Believing ≠ Achieving
I’m writing this to address certain religious claims. This is an attempt to to point out atrocious logic used by many of the most prominent Christian preachers. The key point being that believing you will get rich will make you get rich. In the world of Christendom, these people are known as “prosperity preachers” and they suck.
Three of the most famous of these preachers are Joel Osteen, T.D. Jakes, and Benny Hinn. It’s important to differentiate between these three. Benny Hinn is a swindler, a fraud, and a conman. Joel Osteen and T.D. Jakes, while I think they definitely love the money, truly strike me as believers of the prosperity doctrine. That if you faithfully give tithes and offerings into the church, that God will financially bless you. That Christians, specifically, should have a God-given financial inheritance.
Benny Hinn is really no different than Theresa Caputo, also know as the “Long Island Medium.” Or just about any other famous psychic. They use well-known techniques to make people believe that they have supernatural powers/insight. It’s really just illusions. But people fall for it, and pay these charlatans for their time and services.
Joel Osteen and T.D. Jakes fall for a classic fallacy. If I succeeded, that means anyone can. The harsh truth is, people will fail. The harsh truth is, only a certain amount of people will ever get the immense financial "blessings" that they have. Why? Because of math. And because of the way capitalistic society functions. That's just the truth. I'd expound more, but I'd be here all day.
And you may notice that you'll hear "success" stories of people that followed what they preached and found money. Oooooohhhhh . . . . aaaaahhhh. But that's an unfair measurement. If you want to find out the validity of a doctrine, then include all of the people that have followed what they said and failed. You would then see that the failures outweigh the successes. Therefore, prosperity preaching is just like the magic pills they sell on TV at 2 A.M.
It's horse****. I'll let your imagination fill in the four-letter word.
If you are reading this, and you believe people like Benny Hinn and Theresa Caputo are genuine, I would encourage you to do critical research. Truth holds up to questions, and their actions and claims do not hold up. The thing is, there’s nothing unique about what they do or claim. And it’s sad in today’s world of information, which would teach you that they are rehashing the scams that others before them used, that their claims are taken at face value.
Logic dictates, as Carl Sagan once put it, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Over and over, psychics and faith-healers make extraordinary claims without ever presenting evidence. Over and over, what evidence they do try to present is torn apart in the face of investigation.
The investigations of James Randi are probably the best place to start when looking at frauds being exposed. Mr. Randi is a magician that specializes in debunking people who claim to have supernatural abilities.
Here’s a link that will show you how he exposed Uri Geller, an illusionist claiming to have supernatural powers, and Peter Popoff, a faith healer.
And there’s plenty more videos of his. Just type in “James Randi debunks” or “James Randi exposes” in Google to see more of his work. He’s made a career out of it. And if you like him, check out Penn & Teller, both of whom were influenced heavily by James Randi to form their iconic act.
The reason for the success of psychics and faith healers leaves me with two opinions on why.
- People want to be deceived
- Evolutionary flaws leave us vulnerable to tricks
To expound on the first point, I think this really is the reason why anyone believes in anything other than reality. Everyone, including the most hard-nosed atheists, love mysteries. We love the idea of the unknown, the idea of something existing beyond what reality indicates. Why? Several reasons.
We fear death. We can’t help it. Almost all biological creatures fear death outside of things with no brains. A possible exception might be wolverines and honey badgers. And maybe the whole damn weasel family. Seriously, look them up. They’re nuts.
We fear death because on the most basic, instinctual level, we are compelled to survive. Why? Mainly to reproduce. On an evolutionary scale, that really is all there is to our purpose. Passing on genes as much as possible.
Evolution is a perv.
But passing on our genetic code is the very definition of life. It is how we identify living things from nonliving things. Sex is life. That’s really all there is to it. That’s why we hate aging, that’s why prey fights so desperately to escape predators, and that’s why we fear death. We’re not even wired to process death as a part of our reality. We cannot imagine the world without us in it.
Is there anything more self-centered and yet more understandable? And isn’t that why religion is so appealing? It feels so intuitive to believe that there is life after death. That there’s something more than just this mortal existence.
Not many people admit to themselves that death is in fact, the end. Not many people will even admit it as a possibility. Do you know why?
Because opening that door leads to so many other questions that you would never ask otherwise. Scary questions. Like, if this life is all that we have, what is the purpose? Is there purpose? What is purpose and why does it matter? If this is it, how should I live? Where do I derive my morality? What is moral?
What if these questions don’t have absolute answers? *GASP* But how can that be? We must have absolute answers. Because . . . . because . . . . what the hell would we do without answers?!?!?!
That’s the toughest part about being an atheist. Atheists are the most honest people in the world. We admit that we don’t know. We don’t know if there is a god or gods. We don’t know if there is an afterlife. We don’t know the answers to these questions, but we CHOOSE to be honest with ourselves and allow the same criticism that we apply to all other parts of our lives to be applied to religion and the afterlife.
(By the way, that’s what qualifies as being as atheist. There’s a misunderstanding that atheists deny God exists, but that’s not true. We don’t believe he, she, or it exists because there is no evidence. I would go further into detail, but this rabbit hole is already too long. Another time, another post.)
Follow along on how this might work. Unicorns do not exist. Yet, in some books, I find unicorns. If unicorns are in a book, doesn’t that mean that unicorns exist? No. But why? Unicorns have only ever been written about but not actually seen. There’s no evidence that unicorns exist or have ever existed, even though, at one time there existed a great many people who believed in their existence. Yet, unicorns have never been photographed or documented.
Do you believe in unicorns? How about leprechauns? Dragons? Griffins? Zeus? Thor? Why not? They’re written down in books and ancient writings as if they did exist. So why not believe them?
Answering that is hard to put into words, isn't it? It’s kind of like, “Where do I even start?” Now, you know what an atheist thinks about all religion. Where do I even start? It all boils down to evidence. There is no evidence.
None. Nada. Zero. Zilch.
What about the afterlife? Well, that really comes down to the same thing as anything else. Is there evidence? No. It’s a nice thought, and a lot of cultures share the sentiment, though in vastly different ways. But all the evidence points to there being no afterlife. I’m sorry.
Believe what you want, but understand that beliefs do not equal truth. Just because you want it to be true doesn't mean that it is. Also understand that when you want something to be true, you have ceased thinking critically about the subject. Now, in any little experience, you may be skewing the reality of what’s around you to fit your belief. We’re all guilty of this, but the only way to stop it is to recognize it and fight it.
Thinking critically doesn't come naturally. It is something we learn.
Now, for the evolutionary side of things, I think we’re just wired to be tricked. It’s sort of a side-effect of our nature. For instance, all humans have a blind spot. Yet, we don’t notice. Our brains compensate for the blind spot and we don’t catch it.
Your brain lies.
For a very cool demonstration, see the link below and take the simple test at the bottom of the page:
You may also notice that accomplished illusionists can make things, such as playing cards, “disappear” into thin air. Now, even they will tell you that it’s not real magic. It’s an illusion. By holding the card a certain way, moving his or her hand a up and down and at the same time folding the card to be behind his or her hand at a particular speed, our eyes do not catch it. It looks like it has disappeared.
For a demonstration, see the link below:
Our brains just can’t keep up, and the result is that we automatically think it’s magic. We can’t explain it, therefore magic. Of course, a little investigation proves that it’s not magic. For instance, all it would take is for someone to stand on the other side of the illusionist to see how the trick works.
This is why education is so important. Why understanding who you are, not just on a personal level, but on a scientific, evolutionary scale is vital. We have brains that have flaws, eyes that can only see certain things at certain speeds. Understanding this gives us perspective, which is the one thing that helps us make sense of the world.
Think about it. We cannot see bullets flying through the air once they have been shot from a gun. However, we understand that is what they are doing. We know that a bullet is propelled through a controlled explosion of gunpowder out of a chamber and through the air until it reaches something that can stop it.
But imagine if there was a time-traveler from the Bronze Age who happened to materialize in a gun range. He would hear and see the firing of the gun, and then he would see the target get hit simultaneously. He wouldn't see the object leaving the gun and following all of the laws of natural world to travel through the air and impact the target. He would just see one thing make a loud sound and something not connected to that loud thing react violently.
Magic.
This is why perspective is so important. This is also the argument used to dismiss claims of people who point to a mystery and claim that because it is a mystery, it must be supernatural. As an example, I’ll use an argument most theists use.
Argument: The Big Bang may be true, but there must be a cause of the Big Bang. And because all things must have a cause, that cause must be some sort of supreme intelligence. A god.
Counter-Argument: Just because we don’t know the cause of the Big Bang doesn't mean that it is a god. You’re assuming that because there is no knowledge of the subject, a god must be the explanation. The time-traveling Bronze-age man doesn't know how the gun can impact the target from a great distance. He may think it's magic, but that doesn't mean that it is. A positive claim can’t be made because no knowledge of the subject exists.
This also goes back to the “God of the Gaps” problem. If that is how you invoke knowledge of there being a god or gods, then he or she or it is an ever-shrinking idea. At one point, humans thought lightning was something that a god was responsible for. Now we know differently. It can be explained through nature. At one point, humans thought volcanic eruptions were something supernatural. Now we know differently. They are a normal process of our planet.
So the next time you see a convincing psychic, even if he or she does something amazing, remember that it’s a trick. Until one of them can actually prove that they are reading someone’s mind or talking to the dead, you shouldn't believe them. They are well-practiced tricksters. The famous ones have purposefully practiced techniques like “cold-reading” to create illusions that what they do is real. They take advantage of our brains natural functions to deceive. The not-so-famous ones who actually believe they are psychic are as deceived as the subjects of famous psychics. Mostly because everyone wants to believe they are special. (Another time, another post.)
The next time you’re in a church service, and the preacher starts talking about healing people, watch to see if anyone’s healed. Watch that they “heal” people with cancer, chronic back pain, arthritis, and other invisible ailments. Notice that they don’t try to heal the deaf, the blind, the amputees, the mentally retarded, or the wheelchair bound. And if they do try, notice that nothing happens.
Also notice that the something does happen when they do “heal” the people with invisible ailments. Those people feel better. This is called the placebo effect. They are not actually healed, but they feel like they are. This effect is well-documented in the medical community, and there’s nothing special about it.
How about if I use Eliza and Wendy as an example. Both Eliza and Wendy attend an evangelical church. Both Eliza and Wendy get regular medical exams from their respective doctors, and both of their doctors have sounded an alarm because Eliza and Wendy both have a lump in their left breast.
Appointments are made with specialists to determine whether the lumps are benign or malignant. Eliza and Wendy go to their churches and ask for prayers, citing that they have lumps in their breasts. Prayers of healing are made over both of them.
Elize goes to the specialist, and through the wonders of modern medicine, her lump is found to be completely benign. Nothing to worry about at all. Eliza goes back to church with the good news and with the claim that God has healed her. She tells everyone that she knows, whether it be in person or on Facebook, that God has healed her.
Wendy goes to the specialist, and through the wonders of modern medicine, her lump is found to be malignant. It’s cancer. More appointments are made and a treatment of chemo and radiation is prescribed. Wendy goes back to church, and more prayers of healing are now made week in and week out.
So, is prayer only effective some of the time? Does it depend on the type of person? Is it because God is a mystery and no one knows his ways? Then what? You pray but don’t expect? Aren't you supposed to pray with expectation?
What does logic say? Well, logic looks at raw data. Certain numbers of people will have lumps that are benign, and others will have lumps that turn out to be cancerous. There’s no obvious reason behind it. Some Christians get cancer, and some Satanists don’t. Some Satanists get cancer, and some Christians don’t.
Therefore, there’s no reason to believe that prayers healed Eliza. It’s more logical and more easily explained through the data. Some people will get benign lumps. Eliza was one of those people. Unfortunately, Wendy was one in the group that gets malignant tumors. There’s no overarching cause we can identify, though that avenue is being explored through genetic research. But if one were to insist that it was God who healed Eliza, one runs into another problem.
If God is the cause of Eliza’s lump being benign, then he must also be the cause of Wendy’s lump being malignant. Both prayed to the same God. Both are sincere and good church folk. And if God is responsible for the good, he must also be responsible for the bad.
You cannot make the claim that God is only responsible for the good things, but when bad things happen, all of the sudden take that responsibility away. If you say “Oh, it’s a mystery” then Eliza’s benign lump must also be a mystery.
This has been a long post written by your friendly, neighborhood atheist. I hope you enjoyed the read. I’m looking for ideas and specific subjects to write about, so please leave something in the comments section. If you want to remain anonymous, then please email me at mvecore@gmail.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment