo effect of direct prayer would be eliminated. All of these studies were done on coronary care unit (CCU) patients.

The first study was entitled “Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population” by Randolph Byrd, M.D., published in the Southern Medical Journal, July, 1988. Dr. Byrd stated: “My study concerning prayer and patients in a general hospital coronary care unit was designed to answer two questions: (1) Does intercessory prayer to the Judeo-Christian God have any effect on the patient’s medical condition and recovery while in the hospital? (2) How are these effects characterized, if present?

Over ten months, 393 patients admitted to the CCU at San Francisco General Hospital were randomized to an intercessory prayer group (192 patients) or to a control group (201 patients). After randomization, each patient in the prayer group was assigned to three to seven intercessors, who were all “born again” Christians (according to the Gospel of John 3:3) of various denominations. Dr. Byrd states: “The patients first name, diagnosis, and general condition, along with pertinent updates on their condition, were given to the intercessors. The intercessory prayer was done outside the hospital daily until the patient was discharged from the hospital. Under the direction of a coordinator, each intercessor was asked to pray daily for a rapid recovery and for prevention of complications and death, in addition to other areas of prayer they believed to be beneficial to the patient.”

The results were summarized in “Table 2” of the Byrd study entitled “Results of Intercessory Prayer.” There was no statistically significant difference between the prayer and control group in these measurements: days in CCU after entry; days in hospital after entry; number of discharge medications. Only when a list of 26 “New Problems, Diagnoses, and Therapeutic Events After Entry” was compiled was any statistically differences found and then only in 6 of the items: congestive heart failure (.03); diuretics (.05); cardiopulmonary arrest (.02); pneumonia (.03); antibiotics (.005); intubation/ventilation (.002). When Dr. Byrd subjected these items to multivariate analysis (a statistical method of analyzing the overall significance when multiple factors are positive), he found the prayer group to better the control group at the statistically significant level of (.0001).

He then showed a “Table 3” that is entitled “Results of Scoring the Post-entry Hospital Course” in which he constructed three categories, “Good, Intermediate, and Bad,” using a self-designed and previously not scientifically validated method. The prayer group bettered the control group at a level of (.01).

Although this study appears to meet the “gold standard” of a large, prospective, randomized, double blind investigation, scientists have pointed out a number of flaws:

•    The study was not “blinded” in two respects: 1) Janet Greene, the coordinator of the study, on whom Dr. Byrd depended for the collection of data, knew exactly who was being prayed for, and interacted regularly with the patients in the study. 2) “Table 3” was formulated by Dr. Byrd at the request of editors who initially evaluated his paper after the “blinding” had been removed.
•    There was no difference in clear-cut end points such as days in the CCU, days in the hospital, or mortality between the two groups. Only when complicated statistical analyses were done on a long list of items do any data emerge that favor the prayed for group – hardly evidence of an all-powerful deity. Also, if prayer had any effect, an overall improvement would be expected. Of the six items where the prayer group did better, four of them were of borderline statistical significance and only two clearly significant. Are we to conclude that the deity is only concerned with reducing antibiotic use and ventilating patients in the CCU? This study provides no information on the physicians involved in this study. This information could be important since certain physicians use antibiotics and intubate patients much more readily than others.
•    The method that Dr. Byrd used in his scoring in “Table 3” had not been validated by any previous studies.
•    When Irwin Tessman, Ph.D., professor of biological sciences at Perdue University, requested of Dr. Byrd that Dr. Tessman be allowed to review the raw data that went into the study, he was refused. Since Dr. Byrd’s claim is one of the supernatural, it would seem appropriate that all aspects of the study be reviewed by independent investigators.
•    The degree of obvious religiosity communicated by Dr. Byrd raises doubts that he could be completely objective on a scientific investigation of prayer, something that he deeply believes is effective. Under “Acknowledgments” at the end of the paper, he writes: “ … and Mrs. Janet Greene for her dedication to this study. In addition, I thank God for responding to the many prayers made on behalf of the patients.”

[continued in Part 2]

Related posts:

1. Scientific Conclusion: Prayer Doesn’t Work – Part 2
2. Scientific Evidence on Homosexuality