GIMME SHELTER

"Part of what a doctor can give a patient is consolation and reassurance. This is not to be dismissed out of hand. My doctor doesn't literally practise faith-healing by laying on of hands. But many's the time I've been instantly 'cured' of some minor ailment by a reassuring voice from an intelligent face surmounting a stethoscope."
--Richard Dawkins ("The God Delusion")





I don't like talking about my job on this blog, although, today I feel compelled to do so. I have mentioned a few times in previous posts that I work with at-risk teenagers. The facilities in which I work are classified as Residential Treatment Centers. Basically, such facilities combine aspects of boarding schools, mental hospitals and juvenile detention centers.

More specifically, I work with teens with a variety of mental disorders, a history of physical, sexual, verbal and neglectful abuse, chemical dependency and substance abuse, and quite often a criminal history. Many of my patients are either orphans or children of the state (i.e. Child Protective Services takes the kid away from the parents). Many of my patients who still live with their biological families wish they didn't, and for damn good reasons.

These are children with the worst start in life. They have every reason to give up, and many of them do. For many, Residential Treatment Centers offer the first opportunity for a real education, real medical care, a real meal and some one to talk to. For some, this is their last stop before a life in prison.

Often times people will ask me what the success rate is for my line of work. Are we able to rehabilitate these kids? Can they get a job? Will they stop using drugs? Will they perpetuate or stop the cycle of abuse into which they were born?

I usually respond, "It depends on what you consider to be 'success'".

Most people I talk to seem to have the idea that we make these kids "normal" by conventional standards. But for me success is simply having them leave our facility better off than when they came in. For example, let's say we take in a 16 year old girl who has made several attempts to kill herself; if we can improve her self-image enough that she no longer makes serious suicide attempts, but instead starts cutting her forearms and wants to start drinking as soon as she gets home--that is success. It is not ideal. But at least she is alive, and hopefully will continue treatment of some kind when she leaves.

To a certain extent, success in this field is subjective. There is no way for me to be sure that kids really are better off going to Residential Treatment Centers rather than sticking it out at home, because there is no way for me to analyze the alternative for individual patients. Choosing one life-path necessarily means you will never go down another path. But studies are being conducted which follow-up with treatment patients.

As one might expect, the results are pretty scattered, but generally speaking, after about 5 years or so, most former patients tend to speak favorably of their experience in treatment. Some even confess that they would probably be dead if they had not been to a treatment center. Alas, this is still a bit subjective, though.

This leads me to the reason I started this post. A couple of days ago, a facility where I used to work posted the following on Facebook:

"Did you know that ‪#‎spirituality‬ can be therapeutic for teens. It's true"

They also included a link to the following "study": Helping Your Teenager Discover Spirituality.

First of all, the writers of this article differentiate between religion and spirituality, but only loosely:

"Spirituality can be defined as a sacred connection between oneself and a higher power... Religion focuses on beliefs and practices associated with a religious organization or creed; spirituality focuses on inspiration, self-reflection, and personal connection to the sacred."

The thing which bothers me the most by this opening statement is that they switch the definition of "spirituality" without acknowledging it to the reader. A connection between oneself and a higher power is not the same thing as focusing on inspiration, self-reflection and a personal connection to the sacred. I'm not really sure what is meant by the last line, a "personal connection to the sacred". What does "sacred" actually mean outside of a religious context?

The article continues by making claims that spiritual and religious teens have lower occurrences of "bad things" and higher occurrences of "good things" (as defined by the authors). But again, here we have a case of people generalizing and concluding things based on a correlation (which is not causation), rather than refining the research to determine what it is about religion and spirituality--if anything--that actually contributes to positive outcomes in the development of teenagers. There is an implication here that such success lends credence to the notion that god exists; but in reality, even if religion and spirituality do cause more positive outcomes in teens, it could just as easily be explained through the placebo effect. And considering the extensive research which has been done on the placebo effect and the utter lack of conclusive evidence for the existence of any sort of god, which seems more likely?

It always bothered me that this particular facility focused so much on religion while I worked there. One of the highest ranking (and highest paid) employees at this facility was a full-time Chaplin, who required every patient to meet with her upon admission in order to determine the belief system (or lack thereof) of the patient. At first it didn't really bother me since I was still a practicing Mormon. But over the few years that I worked there, I began my deconversion and began to see the problem of their model of ever-so-gently pushing religion on their patients.

These are young, volatile, impressionable teens, many of whom are either ambivalent towards religion due to having to deal with more pressing matters (i.e. abuse), or they hate the idea that a god would let all of these terrible things happen to them. They come to a facility for psychiatric help and for the first time feel safe among adults. In this state, some are susceptible to the views of the adults they are coming to know and trust. It is fantastically inappropriate and a conflict of interests to suggest to these young, damaged minds that they need religion or spirituality in order to be happy and normal (which is the implication). For this very reason, most Residential Treatment Centers train newly-hired employees to avoid talking about religion with the patients. They are here for treatment--not church. And for this reason, none of my patients know I'm an atheist.



BONUS MATERIAL:

Here is a great response from Hemant Mehta (the Friendly Atheist) concerning the idea that teens in treatment need religion: Does Believing in God Really Lead to Better Psychiatric Treatment Outcomes?

Here is Sean Mackey (Stanford Medical) on the placebo effect:

And the placebo effect of religion:

RIDE ON

"The Horsemen are drawing nearer
On the leather steeds they ride
They have come to take your life
On through the dead of night
With the four Horsemen ride
Or choose your fate and die."
--Metallica "The Four Horsemen"



In the past 10 years or so there have been a number of books published about atheism and various religious beliefs, many of which were spurred on by the attacks on 9/11. Out of these have risen a number best-sellers by four authors, in particular: Sam Harris (The End of Faith), Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), Daniel Dennett (Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon), and Christopher Hitchens (god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything). These four men of different scholarly backgrounds have collectively become known as The Four Horsemen (some times called the "New Atheists"), due in large part to their books which seek to dismantle the supernatural claims of religion. As much as I highly recommend these books, this post is actually more about the religious responses to these books and other efforts of the New Atheist movement's push back on religiosity.

Rather than going through specific rebuttals to the books listed above (such as Alister McGrath's The Dawkins Delusion), I want to address some of the arguments which religious apologists and theologians use to counter atheist arguments. For instance, one of the key aspects of the books above and one of my own arguments against religion is a lack of evidence supporting their claims: "Without any evidence for the extraordinary claims you make, I have no choice but to withhold belief." Because of this, some apologists have responded with books about supposed evidence for god and how atheists are either in denial of the evidence or are too stupid to understand it.

One such response is from the infamous Ray Comfort (Banana Man), in his book You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think. The funny thing about Mr Comfort's book is that his "evidence" seems to be that atheists really do believe in god but deny his existence. Furthermore, while he ridicules atheists for denying his evidence for god, he also explicitly states that he knows for a fact that god exists, and that no evidence was necessary for him to come to this conclusion, nor would any evidence against god be sufficient to convince him otherwise. So, really his book should be titled 133 Pages of Ray Comfort's Theological Hypocrisy.

Another argument which comes up from time to time, is that it takes more faith to be an atheist than a believer, as proclaimed by Bill O'Reilly to Richard Dawkins:

Setting aside the obvious logical fallacy presented by Bill O'Reilly (argument from ignorance), what I find most interesting about this argument is that it belittles the virtue of faith while attempting to insult atheists for utilizing it. It is a flip-flop matched only by certain, recently unsuccessful politicians. Apologists know that evidence is more convincing than faith, and so they try to borrow the credibility of science without actually implementing its principles (i.e. testing, falsification, duplication, etc.). This is especially so in the on-going intelligent design vs evolution debate.

Of course, the primary reason they try to pin atheists with a faith-based position is to level the intellectual playing field (as well as to add insult to ignorance). But by so-doing they have passively admitted the weakness of their own faith-based beliefs.

If faith really is a virtue, why would they seek evidence of any kind? Wouldn't having less empirical support make them more virtuous?

Here is theologian Frank Turek further explaining how he doesn't have enough faith to be an atheist (I'm only posting the 1st of 5 videos; you can look up the rest if you are interested):

As with Mr O'Reilly, Mr Turek's argument is as self-defeating as it is ignorant.





BONUS MATERIAL:

Here is the Atheist Experience ridiculing Ray Comfort's book You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think:

And one of Ray Comfort actually calling the Atheist Experience:

Here is religious apologist and "Ex-Atheist" Lee Strobel talking about his best-selling book, The Case for Christ:

Frank Turek vs Christopher Hitchens on the existance of god:

And finally, the Four Horsemen talking together about their books:

AMBASTARDS

"Just as feminists wince when they hear 'he' rather than 'he or she', or 'man' rather than 'human', I want everybody to flinch whenever we hear a phrase such as 'Catholic child' or 'Muslim child'. Speak of a 'child of Catholic parents' if you like; but if you hear anybody speak of a 'Catholic child', stop them and politely point out that children are too young to know where they stand on such issues, just as they are too young to know where they stand on economics or politics."
--Richard Dawkins (author, "The God Delusion")






In high school I was very active in my church, and due to my involvement with certain prominent extracurricular activities, most of my peers knew this of me. My faith became part of my identity, at least from the perspective of others. This was mostly encouraging to me, but at times it also built a lot of pressure to be an "ambassador" (see left) for my church. If I really believed that my church had some divinely revealed truth that other churches were missing, then I had better act like it...

I some times laugh when I think about the role-reversal I have taken when compared with other people I grew up with--especially some of the more popular kids who apparently hit rock bottom (or got kind of close) and found Jesus. A few people from my graduating class are now pastors, of which only one was predictable at the time. Other kids who were not the least bit religious back then are now avid Christians of one variety or another, many of whom are quite vocal about it, as well.

It's strange, though, that those who go the other direction, such as myself, are much less likely to be vocal about their change-over. I have thought many times about confronting some of the louder religious friends of mine, in hopes of engaging in an intellectually provocative discussion. And perhaps I will some day, but in the mean time I have been examining some of their views which they present so publicly. And to be honest, I don't find what they have to say all that thought-provoking, since they tend to either preach to the choir or use old, tiresome arguments which I have already addressed on this blog many times.

One such person is Wes Dunn, who was a rather boisterous Evangelist in high school, so it is no wonder that he is now a Youth Pastor for a large church in Seattle, called City Church. In the videos below, Wes talks about a few things pertaining to his position and offers encouragement for the youth, etc. He mentions a couple of things which I want to address. As preparation for a possible upcoming confrontation (i.e. debate), I will use a standard letter format, addressed to Mr. Dunn.

Dear Mr. Wesley Dunn,

First, I find it odd and slightly menacing of you to tell sexually repressed teenagers that one of the things which helps you stay "fresh and inspired" is having sex with your wife. You say you are being "candid", and I assume you are also trying to paint an encouragable picture of a proper, traditional marriage; but if even I, an atheist, felt a bit put off by your statement, I can only imagine what it might do to a young teenage boy--filled to the brim with testosterone--who recently discovered masturbation, and even more recently discovered it is a sin... But who knows, perhaps you are part of one of those new-fangled "progressive" Christian churches which doesn't spout the usual list of damnable natural urges.

Second, you speak about morality and good versus bad reasons for doing the right thing, which in the beginning had me agreeing with you, but your final conclusion lost me entirely. As commendable as it is to do good things without the promise of a "paycheck", the very next sentence, "There is only rewards in heaven", confuses the idea of doing good things without reward. Aside from having to wait a while longer for your compensation, how is this mentality of heavenly rewards as a motivation to do good things any different than doing these things for money?

The expectation, I would argue, is even more contemptible since people who believe this kind of thing usually think of heaven as being far more grand than an earthly paycheck. In fact, I would say it is more moral to do good things for a finite paycheck, than an eternal prize after death. And along the same vein, how much more moral would a person be who knew they were going to hell and still did good things? What about a person who thinks death is the end of existence, and yet, does good things? Clearly, since they are not doing it for a prize or compensation of any kind, these people would be the most moral of all.

Lastly, you spend a great amount of time talking about "honoring" leaders and trusting God. Yet, you also qualify your advice with obviously amoral exceptions, like slavery and abuse. The interesting thing about this is that the Bible which you hold dear advocates slavery and actually tells slaves to obey their masters. It goes further by giving instructions to slave-masters as to how hard they can beat their slaves (within an inch of their life). So, you seem to be cherry-picking the moral advice you derive from the Bible.

I am curious how you differentiate between the moral and immoral parts of the Bible. If you say the "Spirit of God", then I would ask: Why does the perfect word of God require such divine inspiration to discern the morality of what is supposed to be the "Good Book" from which Christians claim to get their morals. Why all the confusion? How do you know it is actually the "Spirit of God" and not your own mind? Isn't it more likely that you are just rationalizing your own moral compass with what you read in the Bible? Furthermore, if all Christians claim to use the "Spirit of God" to properly interpret the Bible, why are there so many arguments about things like gay rights among Christians, all of which cite the same Holy Book? How do you know that you are interpreting it correctly?

I look forward to your response, but let's be honest, you are never going to read this, let alone respond to it.

Skeptically Yours,


Circle Squared





OK, here are the videos:

Part 1

Part 2

THE ATHEISM TAPES

Last summer I stumbled upon the following videos on Netflix (of all places) and I have been meaning to post them for quite a while. The videos, aptly called "The Atheism Tapes", are extended conversations between seasoned British actor Jonathan Miller (host) with various scientists, philosophers and even a British theologian from a BBC program on atheism (the introduction explains this more). Enjoy.

British Philosopher Colin McGinn:

American Physicist and Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg

American Philosopher Daniel Dennett:

American Playwright Arthur Miller (Death of a Salesman, The Crucible):

British Evolutionary Biologist Richard Dawkins:

British Theologian Denys Turner

PITY THE FOOL

"Surrendered people obey God's word, even if it doesn't make sense"
--Pastor Rick Warren





In my youth I was very skeptical of other religious belief systems. I viewed Pentecostals through the lens of Mormonism and saw their "miracles" as fraudulent parlor tricks used to "ooo and awe" full auditoriums. Very rarely (if ever) did I confront those who I perceived as victims of charlatans, and instead carried myself in smug satisfaction and self-righteous demeanour as one with "the truth". Although, ironically, I was not self-aware enough to apply this same scrutiny to my own ridiculous and unfounded beliefs.

As I have become more familiar with the "New Atheist" movement, I have found that many other people were in the same boat as I. It is quite easy to play the part of the part-time skeptic. But this leaves room for cognitive dissonance and logical inconsistencies, which for a true skeptic would make holding any unjustified belief a near impossibility. So, as I grew as a skeptic and began applying my skepticism to my own belief system, I had no choice (in a manner of speaking) but to give up such beliefs.

In another post I referred to the case of Andrea Yates, who sacrificed her own eternal salvation so that her 5 children (all below the age of reason) would not have the opportunity to sin, thereby damning themselves to eternal hellfire. According to the implications of Christianity, this is one of the greatest sacrifices a mother can make for her children (imagine the implications this could have on abortion...), as she explains:

"It was the seventh deadly sin. My children weren't righteous. They stumbled because I was evil. The way I was raising them, they could never be saved. They were doomed to perish in the fires of hell."

In her mind, drowning her children one by one in a bathtub was the only way to save them from "the fires of hell." According to Christian theology, Yates was successful. Yet, despite having a predominately Christian jury at her trial, she was found not guilty by reason of insanity, and sent to a high security mental hospital rather than being paraded as a theological hero.

I hope I am not alone in seeing the irony of the jury finding Andrea Yates insane for acting on her religious beliefs, and then themselves going to mass on Sunday to eat the literal body and blood of Christ, or speak in tongues to the beat of gospel music. Clearly the jury is applying skepticism to Yates's beliefs. But how about their own?

It is easy for mainstream Christians to dismiss the fringe belief of Christian Scientists that diseases and other physical ailments are actually spiritual in nature and do not require medical aid. In fact, the denial of medical care is a way for Christian Scientists to flex their faith muscles.

Mainstream Christians may equally dismiss Jehovah's Witnesses when they say they can't have a life-saving blood transfusion because the blood is where the soul resides and should not be shared with another person.

Would denying medical attention to a child for these reasons be on par with the murder of Andrea Yates's 5 young boys?

How are these things any different than believing pornography destroys the soul as viciously as it does families. Or that curse words have enough power scare off the Holy Ghost and thus warrant avoiding their use, lest you be tempted by the Devil?  How about burning witches and heretics. Or believing that if you die defending your faith you will be on the fast track to heaven. How about killing the infidel in the name of Allah?

Tell me, how exactly does the sacrifice of a god satisfy the proposed demands of sin?

As Richard Dawkins has said, "Half an eye is better than no eye at all"; so then is selective skepticism better than absolute gullibility. Progress is gradual and sometimes generational. Creating an entire population instilled with good skeptical practices and a refusal to just believe things on faith may take a while. But I am hopeful.

For the record, I still think Pentecostals are nuts, but I'm a lot less smug about it. As Mr. T says (repeatedly), "I pity the Fool."












BONUS MATERIAL:

Here is Micheal Shermer (Editor in Chief of "Skeptic Magazine") on "Why people believe weird things":

Also, Andrea Yates wants to get court approval to go to church while incarcerated. And some opportunistic lawyers say it will be "therapeutic"...

AMBUSH

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
—GEORGE BERNARD SHAW





Mormons, like Scientologists, love their celebrity members. The Osmond Family, Gladys Knight, Steve Young, Mitt Romney, Jon Heder and now Brandon Flowers (more on him later) are often lauded by Mormons as Pillars of their faith. Scientologists actively seek out celebrities for this very purpose as if to say "See, we are too a real religion." Mormons do tend to be more subtle about their public figures, but will rarely miss an opportunity to point them out.

I suppose this is natural. Celebrities bring a face of normalcy and mainstream acceptance to organizations. Just look at PETA. It is sad, though, when people rely on the fame of others as an argument in their favor. Fame is not an argument. Many famous people are wrong about a great many things. Again, just look at PETA... This doesn't even qualify as an argument from authority (a logical fallacy), since celebrities are rarely authorities on much of anything. And why would they be? Would you expect someone like NFL quarterback Steve Young to be an expert on Mormon history?

Famous Mormons often find themselves barraged by inquiries about their faith. Most of them say they are comfortable with this, which is likely due to the proselytizing culture within the Church. Most Mormon men have been missionaries; every first Sunday of the month members are encouraged to give their testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and the Church; members are often challenged by Sunday School Teachers to tell their non-Mormon friends and family about the Church. All of this brings upon the members an expectation to be fairly familiar with the Church's teachings and why they believe. And this is commendable.

I think every member of the Mormon Church should do a thorough examination and study of the Church's history and teachings. The problem, though, is that the few people who actually take on this task usually limit their study to Mormon sources. They refuse to examine or even acknowledge so-called "anti-Mormon" literature. They dismiss it as fraudulent misinformation or taking things out of context and coming to the wrong conclusion.

This type of spin reminds me of a time when someone told me in a conversation about religion and atheism that I was over-analyzing the religious side and thinking too much. Really? Thinking too much? How much thinking is too much? How much thinking is not enough? Should I just assume that the "right amount" of thinking is the amount which favors your point of view? This is a digression.

The point is, when people are cornered or forced to think critically about their beliefs they tend to get defensive. This brings us to Brandon Flowers, who recently appeared on a Norwegian TV show to promote his band (The Killers) and their upcoming album. Before you watch the clip below you should know that Flowers did not expect to have a religious debate on the air. Also, before you accuse Richard Dawkins of "ambushing" Flowers with some tough theological questions, you should know that Dawkins expected to have a debate with a proper theologian. In fact, once Dawkins realized that the producers has misinformed both he and Flowers about the show and that he had put the unprepared Flowers on the spot, he promptly apologized to Flowers and shook his hand.

So, what do you think? Did Dawkins "ambush" Flowers as this article from Deseret News would have you believe? Did the slightly flustered Flowers offer any valid reasons for holding his belief? Part-way through Flowers's response to Dawkins he refers to a quote from Mormon apostle Jeffrey R. Holland, which I addressed in another post a few weeks ago. Do you agree that the Book of Mormon "still stands" today, despite being analyzed and dissected by scholars for 170+ years? Would this same logic apply to the Torah, the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, or Aesop's Fables? And, perhaps most importantly, do you think Brandon Flowers was justifiably "offended" by the criticisms of Mormonism offered by Richard Dawkins?


BONUS MATERIAL:

Here is the rest of the interview with Richard Dawkins.

 

And for those interested in keeping score, here is a video of famous atheists: