Healing by Faith and Prayer

Recently a Christian friend said, when I expressed skepticism about the healing power of prayer, "I have directly experienced two instances where somebody was healed through prayer, so I know it happens."

He gave me the details. One was a girl who was unable to walk. One session of prayer at church, and she walked normally. The other was a young man with a terrible eye injury. My friend (a minister) prayed over him during church services, and the next day his eye was normal.

All stories I have heard of healing through faith suffer from the logical fallacy called "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (Latin for "after this, therefore because of this"), that is, the fallacy of assuming that because event A was followed by event B, A was the cause (or even the only possible cause) of B. Believers in faith healing assume (illogically) that because prayer was followed by healing, the prayer was the cause (through God, of course) of the recovery. This belief is encouraged when there appears to be no natural explanation for the recovery.

This is also an example of another logical fallacy, called "the false dilemma," which asserts that one must choose between only two explanations for something, when other possible explanations exist. When a remarkable recovery cannot be easily explained by doctors, this fallacy then asserts that one must accept the only other offered explanation (prayer) as the correct explanation. This ignores the possibility (and likelihood) that the recovery is simply unexplainable. It also ignores the fact that many people, including atheists, experience remarkable and unusual recoveries without prayer at all - recoveries which are equally puzzling to doctors. Remember that even placebos sometimes have a healing effect.

A woman in my family who has been atheist for many years was diagnosed in her early 20s with chronic kidney disease, with only 3% of one kidney functioning, and 10% of the other. She was given only a few years to live. She is now in her late 60s, in generally good health, her remaining kidneys functioning satisfactorily. The doctors have no explanation for it. Notice that if the family had been believers in the power of prayer, we would have been on our knees daily right after the diagnosis, begging God for her survival. And today we would be crediting prayer (and the God who caused her disease in the first place) with her good health.

Notice that healings that are attributed to prayer are always the kind of health problem that sometimes, and perhaps only rarely, improve with no treatment. Prayer never seems to work in the case of amputated limbs, or actual death. And it is odd that even devout Christians seek professional medical treatment, even though they are promised by their god that they can cure the sick by faith (presumably by faith alone). Mark 16:18, James 5:15.

About Faith

Religious people, especially religious leaders, talk a lot about "faith." They try to tell us that it's a good thing. "Have faith!" they say. They even tell us that it's the best way to believe (they even say "to know") certain things. Like whether Jesus died for your sins, or whether the gospel stories are true, or whether Jesus rose from the dead.

Actually, it's the ONLY way you can believe some of the things that religion wants you to believe. But is that a good thing?

"Faith" is also the only way you can believe things that aren't true. It's the only way you can believe in fairies, or Santa Claus, or that the earth is hollow or flat. Yes, there are people who fervently believe such things. And they do it using faith.

As Mark Twain said, "Faith is believin' in things you know ain't so." Or, more precisely, things that you SHOULD know ain't so, if you took the time to think and do some research. And even the Bible tells us that we should check everything out and only keep whatever passes the test (Saint Paul, I Thessalonians 5:21).

There are a lot of religious claims that you cannot, by the nature of things, check out. You cannot check whether God really doesn't want you to eat pork, or to work on the Sabbath. No way can you find out whether Uncle Jack really is in hell, or whether Grandma is really in heaven with the angels. But we have good ways of finding out whether the earth is only a few thousand years old, or whether there were no human beings until about six thousand years ago, or whether a great flood covered the entire earth a few thousand years ago. It's foolish to rely on "faith" to deny the facts of reality.

"Faith" is really just a nicer-sounding word for "credulity" or "gullibility." Christians tell you, "If you have enough faith, you can believe that Jesus died for your sins, that he rose from the dead, that if you have that faith, and believe that, and regularly partake of the tokens of his body and his blood, you can look forward to being with him forever in heaven."

Here's the translation: "If you are gullible enough, you can believe that the cruel death of an Jewish rabbi two thousand years ago relieves your guilt for anything you've done wrong, that this rabbi came back to life after dying, and if you symbolically eat his flesh and drink his blood, you will have a wonderful life, but only after you're really dead. But you have to be gullible enough, the more gullible the better!"

"Faith" is the same thing that swindlers and conmen use to get money out of people. "Believe me, and you will get rich - eventually, some day!" How is the swindler any different from the preacher or the priest? The only difference is that most swindlers do know that they are lying. Many preachers and priests are just as much gullible victims as most believers. But they cannot be excused. They should have been less gullible themselves.

More Problems About God

Most believers in God claim that God is "perfect." Usually they do not seem to draw the ultimate conclusions from saying that, but simply use the word without thinking of the implications.

What does "perfect" mean, anyway? The Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible which are usually translated as "perfect" mean complete, faultless, whole, plain, finished, honest.

The same believers usually claim that God has always existed. That is, there was never a time when God did not exist. And, we must assume, there was never a time in God's existence when he was not perfect. Believers insist that God never changes, so he must have always been perfect.

Believers can cite scriptural passages to support all these claims: God is perfect, God has always been perfect, God does not change.

But then believers go on to say things about God that deny his being perfect.

Why would a perfect God create a universe? Imagine God, in the eternities before he created the universe. What was he doing? Remember, he was perfect. He needed nothing, he wanted for nothing. He was perfectly content, since if he was not content with himself, it would imply that he was needing something else. What would a perfect being, perfectly content, need? Nothing. It would be inconsistent with the idea of perfection to use the verb "want" with a perfect being as the subject, as in "God wanted to create mankind..." Merely saying that amounts to an admission that God was not perfect.

Even if God's wanting to create something he did not already have does not make us doubt God's perfection, how about the universe that he created? One would think that a perfect creator would create a perfect creation. But everyone, even believers, admits that the universe is not perfect. It is riddled with problems, not the least of which is the existence of evil. Can a perfect God create evil? (Some Bible passages even admit that God can do evil: Ex 32:14, Job 42:11, Amos 3:6.) Or (just as bad) allow evil to exist and continue to exist? Believers try to excuse God for creating (or allowing) evil by asserting that God gave his creatures "free will" and is therefore not responsible for the evil done by his creations. But would a perfect being deserve to be called perfect (especially "perfectly good") to have created such imperfect creatures that they were not also perfectly good, and thus incapable of doing evil?

Let's look again at the perfect God before he created anything. What was he doing? Since he had not yet created anything, there was nothing for him to be acting upon or even contemplating. He was the only thing that existed. Was he just thinking? About what? He can only have been thinking about himself. (Can you be perfect and narcissistic?) He cannot have gotten bored, since that would imply dissatisfaction and incompleteness. Perhaps time did not yet exist. That would have helped, since nothing - absolutely nothing - would have been happening. There would have been no "moment to moment." Was God simply planning something in his mind? Not possible, since God does not change. What was in his mind cannot have varied - it must have always been there. And change can take place only over time, and time did not yet exist. Or maybe it did.

So why did God decide at some particular moment to create the universe? If he was perfect, and unchanging, he cannot have decided anything of the sort. He would have simply remained the perfect, complete, solitary, timeless being that he was, frozen, immobile, in a single timeless state.

It seems that the existence of the universe, rather than being evidence for the existence of God (as many believers assert) is instead evidence that the perfect God they believe in does not exist, and never did.

Why believing in God is difficult

One of the big reasons that makes it difficult to lend any credence to a belief in God (and I'm referring here to the God that Christians and Jews worship) is that nobody can say much about God without finally talking in absurdities and contradictions.

If you ask probing questions of a believer about the God they worship, you very quickly get some statement like, "We cannot understand God's ways," or "God is inscrutable," or "We will learn the answer to that in the next life."

So why should we respect or venerate (worship) such a being whom we cannot possibly understand or even describe in a sensible way? Simply out of abject fear?

Examples:

God is supposed to be all-knowing (omniscient), knowing the future as well as the past. He also is all-powerful (omnipotent), able to do anything he wants. Apparently, then, he knows exactly what all of us are going to do (sin!) and he does nothing about it. He created a universe (supposedly for his own glory and satisfaction) and peopled it with creatures who he knew would disobey him and therefore he would have to condemn them to eternal torment.

If I were writing a computer program and knew it was going to crash when I ran it, I would not be a very good programmer.

God is supposed to love us, since he created us. But he sends storms, floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, wildfires and all kinds of natural disasters to destroy and kill us. After having promised in the Bible that he would protect us from harm.

It makes about as much sense as worshipping a stone idol or a good luck charm. Actually, less.

Any believers out there who can clear this up (without telling me I simply have to "have faith")?

"Why do you choose to be an atheist?"

A Christian recently congratulated me on having given up the religion of my youth (which he rightly viewed as a "cult"), but then asked me quite puzzled, "But why did you choose atheism as its replacement?"

Here is another misconception many believers have about atheists. They think that one chooses to be an atheist the same way one chooses to buy a Dodge or a Ford or a Toyota - it's just a matter of preference or taste. And probably many Christians do choose their denomination in the same way: they try ("test-drive") the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Methodists, the Congregationalists, and decide which one they like better. And if a new pastor takes over and they don't like him, they switch.

Atheism is not like that. It is not an affirmative choice. One does not simply decide to be an atheist. Atheism is the natural and quite involuntary result of examining the evidences and doctrines about God and realizing that they don't make sense. Once you realize that, you are an atheist, willy-nilly. It's not a choice.

I suppose I could have asked this Christian, "Why do you choose not to believe in fairies? I can understand why you don't believe in gnomes or leprechauns, but what do you have against fairies?"

In a way it is like your realization that you are mortal, and one day you are going to die. It may not be a pleasant realization, but it is unavoidable. You don't choose that. You actually have no choice in the matter. Maybe I should have asked the Christian, "Why do you believe that someday you are going to die? Why not believe that the angel of death will pass you by?"

Of course, he might say, "Well, I AM going to live forever, with the God I believe in!" Hmm, yes, but you have to die to get there, don't you?

All About Atheists

Many people have quite mistaken ideas about atheists. Usually it is because they don't really understand what an atheist is, and what an atheist is not. Which is a shame, because it's really quite simple.

First of all, one must understand what a "theist" is. A theist is anybody who believes in God, or a god, or gods, or some deity. Got that?

All right, an atheist is anybody who is not a theist. The "a-" in "atheist" is just the Greek prefix that means "not" or "non-," so that an atheist is a non-theist, that is, one who does not have a belief in God, or a god, or gods, or any deity.

And that is ALL you can say about atheists. To say any more is to make unwarranted assertions. Because atheists are not a group, and have ONLY that one thing in common: non-belief in a deity.

Here are some unwarranted assertsions that people (usually theists) make about atheists.

"Atheists claim that God does not exist." No, although some atheists may make this claim, not all atheists do. Many non-believers realize that such an assertion is unnecessary. The reasons people have no belief in God may vary, from "I don't know" to "I don't care" to "I don't see any convincing evidence that would allow me to believe." Technically, a newborn baby is an atheist. We all entered the world as atheists.

"Atheists have no moral guidance." Belief in God has nothing to do with whether one is moral or not. A theist's morality may well be based on a belief in God (and God's rules), but workable moral codes can be derived without such a belief. And they are often more humane than moral codes based on religion. Probably the majority of atheists are good people, good citizens, and good neighbors. Statistics indicate that poor moral conduct (teen pregnancy, divorce, sexual abuse of children, violent crime, etc.) seems to be much more common in highly religious areas (the American "Bible belt") than in areas that are more secular (northern Europe). And the population of American prisons is overwhelmingly religious, with atheists making up only a tiny minority of the criminal population, far less than their proportion of the population at large.

"Atheists believe that death ends everything." Although many atheists hold this view, not all do, since belief in an afterlife has nothing to do necessarily with a belief in God. The Jewish Sadducees, for example, believed in God, but did not believe in an afterlife. And Buddhists believe in an afterlife, but have very little to say about the existence of God. Some atheists, like Buddhists, believe in reincarnation (which does not depend on a belief in God).

"Atheists see no purpose in life." This mistaken notion is probably a corollary to the previous mistaken notion. Again, whether one sees a purpose in life has nothing to do necessarily with belief in God. Many atheists lead happy, purposeful lives. Especially when an atheist believes (as many do) that death is the end, it seems to give even more purpose to the precious lifetime that we do have.

"Atheists hate religion and churches." Many atheists may feel this way, but many do not. Most atheists probably feel sorry for believers. And many probably are angry at the human misery that has often been caused in the name of some God. But surely we all should be angry at that, shouldn't we, believer and non-believer alike?

"If someone simply doesn't know whether to believe in God, he is an agnostic, not an atheist." Remember that "a-theist" merely means "non-theist." If someone says, "I really don't know whether there is a God" (the position of someone who claims to be "agnostic"), he is implying that he does not now have a belief in God. So an agnostic is merely a sub-set of atheist.

What Good is Faith?

Religious faith can be a dangerous thing. Not always, of course, but all too often. It was religious faith that motivated the slaughter of the Crusades and the cruelties of the Inquisition. Religious faith was what led the men to hijack the airliners and fly them into the Twin Towers. In more subtle ways, it is religious faith which often binds people to false ideas, false hopes, and confining creeds.

I see two benefits (and only two) from religious faith.

For some, faith gives a glimmer of hope (even if unjustified) that there is something better than the world in which we find ourselves, an indifferent and sometimes threatening world, with which many of us are unable to cope if left entirely to ourselves and our fellow humans. It is very comforting, I am sure, to tell yourself that some supernatural, all-powerful being (who naturally has your best interests at heart) is watching over everything and directing it for your benefit. And that if you ask him (or her, or it) nicely enough, and pleadingly enough, and if you are very, very good and faithful, the laws of nature, of cause-and-effect, will be temporarily suspended for you. And even if your pleading does not get the result you desire, it must be a comfort to know that the creator and CEO of the entire universe at least considered your request. And to know that it was probably your own fault that your request was not granted.

But many believers do indeed find this comfort, and I do not begrudge them that. The only slight annoyance I feel is that as a result the believers generally think that we non-believers are poor, miserable, frightened, and sorry souls, joyless and pointless. Nothing could be further from the truth, based on my personal acquaintance with hundreds of atheists, agnostics, secularists and humanists. Almost all are happy, well-adjusted, accepting of the limitations of what we can accomplish in the world, but willing to assume the responsibilities of doing what we CAN do, with human (and only human) effort, rather than looking to the heavens for help while we sit on our praying hands.

The second benefit of religious faith was expressed well to me by a Christian friend. He assured me that before he "found Christ" he was a wife-beating, cheating, alcoholic son-of-a-bitch who did not care about anybody but himself. "You would not want to have known me then!" he told me. He went on to say that the only thing that kept him even half-way decent was his religious faith that God did not want him to do all those bad things.

I realized then the great value religious faith has for society, since it keeps people like my friend from being an annoyance and danger to the rest of us. I have had other believers (mostly Christians) assure me that if it weren't for their religious faith, they would be seducing the neighbor's wife, robbing convenience stores, kicking the dog, and grabbing old ladies' purses. "Thank God you believe!" I tell them. "You make life better for the rest of us" (who do not need the threat of divine punishment in order to avoid robbing a bank or raping a cheerleader).

So religious faith is what protects us from those Christians.

But that's it. That's all I can see as benefits of faith. And there are so many drawbacks, if you can possibly do without it.

A New Year, A New Blog

This blog will be a tiny voice to counteract the faith-heavy voices that presently seem to dominate our society: the frequent letters to the editor urging us to turn back to God (the Christian God, of course!) as the cure for all society's ills; the suggestion that since this nation has a majority of Christian citizens, the majority should rule and make all the laws conform to Christian doctrine and practice (much like the Taliban imposed Islamic law on Afghanistan).

This blog will try to speak for that all-too-silent minority, which is one of the last minorities in our country to suffer the prejudice which used to be directed at women, non-white races, homosexuals, and immigrants. Those groups are gradually becoming accepted into society. The non-believers still are victims of prejudice. When polls indicate that voters in America would be more likely to vote for a qualified Muslim than for a qualified atheist, we see that prejudice at work. And yet non-believers are the fourth-largest group in the world, as far as religious belief goes (after Christians, Muslims and Hindus).