Raising children to not join weird cults

A friend recently switched from Baptist to Mormon. This has greatly distressed many in his family and community.

I think it’s best to raise kids to think critically about these issues, so as to be less gullible regarding superstitions and competing religions (particularly the more insidious, family splitting kinds). Skepticism generally is the best way I can see to impart these critical thinking skills - atheism being a natural flow on conclusion from skepticism.

Remember parents, if you train your kids to believe what men in suits behind podiums tell them, then you’re setting them up for recruitment into a different belief system.

Children have a built in instinct to believe things on authority. The goal of a parent should be to guide their child through a process of growing up and maturing, leading them to think for themselves and not just follow authority (an adult trait). Religion seeks to infantalise adults, encouraging them to simply accept authority like a child.

I don't know whether my friend's switching religions is a sign that he is beginning to question the authoritative declarations from his childhood, or whether he has simply descended to a more infantile state under what I consider to be a more authoritative religion.

The Case for Stoning

I was going to include a picture of stoning, but one google search was enough to turn my stomach.

A friend once told me that he had been confused that God had commanded that Israelites be stoned to death for various offences. But now it made sense to him - you see, the thing about stoning is that it is a communal method of execution. You can’t just have one person performing the execution, it has to be the whole community passing judgement. This makes it intrinsically fairer, and means that everyone in the community realises the gravity of the situation and collectively takes responsibility for righting the wrong that was done by the guilty person. So, you see, there was a good reason that God (who is good and loving) commanded the Israelites to use stoning as the main form of execution.

Whoa. Hold on a second. Stop and think about that.

The argument is that since everyone in the community is bludgeoning the criminal to death with rocks, it is more moral.

Compare with these statements: If everyone in the community burned the criminal with hot pokers, it is more moral. Or, if everyone in the community kicked the criminal in the head, it is more moral.

The fact that it stoning is a communal activity in no way makes it more of a moral form of execution. It is a horrible form of death that is utterly incompatible with loving command. If you are so inclined, you can probably find actual video footage of people actually being stoned to death - I’m sure it will not be a pleasant sight. There is a good reason that modern civilizations that impose the death penalty do so in the most human fashion available: hanging by the neck is a simple method, and if technology allows, the electric chair or lethal injection.

The point isn’t to beat down a particular opinion. My point is to raise awareness of the mode of thinking going on here. The reasoning should be “Who is being hurt and causing harm?”, but instead it’s “How can I reconcile this ancient text with modern morality?”

I’ve seen theologian William Lane Craig make the same mistake. When talking about the genocides enacted by the Israelites under Yahweh’s command, he sympathises with the Israelite soldiers. Essentially he’s saying we should feel sorry for the poor soldiers who had to perform the unpleasant task of sending all those babies to heaven.

I’ll let Craig speak for himself:

So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites?  Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement.  Not the children, for they inherit eternal life.  So who is wronged?  Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves.  Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children?  The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/slaughter-of-the-canaanites

I won’t even go into engaging this statement for now - I’ll just note that this is what Craig’s opinion is. (although I do have good arguments why genocide is morally wrong).

When you start with the premise that God is perfect and loving, and that the bible is truthful, then you are forced to make conclusions like these:

• The genocides in the bible were all good, and it’s the poor soldiers who did the killing that we should feel sorry for.
• The execution by stoning commanded by Israelite law was moral and just because it required communal support.

By doing this, you are throwing actual morality away and just engaging in bible defense.

Summary:

My friend thought that communal execution by stoning was more moral than it might appear because of the communal aspect. In saying so, he was engaging in the same type of apologetics that leads William Lane Craig to defend genocide. This type of thinking permits moral atrocities and is vastly at odds with modern morality.

Blood and Death

There’s an aspect of Christianity that I keep coming back to - I’m amazed at the degree to which the religion is about blood, death, ritual sacrifice.

Christianity teaches that just as an animal was ritually sacrificed to atone for wrongdoing by the Israelites, so Jesus was killed on the cross to atone for everyone’s sin. Jesus died for your sin.

That means Jesus was a human sacrifice. The whole Christian religion is centered on human sacrifice.

This is overt, although when you’re immersed in the religion you never see any problem with it.

Christians are metaphorically washed in the blood of Jesus. Washed in somebody’s blood! Think about that. A human sacrifice, followed by people washing in his blood!

Christians eat the body and drink the blood of Jesus. Catholics believe that the wafer and wine literally turn into human flesh and blood. Other Christians see it as symbolic eating of human flesh and blood. Think about that! Cannibalism! A blood drinking ritual!

Some churches contain horrific, graphic images of Jesus being tortured to death. Some churches re-enact this cruel scene. You wouldn’t let your child watch a torture movie - there’s a double standard.

And all of this sits in the context of a deity who demands death in recompense for wrongdoing, with the threat of a place called hell.

To recap:

• Human sacrifice
• Washing in blood
• Cannibalism
• Blood drinking

Once your consciousness is raised about this, you can’t help but see it crop up repeatedly in Christianity - at its core, a surprisingly barbaric religion. You forget about it for a while, and then you realise, hey, they’re doing that human blood drinking ritual again.

Of course, Christians tend to be decent people who do decent things (like most other groups of people). I’d prefer to see the good stuff without all the blood and death. But it’s almost impossible to reframe Christianity without these, because you lose the bulk of the central doctrines - holy communion, resurrection of Christ, atonement for sins, would be all gone! So it seems that Christianity will always have cruel barbarity at its core: human sacrifice, blood washing, cannibalism, and blood drinking.

Questions:

Do you think ritual human sacrifice to appease for wrongdoing is sometimes a good thing?

Do you think cleansing by metaphorical washing in human blood is sometimes a good thing?

Do you think ritual cannibalism (symbolic or real) is sometimes a good thing?

Do you think ritual human blood drinking (symbolic or real) is sometimes a good thing?

Atheist or Agnostic?

I’ve heard people ask “Are you an atheist or an agnostic?”

Generally, what they mean is “Are you god-hating and/or certain there is no god (=atheism), or are you just unsure about the whole ‘god’ thing? (=agnosticism)”

It’s confusing because these words have multiple meanings.

Theist has one meaning:

1. A person who believes that any gods exist.

Atheist has these meanings:

1. A person who lacks belief that any gods exist. (ie. anyone who isn’t a theist)

2. A person who is certain that no gods exist.

Agnostic has these meanings:

1. A person who thinks nobody can know for sure whether any gods really exist or not.

2. A person who is unsure about whether any gods exist or not.

In atheist circles (eg. Richard Dawkins), the definitions numbered 1 tend to be used.

In other circles (eg. the person asking “are you an atheist or an agnostic?”), the definitions numbered 2 tend to be used.

The two groups often talk past each other because they mean different things. Richard Dawkins says “I’m an atheist”, and someone else says “Then you are arrogant because you are certain there are no gods!” But if you read Richard Dawkins’ books, you see that Dawkins is not absolutely certain there are no gods.

To avoid confusion, sometimes it’s better to drop the jargon and just use plain language.

So here goes: personally, I do not think that any gods exist, but I can’t be absolutely sure that no gods exist.

It’s the same stance as Richard Dawkins, and virtually every other person who isn’t a theist that I know of.

Was Jesus Innocent?

Jesus is often described as an innocent man who was unjustly killed. The sacrificial lamb for the slaughter, perfect and without blemish, the agnus dei.

But was he really innocent? Nope. He was convicted of sedition, on the charge that he claimed to be king of the Jews. That was his crime, and he was found guilty. The crime carried the death penalty, so he was executed.

Sure, you can say that Jesus was innocent of breaking any of God’s rules (leaving aside all the sabbath breaking, etc.). But as for Roman rules - yep, he committed a crime that carried the death penalty, according to the bible.

I’ve listened to historians on this issue. Judea was a Roman province on the fringe of the empire, and the governor had two priorities: To pay tribute to Rome (ie. collect taxes), and to keep the peace. Inciting a rebellion, claiming to be rightful king, etc. were considered very serious crimes. The province was politically volatile - in fact there were major revolts around that time that the Romans needed to quell, one of which resulted in the destruction of the temple in 70CE. Jesus apparently claimed to be king of the Jews during his trial (I would have pleaded not guilty), and was of course executed as a result, along with all the other convicted criminals that day.

Of course, we can’t know for sure what happened during the trial, since the only witnesses were Jesus and the Roman officials and guards - the biblical narratives are likely to be how people imagined the trial occurred, which is why the different gospels have such different versions.

Summary: Jesus is often thought of as innocent. However, the gospels claim he committed a serious crime under Roman law which carried the death penalty.

All the different versions of Yahweh

Many centuries ago, the Israelites came up with a new idea: an all encompassing god of everything. (This god was called Yahweh, as it happens). Since that time, many different groups have claimed to follow this god. But there are such a vast number of versions of this god that everyone seems to have a different opinion about what this god is like. Chances are even people in your church have very different ideas about god, although such conflicts are generally glossed over and validated as just a difference of opinion.

The Jews worship a god who appeared physically to the Israelite priests over a meal. This god loves the smell of ritual blood sacrifices.

The Muslims worship a god who had no son. This god regards Muhammad as his prophet.

The Christians worship a triune god whose son incarnated as a human, then died to save all people.

The Mormons worship a god who went physically to the American continent, and later revealed knowledge to a guy named Joseph Smith.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses worship a god who will bring precisely 144,000 people to heaven.

Jesus worshipped a god who would end the world in the first century CE. Jesus’ god required people to keep the Israelite law as a condition for eternal life.

Paul of Tarsus worshipped a god who saved people by grace, through faith alone.

Up until a few hundred years ago, all versions of this god approved of slavery. The anti-slavery version is a fairly new invention.

Here are some other characteristics:

A god who approves of speaking in tongues?
A god who will cure all diseases?

A god who will genuinely help find car parking spaces, locate lost objects, etc.?

A god who protects your nation from military conquest?

A god who reliably provides food and basic provisions for all followers who ask?

A god who sends people to a literal hell for eternal torment?

A god who literally created the world within the last ten thousand years?

A god who considers financial prosperity a good thing?

A god who has appointed a man as the authoritative head of his church?

A god who approves of infant genital cutting?

A god who permits ~3% of babies to be born with severe defects?

A god who made a bet with Satan about Job?

I could go on.

All of these distinguish different gods with the same name. Pick any combination you like, and it’s almost certain there’s someone out there who worships that god.

I used to worship a god who was three persons, who incarnated as a human and died, who saved people through faith alone, who didn’t transfigure wine into blood, who liked speaking in tongues, who could heal any disease and help you find lost objects, and who literally created the earth several thousand years ago. (Unsurprisingly, this is the god that my parents also worshipped).

I have a friend who worships a different god: a god who has appointed a man as leader of his church, who transfigures wine into blood, who likes organised confessions of sin, who thinks Mary is very appropriate to pray to, who used evolution over millions of years to create life.

What kind of god do you worship? (It’s probably different to all of the above descriptions.)

But now for the ever important question: How do you know your version of god is the correct one? How can you tell if you are mistaken about an attribute of your god?

(Is it because someone you trust told you so?)

Denigrating Humanity

A central theme of modern Christianity is to exalt god and diminish humanity. God is lifted up, exalted, magnified, revered, praised, worshipped, followed. Humanity is denigrated, weak, ignorant, not understanding, morally corrupt, deserving eternal torture in hell, needing salvation from this pitiful trajectory.

Why are Christians so negative about humanity? Because their god is a small god, and so they try to make humans even smaller. If humanity was just fine, then god could offer no salvation.

The Christian god wants to be worshipped and praised, just like an insecure person. But then Christians say that the act of worship helps to improve the people worshipping, raising them from a flawed state.

The Christian god consistently fails to heal the illnesses of millions of pious Christians - just look around in any large church. But Christians turn this around - it’s not god’s failing, it’s mankind’s failing due to free will.

The Christian god committed horrendous acts of genocide, according to the bible, slaughtering men, women, children and babies. But Christians claim those people were all extremely bad, so it was ok.

The Christian god offers a ridiculous salvation from his own eternal wrath by proxy of an ancient human sacrifice. But Christians say this is necessary because humanity is so corrupt and evil, god sees people as filthy rags, totally unworthy, deserving to go to hell.

The Christian god, depicted in the bible, is ignorant of scientific and medical facts such as germ theory, cosmology, and biological evolution. But many Christians say that science is wrong, and god is always right, no question.

The Christian god’s actions fail to match what the bible claims about his actions - prayers are left unanswered, and bad things happen to good, faithful people. But Christians say that people’s puny minds cannot even begin to comprehend god’s mysterious plan. People must simply submit, and lay down their lives.

Here is my view. People are not perfect, but neither are they corrupt and evil. We can understand more and more about the world through honest and disciplined science - acknowledging our own ignorance is not an excuse for mysterious explanations. Nobody deserves to go to hell, nobody needs to be killed for forgiveness to occur, genocide is always wrong, slavery is always wrong, nothing needs to be worshipped. Most people are just trying to get by. Nobody needs to be saved from the afterlife. As a species, we’re ok.

The Christian god was created small, and his dogmas try to make people even smaller so that he’ll seem big.

If Yahweh appeared before me, I’d look him in the eye and say, “I never impregnated someone else’s fiance out of wedlock. I never brutally killed a person. I never demanded to be worshipped. I never threatened to torture anyone. I never demanded blood sacrifice. Those are the actions of a corrupt, small person.

I’m not smaller than you.”

... and then he’d probably have me killed or tortured, just like a mafia boss would, because he only tolerates sycophants.

Summary: Christians are often very negative about society and humanity, saying things like “we can’t understand god’s plan”, “we are unworthy, like filthy rags”, “everyone has sinned and deserves to die in hell”. I think they vastly overstate this negativity in order to make their god look even better by contrast.

Non-physical existence?

Theist: Do non-physical things such as logical axioms exist?

Atheist: Yes, logical axioms aren’t physical, and they exist.

Theist: If so, then how do you know other non-physical things don’t exist, such as ghosts or a God?

Atheist: Uh, well, …

Here’s my view on it: I can’t avoid the conclusion that everything that exists is physical. Logical axioms (or any abstract concept) only exist in a physical world. A logical axiom is a pattern of matter. It might be a pattern of electrical pulses in neurons, or it might be a pattern of graphite on wood pulp, but in every single case where a logical axiom is referred to it exists in a physical medium. The concept of Modus Ponens exists in many people’s brains. But it doesn’t exist independently of the physical world.

As far as I can tell, everything that exists is physical, and there’s no reason to think anything non-physical exists, be it gods, logical laws, or any abstract concept.

I guess that makes me a straight up physicalist.

But I’m not dogmatic about that view. Honestly, if I ever see any evidence that something exists independently from the physical world, I’ll adjust my view. For now, though, “non-physical existence” seems like an oxymoron.

Question:

Do you think that anything non-physical exists? If so, why do you think that?

Lies we tell kids

This is one of my favourite essays of all time:
http://www.paulgraham.com/lies.html

Not because I agree with everything in it, but because it touches on so many taboo subjects in such a short space. This article covers more conceptual ground than most books, and is a much quicker read, too.

I also resonate with the way the author has unpacked false ideas given by well meaning adults.

Just to blat them out there, here are some of the topics covered:

1. explicitly admitting that adults lie to kids for various reasons - and this is not necessarily always bad
2. describing a process of unpacking false beliefs that have accumulated in our minds
3. framing religions as containing obviously false lies that create tenacious in-group cohesion, as well as beneficial beliefs that are packaged in to the religion
4. a maternal/paternal instinct of caring for helpless children being a powerful motivator
5. certain knowledge and behaviours (eg. swear words) that act purely as a signal of immaturity or maturity
6. benefits and limits of creating a falsely safe seeming nurturing environment
7. communication blocking property of responding badly or violently to truth
8. the need for youths to realise they are typically poor decision makers
9. the way that sex and drugs strongly affect decision making because they are so pleasurable
10. the genuine need to protect kids from the cruelties of the world, while also needing kids to eventually mature beyond this protection - ie. to grow up
11. insecure people are less able to say "I don't know" because it shows weakness (as well as a truth)
12. school curriculum education contains some social bias
13. socially acceptable falsehoods to tell children - eg. santa claus, doggy heaven, etc.
14. realise that in the future, people will likely judge some of the lies we tell children just as we judge society a hundred years ago

Go read the article! What do you think?

Identity

I really like this article:
http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html

Excerpt:

"I think what religion and politics have in common is that they become part of people's identity, and people can never have a fruitful argument about something that's part of their identity. By definition they're partisan."

I've written about this before. When you have something very important riding on the truth of a claim, it's almost impossible to evaluate the truth of that claim without strong bias.

Unfounded Fundamental Assumptions

I was a Christian for many years, and then I lost my faith. It was a difficult experience for a number of reasons. One of the biggest difficulties was coming to grips with the fact that a lot of my knowledge was false. In the months following my loss of faith, I would frequently come across familiar situations but would have to stop and think - I had to evaluate them as if for the first time. This is difficult to do. Most of what people do is routine and habit. The reason why some of my knowledge was false was because I had built it on a false assumption.

People don’t just believe any old thing to be true. We have reasons. A lemon has a sour taste >why?> I’ve tasted lemons. Two plus two equals four >why?> I’ve counted it out on my fingers as a child, and the rules of arithmetic have always held true in my experience since then. I have a heart in my chest >why?> I can feel my heartbeat, and experts tell me it is so, and I’ve seen animal hearts.

Keep asking why, keep boiling your knowledge down, and you will find that you have unfounded fundamental assumptions. Everyone does. Some people have many fundamental assumptions, some very few. These are hard to recognise.

The one that everyone tends to have is what I call “Reality is ‘Real’”.
It’s really a collection of assumptions, but it can be expressed like this: “My senses accurately represent the world some of the time.” If you deny this assumption, it’s called solipsism, and it’s equivalent to thinking you’re living inside the matrix or something.

Another foundational assumption I used to have was “God is real and the bible is true.” Much of my knowledge had grown from this assumption: concepts of sinful behaviour, eternal rewards, the importance of worship, moral authority, immortality of souls.

Some people have different foundational assumptions, like “Communism is always the best political system” or “Jim Jones is of supreme importance”. When you start with these assumptions, certain knowledge is derived from them.

I lived for years with what I identify as two main fundamental assumptions: Observable reality is real, and the bible is true. There are probably more, but I’ll leave them out for now.

(Perhaps the state of mind that most accurately understands the world is one in which your only foundational assumption is “reality is real” - everything else is derived from that.)

When I became aware of how the bible was written and formed, how prayers don’t tend to get answered, and how God acted as if he didn’t exist, it challenged my foundational assumption. After some time I couldn’t help but conclude this was a false assumption - I no longer assumed it to be true. You can’t think something is true if you don’t think it’s true.

I realised that these two assumptions had an important difference. One was sustained by “faith” - a protective bubble that says “don’t critically evaluate this! Don’t examine too closely!” The other was sustained by empirical observation, that says “Look! Touch! Smell! Listen! Find out!” It took introspection to challenge my own assumptions without being dissuaded by the fear of a compromised faith. Faith tries to defy evaluation, while empiricism embraces evaluation.

As an aside, here is an anecdote: During my questioning of Christianity, I discussed it with an intelligent friend who was a devoted christian. The friend finally conceded: “Okay, ask your questions and learn what you need to learn, but whatever you do, don’t lose your faith!” Think about that statement. This is what faith is for: to protect an assumption, even under the guise of evaluation. I did not take my friend’s advice, because I didn’t want to be committed to a conclusion from the outset - that is the opposite of inquiry. Instead, I genuinely evaluated my faith.

The interesting thing is that I had sort of “orphaned” knowledge left over. The next time the issue of homosexuality was discussed, my first reaction was “homosexuality is bad because the bible says so”, but then I had to stop and rethink it. My conclusions changed because my foundational assumptions changed. There was no longer a biblical basis for opposing homosexuality - I had to re-form my views from my remaining foundational assumptions.

Over time, my views on many subjects changed. Some ideas just became unimportant, such as planning for the afterlife, or showing weekly devotion in church. My knowledge continues to grow as I learn and experience more things.

Some extensions of this metaphor:

1. Our understanding of the world grows like trees from these foundational assumptions. The foundational assumptions themselves are established when we are young children. This is why it is vital for religions to indoctrinate their children at a young age. The children need to start forming ideas with the assumption in place. Otherwise, when they are adults, they are resistant to making new assumptions. Morality is already explained! Why is a god required?
2. Over our whole life, the trees of our understanding of the world keep growing. We learn more, we experience more.
3. It is traumatic to have a foundational assumption attacked, or worse, removed. The whole tree of what you thought you knew has to go as well. Examples of this might be if you learned your family’s wealth was the result of terrible crime, or if you learned you were adopted, or if you learned that you are capable of terrible deeds in desperate circumstances.
4. An epiphany or “Eureka” moment is when a floating bunch of knowledge connects to a tree, or when two different parts of the knowledge tree touch. Suddenly, some knowledge illuminates some other, previously unconnected knowledge. The bigger the lumps of knowledge that connect, the bigger the impact. For example, I might observe that clouds are water in the sky that is visible for some reason, and I might also spend hours learning high school physics. Then one day it just clicks and these two things connect in my mind - I suddenly realise that a cloud’s visibility is a function of air pressure, water density, and temperature that causes saturation point. You can think up your own examples. Most knowledge grows slowly, but the jarring increases in knowledge are when existing knowledge you have bump into each other.

This model is a way to explain why people sometimes talk right past each other. For example, a young earth creationist and a scientist might talk, and each will say “No, you’re just not getting it, you’re missing something fundamental!” Primarily, they’re starting with different unfounded assumptions about reality.

I also want to make the point that a skeptic will not start with a base assumption that "There is no supernatural" or something like that. It's simply that supernatural claims can't be founded in the "reality is real" assumption - there's nowhere it fits. Supernatural claims tend to be based on other assumptions.

Summary: I’ve modelled a person’s understanding of the world as based upon unfounded assumptions. Having an unfounded assumption removed causes the derived knowledge to also be removed - a “This changes everything!” moment. It can be traumatic and causes a person to re-evaluate many things they thought were true. Religions find it important to indoctrinate children with an additional unfounded assumption.

The unspoken rule of prayer

Now, darling, let's pray to Jesus before bed.

Yes, mummy. Dear Jesus, I pray... um... that dinosaurs come back to life!

Haha, oh darling, that won't work. You see, you can only pray for things that are likely to happen on their own!

Superstitions in Christianity

I’ve observed that Christians tend to have more superstitions than non Christians. I think this is because Christian doctrine discourages questioning and encourages credulity, labelled as faith. With this mindset, people are more likely to believe untrue things.

These are superstitions that I have seen be held by a substantial number of Christians:

• witchcraft and satanic ritual abuse occur in the local community
• words of power - speaking things over people or situations
• blessings and curses
• near death experiences of spirits and the afterlife
• experiences of truly visiting heaven and hell in visions
• intercessory prayer works (asking God for things)
• intercessory prayer being effective in particular locations - ie. doing a prayer walk round the perimeter of a building or area
• young earth creationism and the rejection of scientific consensus
• anthropogenic climate change (ie. global warming) is unsubstantiated by science
• God will dictate when the earth will be destroyed, and has a plan for its destruction, so nuclear war, global warming and environmental degradation are not important
• medieval/Hippocratic personality analysis of four humors (phlegmatic, sanguine, etc.)
• exorcism and demon possession
• commanding and speaking to demons directly in the course of exorcism or prayer
• inner/emotional healing sessions involving deeply flawed psychological diagnosis such as multiple personality disorder
• interpretation of dreams as spiritual communication
• faith healing of physical illnesses
• laying on of hands makes prayer more effective
• the passing on of ministry anointing via laying on of hands
• spirits appearing visibly to people, or audibly singing along with a choir
• words of knowledge and prophecy over people, spoken on behalf of God
• preference of burial rather than cremation because of the physical resurrection to come
• angels and demons literally existing and fighting in specific locations
• guardian angels assigned to individual believers to physically protect them
• people are triune: they are a spiritual being, with a soul, and residing in a body
• sexual intercourse causes a person’s soul to connect with another person’s soul and potentially become split or tainted
• the moment of conception causes a new soul to exist, with full personhood
• communion bread and wine literally transform into the flesh and blood of Jesus
• being slain in the spirit by falling over while being prayed for
• the Toronto blessing of contagiously laughing uncontrollably
• anecdotal stories of amazing miracles like objects floating around in rooms and people rising from the dead in Mexico and Africa
• certain books, music and tv shows are inspired by Satan and should be avoided, such as Harry Potter and Stairway to Heaven
• some popular songs contain subliminal messages from Satan when played backwards
• homosexuality does not occur naturally - it is an abomination
• there are three human races that come from the three sons of Noah: one looking asian, one looking caucasian, and one looking african (Ham, the cursed one)
• justice will be carried out in the afterlife, so it’s unimportant to seek justice on earth
• sowing and reaping is an intrinsic universal principle, meaning that tithing ten percent of one’s income will certainly multiply to more money returned
• believing something to be true will actually make it true, if you believe hard enough

All of these beliefs come from very particular interpretations of the biblical texts. Not all Christians have these beliefs, and it varies greatly between Christian denominations.

These are all beliefs that have a practical impact on the way people live their lives - that’s why I consider them superstitions. By contrast, a belief such as “a snake once talked” doesn’t have a practical outcome in someone’s life. I have previously made a separate list of all the absurd things that happen in the biblical narrative (talking snakes, people flying, etc.), which complements this list of superstitions.

I mean, it’s one thing to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin - that doesn’t really change any decisions the believer will make. But many Christians do believe that an angel will help them if they crash their motorbike, they listen to their pastor saying seek healing from God before getting medical help, they reject scientific consensus on many issues because it challenges their preconceptions, they block stem cell medical research as immoral because they believe souls exist. Many Christians blame their own critical analysis for their failure, because blind faith would have caused success, while doubt causes failure. Many Christians listen to charismatic leaders who interpret their dreams, speak guidance on behalf of God, and then accept donations. Many Christians seek inner healing from prayer warriors rather than seeing a trained psychologist.

Summary: I’ve observed that Christians often have many superstitious beliefs - generally more than non Christians. I think this is because a central Christian doctrine is the suppression of critical thinking, and the encouragement to believe things without justification.

Question: Do you think any of the listed items are real? If so, why do you think they are real?