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
3. Spot the Flaws: Unpacking the Religion Variable

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

Mose-Hammed by OAF member P

No related posts.

Dinesh D’Souza and Christopher Hitchins will debate the controversial tenants of Christianity and Atheism on April 6th at 8 pm at the Phillips Center for Performing Arts at the University of Florida in Gainesville. Tickets are free.

More info here: http://www.sg.ufl.edu/accent/

Related posts:

1. Hitchens and D’Souza to Debate at UCF

If the Judeo-Christian god is first in line, with none others before him, that line should be at the unemployment office.  Not because we need him to provide jobs, but because he doesn’t.  There are thousands upon thousands of unemployed fathers and mothers who pray and wait in vain these days for any half-crappy job — preferably one that makes it possible with great restraint and resourcefulness to both buy food and pay the electric bill.

I know about unemployment offices because two times in my life, when a young adult, I  had the demeaning privilege of asking for assistance in finding a job.

That there are unemployment offices across our land being visited by Christians is evidence to me that their god ought to get in line because he needs a job he can succeed at.

Truth is, thanks to public education, science, technology and the forward march of civilization, there is much less work for a god to do.  The work has not been shipped overseas, but has been transported from the supernatural realm to the natural, where things get done.  Insuring bountiful crops, curing disease, punishing transgressors for their “sins” (crimes) — for these we’ve got agribusiness, the medical profession, and penal systems.  Etc.  Etc.

For centuries the role of gods has been shrinking.  What jobs are left?  To provide humans something mindless to say after a person sneezes?

No related posts.

Demolishing the wall between church and state in order to establish a Christian theocracy is the ultimate goal of the Christian Right. Since they believe their version of Christianity is infallible and the only true means of salvation, they can’t understand why their religion shouldn’t be an integral part of our lives and our government as well. They believe they are doing us a favor by saving our souls and think by Christianizing the world they are preparing it for Christ’s Second Coming.

To tear down the wall, fundamentalist Christians flagrantly twist facts. They claim our first presidents, as well as most of our other founders, were Christians, that the essential documents our country was founded on incorporated Christian precepts, and that the founders didn’t really intend to establish a strict separation between Christianity and the government.

I’ll review specific evidence to help refute these claims.

The religious beliefs of the first four United States presidents (George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison) is a good starting point since these remarkably talented men provided crucial leadership in the creation of our particular form of government.

All were strongly influenced by the European Enlightenment, a movement that promoted scientific thinking and religious tolerance. Most of the members of the Enlightenment were Deists, a minimalist religion that promoted the idea of a non-anthropomorphic god, a vague idea of a first cause or a god of nature. Deists thought this pseudo-god created the Universe and then retired to allow it to operate naturally. They did not believe in miracles or any humans, such as Jesus Christ, possessing divine powers. Many historians have classified these presidents as Deists.

The first four presidents were highly intelligent and comprehensively well educated, (Washington had less formal education than the other three) – including the classics and scientific knowledge of the time. They were men of exemplary character. All these attributes eminently qualified them to create a government structure that has endured and been a model for the rest of the world. (I feel a bit depressed when I compare these giants against some of our recent presidents, and I believe we should start critically reviewing what has gone wrong with the selection process).

Although the first four presidents did not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ and had serious misgivings about much of religion in general, they were tolerant and friendly in their dealings with religious figures. They all believed in complete religious freedom for everyone and stressed that this freedom was only possible when the government remained entirely neutral toward religion.

1. George Washington (1732-1799), the first president of the United States (1789-1797), was the hardest to read of the early presidents concerning his religious beliefs. He realized how contentious the subject of religion was, especially in public office, and simply tried to keep his true feelings to himself.  It is understandable that some have regarded him as a Christian since he was a vestryman in the Episcopal Church, which he attended sporadically, less so as he became older.

This superficial appearance of Christianity is countered by considerable evidence:

• He never took communion, even though his wife Martha did, which required the family carriage to make a return trip to the church to pick her up. Most Christians took communion at some time;
• In his time, church attendance was often a social obligation rather than an indication of a person’s true beliefs;
• In Washington’s writings, he never referred to Jesus Christ;
• There is no evidence he expressed belief at any time in conventional Christian dogma;
• His father was a Deist;
• The Reverend Doctor James Abercrombie, rector of the church Washington attended with his wife, in reply to a question about Washington’s religion, said: “Sir, Washington was a Deist”;
• Thomas Jefferson noted in his private journal in February, 1800: “I know that Gouverneur Morris, who claimed to be in his secrets, and believed himself to be so, has often told me that General Washington believed no more in that system [Christianity] than he did.” (Gouverneur Morris was the principal drafter of the Constitution, a member of the Continental Congress, a senator from New York, a minister to France, and a freethinker);
• Reverend Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister, in an interview in 1831, stated concisely: “I have diligently perused every line that Washington ever gave to the public, and I do not find one expression in which he pledges himself as a believer in Christianity. I think anyone who will candidly do as I have done, will come to the conclusion that he was a Deist and nothing more.”

2. John Adams (1735-1826) was the first vice-president of the U.S. and the second president (1775-1801). He played a prominent role in the committee that drafted the Declaration of Independence and then exerted strong leadership in persuading the Second Continental Congress to adopt it.

Although he seemed to enjoy going to the Unitarian Church and described himself as a “church going animal,” he was a Deist, and a weak one at that, as revealed in his voluminous and erudite (sprinkled with quotations in multiple languages) correspondence with Thomas Jefferson. Quotes from multiple sources attest to his religious beliefs:

• In a letter to his brother-in-law, Richard Cranch, in explaining why he rejected the ministry, Adams wrote: “The frightful engines of ecclesiastical councils, of diabolical malice, and Calvinistical good-nature never failed to terrify me exceedingly whenever I thought of preaching”;
• Views of Religion by Rufus K. Noyes records this statement: “When philosophic reason is clear and certain by intuition or necessary induction, no subsequent revelation supported by prophecies or miracles can supersede it”;
• Adams made this observation in a letter to Thomas Jefferson: “I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved – the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced”;
• Another letter to Jefferson contained this statement: “There exists, I believe, throughout the whole Christian world, a law which makes it blasphemy to deny or doubt the divine inspiration of all the books of the Old and New Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation. In most countries of Europe it is punished by fire at the stake, or the rack, or the wheel…. Now, what free inquiry, when a writer must surely encounter the risk of fine or imprisonment for adducing any argument for investigating the divine authority of those books?”

3. Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) was the third president of the United States (1801-1809) and author of the Declaration of Independence. He was probably our most brilliant president and a prototypical Renaissance man, with a prodigious array of talents and accomplishments.

Jefferson chose this epitaph for his tomb: “Here was buried Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, of the statute of Virginia for religious freedom, and the father of the University of Virginia.” It is highly significant that he included the Virginia religious freedom statute and omitted his two terms as president. This statue clearly outlined the church-state separation concept and served as the model for the Constitution. His epitaph confirms how important he thought this separation was.

• In his religious beliefs he is usually classified as a Deist, but at times he sounds almost like an atheist. Of the four presidents, his views on religion are the most extensively documented. Here are a few quotes that express his beliefs, in his own words:
• In a letter to Ezra Stiles, Jefferson wrote: “I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know;”
• Writing in Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson observed: “Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth”;
• Jefferson, in replying to a letter of John Adams, stated: “If by religion we are to understand sectarian dogmas, in which no two of them agree, then your exclamation of that hypothesis is just, ‘that this would be the best of worlds if there were no religion in it’ “;
• He wrote in a letter to Dr. Woods: “I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies”;
• Corresponding with John Adams, he noted: “The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter”;
• Even Jefferson’s belief in God seems a bit shaky in this statement in a letter to Peter Carr: “Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god….”

4. James Madison (1751-1836), the fourth president of the United States (1809-1817), has often been called “the father of the constitution.” Also, more than any other person, he can be considered responsible for making the Bill of Rights part of the constitution. He helped draft the constitution of Virginia and insisted on its providing separation of church and state.

He was a Deist but without much depth of conviction. Here are a few quotes that reflect his attitude toward religion:

• In a letter to William Bradford, Jr., he observes: “Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects.”
• He notes in another letter to Bradford: “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize”;
• Addressing the Virginia General Assembly about religious assessments, he said: “Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution”;
• Writing in a letter objecting to the use of government land for churches, he explains: “The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.”

Clearly, our first four presidents were not Christians, and the god they believed in was consistent with a Deistic one. In fact, the Reverend Dr. Wilson, who was almost a contemporary of our early statesmen and presidents, and extensively researched their religions, stated that the founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents elected up to his time, not one had professed a belief in Christianity. The presidents that he was referring to were the four I have discussed plus, in order, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and Andrew Jackson.

Some fundamentalist Christians claim that our government is founded on the Declaration of Independence, and that this document proves the founders intent was to incorporate Christian principles because of the mention of God. Of course, this contention is nonsense. First, our nation is founded on the Constitution and not the Declaration of Independence. Second, the Declaration of Independence, approved by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, and written by Thomas Jefferson, does not contain any references to a Christian anthropomorphic god. I checked the document and found four references that could be construed as being to a Deist- type entity. One reference is to “Nature’s God,” another to “Creator,” still another to “Supreme Judge of the world,” and finally one to “Divine Providence.” Third, there is no mention of Christ or Christianity in the document.

Our Constitution is the document that defines the structure of our government, and its understanding is crucial to answering claims by fundamentalist Christians that our nation was founded as a Christian nation. James Madison, its chief architect as previously mentioned, keenly recognized the horrors that can ensue if religion insinuates itself into government and quite deliberately constructed an obviously secular document. Not once is there a mention of any type of deity, Christ, or Christianity. In fact, the only mention of religion is in Article 6, Section 3: “No religious Test shall ever be required as a qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” This article clearly separates church and state.

Nonetheless, Article 6 of the Constitution was not strong enough to satisfy everyone and the First Amendment to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights further delineated church-state separation: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;….”

Thomas Jefferson spelled out the meaning of the First Amendment even more precisely in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association: “ Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”

And as an unambiguous statement of the non-religious nature of our government, Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli is unexcelled. This treaty was signed into law by President John Adams and reads: “As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, ….”

At the time of the creation of the Constitution, the colonies were religiously diverse: Puritans, Quakers, Catholics, Lutherans, Jews, Baptists, Anglicans, and others. It can be fairly said that the colonies were predominately Christian. Nonetheless, even though some clergy vigorously, but unsuccessfully, pushed for the insertion of Christian references into the Constitution, most of them, and Americans in general, seemed to understand the concept that strict church-state separation meant greater religious freedom for all. The churches’ acceptance of the concept of strict separation stands in sharp contrast to the situation nowadays where there are unrelenting efforts by fundamentalist Christians to destroy the wall.

It is ironic that the Enlightenment in Europe degenerated into the excesses of the French Revolution but that its principles became established instead in our country. The Enlightenment strongly influenced the thinking leading to the American Revolutionary War and strongly influenced our leaders in setting up our secular republic. We can only speculate what form of government we would now have if our government had been formed at another time with less enlightened leaders.

The founders of our country clearly meant for there to be a wall between any religion, including any form of Christianity, and our government. To maintain this essential separation, our citizens and watchdog groups need to be constantly alert in resisting these incursions.

But to ultimately remove the assaults against the church-state wall, it is essential that another wall eventually come down, a metaphorical one that exists in the frontal lobes of the brains of fundamentalists. This wall, constructed with a material called faith, separates a rational area where truth is decided with logic and evidence from a dark, irrational region where any type of religious belief, no matter how illogical, can exist. Only when this wall is gone will fundamentalist Christians realize their beliefs are not infallible and should not be imposed on everyone.

Related posts:

1. In God We Trust? – Part 1
2. In God We Trust? – Part 2
3. FL Governor Crist Assaults Atheist; Apology Demanded

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. Faith: Religion’s Achilles Heel
2. Spot the Flaws: Unpacking the Religion Variable
3. Scientific Conclusion: Prayer Doesn’t Work – Part 1

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?
2. Spot the Flaws: Unpacking the Religion Variable
3. The Freedom Wall

Most people don’t have to think very hard to come up with organizations they believe are compassionate and moral. Churches and faith-based organizations usually come to mind. It’s a misconception, however, that “religion” is the only measure of morality and that only religious people do good work.

There are also many secular/atheist charitable organizations in the United States and around the world made up of caring, compassionate, moral, ethical, intelligent people doing tireless work to ease pain and suffering and educate and promote peace. Think of Doctors Without Borders, Amnesty International , Oxfam International, The American Red Cross, and The Union for Concerned Scientists, to name a few. Many secular, atheist, agnostic, nonreligious individuals also quietly contribute to charities of their choice and to their communities.

It’s not surprising, however, that nonbelievers have not been acknowledged as participants in charity. Historically, our communities have been structured so that churches are the main means for large numbers of people to gather to promote and implement charitable work. The following quote from the web site Beingism.org makes this point:

It may be that nonreligious individuals are less likely to form communities than their religious counterparts. Certainly, the lack of a preexisting community (such as an established church) is a relative hindrance to community-building. No doubt also willingness to question pervasive social norms, particularly when they are part of belief systems from which most people derive emotional, social, and/or financial support, probably tends to accompany an individualistic (rather than community-oriented) approach to life. In addition, social stigma reduces the community resources available to nonreligious people, both financially (e.g., nonreligious institutions are not given the same financial benefits as faith-based organizations) and socially (e.g., fear of discrimination leads to increased difficulty in reaching out to find others with similar values). Unfortunately, these factors have fractured communities of nonreligious people, making it extremely difficult for them to agree upon or articulate a positive vision for the future or to create change. This lack of community also leads religious communities to conclude that nonreligious people are without ethics.

One of the biggest myths still being perpetrated is that atheists/nonbelievers are selfish, immoral heretics. The very word ‘atheist’ conjures up images of Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin. Take Bill O’Reilly’s Fox News interview with Richard Dawkins. O’Reilly implied that it was ‘atheism’ that led these heinous men to commit crimes against humanity. Mr. Dawkins was given little time to rebut this stupidity.

Religion is everywhere. We are inundated with religious television programming seven days a week. Religious pundits regularly demonize and dismiss secular humanists, atheists, agnostics, and those who are nonreligious, leaving no room for further dialogue or understanding.  The Internet has many sites educating the public about nonbelief, but I doubt that many Christians or other religious folks visit these sites. If they do, it’s to excoriate what is said there, not to understand it.

Few religious people have any grasp of the challenges that atheists must deal wth. People risk losing their jobs, family, friends, and their standing in their community when they go public about their nonbelief. They’re left to feel that they exist in a secret, underground, fringe community whose freedoms are in jeopardy if they speak their truth. I think most religious people would be shocked to learn how many nonbelievers there are in the US. Some are probably sitting in pews on most Saturdays or Sundays, right next to believers.

Nonbelievers come from every walk of life. We’re teachers, lawyers, doctors, nurses, technicians, engineers, gardeners, janitors, soldiers, homemakers, florist, bankers (good ones), politicians (also good ones), you name it. What distinguishes us is that we have learned to THINK FOR OURSELVES; we are free thinkers. We don’t need religious dogma to tell us how to do good work or what it means to be a moral, compassionate human being.

Most atheists who donate their time, money, and energy to charity are not motivated by the wrath of a supernatural entity, by institutionalized pressures to do good work, or by expected Earthly or Heavenly rewards. Yes, there are atheists/nonbelievers who are hateful, inhumane, and mean spirited, just as there religious people who are hateful, inhumane and mean spirited too. These negative descriptors are not synonymous only with atheism.

It must be frightening to religious believers to realize that the number of nonbelievers is growing. Due to the prevailing ignorance perpetuated by believers with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, it’s time for organizations of nonreligious freethinkers to do whatever they can to educate the public and dispel the age-old myth that atheists/nonbelievers are immoral, selfish, and not charitable. Atheists need to become more vocal and visible in numbers, not just as lone activists doing anonymous good works, not for recognition per se, but for educational purposes so that anyone now and in the future can be free to choose not to believe.

Related posts:

1. FL Governor Crist Assaults Atheist; Apology Demanded
2. Getting Support as a Nonbeliever
3. Foundations of Freethought

No related posts.