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

To the news of a peer’s death in an automobile accident, one interviewed teenager said, “It’s fate. When your time comes, it comes.” Another tearily added, “God called him home.” Apparently, as far as you know, your time could be up at any moment. Nothing you can do about it.

This is sloppy and dangerous thinking. Perhaps it could contribute to such things as reckless driving. Hey, nothing you can do about it; it’s fate. If it’s not in the divine plans for you to be “called home” just yet, you can avoid questioning your own behavior. Or feeling distressed by the often unpredictable, impersonal, “non-caring” nature of calamity.

If all incidents of extreme bad fortune, and good, are in a god’s hands, you can additionally maintain the delusion that nothing happens without a reason. A significant reason. A personal reason.

What is the true cost of this superficial, sloppy thinking? I don’t know. I’m sure it depends upon the situation. In terms of athletes making a sign of the cross before competing or pointing to the sky after success, little cost. (Little obvious cost? There may be a diffuse cost in the modeling of superstitious behavior to young fans.)

In terms of a parent who believes that their child is sick because of sin or the devil or simply an un-elaborated “god’s will” (a form of partially rectifiable fate, via acts of repentance?) rather than due to, say, bacterial infection, and that prayer, rather than antibiotics, is the answer — well, this is very costly sloppy thinking.

The believer’s slip-shod “just because” (i.e. it is beyond my understanding and in the hands of divine forces) is a cul-de-sac on the road to knowledge and effective action. Not a god, but knowledge provides real power in terms of the ability to exercise control over our lives.

Few educated people believe the voodoo of ‘evil spirits cause disease.’ In those regions of the world where it persists, you will find both bottom-drawer education and inadequate health care systems. In our country, with its good health care and fairly decent education, gods have been pushed out of the physician’s black bag. Pretty much. And our society is better for it.

I am convinced that we should keep pushing talk of gods out of our explanations of how the universe operates. They’re in the way. Gods limit our vision. Sure, some people may want to prop gods in front of those annoying uncertainties for which we have no clear answers, but I’d rather not. I am one who prefers the leaden “I don’t know” answer to the believer’s airy “just because.”

[first posted earlier today here]

Related posts:

1. Why We Believe in Gods

To my mind, Sam Harris’s otherwise fine new book, The Moral Landscape, has three weaknesses.

First, much like his blockbuster, The End of Faith, this books starts blazingly strong, then peters as the page numbers go into triple digits, particularly post page 150. Harris seems to include previously written filler to bring the book to hardcover length. He throws in a few, fairly lengthy tangential-at-best arguments that don’t seem to advance his argument so much as attempt to settle unsettled disputes with intellectual adversaries.

Second, the book is conspicuously brain-focused. Not coincidentally, Harris’s own field is neurobiology, and he understandably emphasizes it. Yet the subtitle of the book reads, “How Science Can Determine Human Values,” not “How Neurobiology Can Determine Human Values.” Sure, stick with what you know to a degree, but science is much bigger and has much more to offer than the relatively immature field of neurobiology alone (now seemingly in vogue thanks to fMRI research).

A more obviously interdisciplinary approach would make for a stronger argument, considering both the number and types of variables involved and what other scientific fields already have to say about morality.

Morality can, has, and should be studied on many levels. Yes, our brains are epicenter of all we are and do, yet without bodies and their unique physiology (muscles, organs, hormones, etc.) the “felt experiences” that Harris speaks of as being at the heart of human flourishing become impoverished.

Additionally, without the input of family, social groups and culture, without learning experiences of any sort, without transient environmental influences, too, human psychology would consist of nothing more than innate temperament coupled with potential. As importantly, morality is a largely social phenomenon, and without a thorough understanding of it at that level, we are likely missing something.

Yes, the brain is what it all comes down to — in a sense. Harris writes, “Cultural norms influence our thinking and behavior by altering the structure and function of our brains.” Back to neurobiology again.

Yet this boiling it all down to the brain strikes me as akin to talking about evolution exclusively at the level of the gene. Is evolution all about individual genes? Of course not. For one, the process of natural selection takes place at the level of the organism, and, secondly, evolution itself is defined at the level of populations of related organisms, of entire species. A similar need for a multi-level perspective likely exists in the case of morality.

My hunch is that it might be more productive to place greater focus on what’s “going on” with a person in the context of his/her social group(s). After all, no sane human thrives when their world is in turmoil.

Harris writes:

“It is surprising that so little research has been done on belief, as few mental states exert so sweeping an influence over human life.” p.115

Not only does the book focus heavily on neurobiology, but Harris places special emphasis on the “brain states” capable of being measured thanks to new technology. Yet while static images of brain function do nicely lend themselves to an empirical inquiry, these brain states are transient and certainly not the full story. Rather, the bigger picture is about mental processes — events — generated by a myriad of inner and outer conditions.

Harris’s extreme focus on states of the brain nearly suggests a Matrix-like view of human psychology. As one who believes the field of psychology in general is far too individual-focused, this seems at odds with a potentially more fruitful perspective. As the study of human evolution is beginning to make clear, our kind is brainy, yes, yet that brainy-ness likely evolved to allow us to better adapt to and fully utilize extremely complex social environments.

My third and major beef with the book is that it did not contain enough science. How could a book purportedly about how science can determine human values contain so little science? Okay, it is a young field, particularly if we focus on neurobiology. But there is a ton of science out there that directly relates to human morality, including but not limited to that provided by the fields of cultural anthropology, psychology, sociology, and economics.

The book in general struck me as more philosophical than scientific. More concrete examples would have made for a better book. Or maybe even a single, fully-fleshed out example. Yes, you must implicitly and perhaps explicitly start with first premises and a groundwork of reasoning. Still, what better way to put some flesh and bones on the skeleton of your argument than a few, full examples?

Divorce comes to mind. Divorce rates in this country and others have climbed over the last few decades. Many preachers and politicians claim that the increase in divorce rates tells us that “family values” are in crisis.

Are they? Is immorality on the rise and people in need of more religion to remedy the situation?

To progress towards an accurate understanding and a solution (if needed), I turn to science. What does science have to say about the increase in divorce rates? Off hand: that increases in divorce rates worldwide are strongly associated with a number of factors, the most important of these being both legal changes (availability of no-fault divorces) and the changing social/educational/economic status of women. Where women are better educated and are capable of providing for themselves and their children — you will find higher divorce rates.

So the preachers with their terrifically-superficial religious approach are mistaken. Higher divorce rates are not simply the result of a decline in family values. One could make the argument that if you value happy moms and more free and flexible family structures, an increase in divorce rates might actually be a change for the better. Is it a bad thing for women to be free to end bad marriages? Not all marriages are good, not all lend themselves to individual and collective flourishing. In the least, a more wise solution to climbing divorce rates would be to persuade people to avoid entering into the types of marriages they will later want to end.

Many other examples come to mind. But more on that in my next post – The Moral Landscape: How the Sciences Can Guide Morality.

Related posts:

1. The Moral Landscape: The Highs
2. Are Religion and Science Reconciling?
3. What Science Says about Morality

Sam Harris’s new book, The Moral Landscape, is a thought-provoking read. I recommend it. My highest praise is reflected in this note I scribbled while reading: “One of the most important and clear-minded books I have ever read.”

I wrote that? Yes, though my overall enthusiasm did wane somewhat toward the end (as my next post will tell). It is a book I will keep in my personal library. And I have few.

What’s so good about the book? First, the importance of the topic and the straightforward, unapologetic way Harris attacks it. Too often the subject of human morality has been ceded to philosophy in academia and religion in the public square.

As for the ceding of morality to religion, this is both mistaken (if not ironic) and unproductive.

Why is designating religion as the source and domain of morality mistaken? Read the texts. The older the text, the more likely it reflects anachronistic values. Xenophobia, sexism, cruel and unusual punishment, etc.

Okay, a person may respond, but that was religion in the wrong hands. Now it is in the right hands. To that I would respond that it is not religion that corrected itself, but modernity that caused religion to adapt to the changing world. So religion is really not the source of today’s best versions of morality. Sure, pulpits can and do help broadcast values best suited to today’s human environments. But not all the time. As I mentioned in a previous post, religions frequently serve as a brake on positive social change, on extending rights and compassion toward an ever-expanding circle of people.

No, religion is not the source of morality. It is not only ironic but fully relevant that research into moral behavior has revealed scant and weak association at best, an inverse relation at worst, between religious affiliation and what we would label moral and ethical behavior.

One glaring, specific example: Not hundreds of years ago, but recently the Catholic Church demonstrated in its actions a greater concern for protecting their coffers and member priests than prosecution those guilty of sexual crimes against children. Yes, those supposedly occupying the high ground of morality — priests — do molest children. They will also steal and cheat. Ironic? Not really. For while religions most explicitly give voice to issues of morality, moral behavior likely has more silent sources: our genes (apes and other animals show rudimentary forms of moral behavior), our individual temperaments, our family and social environments, etc.

A second important point Harris makes is this:

“I will argue that morality should be considered an undeveloped branch of science.”

Why science? Because religious values, as Harris puts it, “come from a voice in a whirlwind.” They just are. We know because a god supposedly whispered it in a prophet’s ear. Which is a very superficial knowing. This “just do it” type of morality is fully shallow and impervious to correction. What’s more, it promotes mistaken and small-minded motivations for behaving well. To please my god, to get into heaven, etc. In reality, morality is about social dynamics. How should I treat others so that I and my group-mates near and far can live a good life?

Of course, the task of understanding what thoughts best express and what behaviors best promote “a good life” is a daunting task. Yet what better discipline to inform our attempts than one that depends upon continual input and complete transparency? “Just because” violates a cardinal rule in science, so you will not find it there. Instead, there is nonstop digging and debate, which leads to progress.

As one educated in psychology, I completely concur with this line by Harris:

“A science of morality would, of necessity, require a deeper understanding of human motivation.”

What do religions tell us about human motivation? That we have been saddled with original sin? That we can be inhabited by devils and/or evil impulses? Not much real insight there.

From where can we attain a deeper understanding? From science. Some would argue philosophy, but I would disagree. For the most relevant philosophical discussions on morals are informed by real-world data, best supplied by science. And the most relevant science has already integrated the most robust insights provided by philosophy.

Yes, determining exactly which values should be considered essential to human morality is not going to be easy. But it is a nascent undertaking, thus patience would be wise.

Harris writes -

“It seems to me, however, that the concept of well-being is like the concept of physical health: it resists precise definition, and yet it is indispensible.”

While Harris’s term for what I call the good life — “human flourishing” — has received criticism, for good reason and bad, his attempt represents an initial probing. He has taken a step toward explicitly exploring the subject while armed with information and insights supplied by science. What’s not to applaud?

Besides the importance of the topic, and the thoroughly enjoyable agility of Harris’s writing and reasoning style — he often strikes me as a pen-wielding Zorro — there was much food for thought in the book. And the biggest bite I personally took was into Harris’s own neurobiological research. In a study on brain response to different types of cognition — ‘what is true’ and ‘what is good’ — he found that “it appears that we have a common system for judging truth and falsity in both domains.”

“In fact, mathematical belief (e.g., ’2 + 6 + 8 = 16′) showed a similar pattern of activity to ethical belief (e.g., ‘It is good to let your children know that you love them’), and these were perhaps the most dissimilar sets of stimuli used in our experiment. This suggests that the physiology of belief may be the same regardless of a proposition’s content. It also suggests that the division between facts and values does not make much sense in terms of underlying brain functions.”

Interesting. Very interesting. Ethical beliefs, it seems, may simply be subset of conclusions a brain makes, rather than distinct phenomena.

To end with a final, particularly juicy quote based upon findings provided by the psychological sciences:

“As far as our understanding of the world is concerned–there are no facts without values.”

To conclude something is “a fact,” must we value measuring and replicability? Must we value something we call “making sense”? I wonder.

It seems to me that emotion and cognition are a set of conjoined twins. And morality part of the twins’ shared heart.

—

This article simultaneously posted at my home blog, 360 Degree Skeptic.

Tomorrow – The Moral Landscape: The Lows

Related posts:

1. The Moral Landscape: The Lows
2. What Science Says about Morality
3. Are Religion and Science Reconciling?

Many people believe that science is strictly the domain of mute facts. What is. And it consequently has nothing to say about values and morality. About what should be. Many religious folks, or simply thinkers friendly to religion, will claim that values and morality are a special category addressed best or exclusively by religion.

I disagree for two main reasons.

First, if you read the ancient, sacred texts, and know something of the history of religion, you will find that the values expressed by a religion reflect the needs and concerns of those preaching and promoting the religion at the time. The Bible, for example, is filled with verses that can only be seen as abhorrent by today’s honest thinker. Stoning adulterers, killing children in warfare, keeping slaves, etc., etc. Why are these barbaric practices in the Bible? Because the books of the Bible were written in a different time. A less civilized time. Literally.

Consider the case of slavery. Why is it not outright condemned in the texts upon which many religions are based upon, religions whose practitioners recognize it as an abhorrent practice today? Because times have changed. And no, religion didn’t get it wrong initially, and then got it right, thus deserving the credit as the engine of values and morality. Instead, times changed. And by that I mean a shorthand for the many factors that influence human thought and behavior: sociological, psychological, educational, economic, political, etc. When those things changed, religion changed with it. And then often given the credit for getting things right.

Yet religions frequently resist the progress to “getting things right.” They will act as a conservative force, putting a brake on societal change. Consider the Catholic Church’s stance on contraceptives. Religion, in this case, is stupidly clinging to values out of place in today’s world.

The second reason why I disagree that religion is the special realm of values and morality is that this claim rests on two bogus premises. One, that preachers and practitioners can magically know something (what is right) without a potentially measurable (within the ream of science) input of information. How does religion know what is right? It just does. Or because a god said so. Kindof.

Bullocks. If you take a closer look at religion you will find fully natural elements responsible for the values it promotes: social, psychological, economic, political, etc. What’s more, science can best help us expose and understand those elements.

Bogus premise number two is that science is the domain of static facts, thus it is mute about morals. As the saying goes, you can’t get from an is to an ought. But science is not just about facts. Doing science entails formulating hypotheses, testing hypotheses, developing theories, discussing and evaluating theories, etc. In essence, science is about working towards a more accurate understanding of the universe. Yes, this understanding is firmly tethered to facts, but there is more to it than mute facts.

In the least, scientists are capable of testing the hypotheses (or call them propositions, if you like) that lie hidden beneath moral codes and values. For instance, consider this ought: Though shalt not commit adultery.

To say that the commandment merely reflects the will of a god is naive to the extreme. Rather, it reflects the universal human concern over sexual fidelity and its consequences on child rearing. So why shouldn’t a person commit adultery? Because of the harm it could cause individuals and their social groups. That’s the hypothesis hidden behind the “ought.” And it can be analyzed and tested. By science. What happens when there is adultery? Are there any measurable psychological, social, etc., consequences? What about when there is no adultery, what can we measure then and confidently know?

By the content of my above statements, it is no mystery that I received a copy of Sam Harris’ latest book, The Moral Landscape, with happy anticipation. The subtitle boldly reads, “How Science Can Determine Human values.” Wow. Not just evaluate and test, but determine. Can it really? I have thoughts about that.

Now that I have completed a full read of the book I can say I have many good things to say about it. And yes, I have a few criticisms as well. But overall, the book is a welcome addition to any library. Harris is again at the vanguard, boldly elbowing into new territory. And I applaud him for it.

Stay tuned for upcoming posts on his book and the subject of morality.

[This article simultaneously posted at my home blog, 360 Degree Skeptic.]

Related posts:

1. Sam Harris on Science & Morality
2. Are Religion and Science Reconciling?

“Today I Quit Being a Christian” By Jesus Christ

Interview by Nick Farrantello

This just in:  Today, on his Twitter page, Jesus Christ, philosopher and rumored “Son of God” announced “I quit being a Christian.  I’m out. ”

Twitter followers were stunned.  “I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist.  I refuse to be anti-science, anti-movies, anti-Halloween, anti-Harry Potter, anti-Teletubbies, anti-science fiction conventions, anti-Indian food, anti-Large Hadron Collider, anti-big words, anti-yoga, anti-Karma Sutra (pages 17 thru 49), anti-news that isn’t Fox, anti-history books, anti-Wikipedia, anti-trees, and especially anti-Will and Grace.  I mean come on, who didn’t like Will and Grace.  Jack was so funny.  Am I right?”

“I just, in good conscience, can no longer associate myself with this quarrelsome, hostile (and frankly way too needy) group.  They all just need to get a life, always asking me for stuff.   “Can you give me the  lottery numbers?  Will you rig the football games so my team will win?  Can you smite the entire population of that country, over there, so I can continue to drive my SUV?”  It’s tiresome.

How do your friends feel about this decision?

I suppose I have a lot of Christian friends.  I never really thought about it.  They’re going to be disappointed.  I understand that, but let’s face it.  A lot of them had it coming.  I don’t mind sitting there listening to them talking about their kids or their crumby job, but when they start talking about burning Korans and blabbering about the Tea Party and how great Glen Beck is, I just turn off.  And when I started seeing the “Palin/Coulter 2012” bumper sticker, frankly, I thought my head was going to explode.

What do you say to your fans?

I know this might come as a shock to some, but those people who have been following me on Facebook, probably knew this was coming for a while, ever since my break with the Catholic Church in 05.  In the old days it was cool being Roman Catholic.   It was like a private party.   There was ritual, the churches were all glittery, John Paul was lovable.  You just wanted to squeeze him.  But when Ratzinger took over, it just stopped being fun.

How will this affect your books?

If you’re asking me if I think this will affect sales, I doubt it.  Face it.  People are looking for a certain type of thing when they buy my books.  That market has always been there and will always be there.  That’s not going to change. Besides, that whole thing kind of runs itself now.  I really don’t get involved with that part of my business.  To be really honest here, I wasn’t even very involved with the first book.  It was a fluke.  Who knew it would take off like that?  Now there are movies and games.  It’s a whole industry.  I can live a good life on the royalties from the action figures alone.

What is your opinion on the state of Christian literature today?

Being responsible for a few bestsellers myself, I find it harder and harder to get behind the Christian literature coming out these days.  Frank E. Peretti’s stuff is sooo “preachy,” and Tim LaHaye’s, Left Behind series?  It’s like reading The Road Warrior.  I’m sure Mel Gibson would love to star in the next movie.

What do you think about Ann Rice’s books?

I liked the vampire books.  But I have a real problem with Rice’s recent stuff.  The problem is that they claim to be based on exhaustive research by the author, but really it is nothing more than pure fiction.  Don’t get me wrong, fiction is my middle name, but let’s call a spade a spade here.

If you’re no longer a Christian, is there one denomination that you do like?

Frankly, I don’t have much use for any of ‘em.  I would prefer to walk away from the argument, from the confusion.  I’m not leaving just the Christians.  I want to leave the entire fray, the entire quarrel – the entire public face of religion.  I guess you could call me a reverse-theist or maybe call it anti-beleifism.  How about an athei-theologionism?   There probably is a better term for what I have become but god knows what it is.

What’s next for JC?

I think I need to be more comfortable with myself before I can go worrying about the whole world, you know what I’m saying?  Take some “me time.”  Maybe, I’ll do some traveling, head out East.  I know some people out there who said they would put me up for a few nights.

Related posts:

1. Jesus in the Football Huddle
2. Was Jesus a Stone Mason?
3. Book Review – Jesus Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them)

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

Does religion exert a positive influence on people’s lives? The answer to this question likely depends on how we define the variables. Yet is it truly religion exerting the influence, when we get right down to it, or something more mundane: social values, adopting a meaningful life narrative, community involvement, pleasing rituals, what? A huge problem with the bulk of the studies into the influence of religion is the lack of adequate secular controls. It is assumed that there is religion and then there is nothing. But are there no secular social values, no non-religious community involvement, no god-free pleasing rituals?

Of course there are. To overlook the fact is to practice incomplete science and to perhaps mislead yourself and others.

A recent study purporting to demonstrate a positive influence of religion (religiosity) got me thinking about the topic. Or maybe “stewing” is the more accurate word.

In, Greater religiosity during adolescence may protect against developing problem alcohol use, we learn -

[P]eople with a religious background may be less likely to express alcohol-related phenotypes than those from nonreligious backgrounds.

Sounds quite science-y. But what is meant by religious background? Belief in a god and the strength of that belief? Church attendance? Engaging in religious behaviors such as prayer and Bible reading? Self-reported importance of religion to one’s worldview? What?

Religiosity was measured using the Value on Religion Scale

Aha! I guess. A quick Google search led me to a .pdf that contained details about that scale (in the very same semi-bogus study I critiqued in a Skeptic magazine article a few years back). Subjects rated their strength of agreement with these items:

“To believe in God,” “To be able to rely on religious teachings when you have a problem,” “To be able to turn to prayer when you’re facing a personal problem,” and “To rely on your religious beliefs as a guide for day-to-day living.” [source]

That’s quite a range of thoughts. Total strength of agreement with these statements produced the religiosity measure.

An author of the study went on record with this:

“Our study showed that genetic factors could influence problem alcohol use more in nonreligious adolescents than adolescents with a greater religious outlook,” said Button. “This attenuation in religious participants indicates that religiosity exerted a strong enough influence over the behavior of religious individuals to override any genetic predisposition. [all bolds mine]

Wow! With religion you can overcome any genetic predisposition . . . for alcohol use, anyway. Or at least make it less-likely you succumb to genetic predisposition. As was the actual study finding. (How much less likely is a very good question.) But hey, why quibble?

But then there was this curious element:

The same was not true for young adults, however, for whom the genetic influence was consistent across levels of religiosity.”

Button noted that she and her colleagues had expected to find a similar pattern of effects in adolescents and young adults.

Hmm. Seems to me the religiosity measured was more situational than committed, more environmental than integral to the individual.

My guess is that the researchers actually indirectly measured some effect of parenting or family/home life. Thus, once out of the house — as most individuals experience in the transition from adolescence to adulthood — the effect disappeared. Would a real religious influence evaporate like that between neighboring age groups? I wonder.

Now it’s your turn to exercise your critical thinking skills. See what flaws you can spot in this final article paragraph (and how it relates to the claimed results).

“These findings provide evidence that problem alcohol use in adolescents is subject to controlling influences associated with religiosity, even when genetic risks are present,” said Button. “Thus, adolescents who are raised to value religious concepts are less likely to develop problems with alcohol use, even in the presence of a genetic predisposition for doing so.” [bolds mine]

(Hint: think of a shell game in which a ball is hidden beneath one cup and then, with slight of hand, moved to beneath another.)

Ready, set, think.

—

[simultaneously posted at my home blog: 360 Degree Skeptic]

Related posts:

1. Are Religion and Science Reconciling?