Atheism

        

In my Blog The God Hypothesis I argued that a score of  “6.9” (where “1” equals a theist and a “7” an atheist) on Dawkins’ Spectrum of theistic probability was the most rational position to take on the question of the existence of God.  I came to this conclusion after evaluating four formal arguments and three informal arguments supporting the existence of God and two arguments against it.  I will briefly review a few of those arguments here and invite readers interested in more detail to read it for their selves at,  Needlefish Chronicles. Why “6.9” and not “7?”  My answer demonstrates a major difference between science and religion.  Science embraces uncertainty, whereas religion rejects it.  Science stands by ready to dismiss any of its most cherished theories any time the evidence warrants it.  One can in fact win a Nobel Prize in physics for being wrong as was the case of  Albert Michelson and Edward Morley. They spent years trying to prove that the speed of light was variable depending its direction of travel relative to the earth’s path around the sun.  Michelson hypothesized that light would move faster when traveling in the same direction as the earth. They shared the 1907 Nobel Prize in physics for what has been described as the “most famous failed experiment” in history.  Science also abhors authority (dogma) while religion celebrates it and demands unquestioning acceptance.  In Einstein’s words, “Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”

In the God Hypothesis I specified the God Hypothesis as a theistic one where a personal God interacts with mankind doing such things as answering prayers and performing miracles.  I could have just as easily defined a deistic God hypothesis where an impersonal God established the “laws of nature” and then withdrew allowing the universe to operate according to those laws. The theistic God Hypothesis can be considered the strong God Hypothesis and the deistic God Hypothesis the weak one.  Acceptance of the weak hypothesis defines a deist.  Many of America’s founding fathers were deists as well as most scientists such as Einstein who once said, “It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropomorphic concept which I cannot take seriously.”

I prefer Dawkins’ Spectrum of theistic probability because it eliminates the dogma of certainty when considering a question that is in fact unknowable (at least at this time).  Religious labels are only a bit of shorthand useful for providing a quick answer to complex questions or to demonize people you dislike.  Howard Bloom, a polymath, calls himself a “cold stone atheist.”  How does that compare to a “6.9” on Dawkins’ scale and what is his reasoning?  Or an even tougher question, where should a deists be placed on the scale?  For me “agnostic” is the most troubling label and the most abused.  Would it be a  “4.0?”  I consider myself a “weak” atheist (deist) in part because of formal arguments such the Epicurean Trilemma,  Karl Popper's Falsification Principle, Hume’s Test for Miracles, and Ockham's Razor (lex parsimoniae).

                                                         Epicurean Trilemma

Epicurus (341–270 BCE) was an ancient Greek philosopher and the author of the Epicurean Trilemma, “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”  The Epicurean Trilemma has been a thorn in the side of theologians and Christian apologists for over two thousand years. In my opinion the Epicurean Trilemma is sufficient justification to reject the strong God Hypothesis, but not the weak God Hypothesis.

                                            Karl Popper's Falsification Principle

Karl Popper’s Falsification Principle says for any theory to be true, there must be a way to imagine or show that it is false.  For example, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution makes a host of predictions and could be falsified by demonstrating that any one of its predictions was not true.  In over one-hundred and fifty years this has not happened, but it could.  On the other hand, the weak God Hypothesis cannot be falsified since it does not make any predictions.  Therefore on the basis of Karl Popper’s Falsification Principle alone, the weak hypothesis could be comfortably rejected.  I myself accept it “provisionally” until such time that better evidence or argument is available.

                                                        Hume’s Test for Miracles

Every hypothesis must have alternative explanations for what is being claimed.  In the case of the claim that God created the universe, is there any other explanation?  Yes, cosmologists offer the “Big Bang” as an alternative argument.  Theists maintain (without any proof) that “you cannot create something out of nothing” (the idea of Ex nihilo).  Physicists have demonstrated that the problem is not Ex nihilo, but the impossibility of creating “nothing” to begin with because “virtual” particles are always present even in “empty” space.  These  “virtual” particles are just an inherent part of the universe.  Hume’s Test for Miracles states that for a miracle to be true, the alternatives to the miracle would have to be greater than the miracle being claimed.  The idea of a supernatural deity creating the universe has to be the greatest miracle ever.  For it to be true the “Big Bang” would have to be even more miraculous than the idea of a supernatural deity.  Therefore, the God Hypothesis fails Hume’s Test for Miracles.

                                                                Ockham's Razor

Ockham's Razor is an argument based on the principle of parsimony or economy of thought.  Simply stated, it is the appealing idea that if there are conflicting alternatives for explaining any
question of substance, then the simpler of them is most likely the correct one.  The most famous equation in history, Einstein’s e=mc² is a classical example (energy = mass times the speed of light squared).  Now compare the Big Bang theory to the God Hypothesis as an explanation for the universe.  Which one is the simpler?  Of course,  both explanations are quite complex, but considering the unlimited powers of a supernatural being, the Big Bang has to be the simpler and according to Ockham's Razor is more likely to be true.  The Bible itself confirms this in Ecclesiastes 8:17 (New Living Translation), “I realized that no one can discover everything God is doing under the sun [too complex]. Not even the wisest people discover everything, no matter what they claim.”
               
Stephen Hawkins is one of the best known theoretical physicist and cosmologist in the world today.  He was the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics (a position once held by Isaac Newton) at the University of Cambridge between 1979 and 2009.  He and others have demonstrated how the universe could have been created by the “laws of nature” without the assistance of God.  His argument is buttressed by the “Law of Parsimony.” It is not possible to imagine a more efficient method and God above all else must be efficient or he/she cannot be God.  Efficiency is the heart and soul of engineering and the creator of the universe must be an engineer.  Also, please note that the  "Law of Parsimony" is a further refutation of Anselm's Ontological argument.

Some readers may have sensed a contradiction between rejecting the strong God Hypothesis (atheist) and accepting the weak God Hypothesis (deist).  No, it is just a matter of how one describes the nature of God, and depending on which hypothesis is used, both positions can be consistent.  This is the whole problem with labels, especially the label atheist.  People of faith (theists) have gone out their way to discredit atheism.  For example, describing the communist during the Cold War as “godless communist” (atheists must be communists!).  Atheists are routinely thought to be immoral based on the disproved idea that morals can only come from God, and without God people will not be able to tell right from wrong. Communism is in fact a dogma in the same way Christianity or Islam is a dogma.  Adherents of both are not permitted to question any aspect of the proclaimed doctrine.  The major tenets of morality are found in every culture regardless of their predominant religion.  In the United States, if you ask someone if they believe in God, they almost never ask “which” God you are referring to.  Most people will assume you are referring to the Christian God.  Many atheists will answer “agnostic,” or perhaps “deist.”  However, when polled about their religious preference, “none” consistently polls around 20%.  About 53% of the world’s people claim to be followers of one of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, or Islam) and, of course, accept the strong God Hypothesis.  Since most of my fellow Americans are (or claim to be) Christians, I will share my reasons why I am not a Christian on the grounds of morality and failed prophecy.

                                                              Grounds of Morality

Original sin and the virtue of sacrifice are deeply rooted in Christian doctrine.  The idea that children are responsible for the sins or bad acts of their parents is repugnant to most people.  For example, please consider the April 2014 case of Mary Grice.  She was four years old in 1960 when her father died leaving her mother, Sadie, with five children to raise. Sadie received survivor benefits from Social Security until her children turned age 18.  In 2014 after 37 years of silence and four years after Sadie Grice died, the Social Security Administration claims it overpaid someone in the Grice family in 1977, and is now coming after her daughter Mary for repayment.  Few if any people will see this decision as a moral one, even if they fail to view it as a matter of original sin.

The idea of sacrifice (animal or human) is a reprehensible idea.  If an all-powerful deity such as God wanted to absolve his children of sin, surely he could have thought up a better way than torturing and killing his “son.”  I personally reject the idea of sacrifice as an immoral act.  Every time I see someone wearing a cross around their neck, I am reminded of George Carlin when he asked the question, “If Christ had been killed in an electric chair, would Christians wear a replica of an electric chair around their neck?”


                                                             Failed Prophecy

In Matthew (16: 28) Jesus is very certain about when he would return to earth. “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”  In this passage, Jesus was talking to his disciples and he makes it very clear that some of them “will not taste death” until he returns.  Since the disciples are long-ago dead, this is a failed prophecy.  It should be noted that this was the first of many failed prophecies predicting the second coming of Christ.  Failed prophecies number in the thousands since the death of Christ.  Harold Camping made a highly publicized prediction that the rapture would occur on October 21, 2011.  Warren Jeffs, the president of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints predicted the end of the world would happen on December 23, 2012.  When it did not happen, he blamed it on his followers' lack of faith and changed the date to December 31, 2012 for another failed prophecy.  Fortunately, Warren Jeffs is now in prison, having been convicted of raping numbers of young girls in the name of religion.

Predicting the end of the world or the second coming of Christ has become a popular and  profitable cottage industry.  Jeane Dixon predicts it will occur in the year 2020 after her previous prediction of  February 4, 1962 failed.  John Hagee, a popular TV evangelist predicted that the end will come between April 2014 and March 2015 or in less than a year as this is written.  Predicting “end times” is an extremely profitable venture.  For example, in 2005 Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye (authors of the Left Behind series) ranked 9th according to Amazon’s 10th Anniversary Hall of Fame based on the numbers of books sold at Amazon.com.  Scientists are the only people on the planet with an “end time” prediction based on facts and not some supernatural fantasy.  It is based on the law of entropy and is sometimes called “sun death” and it will happen in about five billion years.  Many people think that is a simple matter of the sun going dark like a candle that burns out.  The truth is a much different story.  The sun will not burn out, but instead will start to burn even hotter.  This will happen when the sun’s hydrogen supply is exhausted and it then switches to “burning” hellion causing it to swell one-and-a-half times its normal size and grow more than twice as bright as it is now. The surface temperature of the earth will rise from about 68̊F to 167̊F causing all world’s oceans to evaporate and for the earth to incinerate.  And some people call this “Intelligent Design,” for the handiwork of a supernatural deity they call God!

Stephen Hawking was correct when he said, “One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary.”  Even though the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved, it must be considered unknowable.  However, many religious claims can be tested using the tools of the science.  Consider the following question, “Does prayer work?”  This is a scientific question that has already been answered many times.  In the year 2000 the John Templeton Foundation spent $2.4 million dollars on a ten-year double-blind study on the effectiveness of prayer on the medical outcome of heart patients undergoing surgery.  In a double-blind study the participants (patients, doctors, and the people praying) and the persons administering the study are not allowed to know the critical aspects of the study including which patients are being prayed for.  Patients are assigned numbers and the people praying are only given the patient’s number.  The researchers monitored 1,802 patients at six hospitals who received coronary bypass surgery to reroute circulation around a clogged vein or artery.  The patients were divided into three groups. Two groups were prayed for and the third was not. Half the patients who received  prayers were told that they were being prayed for and half were told that they might or might not receive prayers.  Remember the doctors did not know which group the patients were in.  After analyzing complications in the 30 days after the operations, the researchers found that 59% of the patients who knew that they were being prayed for suffered complications compared with 51 percent of those who did not know.  A host of other studies has also demonstrated that the prayer is not effective.  Lou Holtz, the famous Notre Dame football coach was once asked about the effectiveness of pre-game player prayer.  He answered that prayer works best when the offensive line averages over three-hundred pounds.

There is a majesty in the understanding the secrets of the natural world.  History has clearly shown that nature guards her mysteries jealously and most of the low-hanging fruit has already been picked.  People like Newton, Darwin, and Einstein have experienced the transcendent and spiritual joy of discovering a previously unknown shining jewel in nature’s crown.  Richard Dawkins in his book The Magic of Reality gave example after example of the beauty of the universe and nature and the joy of viewing the world unencumbered by dogma and superstition.   Atheists are frequently accused of being strictly negative and lacking a meaningful and satisfying alternative to theism and super naturalism.  Some atheists have resorted to the label “humanistic secularism.”  Others use the sobriquet, “Brights” to describe their view where “Bright” is being used as a noun and not a verb.  I personally prefer the term “free thinker” but do not hide from the atheist label.

The rejection of super naturalism and dogma is the bedrock of free thinkers and skeptics.  This includes the idea that we only have one life to live and we want to live it to the fullest without any hope of some afterlife, and the scientific method and reason are the best tools available for achieving it.  Skeptics insist that actions have consequences, and no shaman or priests can absolve you from the results of your bad decisions.  We also subscribe to the idea that man is a custodian of the earth and all of its life forms and not its biblical master.  We also believe that ethics and morality are the results of years of trial and error experiments as to what actions promote human happiness and which ones do not.  We feel that the Golden Rule is morally flawed and the concept that everyone has some degree of responsibility for the happiness and well-being of our neighbors both locally and globally is superior.  In short, atheists are spiritual people who enjoy joyful ecstasy from many sources, including science, literature, music, art, nature, and most important from the inspiration and accomplishments of family, friends, and strangers both past and present.  Or in the words of Ken Wilbur, “There is more spirituality in reason's denial of God than there is in myth's affirmation of God, precisely because there is more depth... even an "atheist" acting from rational-universal compassion is more spiritual than a fundamentalist acting to convert the universe in the name of a mythic-membership god.” 


People often ask, “Why do atheists object to religion so vigorously?”  I will not rehash all the terrible things that have been done throughout history in the name of religion and duplicate countless books on the subject.  However, I highly recommend Steven Pinker’s 2013 book, The Better Angels of Our Nature for a comprehensive and balanced view of the history of violence in the world.  I object to Christianity primarily because of its assault against reason going back to Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit of the “Tree of knowledge of good and evil.” Under what system could that be bad? Once someone decides that the answer to any question is “God,” then there is not any need to look any further for a better answer.  History is full of examples where people like Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin, and Einstein had the courage to look for answers that actually explains some phenomenon and makes verifiable predictions.  This is the way the human specie has advanced by using reason to increase the storehouse of knowledge to improve the well-being of the world's people.  Relying on super naturalism can only serve as an impediment to that progress and is best discarded.  A good start would be to change our education system to teach students how to think and not what to think.


Sources

1.  The God Hypothesis (5/20/2014)  Blog (The Needlefish Chronicles)
2.  The Better Angels of Our Nature (2013) by Steven Pinker
3.  The Magic of Reality (2011) by Richard Dawkins
4.  Jesus, Interrupted (2010), by Bart D. Ehrman                 

The God Hypothesis

Much ink and blood has been spilled throughout history over the question of the existence and nature of God.  Stephen Jay Gould, the Harvard professor and evolutionary biologist coined the term “Non-overlapping magisteria” (NOMA) to suggest that science and religion exist in distinct and separate spheres of inquiry without any overlap.  Others reject NOMA and maintain that the question of the existence of a supernatural entity is a scientific question best addressed by using the same tools used to solve any other questions of interest.  It is in that spirit that I state God’s existence as a hypothesis to be evaluated using the tools of science, reason and logic. Of course the existence of God is unknowable in a scientific sense and is best thought of in terms of probability.

Richard Dawkins, the Oxford evolutionary biologist, created a useful a seven-step Spectrum of theistic probability ranging in scale from “1,” strong theist (100% certainty) to “7,” strong atheist (equally certain, “There is no God”).  Please note that the strong theist and strong atheist are both irrational positions since they are assumed to be true without any evidence or argument. Both Carl Jung’s statement, “I do not believe, I know” and the atheist who declares, “There is no God” are both relying on something other than reason. The remaining points on the spectrum are: “2,” De facto theist (“Very high probability, but some uncertainty”), “3,” Leaning towards theism (“I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God”), “4,”  Completely impartial (“God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.”), “5,”  Leaning towards atheism (“I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical”), and “6,”  De facto atheist (“Very low probability, but short of zero”).


In this essay the God Hypothesis is defined as follows:  God is both a supernatural deity and a personal God who created the universe and all its contents including man.  He  performs miracles, answers prayers, and provides for eternal life or damnation.  He  possess the following powers: omniscience (all-knowing), omnipotence (all-powerful), and omnibenevolence (all-virtuous).  I will refer to God using the conventional masculine pronoun “he” in referring to “him.”  Philosophers and theologians have devised two types of arguments in support of the God’s existence, formal (structured) and informal (anecdotal).  Formal arguments in support include, the Cosmological argument, Anselm's Ontological argument, the Argument from Scripture, and the Argument from design. Informal arguments in favor include the Argument from morality, the Argument from justice, and the Argument from personal experience.  Arguments against include the Epicurean Trilemma, and  Hume’s test for miracles.

                                                Cosmological argument
           
The major premise of the Cosmological argument is, everything must have a cause and if the chain of causes is traced backward, the first cause (God) will be reached.  It is a very powerful, convincing, and easily understood argument.  Even an acknowledged elite-thinker such as Bertram Russell admitted in his book, Why I am not a Christian that he was convinced by the Cosmological argument until he read John Stuart Mill's autobiography.  According to Mills his father taught him that the question “Who made me?” cannot be answered “God,” since it immediately suggests the further question “Who made God?” The Cosmological argument contains the seeds of its own destruction and therefore must be rejected.

                                          Anselm's Ontological argument

Anselm's Ontological argument defines God as a being for which nothing greater can be imagined.  It further defines three categories of possible entities: “1,” things that exist in the understanding alone (such as the tooth fairy), “2,” things that exist in both the understanding and in reality (such as the sun), and  “3,” things that exist in reality but not in the understanding (obviously there are not any examples ).  If God is defined as the greatest conceivable being, than he cannot be in group “3,” since the concept of God is understood even by atheists. He also cannot be in category “1,” because a being in reality would have to be greater than a being only in the understanding and would contradict the major premise of the argument. Therefore by elimination, God must be part of the second category of things that exist in exist both in the understanding and in reality.  Anselm's Ontological argument is rooted on the unproven premise that something that exists in reality must be greater than something that is only imagined.  It can equally be argued that something can be imagined more perfect than anything known in reality.

                                                 Argument from Scripture

The Argument from Scripture is a classical example of a tautological argument or a self-reinforcing pretense of some significant truth. It normally takes the form of “The Bible is the inerrant truth because it was inspired by God” and “The Bible is God’s word because the Bible says so.”  The Argument from Scripture is similar to Lewis Carroll’s  Bellman's Theorem, “What I tell you three times is true” and is proof of nothing except for the lengths people will go in an attempt to defend the indefensible.  There is an old sausage adage that says, “If you love sausage, you should never watch them being made.”  After reading Bart Ehrman’s book,  Misquoting Jesus, The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, one could say the same thing about the Bible.

                                                            Argument from design

The Argument from design or teleological argument is based on the perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world.  It was originated by William Paley, an English clergyman and Christian apologist in his 1802 book,  Natural Theology.  Paley argued that if a watch was found in the woods, it would be reasonable to assume that it had a human designer.  Its intricate and complicated combination of parts precludes any possibility that its existence could occur by chance alone.  Paley then extended his argument of complexity to living things and contended that they are also too complex to have arisen by chance and therefore had to be the work of a divine creator called God. Ergo God exists!

The Argument from design reigned supreme until 1859, when Charles Darwin published The Origin of the Species and introduced what has been called “The greatest idea that anyone ever had,” the Theory of Evolution through natural selection.  Prior to Darwin, there was not any plausible alternative for explaining the immense diversity and complexity of life on earth. The Theory of Evolution through natural selection is a scientific theory and like all scientific theories must explain something (in this case the diversity and complexity of life), must make predictions (that turn out to be true), and must be falsifiable.  The word “Theory” is being used in the scientific sense as opposed to the common definition that is similar to a “guess.”  In science a theory is a proven hypothesis and is the highest standard of truth obtainable and can even be called a “Law.”

Anything beyond a brief introduction to evolution is better suited for a book rather than a short (hopefully) essay.  For those interested in a more thorough treatment of this important and fascinating subject, a number of excellent books are recommended at the end.  Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary geneticist provided the following definition in his 2009 book, Why Evolution is True:   “Life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species–perhaps a self-replicated molecule–that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection.”

In spite of the fact that virtually all the scientists in the world accept evolution as a scientific fact, millions of US citizens (mostly lay people) refuse to accept it for religious reasons.  A recent Pew poll indicates that 40% of US citizens reject evolution in favor of the creation story told in Genesis, the first book of the Old Testament.  These Creationists, mostly fundamentalist Christians read the Bible literally and argue that Creationism or Intelligent Design (ID) is an alternative scientific theory to evolution and should be taught in public schools along side of the theory of evolution.  Note that this in direct opposition to Saint Jerome’s suggestion that a literal interpretation of the Bible is for the illiterate masses and an allegorical one for more advanced minds. Even Saint Augustine, one of the most influential theologians of the Catholic Church said  that the Biblical text should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and our God-given reason.

The question of whether ID is a scientific theory or a religious belief was adjudicated in the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in 2005. The case involved the Dover Area School District requiring the teaching of ID as an alternative to evolution theory.  Eleven parents of students in Dover sued the school board in Tammy Kitzmiller v. the Dover Area School District maintaining that ID was a religious belief and violated the constitutional principle of separation of church and state.   On December 20, 2005, Judge John E. Jones III (a conservative Republican appointed in 2002 by George W. Bush) ruled that ID is not science and permanently barred the board from introducing into any school within the Dover Area School District.  He also prohibited them from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution.  Judge Jones’ 139-page findings of fact was a stunning endorsement of evolution and a major defeat for those promoting ID as a scientific theory.

                                                         Argument from morality

Many apologists have argued that God’s existence is proven by the fact that morality exists in the world.  Their major premise is that without God, man could not be moral because without his presence man would resort to his inherent evil state that began when a talking snake convinced Eve to eat the forbidden fruit.  The Ten Commandments are often cited as an example of the proof of the argument.  Interestingly, there are several sets of “ten commandments” in the Bible including Exodus 20 that lists twenty-six commandments of which only four would be considered today to involve a moral issue.  They are, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, and Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor (perjury).  The prohibition of rape, incests, or slavery does not appear in any of list of commandments. The fact that 46% of world’s people are not followers of any theistic religion and still prohibit murder, stealing, and perjury by law demonstrates morality does not have to come from God.  John Rawls (1921 –  2002), an American philosopher and a leading figure in moral philosophy has shown clearly that morality has developed in all societies by trial and error.  Experience demonstrates that acts such as murder, rape, stealing, slavery and lying are detrimental to the happiness and contentment of all the people and were eventually outlawed by the state regardless and independent of their religious practices.

                                                          Argument from justice

The Argument from justice makes note of injustice in the world and then asserts that God must exist in order to eventually balance the scales of justice.  Caste systems, such as the one in India have long used this argument to quell unrest among the lowest and most disadvantaged classes claiming that they will have it better in their next life.  Saint Thomas Aquinas blurred the line between justice and revenge by suggesting the saints in heaven will be “permitted to see the punishment of the damned in hell” in order to “enjoy their beatitude and the grace of God more abundantly.”  The Argument from justice in addition to its obvious violation of God’s omnibenevolence does damage to William Gladstone’s idea of “Justice delayed, is justice denied” and is one of the least convincing arguments in favor of God’s existence.   

                                            Argument from personal experience

This argument is best personified by the Bellman's Theorem, “What I tell you three times is true.”  It was coined by the Christian apologist Lewis Carroll in his 1876 book, The Hunting of the Snark.  It is a widespread device used by many people (explicitly and implicitly) in support of a host of beliefs ranging from alien abductions and Virgin Mary sightings, to the ability to communicate with the dead.  A fundamentalist Christian once told me that he was “saved” when he woke up in the morning and found the hotel Bible in his room opened to John 3-16 (“For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life”.  He swears that it was closed  before he went to bed.  Another friend was obsessed with UFO sightings and swore that he had personally witnessed several events that could only be explained by the existence of extraterrestrials.  Richard Dawkins cited a 1992  survey in his book The Magic of Reality indicating that four million Americans believed that they had been abducted by aliens.  Whitley Striebers’s 1987 book, Communion is the story of his abduction and is billed as his “true story” and is classified “nonfiction.”  José Luis de Jesús Miranda died of cirrhosis of the liver on August 8, 2013.  While living in Miami, Florida he claimed to be the reincarnated Jesus and had over two million followers and believers. The Argument from personal experience can be used to prove anything and must be dismissed by rational people in the absence of evidence and independent verification.

                                                     Epicurean Trilemma

Epicurus (341–270 B.C.E.) was an ancient Greek philosopher and the author of the Epicurean Trilemma, “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”  The Epicurean Trilemma has been a thorn in the side of theologians and Christian apologists for over two thousand years and has even spawned the disciple of Theodicy in an attempt to explain away the contradiction between God’s omnipotence and omnibenevolence.  The question is, “How can evil exist in a world governed by an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God?” Apologists introduced free will in an attempt to square the circle.  According to this argument, God gave man free will to make choices and it’s man’s bad choices (Satan) that leads to evil and suffering.  This solved one problem, but created two new ones.

First, natural disasters such as earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, and hurricanes occur at God’s direction and cannot be attributed to man’s free will.  And second, free will cannot be reconciled with omniscience.   Keep in mind that  “all knowing” requires perfect knowledge of everything that has happened in the past, perfect knowledge of everything happening in the present, and perfect knowledge of everything that will happen in the future.  One example should make it clear why free will cannot exist in the same space with omniscience. Bill, an atheist lives and dies. An omniscient deity would have known that prior to Bill’s birth, life and death. If Bill had changed his mind and became a believer before he died, that would contradict God’s prior knowledge and thus invalidate his omniscience.  Apologists must make a choice,  allow for free will or omniscience, they cannot have both!

                                                        Hume’s test for miracles

David Hume (1711 – 1776),  a Scottish philosopher suggested a way of evaluating claims of miracles. In his words, “No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that the falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish.”  First, he defined a miracle as a ‘transgression” against one of the laws of nature such as gravity, and further noted that their occurrences would have to be very rare.   For example,  Bill claims that he saw Elvis Presley walking down the street.  If true, that would be a miracle.  There are at least three other explanations: he was mistaken, lying, or even delusional.  According to Hume’s test for miracles, the falsehoods (Bill was mistaken, lying, or delusional) would have to be more miraculous than the fact (seeing Elvis).  The possibility that Bill was mistaken, lying, or delusional does not come close to being more miraculous than the alleged fact of seeing Elvis alive and walking down the street, therefore the alleged miracle must be rejected.

The existence of God along with all the claims for his wondrous deeds is surely the mother of all miracles.  According to Hume the alternatives provided by science, such as the “Big Bang,” and Darwin’s Theory of Evolution would have to be even more miraculous than the idea that man created God, therefore the concept of God must be considered the work of men and not a miracle. Formal arguments such as the Cosmological argument, Anselm's Ontological argument, and the Argument from Scripture are easily defeated and are seldom used anymore by apologists.  The Argument from design has lost its appeal since Darwin’s Theory of Evolution provides an evidence-based explanation for the diversity of life.  Informal arguments such the Argument from morality, the Argument from justice, and the Argument from personal experience are best described as “wishful” thinking and can be used to support virtually any fantasy imaginable. And the Argument from Scripture suffers both from circular reasoning and the Bellman's Theorem.

Although the Epicurean Trilemma and  Hume’s test for miracles do not disprove the existence of God (after all it is impossible to prove a negative), they certainly make the God Hypothesis highly improbable.  The conflict between omnipotence and omnibenevolence, and the tension between free will and omniscience cannot be reconciled without major modifications to the God Hypothesis.  And since all the major religions conflict on major issues, it is a logical conclusion that at best only one can be true.  It has been said that one gets their religion along with their mother’s milk in recognition of the fact that for the vast majority of people, their “chosen” religion is determined by their place of birth and the religion of their parents.  If the God Hypothesis were true it would be reasonable to expect that the choice of one’s religion would be based on something more substantial than ones birth place and “choice” of their parents.  After considering all the arguments I feel that a score of  6.9 (De facto atheist) on Dawkins’ Spectrum of theistic probability scale is the most rational position possible. For me the most compelling arguments against the existence of God are the Epicurean Trilemma and Hume’s test for miracles.  In the words of Stephen Hawking,  “One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary.”  Even if untrue, what is the harm in religious belief?  The answer lies in the words of Voltaire, “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”  The truth of this is well documented by countless atrocities committed in the name of God.



Sources

1.  Why Evolution is True (2009) by Jerry Coyne. 
2.  The God Delusion (2006) by Richard Dawkins
3.  Misquoting Jesus, The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (2005) by Bart Ehrman
4.  Why I am not a Christian (1957) by Bertram Russell
5.  The Magic of Reality (2011) by Richard Dawkins
5.  Free Will (5/14/2013) Blog (The Needlefish Chronicles)
6.  The Bible:  God's Word or the work of Man? (5/6/2014)  Blog (The Needlefish Chronicles)

The Bible: God's Word or the work of Man?

           

Professors and students at the Moody Bible Institute are required to sign a statement attesting that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and every word in it is absolutely true.  Ignoring the wisdom of beginning an educational experience with a dogmatic conclusion, if anyone makes a claim concerning the “inerrant word of God,” they have the intellectual obligation of determining just exactly what is God’s word.  Bart Ehrman, a noted biblical scholar and holder of a PHD from Princeton Theological Seminary did an extraordinary job of doing just that in his 2005 best-selling book,  Misquoting Jesus, The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why.
 
To understand the history of the New Testament (NT) and its creation, it is helpful to consider the following:  First, the history of Palestine at the time of Jesus was dominated by the conflict between the Jews and Roman authorities.  The Jewish people were waiting for the Messiah to come and lead the Jews to victory over the Romans and establish Israel as a Jewish state.   Second, illiteracy and ignorance were the predominant state of most people living at the time. In Acts 4:13 Peter and John are both described as “unlearned and ignorant men.”  Third, the original stories that eventually became the NT were not committed to writing until at least forty years after Christ died.  Prior to this the “Gospels” were created by word-of-month in a manner described by the Chinese as a “Thousand Whispers.”   Fourth, there was considerable conflict and competition for converts by the various religious factions based on stories about the life and time of Jesus.  In fact, there was little consistency in the first three centuries as to what it meant to be called a “Christian.” Ehrman coined the word Proto-orthodox Christianity to define a diverse group of people in recognition of the fact that Christianity was not a unified belief system until around 325 CE.   And fifth, most of people in the Middle East were pagans at the time.

The Proto-orthodox groups included Docetists, Adoptionists, Jewish-Christian Ebionites, and Gnostics.  As a group the Proto-orthodox Christians competed with each other for acceptance of their religious ideas and were eventually considered heretics by the “Christians.” Docetists believed that Jesus was not a full-flesh-and-blood human and that there were two Gods (the God of the Old Testament (OT) and the God of the NT. Adoptionists held the idea that Jesus was a human born to Joseph and Mary in the traditional manner and who was later adopted by God as the Son at the time he was baptized. The Jewish-Christian Ebionites regarded Jesus as the Messiah rejecting his divinity and insisting on following Jewish law and rites. These various groups were important because they account for a large portion of the significant variations found in various copies of NT manuscripts. The Apostle Paul (Saul of Tarsus)  was the most important leader in  the first-century religious movement that culminated into orthodox Christianity in 325 CE.  He died in 67 CE at least forty years after the death of Jesus and it is doubtful if he ever knew any of the disciples.

As Professor Ehrman noted, “There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.” The number of variations in the various ancient manuscripts has been put between 300,000 and 400,000 by a large number of Bible scholars.  Ehrman attributes these variations to unintentional copying errors by the scribes and to intentional changes motivated by advocates for their beliefs as to what the truth should be.  At the time when the NT stories were finally committed to writing the early “Christians” had to rely on amateur scribes because they could not afford to hire professional scribes.  Most of these scribes could not read and simply copied by rote without knowing what they were copying.

This was the situation that existed until the Emperor of Rome, Constantine converted to Christianity in 312 CE.  In 331 CE he ordered fifty Bibles produced at the empire’s expense.  Bishop Eusebius was charged with the task and hired professional scribes to do the writing and also built a special place where the work would take place called a scriptorium.  Their task was to gather up all the copies of the various Gospels and determine which one’s were the “originals” reflecting what the original authors actually said.

The first copy of the NT was written in Greek sometime between 330 and 360 CE It could not have been written before 325 CE because it contains the Eusebian Canons, and it could not have been written after 360 CE because of certain references to Church fathers in the margin.  Pope Damasus I commissioned the Greek Scholar Jerome to translate the Greek NT into Latin and he spent three years (382–385 CE) in Rome working closely with Pope Damasus and the leading Christians to produce what was called the Latin Vulgate (Latin translation of the Bible).

Given the history as sketched out above it is not surprising to learn that today there are literally dozens of versions of the Bible in use.  Currently some version of the Vulgate NT is the most used by Christians rather than the earlier Greek NT (Codex Sinaiticus).  Of course, many of the variations among the numerous manuscripts (both Greek and Latin) were minor, however a number of them are highly significant and will be discussed at length.  For example, the divinity of Jesus was very much in question in the first century and the variations in many manuscripts reflect an attempt to comply with the Pauline story of the virgin birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

The similarity of two letters in the Greek alphabet was used to change 1 Timothy (3-16) to support the divinity of Christ.  The difference between the Greek letter theta (Θ) and the omicron (Ο) are slight.  A theta looks like an omicron with a line in the middle.  One feature of the Greek language (nomina sacra) is the custom of abbreviating sacred names.  For example, the Greek word for “God” is  written (ΘΣ) whereas the word “who” is written in Greek as (ΟΣ).  Johann Jakob Wettstein (1693 – 1754), a  Swiss theologian and well-known NT scholar noticed while studying the Codex Alexander manuscript that the book of 1 Timothy (3-16) had been changed.  The line in the middle of the theta was written in a different ink changing the meaning (in referring to Christ) as “God made manifest in the flesh” as opposed to “who was made manifest in the flesh.” This a most important discovery because this verse is often cited as evidence of Jesus’ divinity claims.  The issue of the divinity of Christ has long been disputed both by early church leaders and later Bible scholars. The issue was finally decided by a vote in the Council of Nicaea in the year 325 CE at which time Christ was declared to be the Son of God by a close vote.   The council also decided which Gospels were  to be included in the NT (canonical).  Many Gospels and other writings were excluded, including The Gospel of Mary, Judas, James, and Thomas.

The change to 1 Timothy (3-16) is significant because it is direct evidence of fraud and is not the only example of fraud in the historical record. For example, Christian apologists are fond of quoting the renowned Greek historian Flavius Josephus in support of the authenticity of the Bible.  They cite a passage allegedly from his book, Antiquities of the Jews (94 CE) that references Jesus.  It is important to note that Josephus wrote another book, The Jewish War, nineteen years earlier (much closer to the time of Christ) before he wrote Antiquities of the Jews, and did not mention Jesus at that time. The passage in question referencing Jesus is extremely brief in contrast to Josephus’ usual voluminous and exhaustive style.  As an example, in one case he devoted almost forty chapters to the life of just one king.  He wrote pages on petty robbers and obscure leaders of the time. Who could believe that he only wrote one paragraph about Christ?  It is for these reasons that Kenneth Harding and other scholars consider the reference to Jesus in the Antiquities of the Jews to be a blatant Christian forgery that was added many years later.

In another example of changing scripture to support Jesus’ divinity, Luke 2:33 originally read “his Father and Mother were marveling at what was said about Jesus,” but was later changed to “Joseph and his Mother were marveling at what was said about Jesus.” The original Luke 2:33 would imply that Jesus had an earthly father and mother whereas the changed version is more favorable to Jesus’ divinity.

John (5: 7-8) or the so named Johannine Comma is another important piece of scripture that was changed because it contains the most explicit statement in support of the Doctrine of the Trinity (“Father, Son and Holy Ghost”).  It can be found in the Latin Vulgate, but it is not found in the vast majority of the Greek manuscripts. This has resulted in a long-standing dispute over a major article of Christian doctrine. Isaac Newton one of histories brightest intellectual luminaries and a most pious Christian would not accept the Doctrine of Trinitarianism.  Many other notable historical persons, including Thomas Jefferson also rejected it.  Many Bible scholars believe that John (5: 7-8) was added to the NT and was not part of the majority of earlier manuscripts.

Perhaps even more troubling is the fact that the last twelve verses of Mark 16 (verses 9-20) were not in the original manuscripts and were also added later.  One of the most intriguing and dangerous verses (17-18) reads, “And these are signs that will accompany those who believe: they will cast out demons in my name; they will speak in new tongues; and they will take up snakes in their hands; and if they drink any poison it will not harm them; they will place their hands upon the sick and heal them.” These verses are a favorite of the Pentecostal Christians and in February 2014, Kentucky Pentecostal pastor Jamie Coots was bitten while handling a rattlesnake during a “Snake Salvation” church ritual.  He died after refusing medical treatment.  According to his son, his last words were “Sweet Jesus.”  Or in the words of  Voltaire, “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”

The tradition of scribes changing the texts during copying was so fragrant and pervasive that the author (perhaps John the Apostle) of  Revelations felt compelled in verses (18-19) to include the following warning: “I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book; and if anyone removes any of the words of the book of this prophecy, God will remove his share from the tree of life and from the holy city as described in this book.”

After years of studying ancient Bible manuscripts, Ehrman concludes that the  Bible is not the inerrant word of God and must be considered the work of men.  He reasoned that if God had inspired the writing of the Bible, the final product would be one consistent work instead of a multitude of manuscripts with their many variations both insignificant and significant. He further concluded that many of the NT scriptural differences can be attributed to the Apostle Paul’s efforts to compete with his various rivals for the acceptance of his version of Christianity by the pagans. Professor Ehrman’s conclusion is most startling considering his background. He was born in Lawrence, Kansas and was raised in a religious family.  At the age of fifteen he was born again and became a fundamental Pentecostalist. He also earned a diploma from the Moody Bible Institute and graduated from Wheaton College (the alma mater of Billy Graham).

 I agree with his conclusion. I also sense that the forty-year delay from the time Christ died and when the first oral histories were committed to writing poses even greater problems for the integrity of the Bible. The oral history of the Gospels is an example of the game “telephone” in which one person whispers a short and simple message to another which is then passed through a line of people until the last player announces the message to the entire group.  In most cases the final statement bears little or no semblance to the original statement.  To think that the four Gospels could have been transmitted from person to person and maintain the integrity of the original stories for at least forty years is more than absurd.  Paradoxically the early Christian Church leader and author Tertullian (160 - 225 CE) used the idea of absurdity as  “proof” for the truth of Christian doctrine.  In his words, “I believe because it is absurd.”  He also said, “And buried, He rose again: it is certain, because it is impossible.”  In what other pursuit would absurdity and impossibility be offered as evidence that something is true?

David Hume (1711 – 1776),  a Scottish philosopher suggested a way of evaluating claims of miracles. In his words, “No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that the falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish.”  First, he defined a miracle as a ‘transgression” against one of the laws of nature such as gravity, and further noted that their occurrences would have to be very rare.   For example,  Bill claims that he saw Elvis Presley walking down the street. If true this would be a miracle. There are at least three other explanations; Bill was mistaken, lying, or even delusional.  According to Hume’s test for miracles, the falsehoods (Bill was mistaken, lying, or delusional) would have to be more miraculous than the fact (of seeing Elvis).  The possibility that Bill was mistaken, lying, or delusional does not come close to being more miraculous then the alleged fact of seeing Elvis alive and walking down the street, therefore the alleged miracle must be rejected.  If God revealed  his word to the authors of the Bible, that would be a miracle.  Its “falsehood,” that men wrote the Bible without any supernatural intervention or assistance would have to be more miraculous than divine intervention.  Professor Ehrman’s research clearly shows that the Bible as a work of men and is far less miraculous than it being the product of God. Therefore according to Hume’s test, the Bible must be considered he work of men and not a miracle. 



Sources:

1.  Misquoting Jesus, The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (2005) by Bart D.  Ehrman
2.  Why People Believe Weird Things (1997) by Michael Shermer
3.  The Magic of Realty (2011) by Ricard Dawkins
4.  The Gospel Truth (1/28/2013), Blog (The Needlefish Chronicles)

The Psychopath Test

          
The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) can be purchased now at Walmart for $122.70 with free shipping (thank goodness;  it is heavier than a sack of bowling balls).  It makes a great gift for all the Scientologists on your shopping list and is perfect for friends living in pretentious homes.  With its attractive cover it provides a welcomed addition to any coffee table center piece and is guaranteed to impress guests and intimidate the hired help.

DSM-V is a list of mental disorders and was written by a committee of mental health care professionals (mostly psychiatrists) and is published by the American Psychiatric Association.  The first edition was published in 1952 and was 65 pages long.  It listed 106 mental disorders including homosexuality which was described as a “sociopathic personality disturbance.”  It took the high priests of psychiatry twenty-two years to admit that homosexuality was not a mental disorder but was nothing more than a prejudice based more on politics than psychiatry.

By 2013 the DSM had grown to a leviathan-sized 947 pages.  Based on the increase in the size of the DSM from 1952 to 2013, mental illness has increased 628 percent in just sixty-one years.  Unless you watch cable-news shows or listen to talk radio, you probably have not noticed that insanity is raging out of control in the world.  What on earth is going on here? The answer lies not in the wind but in the money trail.

Sales of psychiatric drugs amounted to more than seventy billion dollars in 2010.  Brands such as Prozac, Zoloft, and Lexapro are as recognizable to the average household as Ivory Soap.  Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is an exemplar of “drugs gone wild.” Dr. C. Keith Conners runs the ADHD clinical program at Duke University and is recognized as one of the leading ADHD researchers. According to him, recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that 15 percent of high school-age children are diagnosed with ADHD.  The number of children on medication for this disorder had soared to 3.5 million from 600,000 in 1990. Dr. Conners challenges the rising rates of diagnosis and calls it “a national disaster of dangerous proportions.”

Allen Frances, a psychiatrist and editor of DSM-IV made the following startling confession when he admitted, “It’s very easy to set off a false epidemic in psychiatry.  And we inadvertently contributed to three that are ongoing now.” He goes on to list “autism, attention-deficit, and childhood bipolarity.”  Ian Goodyear is a professor of child and adolescent psychiatry at Cambridge University.  He along with almost every neurologist outside of the gravitational pull of  the American Psychiatric Association does not believe that childhood bipolar disorder exist.  “It is an illness that emerges from late adolescence.  It is very, very unlikely indeed that you’ll find it in children under seven years old.”

Who among us believes that 3,500,000 young people are suffering from a Ritalin deficiency or that two percent of children are bipolar?  It does not come close to passing the “laugh” test and is the result of a system where a committee of the most reality-challenged people on the planet get together and compile and publish list of mental disorders for profit.  “Big Pharma” then jumps on the money wagon and manufactures drugs that allegedly treat the mental disorders as long there are a sufficient number of "sufferers" to make it profitable.  Drug manufactures follow the introduction of their drugs by dispatching an army of representatives armed with an arsenal of samples, gifts, and valuable prizes available for simply writing prescriptions. The result is one monumental scam and a national disgrace.

The same merry band of psychiatrists who created the lists of mental disorders are the same people who decide who among our fellow citizens should be confined to a mental institution and when (if ever) they should be released.  How effective are they in making this important determination?       

Jon Ronson chronicles two revealing incidents in his book, The Psychopath Test.  The first case of psychiatric malpractice occurred in 1973 when David L. Rosenhan, a Stanford University research psychologist who along with seven confederates performed an experiment to determine what would happen if sane people somehow found themselves committed to a psychiatric hospital.  Rosenhan and his researchers checked into mental hospitals in five different states complaining of hearing a voice repeating the words “empty,” “hollow,” and “thud.”  Other than that they appeared and acted normal.  As soon as they were admitted they stopped complaining about their symptoms and immediately sought to convince the staff that they felt fine and asked to be released.

This was not to be. Their average length of hospitalization was nineteen days with a range from seven to fifty-two days.  Seven of the pseudo patients were diagnosed as schizophrenic (“in remission”) and one as bipolar.  Interestingly the actual patients in the hospital recognized immediately that the imposters were not real patients.  They thought that they were journalists.

After Rosenhan published the results of his experiment he was challenged by one mental hospital to send his confederates to their facility with assurances that they would detect them as imposters.  And this is the best part.  He agreed to do it but in actuality did not send anyone.  This did not prevent the hospital from “detecting” a steady stream of pseudo patients.  In just a few months they rejected 10% of their new patients.  Rosenhan’s conclusion: “It is clear that we cannot distinguish the sane from the insane in psychiatric hospitals.”

The second case of psychiatric malpractice took place in London in the 1980s when Tony (pseudonym) at age 17 was arrested for assault after he was in a fight that resulted in serious injuries to the other combatant.  Tony decided to fake insanity in order to avoid doing what would have been at most five years in prison.  Somehow he thought that life in Broadmoor (London’s most notorious mental institution) would be more pleasant.  Tony prepared for his psychiatric evaluation by reading a book about Ted Bundy and plagiarizing lines from movies like Blue Velvet staring Dennis Hopper.  When he met with the psychiatrists he quoted a few lines such as “he liked to crash cars into walls for sexual pleasure” and “he wanted to kill women because he thought looking into their eyes as they died would make him seem normal.”

Tony’s plan worked perfectly and he was diagnosed as suffering from “Dangerous and Severe Personality Disorder” and was committed to Broadmoor for an indefinite period of time.  He quickly learned that life at Broadmoor was far from the world of pizza and video games that he imagined and began immediately attempting to convince the staff that he was sane and had just faked insanity in a misguided attempt to avoid prison.  Tony learned that it is much easier to be diagnosed insane that it was to convince the staff otherwise.  It took him fourteen years to convince the psychiatrists that he was sane and suitable for release.

The attending Broadmoor psychiatrists realized that Tony had faked insanity but “discovered” he was a psychopath based on his score on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist written by Robert D. Hare a researcher in the field of criminal psychology.  The “test” consist of an evaluation based on twenty factors with scores ranging from zero to forty. Famous psychopaths like Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, and John Wayne Gacy are representative of those scoring forty.  Hare estimates that 1% of the general population, 4% of Fortune 500 corporate top executives, and 25% of the prison population are psychopaths.  Tony scored 29 on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist and that was sufficient justification to keep him in Broadmoor for fourteen years.

According to Stephen Hawking in his 2010 book The Grand Design, the council of Monza, Italy passed an ordinance making it illegal to keep goldfish in a curved goldfish bowl. They maintained that it is cruel to keep a fish in a bowl with curved sides because it distorts their view of reality.  What “curved bowl” is distorting the human species’ view of reality as we search for the truth of any issue or question?  Reality or truth is shrouded in a veil of culture and dogma.  The process of science is the only tool proven able to penetrate this cloud hiding the mysteries of the universe.

Rigorous and careful observations followed by the formulation of a hypothesis that explains the observations and results is the first step of the scientific method. In the next step predictions are made based on the hypothesis and tested.  After the predictions are confirmed the hypothesis is vetted by the entire community of specialists in the field of inquiry who are challenged to replicate the results and confirm the predictions. This is a vital step because scientists suffer from what the DSM describes as “Oppositional Defiant Disorder” making them a most contentious group of people determined to find a flaw in their colleagues’ most cherished hypotheses.  Only hypotheses surviving the crucible of the scientific method are  promoted to theory, the highest standard of truth granted by science.  Although theory is the hallmark of truth and reality, there is always some element of admitted uncertainty in any scientific theory. This is the major difference between dogma and scientific truth. Science always leaves the door open to the possibility of new evidence in the future.

The essence of mental health lies in the ability to discern reality from the noise of distortion promoted by the profit-motivated American Psychiatric Association.  The most casual review of the successes and failures of psychiatry to diagnose and treat mental illnesses leads to the obvious conclusion that mental health and human happiness are too important to be left in the hands of the American Psychiatric Association and the pharmaceutical industry.  It is time to employ science to the study of the human brain and behavior. The tools of science have fueled man’s understanding of the universe while simultaneously increasing the well-being and quality of life for the world’s seven billion citizens. Surely a cross-disciplinary team consisting of neurologists, chemists, physicists, biologists and other interested specialists motivated by the truth not profit would develop better solutions for defining, diagnosing, and treating mental illnesses. 

Scientology

                            
“I'd like to start a religion. That's where the money is.”  L Ron Hubbard       

The Church of Scientology began in the year 1953 and is one of the world's newest religions.  In this essay I will address three questions: Who was L Ron Hubbard?  What is the doctrine of Scientology?  How does Scientology qualify as a religion?

Lafayette Ronald Hubbard was born on March 13, 1911 in the town of Tilden, Nebraska and died on January 24, 1986. His nickname growing up was “Flash,” but later in life he was referred to by his initials “LRH.” Since his father was an US naval officer he moved frequently and traveled extensively in Asia and the South Pacific.   

Hubbard was admitted to George Washington University in September 1930 to study Civil Engineering.  He later claimed to have followed a course of study in nuclear physics graduating with a degree in engineering. He was a very poor student and received grades of mostly “Ds” and “Fs” except for English and physical education. His official George Washington University record indicates that he flunked out in September 1931 and never earned a degree.

Growing up LRH was an avid adventurist.  He joined The Explorer's Club in 1940 and was involved in a number of adventures including an expedition to the Aleutian Islands attempting to update the Coast Guard Pilot guide to the coast lines of Alaska. He even claimed to have once roped a Kodiak bear. He was known for telling “tall tales” and was described as someone with an “incorrigible ability to float above the evidence,” a talent that would serve him well as a prolific writer of science fiction and fantasy stories.

The Church of Scientology has a completely different story about just about every aspect of Hubbard's life story.  They argue that all the records that are in conflict with their version of his life are forgeries or in their words, they have been “sheep-dipped.” His military record is just another example of conflicting life histories.  According to the Church Hubbard was a war hero and suffered combat injuries including blindness and near total paralysis.

He was commissioned as a Lieutenant (junior grade)  in the US Navy on July 19, 1941.  He briefly commanded an antisubmarine ship in the coastal waters off Oregon and California where he claimed he disabled or sunk two Japanese submarines in May 1943.  A Navy investigation could not find any evidence that any submarine had been destroyed.  Hubbard was relieved of his command when he conducted unauthorized gunnery practice off the coast of Coronado Island.  According to the Navy he was “lacking the essential qualities of judgment, leadership and cooperation.”  The Church claims that he received military medals that were not even in existence during the time he served in the military.

While serving in the navy, LRH met Commander Joseph C. “Snake” Thompson a polymath and medical officer who exercised a tremendous influence over him. It was from him that he picked up the ideas that “If it's not true for you, it's not true,” and “Psychiatry is the sole cause of decline in this universe.”  Thompson also introduced Hubbard to the study of Freudian psychoanalysis and criticized the American psychoanalytic establishment for straying too far from Freud.

Some time after he left the Navy in August 1945, Hubbard moved to Pasadena and into the mansion of John Whiteside Parsons a leading rocket propulsion researcher at the California Institute of Technology and a founder of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.  Parsons led a double life as a scientist and an avid occultist. He was a follower of the English magician Aleister Crowley.  Parsons would only rent rooms in his house to “atheists and those of a Bohemian disposition.”  Hubbard fit in easily with his fellow occultists.  Not surprisingly, Church accounts do not mention his occult experiences.   

From an early age LRH always wanted to be a writer. He spent most of the years from 1930 to 1940 writing pulp fiction. He was paid one penny per word and since he could easily produce 100,000 words a year, he earned a reasonable income.  His pulps were displayed on news stands along side of comic books.  He created fantastic adventures and larger-than-life heroes. For an example, The Ultimate Adventure was published in April 1939 and sold for twenty cents. Writers such as Dashiell Hammett and Robert Heinlein graduated from writing pot boilers to become respected authors. Hubbard chose to use his skills to write, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health which was published on May 9, 1950.  It was a runaway best seller and was on the New York Times bestseller list for twenty-eight weeks and went on to sell more than eighteen million copies. It ushered in the era of self-help books that are still popular to this day.

Dianetics is purported to be a scientific method of eliminating the harmful forces preventing people from leading healthy, spiritual, and productive lives.  The core of the principle is the idea that experiences beginning from the moment of conception are recorded in the mind.  Hubbard named these recordings engrams which he defined as “a mental image picture which is a recording of an experience containing pain, unconsciousness and a real or fancied threat to survival.”

According to Dianetics these destructive emotions can be removed by a process called “auditing.” Hubbard claimed that he used Dianetics to cure his own blindness and paralysis resulting from his alleged combat injuries sustained when a bomb exploded on the deck of the ship during combat.  The scientific community was dumbfounded by the success of the book and rejected it as nothing more than psychological folk art.  S. I. Hayakawa a distinguished linguist, psychologist, and later an US Senator said, “The art consist in concealing from the reader, for novelistic purposes the distinction between established scientific facts, almost-established scientific hypotheses, scientific conjectures, and imaginative extrapolations far beyond what has even been conjectured.” He went on to say, Hubbard “runs the risk of believing in his own creation.”

The E-meter was an integral part to the auditing process.  The first one consisted of two Campbell Soup cans with their labels removed connected by a wire carrying a low voltage current.  Hubbard claimed that by using the E-meter an auditor could locate and remove engrams.  He set up schools in major cities to train auditors and to treat anyone with any sort of unresolved issues in their life. Book sales and lecture fees brought in a steady stream of income.  In less than a year Hubbard went from poverty to great wealth and international fame.  It then proved to be just another fad and collapsed just as quickly giving him the idea to start a religion because in his words, “That's where the money is.”

On December 18, 1953, Hubbard incorporated the Church of Scientology, Church of American Science and the Church of Spiritual Engineering in Camden, New Jersey. He also established more than five-hundred Dianetics auditing centers all over the United States where acolytes could enroll in various courses to learn the secrets of Dianetics.  According to LRH one can achieve the mental state of what he called “clear” through a course of study and auditing.  In this state an individual would have complete recall of every word they ever heard going back to the moment of conception in their mother's womb. He called this level “Operating Thetan” or OT VIII.   The cost of the courses and auditing required to reach this level was close to $400,000. E-meters sell for almost $5,000 and  twelve hours of auditing costs from $5,000 to $8,000.  In spite of the fact that the church has never been willing or able to produce one “clear” person, Scientology was a great financial success making LRH and the Church extremely wealthy. By 1953 they accumulated a bank account of more than a billion dollars and a debt to the IRS of one billion dollars in back taxes that Hubbard refused to pay.

At level OT VIII church members are given Hubbard's revelation of Scientology's deepest secret which is goes as follows:  In the beginning four quadrillion (Note: a quadrillion is one billion times a thousand) years ago there existed a Garden of Eden where the Thetans (spirits) existed in a pure godlike state until there was a loud snap and a flood of light and the physical universe was created consisting of matter, energy, space, and time.  LRH called this “Incident One.”  “Incident Two” occurred seventy-five million years ago in the Galactic Confederacy which consisted of seventy-six planets and twenty-six stars.  The tyrant Xenu ruled the Confederacy having been selected by a guard called the “Loyal Officers.” Xenu and a few evil followers (mostly psychiatrists) staged false income-tax investigations to lure the population into centers where they were killed with an injection of frozen alcohol and glycol. Their frozen bodies were then packed into boxes and loaded on space planes and transported to Teegeeack (planet earth) where they were dropped into volcanoes and then blown up with hydrogen bombs.  Unfortunately their souls (Thetans) remained and floated around and attached themselves to living people because they no longer had free will.  These body Thetans blocked the path to spiritual progress of their host. 

L Ron Hubbard's life was not suggestive of anyone who was “clear” or who lived what would be considered a normal, productive, and happy life.  He was married three times.  He married his first wife Margaret Louise Grubb “Polly” in 1933 and they had two children, Ron Jr. and Katherine May.  Ron Jr. became estranged from his father and legally changed his name to Edward DeWolf in 1972.

LRH married his second wife Sara Elizabeth Northrup on 8/10/1946 without the benefit of a divorce from Polly. They had one daughter Alexis Valerie who was called the world’s first Dianetics baby but interestingly she is not mentioned in any official Church publications.  They eventually divorced after a long and bitter legal battle for custody of Alexis.

According to court documents L. Ron Hubbard tortured Sara and tried to make her kill herself because he did not want the “inconvenience” of a divorce.  He subjected her to sleep deprivation to lower her volition, and provided her with fatal doses of sleeping pills. He strangled her so hard that her hearing in one ear became permanently impaired. Hubbard also used the family car to deliberately run into Sara. He also kidnapped Alexis and used the threat of violence toward her against Sara. Finally, to evade divorce court proceedings, Hubbard fled the state of California and went into hiding so that he could not be served a subpoena.  Hubbard continued to harass her and her child long after she escaped him.

LRH met Mary Sue Whipp in 1951 when she took a Dianetics course at the Hubbard Dianetics Foundation at Wichita, Kansas. She soon began an affair with Hubbard who had just been divorced from his second wife Sara, and moved in with him within only a few weeks after arriving in Wichita. They were married in March 1952 and they had four children,  Diana, Quentin, Suzette, and Arthur.  Quentin died on November 12, 1976 at age of 22 in an apparent suicide.  Mary Sue was credited with coining the word “Scientology.” She played a leading role in the management of the Church of Scientology, rising to become the head of the Church's Guardian's Office. On August 15, 1978, Mary Sue Hubbard and eight others were indicted for masterminding a conspiracy against the US government in her capacity as head of the Church's Guardian's Office. They were found guilty on October 26, 1979. Mary Sue and two others received the heaviest penalties, a five-year prison sentence and a $10,000 fine.

In 1967 LRH, now calling himself, Commodore took to the sea with a fleet of three ships, Diana, the Athena, and the Apollo where he remained for many years.  He claimed that he was being pursued by KGB agents and wrote several letters to the FBI and CIA requesting protection.  He established the Sea Org in August 1967 as the theological arm of Scientology. Children as young as five years of age were required to sign a contract for one billion years of service.  They were worked up to one-hundred hours a week and subjected to harsh discipline and were paid very little.  Sea Org members were allowed to marry but were forced to leave Sea Org if they had children.  The Sea Org moved to a land-based location in California in 1975 although they maintained the maritime tradition complete with their uniforms.

Scientology is run more like a business or large corporation than a Church.  When LRH died on his ranch near Creston, California on January 24, 1986 there was a power struggle for the leadership and control of the church.  David Miscavige took over the top job in Scientology, as the Chairman of the Board of the Religious Technology Center, a corporation that controls all the trademarks and copyrights of Dianetics and Scientology. 

Miscavige was only twenty-six years old when he outmaneuvered all of the other older longtime church officials.  He was able to accomplish this by isolating Hubbard at the ranch and not allowing anyone access to him but himself.  Miscavige was raised in a Catholic family and joined Scientology when he was only eleven years old. He advanced quickly through the ranks and by the age of twelve he was conducting auditing sessions.  After Mary Sue Hubbard was indicted for conspiracy against the US government, Miscavige convinced her to resign her position as head of the Guardian's Office paving the way for his eventual complete take over of the church.  In December 1993 he was able to settle the church's ten year battle with the IRS winning a tremendous victory with a ruling declaring Scientology a tax-exempt religious organization. 

Scientology is easily one of the most controversial religions in the world.  In 1967, the Australian government issued a report on them saying, “There are some features of Scientology which are so ludicrous that there may be a tendency to regard Scientology as silly and its practitioners as harmless cranks.”  But its conclusion was that, “Scientology is evil, its techniques evil, its practice a serious threat to the community, medically, morally and socially; and its adherents are sadly deluded and often mentally ill.” In 2009 a court in France convicted them of defrauding recruits out of their savings.  At the same time France also classified Scientology as a dangerous cult.

The case of Lisa McPherson was just another embarrassing episode that tarnished Scientology’s reputation.  She was a OT III level scientologist who in November 1995 was involved in a minor car accident in Clearwater, FL. After the  paramedics arrived to the crash scene, she removed her clothes and started behaving erratically.  She was taken to a local hospital and kept overnight for observation. The next day fellow Scientologists removed her from the hospital and took her to the Fort Harrison Hotel (called Flag Land Base) for “rest and relaxation.”  Fort Harrison Hotel is owned by the Scientologists and is famous as the site where Mick Jagger wrote the lyrics for the song Satisfaction. She was held isolated in a room for seventeen days with little food and water until someone realized that she was dying and loaded her into a vehicle. They drove past four hospitals in favor of one located twenty miles away because it had a Scientologist on staff.  She died before they could get there. 

On November 13, 1998, State Attorney Bernie McCabe charged the Church of Scientology with practicing medicine without a license and the abuse of a disabled adult. In June 1998 the charges were dropped when the medical examiner changed the manner of death from “undetermined” to “accident.” In 2004 McPherson's relatives sued the church for wrongful death and they eventually reached a confidential settlement.

Over the years many high-ranking members have left Scientology and spoke out publicly about the abuses in the church. Mark Rathbun had been a member since 1977 and was the Inspector General of the Religious Technology Center until he left the church in 2004.  Paul Haggis, an Academy Award winning film director quit the Church over its support of California's Preposition 8 (a proposal to ban same sex marriage). It is important to remember that religious organizations are prohibited from participating in political activities.  Actress Leah Remini quit Scientology over its harsh treatment of church members at the hands of David Miscavige. She reported that she was repeatedly interrogated and forced to undergo “thought modification.”

Critics often claim that Scientology is a cult. Harsh treatment of departing members of any religious group is the hallmark of cults.  Scientology apostates are declared “suppressed persons” and remaining Church members are forbidden from having any contact with them.  This even includes family members and often spouses are forced to divorce their apostate marriage partner.  They are famous for harassing ex-Scientologists or critics with frivolous law suits.  Apostates who continue to use any part of Dianetics including auditing are called “squirrels” and are sued for patent infringement. Since the Church has a large staff of excellent lawyers, many have faced financial ruin attempting to defend their selves.

The case of Paulette Cooper is the best example of the lengths Scientologists will go in an attempt to discredit any critic.  After Cooper wrote and published The Scandal of Scientology in 1971 the Church initiated Operation Dynamite in an attempt to frame her. They sent forged bomb threats purportedly from Cooper using her typewriter and paper with her fingerprints. Further plans included bomb threats to be sent to Henry Kissinger. The Church's campaign was discovered when the FBI raided Scientology offices in 1977 and recovered documents relating to the operation. Sometime in 1977, an assassination of Paulette was possibly planned, along with another murder, but it is unknown whether or not it was attempted.  The Church finally agreed to an out-of-court settlement with Cooper in 1985.

The Church of Scientology claim that they have millions of members.  However, according to the American Religious Identification Survey who conducts a massive survey every nine years involving over 50,000 people, there are only 25,000 Scientologists in the United States.  This is a pitifully small number considering that there are over 300,000 Wiccans in the country. 

Many people seriously question whether Scientology should even be considered a religion.  Their classification as a religious group was determined by the IRS and not by philosophers or theologians.  This says more about religion than it does about Scientology.  How could there ever be a standard for determining what constitutes a religion? If claims can be made without any evidence, any imagined absurdity can be considered a religion.

My favorite is the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Pastafarianism started in January 2005 by twenty-four-year-old  Bobby Henderson, a Oregon State University physics graduate.  Don’t laugh, remember people dismissed Scientology and Mormonism as silly and ridiculous but that didn’t stop people from believing and supporting it.   In fact, according to the early Christian Church authority Tertullian, absurdity is nothing more than a test of faith.   In his words, “I believe because it is absurd.”

The only reason Scientology seems so absurd to most people today is it is so new compared to other religions such as Christianity which has had over two-thousand years to become familiar and acceptable without question.  But for those not raised and immersed in the doctrine of the virgin birth and the resurrection from the grave, the doctrine seems just as absurd.  And who outside the faith could believe that a wafer turns into a body of a deity when eaten or a cup of wine turns to blood when drank?

Scientology survives and flourishes in the same way diets do.  As long as people would like to lose weight easily but cannot, there will always be a new promising diet clamoring for their money.  And as long as people are frustrated with their lives, careers, or relationships, someone will come forward with the divine secret of happiness and contentment available to those who are willing to believe and spread some silver around.


Sources:

1.  Inside Scientology (2011) by Janet Reitman

2.  Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief (2013) by Lawrence Wright

3.  Why People Believe Weird Things (1997) by Michael Shermer   



   

Christian Nation

"Fortune favors the prepared mind." 
          Louis Pasteur

It is fashionable for a large and noisy segment of our population to repeatedly make the claim that the United States was established by our founding fathers as a Christian nation. David Barton is a major advocate for this idea. Mike Huckabee calls him the “single best historian in America today,” others call him a “sham historian.” He is in fact not a historian at all but an evangelical Christian minister, and a graduate of Oral Roberts University, a third-rate school not noted for free inquiry and unfettered scholarship. Barton provides a thin patina of “historical” cover for a pack of fundamentalist religious extremists such as Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, James Dodson, Alan Keys, Dennis Prager, Randall Terry, Tony Perkins, and Jerry Falwell. These people along with a host of others are waging an all out assault on what Jefferson called the “wall of the separation of church and state” with a goal of changing our government into some form of theocracy.

In this essay I will address the question as to whether the United States is a Christian nation by first considering the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution itself. I will also examine both the process and politics that produced these documents and the writings of the founding fathers on the subject of religion and government with the hope of better appreciating their intentions. Since our constitution is a living document, I will also look at a number of Supreme Court decisions related the to issue of separation of church and state.

At the start it is important to understand the distinction between a democracy and a republic. If the founding fathers had established a democracy providing for every citizen to have a vote on every issue raised in the public square, they would have most likely written a constitution based on the premise that all power to govern comes from God and Jesus Christ and that religion deserves government support including the funds to build churches. It is also very likely that a national religion would have been established with provisions such as mandatory church attendance along with harsh punishment for anyone criticizing the established church in any way. They deliberately did not.

Instead the founders erected a republic where all decisions regarding the rights and welfare of the citizens and public policy are decided by elected representatives, of course constrained by the constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. And it was the fifty-five selected representatives from the disparate colonies who gathered in Philadelphia in the year 1776 to create a new government. They selected a five-man drafting committee consisting of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Livingston, and Roger Sherman to write the Declaration of Independence. It is important to remember that the Continental Congress had already voted in a legal act of treason to separate from England on June 7, 1776. The Declaration of Independence was an attempt to justify an action already taken.

Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin were all deists (the religious beliefs of Livingston, and Sherman are less well known) and they made ample use of the language of deism employing words such as God of Nature, Laws of Nature, Creator, Supreme Judge, and Divine Providence. As deist they believed in Spinoza's God who created the universe and the laws governing its operation and then withdrew from any further active role in “his” creation. This was not the God of Abraham who performed miracles, answered prayers, and provided for salvation and life after death.

As everyone knows the committee chose Thomas Jefferson to write what we call the Declaration of Independence. After Jefferson completed what he called a draft he asked Benjamin Franklin to edit it. Franklin the brightest of what Jefferson called “an assembly of demi-gods” made what appeared to be a small change to Jefferson's masterpiece when he changed the words sacred and undeniable to self-evident. It was from this small seed that our “God-less” constitution grew creating the first secular government in history in what was called The Great Experiment.

The words “endowed by their creator” are often cited by Barton and other “Christian” nation advocates in an attempt to rewrite history and create the theocracy that they so desire. Two points alone destroy what is the weakest of arguments. First, the Declaration of Independence (never ratified by the colonies) is not a part of our founding documents. And second it was addressed not to the American people but to King George III and was nothing more than Jefferson's strongest attempt to justify the colonies' right to be independent of Britain before the court of world opinion especially the French. Jefferson made full use of Seneca's adage that “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.”

To understand the enormity of Jefferson's task of justifying the action already taken by the Continental Congress, it essential to understand the concept of positive law versus natural law. Positive law is any action taken by a legally constituted body such as the Parliament of Great Britain. Natural law in contrast relies on some metaphysical grounds that a personal is born with certain rights in the same way that they receive their hair and eye color. Jefferson, lacking any positive law to use against King George III, had to rely on natural law. Many philosophers and politicians bolster their natural law arguments by appealing to a higher power such as God. This option posed a most tricky proposition for Jefferson and his fellow deists who were intent upon creating a secular government. To achieve that goal he employed the language of deism harvested from the Age of Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke, Voltaire, and Denis Diderot. Jefferson as one of the best educated and best read of the founders was well aware of the fact that the greatest threat to the freedom and well being of people would be the merger of church and state and was most familiar with the words of Denis Diderot: Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.

After Franklin signed the Treaty of Paris on September 3, 1783 ending the Revolutionary war and winning America's independence, representatives from the thirteen states (no longer colonies) gathered in Philadelphia at Constitution Hall in the year 1787 to create a new nation by writing what turned out to be a God-less or secularist constitution. It did not contain any reference to God and addressed only two religious questions: freedom of religion (the first amendment), and the prohibition of any religious test for candidates seeking any public office (Article VI, Section 3) of the constitution.

To understand how God was excluded from what has been described as the greatest document ever written, it is necessary to recognize three major groups of delegates at the Constitutional Convention. They were the enlightenment rationalists, religious fundamentalists, and slave owners. The enlightenment rationalists (also called Freethinkers) consisted of people like Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin. The religious fundamentalists included Catholics, Quakers, Baptists, Jews, and other small religious groups such as the Mennonites. Out of the 55 delegates, more than half were members of the Anglican Church/Episcopal (Church of England).

The enlightenment rationalists were heavily influenced by the Age of Enlightenment ideas originating in the 17^th and 18^th century by such thinkers as Baruch Spinoza, John Locke, Voltaire, Isaac Newton, Denis Diderot, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Montesquieu. Separation of church and state, freedom of speech, full rights for all, tolerance, and a strong advocacy for reason and science are some of the major ideas that influenced the founding father's thinking. Jefferson one of the best-educated and best-read of the delegates and was probably most influenced by the above mentioned thinkers and writers followed by James Madison and Benjamin Franklin.

The religious fundamentalist delegates were members of minority religious groups that most likely would have favored a more theocratic constitution had they not feared the Anglicans who they thought would impose Anglicanism as the state religion if the constitution permitted it. The entire matter was further complicated by the fact that the slave states were the ones most in favor of some form of a theocracy, but they sacrificed their desire for a theocracy in return for blocking a constitutional prohibition against slavery. In the end it was a compromise whereby the freethinkers received a secular government, the religious fundamentalists received freedom of religion and protection from the Anglicans, and slave states got to keep their slaves. In the end when given the choice between God and slavery, the fundamentalists chose slavery. In the words of Robert Ingersoll (America's Voltaire),  They knew that to put God in the Constitution was to put man out. “They knew that the recognition of a Deity would be seized upon by fanatics and zealots as a pretext for destroying the liberty of thought.”

At the close of the Constitutional Convention on September 18, 1787, a woman yelled out to Benjamin Franklin as he emerged from the hall, “Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” His answer “A republic if you can keep it,” is perhaps the most prescient statement every uttered by a politician. History has proved our beloved Franklin correct. Over the past 237 years disgruntled and history-challenged fundamentalists have been exploited by “conservative” politicians at the expense of our secular-mandated government. Franklin was absolutely correct. If secular citizens are not vigilant, fundamentalists will bully their way into our way of live and destroy our most cherished freedom, the freedom of conscience. The Treaty of Tripoli was passed by the United States Senate on June 7, 1797 and signed by President Adams taking effect as law on June 10, 1797. It contained the following statement, “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...”

Religious freedom was tested as early as October 7, 1801 when the Danbury Baptists fearing that the Congregationalists were attempting to establish Congregationalism as the state religion of Connecticut wrote a letter to President Jefferson requesting his support in opposing the idea of a state religion. His answer included the famous words, a wall of separation between Church and State. One-hundred and forty-six years later (1947) Justice Hugo Black wrote in the Everson case, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable.”

In 1810 a law requiring Sunday mail delivery provided a thorn in the side of religious conservatives. In 1828 there were attempts in Congress to overturn the law. Senator Richard M. Johnson of Kentucky (a devout Baptist) responded by saying it was “unconstitutional for the federal government to promote Sabbath observation by ending Sunday mail delivery.” It should also be noted that Johnson had supported framing the federal constitution with no mention of God.

In 1864 the National Reform Association (a group of clergymen) met with Lincoln in an attempt to have Congress amend the constitution acknowledging Jesus Christ as the source of all just governmental power. Being a politician, Lincoln listened politely and then conceded a bit by prevailing on Congress to add In God We Trust to the two-cent coin. In 1907 President Theodore Roosevelt tried to have it removed because he thought that it gave rise to sacrilegious puns.

In 1892 the Pledge of Allegiance authored by Francis Bellamy was passed into law with recitation mandatory until 1943 when the Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional. It should be noted that the words Under God were not added to the pledge until 1954 as a consequences of McCarthyism.

In conclusion all except the most zealous fundamentalists can clearly see that the founding fathers in 1787 established a secular government. In spite of a clearly written and preserved record of this historical fact, there are many who mine the writings of the founders cherry-picking the record in a feeble attempt to claim this was not their real intention. Of course intentions are totally irrelevant once any action is taken. Regardless of that, I will address their intentions based on their writings of two of the most influential founders, Jefferson and Franklin.

Thomas Jefferson's list of accomplishments are so extensive and well-known that space will only permit mentioning a few. He served in the Continental Congress, wrote the Declaration of Independence, served as the United States Minister to France, served as Secretary of State under George Washington, served as the third president of the United States, and founded both the Democratic Party and the University of Virginia. After all of these and more, which accomplishments did he most want to be remember? Only three, the Declaration of Independence, the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, and the University of Virginia. He personally selected them for inclusion on his tombstone. All three of Jefferson's most cherished accomplishments are secular in keeping with his strongly held belief that the practice of religion is a private affair separate and independent of the state. In the case of the University of Virginia, Jefferson even went so far as to ban the teaching of theology altogether.

In one of worse cases of chutzpah many religious fundamentalists actually claim that Jefferson was a devoted Christian in direct opposition to his many memorialized statements to the contrary. For example in a letter to John Adams he wrote that the New Testament was written by “very inferior minds,” and it consisted of “so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture,” that it could rightfully be called “dung.” Jefferson was adamantly opposed to the government using tax money to support any religion. In his The Life and Selected Writings he wrote, “compelling anyone, through taxation, to support religion, even one's own religion was sinful and tyrannical.”

Although Benjamin Franklin was an aggressive advocate for a secular government with strict separation of church and state, his personal religious views were more subtle than Jefferson's. Tocqueville observed that he “was more interested in building the city of man than the city of God” and he resigned from the Presbyterian church in 1735 and seldom attended church services calling them “boring.” He also said that Divine revelation “had no weight with me,” but he did think that religious practices encouraged “good behavior and a moral society.” In his words according to Walter Isaacson, “To pour forth benefits for the common good is divine” and “too much religion is worse than none at all.” He also said that “lighthouses were more useful than churches.” And don't forget that it was Franklin who changed Jefferson's words of “sacred and undeniable” to “self-evident” in the Declaration of Independence making it clear that he was not staking the colonies' right to independence on any deity or supernatural force but instead anchored this right firmly on natural rights.

In summary I must return to Franklin's statement, “A republic if you can keep it.” The great paradox of people of faith attempting to involve the government in the support of their religious beliefs is the fact that religion flourishes in countries with secular governments and stagnates where state religions are mandated. This is especially true for smaller and lesser known religions who are usually powerless to compete against a larger religion backed by the state. Religious people have much more to lose with a theocracy than freethinkers and should stand strong in their support of the wall of separation of church and state. I find it strange that so many people of the Abrahamic faiths claim that their God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, but then insist that “he” requires the assistance of the state to gain entrance to the public square. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, “It is error alone which needs the support of the government. Truth can stand by itself.”

1. Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism (2004) by Susan Jacoby

2. Blasphemy: How the Religious Right Is Hijacking Our Declaration of Independence (2007) by Alan Dershowitz

3. Benjamin Franklin: An American Life (2003) by Walter Isaacson

4. American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson (1996) by Joseph J. Ellis

5. American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America (2007) by Chris Hedges