America’s Most Secular and Religious Cities

The Barna Group is an Evangelical Christian polling organization that focuses on the state of Christianity in the United States. Most of its research consists of determining the demographic and ideological makeup of American Christians. According to its official mission statement:

The ultimate aim of the firm is to partner with Christian ministries and individuals to be a catalyst in moral and spiritual transformation in the United States. It accomplishes these outcomes by providing vision, information, evaluation and resources through a network of intimate partnerships.

Given this goal, the Barna Group is considered a reliable and trustworthy source regarding Christianity — after all, since it wants assist fellow Christians in engaging with one another or reaching out to secularists, its imperative to provide only the most accurate information available.

So, I thus far trust its conclusions, including the following study concerning America’s most secular cities. See where yours ranks (my hometown and current residence, Miami, Florida, is pretty high at 20th place).

The group’s criteria for determining irreligion were as follows:

Barna Group tracks the following 15 metrics related to faith, which speak to the lack of Christian identity, belief and practice. Read more of Barna Group’s research on the “Nones,” secularization and post-Christian America.

Post-Christian = meet at least 60% of the following 15 factors (9 or more factors)
Highly Post-Christian = meet at least 80% of the following 15 factors (12 or more factors)

1. do not believe in God
2. identify as atheist or agnostic
3. disagree that faith is important in their lives
4. have not prayed to God (in the last year)
5. have never made a commitment to Jesus
6. disagree the Bible is accurate
7. have not donated money to a church (in the last year)
8. have not attended a Christian church (in the last year)
9. agree that Jesus committed sins
10. do not feel a responsibility to “share their faith”
11. have not read the Bible (in the last week)
12. have not volunteered at church (in the last week)
13. have not attended Sunday school (in the last week)
14. have not attended religious small group (in the last week)
15. do not participate in a house church (in the last year)

Interesting stuff, although perhaps not terribly surprising, as most of the cities are in regions well-known for their secularism (the Northeast and the West Coast). A number of large Southern and Midwestern cities weren’t far behind though.

Meanwhile, the organization provides a list of the country’s most “Bible-minded” cities, based on an interesting metric: not only individuals who report reading the Bible in a typical week and who strongly assert the Bible is accurate in the principles it teaches. After all, many avowed atheists have read the Bible, while many pious Christians haven’t. By measuring both the knowledge and attitude toward the Bible, one can get a rough approximation of religiosity.

Unlike the previous study, this one offers a pretty detailed breakdown:

On trend with much of the New England area, cities within the state of New York were on the lower end of the Bible-minded rankings. As for patterns in the three other most populous states, the research reveals the following.

• Florida: Though in the South, most of the major cities on the peninsula rank near the bottom middle of Bible-minded cities, including West Palm Beach (28%, ranked 53rd out of 96 markets), Tampa-St. Petersburg (27%, rank: 57), Orlando (25%, rank: 64), and Miami (24%, rank: 70). The exceptions to these patterns are in the northern part of the state, including Pensacola / Mobile (45%, rank: 13) and Jacksonville (41%, rank: 20). These two cities are more on trend with other Southern states and likely reflect more of a native Floridian or Southern population and fewer transplants than the Southern Florida cities.

• California: In addition to San Francisco being among the lowest rated, most of the major California cities are in the bottom third of the rankings. The Los Angeles media market represents a pretty normal range for California cities with 24% of the residents being Bible-minded (ranking 68th out of 96 cities,). San Diego (24%, rank: 74), Sacramento (24%, rank: 72), and Fresno / Visalia (25%, rank: 66) were also bunched in the same range. Bakersfield, CA stood out as being among the most Bible-minded cities in the Pacific states (39%, rank: 26).

• Texas: As part of the traditional “Bible belt,” Texas stayed fairly true to trend, with most of it’s major cities ranking in the top half of Bible-minded cities. Dallas / Fort Worth ranked as the top Bible-minded city in Texas (38% Bible-minded, ranking at 27th) over San Antonio (36%, rank: 33), Houston (32%, rank: 39) and Austin (29%, rank: 48). Notable exceptions to the Bible-mindedness of Texas cities were Harlingen / Weslaco / McAllen / Brownsville (28%, rank: 56), Waco (27%, 59), and most significantly El Paso (23%, rank: 80). These exceptions are likely a result of these markets having a higher percentage of Hispanic Catholics, who are less likely to engage the Bible.

This didn’t surprise me. California is a large and diverse state with around 35 million people, and it’s long been split between it’s secular and liberal coastal and southern regions, and its more religious and conservative north and central ones. The influence of its large and typically pious Hispanic community can certainly be felt.

Meanwhile, Florida and Texas are fast-growing traditionally conservative states that are receiving an influx of immigrants and northerners, many of whom are irreligious or non-Christian. Demographically, they’re also fairly young and urban, two features that characterize secularism in the United States. Even among the fast-growing Hispanic communities in these states, there’s been a growth in both irreligion and Evangelical Christianity. This state of transition is reflected in the fact that both of these traditionally conservative states have become “purple” politically, although established Republicans continue to maintain most of the political power.

Here’s more analysis:

Among the nation’s largest 30 cities, 10 of them are in the top half of the Bible-minded market rankings, while 20 of them are in the bottom half. Generally speaking, the more densely populated areas tend to be less Bible oriented. Only three of the most Bible-minded cities are among the largest 30 cities—Charlotte (7th), Nashville, TN (14th) and Raleigh / Durham, NC (22nd). The other 22 top Bible-minded markets have fewer than 1 million households.

Still, among the largest markets there are many more relatively Bible-minded cities, including Dallas / Fort Worth (27th), Atlanta (28th), Indianapolis (32nd), Houston (39th), St. Louis (41st), Cleveland (43rd) and Detroit (46th).

Philadelphia (28%, rank: 52) is among the most Bible-minded cities along the eastern seaboard, ranking slightly higher than the aforementioned Northeastern cities as well as Washington, DC (25%, rank: 63) and Baltimore (26%, rank: 60).

Chicago is the nation’s third largest city, and while it tends to be a bastion of many evangelical organizations, ranks between New York and Los Angeles in terms of Bible-mindedness (23%, rank: 76th). Colorado Springs, CO, which is also home to many Christian organizations, is right in the middle of the pack (29%, rank: 51st). By comparison, Denver is ranked lower (71st) with about one in four individual’s qualifying as Bible-minded (24%).

In the Northwest portion of the country, the cities are all fairly similar, with about a quarter of the population being Bible-minded, including most notably Portland OR (25%, rank: 65th and Seattle, WA (24%, rank: 69th).

I also find the commentary at the very end interesting, as it sounds like something out of a marketing agency (indeed, George Barna, the group’s founder, expressly stated that his aim was to provide “research and marketing expertise as a service to Christian ministry”).

First, the large range of Bible-minded scores—from 52% in the highest markets to 9% in the lowest—shows just how diverse the nation’s population can be, from city to city. The rankings reflect an overall openness or resistance to the Bible, and in some markets half or more of the population claim to be open, while in other areas the proportion that is open to the Bible is more like one in ten adults. These gaps make a significant difference in the tone and tenor of conversations about Christianity, morals, public education, and spirituality, among many other topics.

Second, although there are outliers—cities in which the Bible-minded rankings are significantly above- or below-average—the overall picture that is painted depends on one’s vantage point. The least sanguine way to analyze the results would be to emphasize the lack of Bible-mindedness in America; in 91 out of 96 markets a majority of the residents are not Bible minded.

However, a more optimistic way to view those markets would be to look at those cities with at least one-fifth Bible-mindedness—meaning those areas where at least one out of five adults are open to engaging and esteeming the Bible. Among some researchers, this proportion—20%—is often thought to be something of a social or technological “tipping point” (for example, once one in five people had mobile phones, the momentum toward more people owning mobile phones began to grow exponentially). In this analysis, 83 out of 96 cities in the U.S. have at least 20% of their residents qualifying as Bible-minded. Christian leaders should recognize that most of the major cities in the nation continue to have basis for biblical engagement among a significant share of the population.

As ministry leaders in particular, it’s important to keep both vantage points in tension. Whether you live in a city ranked in the top half of Bible-minded cities or in the bottom half of Bible-minded cities, there are still tens of thousands of people to reach regarding both the message of the Scriptures and their importance. However, no matter what type of city you live in, there is also a significant remnant of Bible-minded individuals. The key is to not merely “preach to those insiders” but instead to equip and empower those who do believe with a strong and relevant message to take out into their communities, vocations and spheres of influence. They are the tipping point and can have great influence on the greater city.

Take all that as you will. Personally, I find it disquieting to speak of Christianity as if it were some product to sell, but of course, that’s not surprising given my own secularism.

How We Discuss Religion

Dawkins is perhaps the most recognizable face of atheism, and one of the most vocal critics of religion. I’m sure most readers are familiar enough with him to know that he’s a controversial figure that’s derided even by many secularists for his harsh and uncompromising approach towards religious belief (which he explicitly considers to be a form of delusion).

Some time ago, he got in a spat with Will Hutton of the Observer, who, among other criticisms, takes issues with Dawkins’ style. The pugnacious nonbeliever responds to these arguments in a piece in the Guardian, “What is the proper place for religion in Britain’s public life?”

Reflection on Atheist Identity

The label “atheist” is so odious and stigmatized that even many atheists themselves shun it (admittedly, myself included sometimes). Interestingly, most national polls report a higher number of people who “don’t believe in God” than people who explicitly identify as “atheists” (usually by a margin of 2 to 1). The position of non-belief is less disquieting to the irreligious than the term used to describe it – the quaint result of generations of demonization, condemnation, and prejudice. The negative connotation of atheism is so pervasive across the public consciousness that not even the godless themselves can shake it off and be at ease with it.

New NPR Special: Losing Our Religion

I’m a big fan of NPR, as it has helped me through many a long and stressful commute with its solid reporting and interesting talk shows. The public broadcaster (which, contrary to popular belief, is overwhelmingly self-sufficient),  never seems to run out of quality programming. Just this past Sunday, it began a new daily special Losing Our Religion, which explores the various issues concerning the secular community here in the United States.

Rationally Religious

Jared Diamond, a polymath with a number of professions and specialists, has written a new piece in Salon about religion titled “Jared Diamond: It’s irrational to be religious.” It’s an excerpt from his latest book, The World Until Yesterday: What Can We Learn from Traditional Societies?, which I haven’t yet read, but certainly plan to (his most well-known book, and the one that introduced me to him, was Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fate of Human Societies).

Diamond, who is an atheist that regards religion as mere superstition, nonetheless raises some fair academic questions about the origins and character of religion – namely, why do religious beliefs take the particular form that they do, and why do they seem so compelling to the majority of the human species?

It’s a question I often ask myself as well, given the universal prevalence of religion even to this day (albeit a prevalence that is both waning and altering in its character). I know that religious people aren’t simply stupid or crazy (at least not all of them, though that could be said of many secularists as well), and that like most human phenomena, there are complex reasons for it.

Diamond’s conclusion, which others have postulated as well, is that religion serves a sociological and psychological purpose: it is a form of bonding through group solidarity, a way of maintaining community and cooperation, which are vital to our survival as a social species.

The more of one’s life is wrapped up with one’s group, the more crucial it is to be able to identify group members correctly and not to be deceived by someone who seeks temporary advantage by claiming to share your ideals but who really doesn’t. If that man carrying a Boston Red Sox banner, whom you had accepted as a fellow Red Sox fan, suddenly cheers when the New York Yankees hit a home run, you’ll find it humiliating but not life-threatening. But if he’s a soldier next to you in the front line and he drops his gun (or turns it on you) when the enemy attacks, your misreading of him may cost you your life.

That’s why religious affiliation involves so many overt displays to demonstrate the sincerity of your commitment: sacrifices of time and resources, enduring of hardships, and other costly displays that I’ll discuss later. One such display might be to espouse some irrational belief that contradicts the evidence of our senses, and that people outside our religion would never believe. If you claim that the founder of your church had been conceived by normal sexual intercourse between his mother and father, anyone else would believe that too, and you’ve done nothing to demonstrate your commitment to your church. But if you insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that he was born of a virgin birth, and nobody has been able to shake you of that irrational belief after many decades of your life, then your fellow believers will feel much more confident that you’ll persist in your belief and can be trusted not to abandon your group.

One thing to add is that such rituals and norms won’t bond you to your group unless 1) you believe that others genuinely believe them and 2) you also sincerely believe.  There’s no genuine sense of bonding if you follow these rituals simply to conform to the social and religious norms around you.

Accounts from “closet atheists” – among whom are clergy – reveal that they continue to publicly conform to these beliefs largely to avoid being ostracized (or worse), but no longer feel any sincere sense of connection or solidarity. Similarly, people will often drop out of their congregation, if not abandon organized religion entirely, largely because they perceive their coreligionists to insincere, due to demonstrations of hypocrisy or duplicity.

Perhaps this also explains (partly at least) why heretics, apostates, blasphemers, and others who don’t toe the religious line are are usually met with repression or even death: they undermine the social cohesion that is so vital for maintaining order (or consolidating the power of ruling elites, whose relationship with organized religion was close, if not intertwined).

Obviously, this religiously-based social cohesion can have beneficial results as well, especially in helping to respond to individual or community tragedies. Religion’s help to maintain the institutional and organizational framework that helps facilitate everything from charity or even job searches (indeed, in many small towns and communities, the church is the center of cultural, political, and economic life). This is why many atheists nonetheless see religions as practical, or at the very least acceptable, even if they don’t agree with them. Of course, the potential for abuse is always there, as history has shown time and again.

Anyway, Diamond goes on to note another key reason for religion’s potency:

Nevertheless, it’s not the case that there are no limits to what can be accepted as a religious supernatural belief. Scott Atran and Pascal Boyer have independently pointed out that actual religious superstitions over the whole world constitute a narrow subset of all the arbitrary random superstitions that one could theoretically invent. To quote Pascal Boyer, there is no religion proclaiming anything like the following tenet: “There is only one God! He is omnipotent. But he exists only on Wednesdays.” Instead, the religious supernatural beings in which we believe are surprisingly similar to humans, animals, or other natural objects, except for having superior powers. . . Hence it doesn’t surprise me that gods in many religions are pictured as smiting evil-doers, but that no religion holds out the dream of existing just on Wednesdays. Thus, religious supernatural beliefs are irrational, but emotionally plausible and satisfying. That’s why they’re so believable, despite at the same time being rationally implausible.

This reminds me of surveys (none of which I could locate at the moment) that asked individuals the reasons they “found” religion after having previously been secular. In most instances, they cited emotional or psychological factors: a traumatic experience, a purported miracle, the need for a sense of purpose or longing, and so on. Indeed, I’ve encountered such motivations through my many engagements with religious believers of all persuasions.

It reminds me of the correlation between high rates of religiosity in a given society, and a higher prevalence of crime, poverty, violence, and other socioeconomic ills. If one looks at the majority of the world’s most prosperous and stable nations, they are relatively more secular than the global average; conversely, nearly all of the world’s most impoverished and politically troubled countries demonstrate higher rates of piety.

This pattern can be seen in the US as well, with the deeply religious states of the “Bible Belt” typically recording far higher rates of crime, poverty, and so on than the more secular states of the Northeast and Northwest. Basically, the parts of the world in which people have less to worry about – in terms of money, civil liberties, personal safety – tend to be less religious. Secularism (and to a lesser extent atheism) rises in conjunction with individual and societal prosperity. There are exceptions of course, and this is merely a trend, not an iron rule. But it’s something to consider.

Obviously, the reasons for human social dysfunction (like that of all of our behavior) are very complex, but this relationship between piety and one’s socioeconomic or psychological conditions – both individually and socially – suggests that religion’s serve some sort of practical role as a source of comfort, purpose, and community (the last of which also gives us comfort). This also helps to explain why religion is so universal in our species, and why religions often alter in conjunction with economic and political developments (for example, more organized and politically developed civilizations tend to have more organized religions).

On a more personal level, this explains why my atheism was more comforting following my adoption of a secular humanist framework. Atheism in itself offers little to nothing to work with – it’s merely the absence of religion, and to have no religion is one thing, but to have no purpose or guiding principles is another. Embracing secular ethics and guidelines – and the growing community of those who share them – has served as my substitute to supernatural religion. It’s not for everyone, but it suits me just fine.

Religion dying off: "Nones" are world's third largest "faith"

Reblogged from Why Evolution Is True:

• 

The results of a new study on the prevalence of world religion were summarized in the New York Times last week, and I've now read the full report. The survey, "The global religious landscape" (download full report here) was conducted by the Pew Research Center (now in collaboration with the Templeton Foundation!).   It's a long report (80) pages, but unless you're interested in the variation among nations, there are only a few salient results for us.

Read more… 1,101 more words

Organized religions seem to be giving way to more personalized, individualistic, and informal belief systems. Very interesting development.

Fighting Anti-Atheist Sentiment

There is an article by atheist activist Greta Cristina, written for AlterNet, that tackles a very underrated civil rights issue in America: the widespread contempt, and subsequent legal discrimination, towards nonbelievers. Atheist are frequently accused of playing the “victim card” when they raise this issue, and they’re often met with the curt response that such discrimination is illegal anyway, so we’ve got nothing to fear. But as Cristina notes, what’s on the books is hardly a deterrent:

If you’ve ever made this “discrimination against atheists is against the law” argument, I have some really bad news for you. You may want to sit down for this, it may come as a shock:

People sometimes break the law.

Theft is against the law — but people sometimes steal. Bribery is against the law — but people sometimes bribe other people. Arson is against the law — but people sometimes set buildings on fire.

Anti-atheist discrimination is against the law; in the United States, anyway. But people still sometimes discriminate against atheists.

It’s illegal for public schools to prevent students from viewing atheist Web sites, while allowing them to look at religious ones. But the San Antonio Independent School District did it anyway.

It’s illegal to make atheists swear religious oaths when they testify in court. But the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in Fort Myers did it anyway.

It’s illegal for the U.S. military to spend money evangelizing to U.S. soldiers, todemand that U.S. soldiers attend chapel, or to order U.S. soldiers to take a“spiritual fitness” test and order them to visit evangelizing chaplains when they fail it. But the U.S. military did it anyway.

It’s illegal for businesses to give church-goers discounts they don’t give to non-believers. But the Fisherman’s Quarters II restaurant in Asheville, N.C. did it anyway.

It’s illegal to deny atheist organizations the right to advertise in venues where religious groups advertise regularly. But when American Atheists and the NEPA Freethought Society tried to place a bus ad in Pennsylvania that simply had the word, “atheists,” with the names and URLs of the organizations in smaller type, the transit system rejected the ad because it was “too controversial.”

It’s illegal to deny atheist students in public high schools the right to organize clubs. But it happens all the time. Talk to Secular Student Alliance high school specialist JT Eberhard. He spends a ridiculous amount of his working day pushing high school administrations to stop throwing up illegal roadblocks to atheist students, and to let them have the clubs they’re legally allowed to have.

And the list goes on, and on, and on.

Talk to the Freedom From Religion Foundation, or Americans United for Separation of Church and State, or the National Center for Science Education, or the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, or American Atheists. Ask them about the lawsuits they’re filing every month — heck, every week — about public school prayers, bible instruction in public schools, public schools’ promotion of faith and religious activities as “developmental assets,” government displays of the Ten Commandments and other religious texts, city council meetings and other government events being opened with prayers,religious creationism being taught in the public schools, or any of hundreds of similar incidents.

And then tell me — or any other atheist — that we don’t experience discrimination.

Unfortunately, it gets worse. There have been several high profile cases as of late that reveal the consequences of standing up to these sorts of things. Like many other minority groups, fighting this kind of discrimination can be as costly as being disenfranchised by it (indeed, that’s pretty much the idea: don’t speak out or else).

High school student and atheist Jessica Ahlquist fought a legal battle she never should have had to fight: the battle to get her public, taxpayer-paid high school to take down a prayer banner from the auditorium. From a purely legal perspective, this was an utterly non-controversial issue: decades of legal precedent clearly supported her position, and to anyone familiar with the law, the ruling in her favor was almost entirely unsurprising.

But as a result of filing this lawsuit, Ahlquist was bullied, ostracized and threatened with violence. She was called “evil” in public by her state representative, and was targeted with multiple threats of brutal violence, rape and death. And this wasn’t just from hateful strangers trolling on the Internet — it came from her own schoolmates and her own community. This wasn’t in the Bible Belt — it was in Rhode Island.

And Ahlquist is hardly alone. When atheist student Damon Fowler tried to stop his public high school from having an illegal prayer at his graduation, he was physically threatened, publicly demeaned by one of his teachers, pilloried and ostracized by his community, and kicked out of his home by his parents. When atheist student Skyler Curtis tried to publicize his group at his high school, his posters were torn down, the local newspaper ran a letter from a parent calling his atheism an “atrocity,” and he received threats of violence. When atheist John Kieffer protested prayers at his local school board meeting, he was arrested.

Not everyone is able to fight these fights. Not everyone is able to risk hateful ostracism and violent threats from their community. It’s hard enough for a 16-year-old high school student like Jessica Ahlquist to face down this kind of venomous hostility. It’s even harder when you’re trying to hold down a job and support your family, and you literally can’t afford to alienate your bosses and co-workers and customers. Yes, the law is mostly on our side, and atheists and church-state separation advocates generally win these lawsuits. (Although not always — more on that in a tic.) But it doesn’t do much good to have the law on your side if fighting a legal battle is going to destroy your life.

Cristina goes on to highlight heart-wrenching cases where parents were explicitly denied custody of their children for being nonreligious. I can’t imagine having to make the sort of sacrifice in the name of freedom of conscience, of facing that level of public shaming and repression just because I’m putting out established legal precedent. Luckily, I live in a relatively secular part of my otherwise conservative state (Florida). But given the widespread and visceral dislike of atheists, I mustn’t become too complacent. There’s a reason why

The fact that atheists are the least-trusted group in America? Totally screwed-up — and totally legal. The fact that atheists are the minority group Americans least want their children to marry? Totally screwed-up — and totally legal. The fact that only 54 percent of Americans think atheists could share their vision of society?Totally screwed-up — and totally legal. The fact that only 54 percent of Americans would vote for an atheist for president – a lower number than any other group? Totally screwed-up — and totally legal. People have the legal right to not vote for an atheist… just like they have the legal right to not vote for a woman, or an African American, or a Muslim, or a Jew. It’s still discrimination. It’s still screwed-up.

And it’s still worth fighting.

And to be clear…

Is anti-atheist bigotry as bad as homophobia or racism, misogyny or transphobia? No. Almost certainly not. Not in the U.S., anyway. It’s worse in some ways — we consistently show up in polls as the least trusted group in America, and the least likely to be voted for – but atheists don’t seem to be subject to the same level of physical violence as gay or trans people, or the same level of economic oppression as women or people of color.

That’s not the point. Here is the point.

If you were mugged, nobody would tell you, “Quit whining — there are laws against mugging, you have legal protection, you don’t have anything to complain about.” The fact that there are laws against mugging did not stop you from getting mugged. It is reasonable for you to say something about it, and to express distress that it happened. And if muggings are happening a lot in your town or your country, it is reasonable to ask your community to pay attention, and to do something about it.

Atheists are getting mugged. Atheists are experiencing real, law-breaking discrimination. The fact that it’s illegal does not always stop it from happening. It is reasonable for us to speak out about it. And it is reasonable for us to expect people to give a damn. It is reasonable to expect our friends, our families, our colleagues, our communities, our country, to pay attention — and to do something about it.

I couldn’t have said it better myself. I think it’s in the interest of every law-abiding and ethical member of our (ostensibly) free society to ensure that these sorts of things are talked about and dealt with. I’d gladly defend the right of my opponents to be treated fairly and equally before the law. That’s supposed to be one of the central things that units us as a nation.

Religion and Sports

I find that the infusion of religiosity in sports raises some interesting questions.

For one thing, if every team prays to God to win, and winning teams always credit God for their victory, what do losing teams think? That God wasn’t with them? That they’re being punished or didn’t pray hard enough? Why is God choosing sides in a sports match in the first place? Not only does that make competitive sports seem rather pointless, but it makes me wonder why God isn’t busy answering the prayers of devout people who end up dying of cancer or something.

(Note that based on some anecdotal observation, it seems that players from the losing team rarely, if ever, invoke God during post-game interviews, even though those same players are observed doing so after they win – there’s cognitive dissonance for you).

I’ve had these thoughts since the Tim Tebow controversy was first raised a few months ago, which I discussed here. These reflections have been rekindled by an episode of the Humanist Hour podcast titled “Onward Christian Athletes,” the eponymous name of a book written by Tom Krattenmaker that discusses the intersection of Evangelical Christianity and sports, namely within the NBA, MLB, and NFL (I also recommend people check out the Humanist Hour as well, since it covers a variety of interesting subjects.)

To my knowledge, this is the first research of its kind concerning this topic. I’m not too into sports – surprising, I know – but it’s still a fascinating topic to consider given the public role that sports plays in our society (I never knew, for example, that every sports team has a Christian chaplain).

Krattenmaker, who writes opinion pieces on religious topics for USA Today, explores the deeper meaning, motivation, and psychology of religious athletes, as well as the intentional efforts of religious groups to use sports as a venue for evangelizing. One of the more troubling revelations was the apparent institutionalization of Evangelical Christianity in particular, to the extent that players who are non-Christians, or have a more liberal Christian theology, feel excluded or pressured to conform.

A few athletes even shared their sense of obligation to act as a “platform” for preaching faith, which leaves me to wonder to what extent players are staging their devout proclamations under some guidance. At least one player mentioned how his status as a sports start makes him particularly more influential in proselytizing, even towards people who may otherwise be disinterested. So it’s something to consider.

All I know is that if I were a pious person, I’d rather direct my prayer to help some starving child in the third world, or someone dying of terminal illness, than to win some ultimately trivial game that should be based more on personal skill and fitness than divine intervention. But maybe I’m just being a buzz kill.

 

The Problem of Hell

One of the most disturbing aspects of Christianity (as well as Islam) is the existence of Hell. The idea that God would send – or otherwise allow – people to suffer eternal torture for things like masturbation, adultery, or not knowing he exists is both absurd and despicable.

Think of what it’s like to burn your hand on a stove, and imagine that pain consuming your entire body forever without any chance to appeal or escape. How could any omni-benevolent, unimaginably intelligent being abide by such a system, let alone create it in the first place? Would you let your children or loved ones suffer that sort of fate over ultimately trivial infractions?

Alarmingly, even otherwise intelligent and well-adjusted people buy into this unethical and illogical belief. Prominent theologian and apologist William Lane Craig is perhaps one of the better known examples of someone trying to rationalize the compatibility of a loving God with the ultimate form of suffering imaginable.

In chapter 10 of his 2010 book, On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision, he shares his frightening view of Hell, in which he defends it as a literal place of torment that is acceptably and logically a part of God’s design. As much as I’d like to take him to task on this nonsense, someone else has already had the pleasure of doing so, and since his arguments are both good and reflective of my own, I’ll share them.

The nameless writer of the website Evangelical Realism has been countering every part of Craig’s odious book, and the one devoted to chapter 10 is humorously titled “The Hell with Christianity.” Though his style can be abrasive and at times profane, he makes good points once you look past that (I don’t personally don’t mind but I’m giving fair warning to those that do).

He starts by addressing the underlying inconsistency of the existence of hell that I discussed earlier, noting that even Craig himself seems to try to weasel out of it (note that his statements are italicized and quoted).

Craig has a real problem here and that is that he himself cannot stomach what the Bible really says about Hell. Read Matthew 25. Read Jesus’ description of God’s attitude towards the unsaved. It’s not, “Oh dear, you’re going to Hell, if only there were something I could do to save you.” God’s attitude can be summed up by two words: “Fuck you.” You pissed Me off, and I am throwing your ass in Hell, and you can stay there. No apologies, no regrets. The God of the Bible absolutely does throw people in Hell, and doesn’t ask for Craig’s approval or consent. Call that Inconsistency #3: Craig has to reinvent damnation before he can defend it.

“Our eternal destiny thus lies in our own hands. It’s a matter of our free choice where we shall spend eternity. Those who are lost, therefore, are self-condemned; they separate themselves from God despite God’s will and every effort to save them, and God grieves over their loss.”

Let’s count the inconsistencies in these three brief sentences. Inconsistency [#1]: a misinformed choice is not really free. God does not show up in real life, which limits us to the kind of choices where you either gullibly embrace whatever men tell you about God (and let’s face it, that could be almost anything) or else you stick to the facts, which ends up making you an atheist. If God is real and is hiding from us, His absence is denying us the opportunity to know what our real choices are, and thereby denying us the opportunity to make a truly free choice.

Exactly, how do we know what the real God is like? Jews, Muslims, and many others are just as convinced that they know the true God as any Christian. How are we to know who’s right, given that none of them can offer any more evidence than the other?

Furthermore, many Christians themselves can’t even agree on what God is like or what he wants from us: the religion is split into hundreds, even thousands, of different sects depending on how you count. There are wildly different interpretations of the Bible, the nature of Christ, the nature of God, and so on. Should I follow the Catholics? The Lutherans? The growing number of unaffiliated people who reject organized Christianity completely?

Inconsistency [#2]: separation. We have not separated ourselves from God. We’re here; God isn’t. It wasn’t skeptics who ascended into Heaven and left Jesus all alone here on the earth. We have no control over God’s willingness and ability to show up in real life. The gap created by His absence is not one we can bridge (not even by credulity and superstition). If God wants to eliminate the separation, it’s up to Him to show up.

Same problem as before: people will claim to have seen God or felt his presence, and they’ll cite that as proof. But again, every religion has people who’ve claimed to seen or experience their version of the divine. Which do we believe? Plus, there are plenty of people who hear voices or think they’re prophets, and they’re usually written off as crazy (including by religious people): how do we separate mental illness from the real deal? We can’t just take anyone’s word on it.

Inconsistency [#3]: every effort to save us? Get real. The most fundamental, trivial, and obvious “effort” would be to show up in real life, tell us that He loves us, and offer us a relationship with Himself. Notice I say “in real life” and “tell us,” not “show up in an ancient legend” and “tell a few guys who died 2,000 years ago.” Does He want to save us, or did He stop caring once the apostles were gone? Show me a tangible effort happening in the real world (as opposed to happening in the superstitious worldview of a self-convincing Christian), and then we’ll talk.

I always think of the story of the Apostle Thomas, who was the only one to doubt that Christ had resurrected. God subsequently showed him proof, and Jesus appeared before him in the flesh, bearing the wounds of his crucifixion. He convinced and (subsequently saved) Thomas yet hasn’t done so for the billions of nonbelievers that have come and gone since. I’d be more than happy to believe in God if I had proof, as would most people. So why did Thomas alone get that benefit?

Inconsistency [#4] God grieves? Not in the Bible. It makes believers sad because it’s so obviously inconsistent with the idea of God as a genuinely loving Father who really cares whether or not the vast majority of His children suffer for all eternity. But time and again, in the parables of Jesus, the “guilty” are dispatched to their eternal judgment with nary a particle of remorse or regret on the Lord’s part.

Indeed, as soft and moralistic an image as Jesus has, we should remember that it is with his arrival that the concept of Hell is introduced (the proceeding Jewish part of the Bible barely touches on the afterlife, let alone hell). He may have preached many nice things, but he also made it a point that transgression would be punished swiftly.

Sure, some lines in the Bible suggest that this saddens both the son and the father. But many others don’t hint at any pity. If you’re a loving parent, would you not feel some remorse at seeing your child get burned alive for eternity because they didn’t follow some doctrine or another?

The writer in Evangelical Realism also addresses another major problem with hell: the obvious unfairness and cruelty of making people suffer infinite punishment for passing transgressions. No legitimate justice system on this Earth will lock you up for the rest of your life (much less torture you) if you break minor laws without remorse. The only regimes that do that are totalitarian ones (think of how Stalin or Hitler executed people for not adhering to their respective state ideologies – even that was more merciful than what God would have in mind if you don’t believe in him).

“We could agree that every individual sin that a person commits deserves only a finite punishment. But it doesn’t follow from this that all of a person’s sins taken together as a whole deserve only a finite punishment. If a person commits an infinite number of sins, then the sum total of all such sins deserves infinite punishment.

Now, of course, nobody commits an infinite number of sins in the earthly life. But what about in the afterlife? Insofar as the inhabitants of hell continue to hate God and reject Him, they continue to sin and so accrue to themselves more guilt and more punishment. In a real sense, then, hell is self-perpetuating. In such a case, every sin has a finite punishment, but because sinning goes on forever, so does the punishment.”

Assuming God is merciless, of course. Otherwise, since He’s the ultimate arbiter of how much punishment each sin deserves, He could, for example, arrange for the punishment earned to be slightly less than the punishment received, and thus allow His beloved children to eventually escape from the torments of Hell. Or He could simply pardon them—it’s not like He’s going to be impeached for showing too much mercy as Judge. Or, to take it in a different direction, He could simply make them unconscious, or even non-existent. They might not be saved, but at least they’re not being tortured for all eternity, or racking up more punishment. Or again, He could not send them to Hell in the first place. The Bible does say that the wages of sin is death, and the people at the Last Judgment are pretty much all dead, so they’ve paid the penalty already.

Indeed, hell is not only unethical but illogical. God could have made the world however he wanted. Why, despite all his boundless love, would he create something like Hell? Of all the different and proportionate forms of justice out there, which even we petty and imperfect beings could devise, why did God go for something so horrific and unjust? What “mysterious plan” could justify something like this?

Faith Healing

According to the blog totalpolitics, three Christian MPs in the United Kingdom have sent a letter to the government agency in charge of overseeing advertising, protesting a coming ban on any advertisement that promotes faith healing as legitimate medicine.

Gary Streeter (Con), Gavin Shuker (Lab) and Tim Farron (Lib Dem) say that they want the Advertising Standards Authority to produce “indisputable scientific evidence” to say that prayer does not work – otherwise they will raise the issue in Parliament.

The MPs wrote to dispute the ruling after the outpouring of support and prayer for football star Fabrice Muamba.

Muamba had suffered cardiac arrest during a game in March and was revived well over an hour later. Remarkable as that was, such revivals have occurred before, and there’s no reason to believe God was behind it – after all, how many people that get heart attacks or other terminal conditions are prayed for as well, only to die anyway? How do we demarcate when it’s God’s will?

Last month, a Christian group in Bath was banned from using leaflets that said: “NEED HEALING? GOD CAN HEAL TODAY! We believe that God loves you and can heal you from any sickness.”

The ASA said the claims were misleading and could discourage people from seeking essential medical treatment.

I agree with the logic of the regulators, though this opens up into a whole other debate about whether government should have a role in protecting consumers from their own credulity. Some argue that such advertisements are misleading enough to constitute fraud, and thus they should fall under legal purview; others believe that it’s up to people themselves to exercise caution, as the state cannot be expected to keep up with every scam or analyze every claim that is made.

Regardless, of the nuances of this issues, none of it factor’s into the argument that the MPs are making, as the transcript of the letter shows.

We are writing on behalf of the all-party Christians in Parliament group in Westminster and your ruling that the Healing On The Streets ministry in Bath are no longer able to claim, in their advertising, that God can heal people from medical conditions.

We write to express our concern at this decision and to enquire about the basis on which it has been made. It appears to cut across two thousand years of Christian tradition and the very clear teaching in the Bible. Many of us have seen and experienced physical healing ourselves in our own families and churches and wonder why you have decided that this is not possible.

On what scientific research or empirical evidence have you based this decision?

You might be interested to know that I (Gary Streeter) received divine healing myself at a church meeting in 1983 on my right hand, which was in pain for many years. After prayer at that meeting, my hand was immediately free from pain and has been ever since. What does the ASA say about that? I would be the first to accept that prayed for people do not always get healed, but sometimes they do. That is all this sincere group of Christians in Bath are claiming.

It is interesting to note that since the traumatic collapse of the footballer Fabrice Muamba the whole nation appears to be praying for a physical healing for him. I enclose some media extracts. Are they wrong also and will you seek to intervene?

We invite your detailed response to this letter and unless you can persuade us that you have reached your ruling on the basis of indisputable scientific evidence, we intend to raise this matter in Parliament.

The makes its case based on nothing more than undocumented anecdotes. Apparently its authors have never heard of coincidences – could it be all that medical technology that is keeping Muamba alive, regardless of what people are saying or doing? Correlation doesn’t equal causation – a lot of sick people eat hospital food or drink water, and they may happen to recovery at a rate equal to prayer. Does that mean those things have healing prosperities?

And why is it only certain conditions ever get healed, namely those for which natural recovery can’t be entirely ruled out. What about amputees or people that break their bones? What about the thousands of nonreligious people in countries like Sweden, Japan, or elsewhere that get sick all the time, but recover just fine?

I also wonder what their views are of non-Christian who cite their respective rituals, witch doctors, or divine entities for their recovery. There’s as much evidence – and that is to say none – that such things worked for them, even though that would conflict with the Christian worldview of these politicians.

By contrast, there’s evidence showing that prayer has no appreciable effect on healing someone, equivalent to a placebo at best.It’s a nice gesture, and it wouldn’t normally hurt for someone to do it anyway, provided they’re receiving evidence-based medical attention. Even if it doesn’t do anything, I like that some of my religious friends are thoughtful enough to pray for my wellbeing.

The problem is that claims by groups like Healing On The Streets Ministry can be dangerous. While the MPs at least have the decency to admit that faith healing doesn’t always work, how many of these groups will do the same (especially considering the money that can be made by cynical fraudsters?). A lot of people could die or suffer because they’re seeking unproven spiritual alternatives in place of effective treatment.

Indeed, there have been numerous cases of people losing their lives in this way. It’s one thing if you’re terminally ill and going to die anyway (though even that would be unfortunate, since it could worsen your condition). But a lot of people with otherwise curable or minor conditions suffer more than they need to.

At any rate, it’s unlikely that these representatives will get their way. The UK is a pretty secular place and even then, a lot of their religious folks wouldn’t bet their lives on faith healing alone.

Martin Robbins of the Guardian offers his own analysis of this situation. The following excerpt points out the main problem with faith healing in principle:

Before I go any further; it cannot be emphasized enough how hideously arrogant and un-Christian the idea of prayer-healing is. Let’s assume for a moment that we all believe in God, and we all agree that he is generally awesome and has the ability to heal sick people if he so chooses.

The implication of prayer-healing is that special people can demand that God heals someone, and he’ll just do it. That only makes sense if you believe that a) God is a bit absent-minded and doesn’t really notice all the sick people until some clever human points them out to him, or b)God is the fourth emergency service (the AA [Alcoholics Anonymous, which is spiritual based] come fifth in this world-view), and we’re entitled customers who pay with prayer and should damn well get some service.

Either way, the message from faith-healers – and the hapless morons who support them – is clear: ”Fuck God’s plan, He’s our bitch.” I’m not a Christian myself, but if I were, I think I’d be pretty frustrated with this sort of selfish, arrogant attitude, and I’d laugh in the face of people who claimed to have some divine right over His powers.

I’m not much for the vulgarity, but I do agree with the overall point. Millions of people worldwide, many of them devout Christians, die from all manner of horrible diseases. Doubtless, nearly all of them pray to recover, but most don’t pull through. How does God determine who to help? The person who gets the most prayers, prays first, or prays the hardest? Why even make a distinction in the first place? Surely a being of infinite wisdom and love can’t be that petty?

The natural response to such questions, as I’ve received time and again, is to say its all part of his vague and unknowable plan. But this line of reasoning is nothing more than post facto justification – a way to rationalize any outcome that emerges, regardless of the contradictions.

If someone recovers, especially in response to prayer, he or she was undoubtedly healed by an act of God. But if they die despite those prayers, it still remains God’s will. For whatever mysterious reason, that person needed to die, no matter how senseless or painful the experience. It’s akin to how survivors of a disaster will credit God for their safety, while the loved ones of those who perished will no doubt see those deaths as indicating that it was “their time” – even if the victims were just as religious and praying just as hard as the ones selected to be saved.

There’s really no arguing with this kind of logic, because it wins out regardless of the results. I could conceive of there being some kind of greater power out there, however unlikely it may be to me. But I can’t imagine a personal and loving God being so capricious, or having such a seemingly arbitrary way of governing the universe.

You could argue, as everyone does, that God is mysterious, and to comprehend his actions and intentions is beyond our limited minds. But if that’s the case, how does anyone credit him with healing? How would anyone really know what he wants and what he partakes in if he’s that incomprehensible? It seems God is only mysterious when the inconsistencies about his nature become uncomfortable to dwell on.

That’s why I’m an agnostic nonbeliever, for while I don’t hold a belief in God pending clear evidence, I also think we can’t possibly make any assertions one way or the other, given that everyone has a wildly different opinion on the subject. It’s strange to simultaneously admit that God is beyond understanding even while purporting to follow his doctrines and knowing when he works.