atheism.davidrand.ca: Living Without Religion 
 > Table of Contents 
 > > Repertory 
 > > >  Christianity is a Pseudoscience   en français 

Christianity is a Pseudoscience

Rand, David

The beliefs are supernatural, but the consequences are material

Christian dogma has profound implications in the material world, implications which determine Christian moral precepts. As a result, Christianity should be classified among the pseudosciences and paranormal belief systems which sceptical associations routinely criticize.
This text is an English translation and adaptation of an article which first appeared in Le Québec sceptique No. 53, Spring 2004, published by the Sceptiques du Québec.

2004-06-14



Introduction


The declaration "Christianity is a Pseudoscience" will surprise many readers. For a system of thought to be classified as a pseudoscience, should it not have scientific pretentions? As a religion, is Christianity not instead a metaphysical philosophy devoid of empirical implications, that is, which does not affect the material world?

The situation, however, is not so simple, as this religion does indeed have material consequences. In this article, we will examine several aspects of Christianity and, in doing so, recognize its pseudoscientific aspects. From this observation we will then consider the implications, especially for sceptical organizations.

First of all, let us define our terms.



Science and the Sciences


Science may be defined as the set of methodically organized knowledge obtained via observation. In the narrow, modern sense, science includes a methodology whose essential elements are observation, sampling, modeling and experimentation; these elements are executed iteratively in order to construct increasingly powerful models of the real world, capable of explaining and predicting the behaviour of material objects, progressing in accuracy and fidelity as research continues. Such models must be compatible with previously acquired knowledge, and similar results must be obtained when experiments are repeated under similar experimental conditions. The verification or falsification of proposed models, as well as the systematic and inquisitive application of doubt, are important aspects of this methodology.

More generally, the term science (or sciences in the plural) can be a considered an umbrella concept incorporating all systems of knowledge, including those in which experimentation and sampling are very difficult or even impossible, provided that such knowledge is consistently based on real-world observation and refers to—or at least is compatible with—knowledge acquired using the methodology of science in the narrow sense explained above.

Thus science is naturalistic and materialistic. It is often said that science rejects the supernatural, but it might be more accurate to say that, if supernatural phenomena were in fact confirmed to occur, they would then by definition be real-world, natural phenomena. They would thus become legitimate objects of scientific research (provided, of course, that they display a minimum of regularity, because research would be impossible in a completely chaotic universe; in other words, to admit the possibility of unconstrained divine intervention would make the practice of science impossible). Thus the natural world would subsume the "supernatural". This observation is reminiscent of the famous remark of Arthur C. Clarke that magic (but only magic which really works!) is the science of the future. For a medieval peasant, electric lighting would be magical. Seen from this angle, the terms "supernatural" and "paranormal" are more or less synonymous.

The scientific worldview has no pretentions to absolute, complete knowledge, but is based nevertheless on the assumption that everything can at least be studied, that some knowledge, however partial, can be obtained through scientific research.



Pseudoscience and Religion


A pseudoscience would thus be a system of thought having scientific pretentions but failing to respect the necessary conditions, perhaps because its experimental results are internally inconsistent, or because the system is inconsistent with other solidly established scientific knowledge, or because it makes no observable prediction and is thus not falsifiable, etc. Just as we distinguished between narrow and general definitions of science, we can make a similar distinction between pseudosciences in the narrow sense (those involving experimentation) and in a more general sense (including all others).

As for religion, the concept is difficult to define because of the wide variety of religions which human societies have invented. Nevertheless, we can say that an essential aspect of every religion is the supernatural. This is certainly true of all theisms, be they mono- or poly-. In particular, the Christian "God" is a supernatural agent.

As a general rule, a distinction is made between pseudoscience on the one hand and revelation, theology and spirituality on the other. This distinction is legitimate to the extent that the supernatural remains a domain totally independent of the natural world. Religion would thus not be pseudoscientific, provided that it has no material implications. Seen from this point of view, the "paranormal" (of pseudoscience) and the "supernatural" (of religion) also remain distinct from one another.



Some Aspects of Christian Dogma


If we consider, for example, Christianity, we must recognize that this distinction between the natural and the supernatural is not at all clear-cut.

First of all, let us set aside the more unsophisticated Christian beliefs: for example, the existence of hell and the devil, miracles, biblical literalism, young-earth creationism, virgin birth, the resurrection of Jesus, the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, the glorification and fetishization of human suffering (as exemplified by the notorious behaviour of Mother Teresa), etc. Let us concentrate instead on several aspects of what might be termed "modern" or "moderate" Christianity, beliefs which are held by a large number of the faithful, including many well educated Christians.


Cosmology

Christianity is a cosmology. It advances a particular model of our universe, a model centred on a hypothetical supernatural agent, commonly referred to as "God", who gives meaning to the existence of the universe and of human beings. Humans are the beloved children of this agent and their duty is to please their divine father.


Creation

Christianity is fundamentally creationist in the general sense of the word. Even if the Christian rejects young-earth creationism, he or she merely prolongs the temporal axis of his or her cosmological model. There is of course a great difference between a six thousand year old universe and a six billion year old universe, but in either case the starting point is creation.


The Soul

This "spiritual nature of humans, regarded as immortal, separable from the body at death" (dictionary.com) and subject to judgement by the Christian god, is inserted by that god into each human being, but not into other animals. The soul is present in each human body from the moment of its conception.


The Afterlife

After the death of the body, each human being continues living in the form of the soul.


Charity

It is the will of the Christian god (of the New Testament at least) that the faithful be charitable towards others.


Prayer

This is a personal communication from the Christian to the creator of the universe, normally taking the form of a request, an expression of gratitude, or praise.


Holy Scripture

The Bible is a document of the highest importance, even for the Christian who completely rejects biblical literalism, because it is divinely inspired, or at least metaphorically so.



The Material Consequences


Now let us consider some of the consequences of these Christian principes in the material world.


Cosmology

Every existence hypothesis is a scientific hypothesis, and the existence of the Christian god is one such hypothesis. As Richard Dawkins has remarked [Dawkins-1998], "A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without."


Creation

The baseless hypothesis of the creation of the universe is nothing more than an impediment to cosmological research, just as the hypothesis of the divine creation of species is an impediment to biological research. Pope John-Paul II has conceded that evolution is a solidly established scientific fact. Those who would conclude that the Catholic Church has thus rejected creationism are making a serious mistake. On the contrary, the Church has rejected only young-earth creationism. The physicist Stephen Hawking, for his part, tells the story [Hawking-1998] of his participation in a colloquium on cosmology, organized by the Jesuits and held at the Vatican in 1981. In an audience at the end of the conference, the pope declared that scientists have the right to study the evolution of the universe after the Big Bang, but not the Big Bang itself because that was the moment of creation and therefore the work of god—in other words, the Church's domain. Thus the Church continues to guard jealously "its" territory. Apparently John-Paul II was unaware of the topic of Hawking's contribution to the conference—the possibility that space-time might be finite but unbounded, having no beginning, thus leaving no room for creation. Hawking was happy not to suffer the same fate as Galileo!


The Soul

The existence of the human soul, a hypothesis for which there is of course not the least shred of evidence, has vast implications. In order to postulate a soul in humans but not in other animals, it is necessary to presuppose the appearance of this soul at some point during the evolution of primates. This artifice constitutes a denial of the animal nature of human beings, makes a mockery of the evolution of species, and justifies the inhumane treatment of animals. Human life is over-valued and animal life under-valued. Furthermore, in order for a soul to be present in each newborn human, it is necessary to postulate a particular moment in the reproductive process at which time the soul is "injected." The timing of this event being more or less arbitrary, it is established by Catholic dogma to occur at the moment of conception. This choice is used to justify the criminalization of abortion, displaying a contemptuous disregard for the rights of women to control their own bodies. The human embryo is rendered sacred, thus blocking much medical research which has great potential to improve the well-being of humanity. Even the sexual act becomes sacred and limited it to the sole purpose of creating souls, thus prohibiting any form of sexuality for which reproduction is not the primary goal. Just as the hypothesis of the existence of a Creator is the anthropomorphism of Christianity, the soul hypothesis illustrates the quintessential anthropocentrism of Christianity. Human beings become the centre of the universe. In order to denigrate another species, or even another race, all that is required is to deny that species or race its "soul". Some Nazi theorists believed that Jews (and other non-Aryans) had no soul, and that they were thus less than fully human.


The Afterlife

Like the soul, the afterlife is another Christian fiction with no basis in reality, but with major consequences, in particular the devaluing of real life. Paradoxically, this is the opposite effect to the over-valuing of human life which results from the soul hypothesis, but the two do not cancel each other out. For the Christian believer, this current life in the material world may be precious, but it principal purpose is to prepare oneself for the other, hypothetical, life in which the faithful will be reunited (or not) with their divine father.


Charity

Christians traditionally hold the virtue of charity in high esteem, going so far as to think that they own it. But the motivation underlying this famous "Christian charity" is highly dubious. In fact, the accumulation of points, so to speak, in order to increase one's chances of positive rewards in the hereafter, would appear to be a more important motive than human compassion. Nevertheless, in fairness we must recognize that, in principle at least, this principle of charity is not limited to the community of the faithful, but extends to non-Christians as well. According to Richard H. Schlagel [Schlagel-2001], charity and benevolence were probably critical factors in the survival and spread of Christian communities of antiquity, because during epidemics, even the more rudimentary care can save many lives. What we have here is an example of the old sceptical proverb that "even a broken clock displays the correct time twice a day.". Despite the supernatural motives, a positive result was obtained. (A similar observation could be made in those few cases where the sacralization of a human life imbued with a "soul" has had positive consequences.) In the final analysis, invoking divine will to motivate charity serves only to hide the true origins of human behaviour: charity, compassion and altruism are human traits which are not the exclusive property of any religion. On the contrary, their explanation is found in biological and cultural evolution. The evolution of animal (including human) behaviour is a major domain of evolutionary research.


Prayer

Prayer is a highly subjective phenomenon, thus accessible to scientific examination only with great difficulty. But paradoxically, some Christians have approached the topic in a way which is pseudoscientific in the strict sense of the term—i.e. where experimentation is possible, at least in principle. Some researchers have attempted to demonstrate that prayer is effective against illness. But there is a major methodological problem here: how does one set up the control group, i.e. the population of patients for whom no-one prays?


Holy Scripture

To consider any book to be sacred, whether it be the Bible or the Coran any other religious scripture, means attaching great importance to anything that book says. For example, some parts of the New Testament blame the Jews more than the governing Romans for the crucifixion of the messiah, thus motivating anti-semitism.


The above considerations (with the possible exception of the last point, provided that biblical literalism is completely rejected) show that Christian cosmology has wide-ranging consequences in the material world. This observation leads us to affirm that Christianity is a pseudoscience in the general sense of the term, and operating mainly in the field of morals. Christianity is thus a pseudoscience of morality.

It was mentioned earlier that anthropomorphism, and worse, anthropocentrism, are essential elements of Christian pseudoscience. In the estimation of Bill Cooke [Cooke-2003], anthropomorphism—the illusion from which all gods are invented—is a common factor linking theism with pseudoscience, as the aim of both is to re-inject into naturalist philosophy a large dose of that very anthropomorphism which science has succeeded in removing.



Meaning and Value


Scientists and sceptics often express the view that morality lies beyond the sphere of scientific and empirical enquiry. Instead, they see religion as having primacy in the area of the meaning and values. But such a line of demarcation should not be drawn, for two reasons: (1) the way in which we view our world has a significant impact on morality; and (2) the so-called moral expertise of religions is highly dubious.

Our observations of the world around us have an important impact on how we organize the societies in which we live. Political organization is a practice for which moral and ethical considerations are significant. How should material resources be distributed? What role should women play? What role for men? Should abortion be forbidden? Cloning? What about embryonic stem cell research? What sexual practices, if any, should be proscribed? How should young people be educated? What measure should be adopted against modern epidemics?

Science does not necessarily provide answers to these questions, but it does help in the gathering of essential data which are necessary in order to make decisions. Supernatural beliefs, such as Christianity, constitute an impediment to well-informed decision making. Indeed, how can we trust moral values founded on empty hypotheses? Just as the promoters of other pseudosciences are often labelled charlatans (whether they are sincere or not) in their respective domain, so too religious authorities are charlatans in their chosen domain of morals: they are charlatans of morality, because they have the pretention of providing expertise in matters of morality, but that expertise is baseless.



Example of a precept of monotheistic morality


In the moral codes of Christianity, Judaism or Islam (or any other monotheism), a typical moral precept generally fits the following pattern: X runs counter to the will of God or X alienates us from God or any similar formulation, where X may take one of any number of values, such as sin, communism, capitalism, zionism, antisemitism, gay marriage, carnal pleasure, MacDonald's food, etc. Such a precept involves at least the following three important assumptions:

  1. That a supreme agent named "God" exists,
  2. That that agent is interested in the affairs of human beings, and thus has an opinion on the matter at hand, and
  3. That the opinion of "God" is known to the person making the moral pronouncement.

Each of these three remarkable assumptions is completely unfounded. The ordinary believer who accepts such declarations is making a simple leap of faith. However, the religious authority (priest, ayatollah, pope, rabbi, etc.) who makes the declaration is pretentious in the extreme. The third assumption in particular reveals enormous arrogance on the part of the speaker who implicitly claims to have a line of communication (exclusively?) to the King of the universe and the capacity to transmit to other human beings the will of that King.



The NOMA Principle


"The church accepts progress wherever it no longer has the power to impede it."

— Helge Krog

The concept of two distinct but non-conflicting domains, that of religion and that of science, was re-invented, towards the end of the twentieth century, by the famous American palaeontologist Stephen J. Gould. For his reincarnation of the idea Gould chose the name "NOMA" for "Non-Overlapping Magisteria", that is, two magisteria which do not overlap, do not contradict each other and are completely compatible because independent of each other.[Gould-1999].

This is not an original idea. In the Middle Ages, the expression "double truth" refers to the same approach. However, at least one major change has occurred since then: the attitude adopted by the Catholic Church. For example, in 1277, Étienne Tempier, bishop of Paris, solemnly condemned this concept [Minois-1998], whereas in 1950, Pope Pius XII, in an encyclical [Pie-XII-1950], recognized the validity of scientific conclusions, provided of course that they do not conflict with Catholic doctrine. Several decades later, John-Paul II indicated his support for the NOMA principle, calling it "faith and reason" [Jean-Paul-II-1998]. This change of policy is easily explained: the monopoly of power held by the medieval Church could admit no competition, but in the current era that same Church is forced to recognize the obvious success of materialist science while attempting to preserve its own turf by erecting strong lines of demarcation. In other words, the NOMA principle protects the Church from its critics.

But why would a scientist promote such an obviously false concept? Science and religion are incompatible for several reasons, the most important being that religions are based on supernatural constructs which contradict scientific naturalism. Their incompatibility is almost tautological. (For an extensive treatment of the two-domain theory, see [Clements-1990].)

Why then did Gould promote the NOMA principle? Firstly, the socio-political power of churches in European and European-derived societies and the historical weight of Christianity in these societies in undeniable. As a result, to criticize the foundations (and not just certain aspects or tendencies) of that religion has generally been a very dangerous exploit, very bad for the health of anyone who has dared to do so. Even today, such criticism requires a certain audacity. This observation is especially true in the United States, a country where culture and morals are imbued with an omnipresent religiosity which contrasts with the secularism of the American Constitution and is exacerbated by recent governments.

In particular, young-earth creationism is widespread in the United States and Gould, as palaentologist, was confronted with this serious threat to scientific literacy. The NOMA principle was his answer, his principal tactic in this war of ideas. But it is a completely inadequate tactic, a double-edged sword so to speak, because, as we all know, "Two wrongs don't make a right." It is dangerous to attempt to fight an intellectual travesty (creationism) by using another intellectual travesty (NOMA)

Young-earth creationists can at least be credited with recognizing that Christianity is fundamentally incompatible with evolution, whereas Gould's approach was essentially dishonest. Nevertheless his intentions were positive: Gould was evidently motivated by a sincere desire to minimize the damage done by religion by limiting its range of influence, excluding it from the empirical domain. But attempting to dam the religious tide using NOMA is like trying to contain an ocean with a chicken-wire fence.

Probably the argument most commonly used to support the NOMA principle is the reference to scientists who have declared some religious belief: if such and such a scientist is a believer, so the argument goes, then science and religion must be reconcilable. But it is an all-too-human trait to be able to compartmentalize one's beliefs and values in order to avoid recognizing their mutual incompatibility. Just consider those Italian communists who regularly attended Catholic mass! Further, it is indeed possible to practice science technically, without fully grasping its philosophical implications.

Another factor underlying the appeal of the theory of separate but compatible domains is the problem of morality. Given that religions claim to have expertise in this matter, and given the importance of moral and ethical principles in the organization of human societies, the temptation is great to avoid treading on this dangerous territory.



The Distinctive Nature of Religion


In associating religion in general, and Christianity in particular, with the pseudosciences, the intention is not to ignore those aspects which distinguish religion from other human endeavours. Indeed, religion occupies an special role in human societies and that fact itself is part of the problem. Pascal Boyer [Boyer-2001] explains religion as an epiphenomenon of the social dimension of humanity, the need for each person to try to understand the behaviour of his or her neighbours, the numerous and varied social agents who participate in his/her social milieu, and to come to grips with the intentions of these agents.

What are the thoughts of the people and animals in my environment? What are their intentions towards me? What must I do to earn their approval and avoid any hostility from them? What are the thoughts and intentions, if any, of the objects around me (for it may be more prudent, or at least simpler, to assume that anything and everything may be an active agent, even inanimate objects—hence the human tendency towards animism and anthropomorphism). These considerations lead humans to invent agents even where there are none. All the supernatural agents of religions—gods, demons, ancestors, spirits, angels, etc.—are the distilled abstraction, so to speak, of the various mental representations which human beings construct based on the agents in their environment, in an effort to manage their interactions with such agents. And these agents thus invented have the following in common: they take an active interest in the lives of human beings—they are therefore implicated in questions of human morality.

Consequently, morality is a central preoccupation of religion. There exists, in human beings, an intuitive moral sense which is apparently innate and independent of any particular supernatural belief. Religious morality would thus be an extension (some would say a perversion or misappropriation) of that moral intuition which is so necessary for participation in human society.

Given this moral dimension, it is not suprising that certain religious institutions have been able to assume great and longlasting political power. As a result, religious obscurantism and pseudoscience are particularly tenacious and difficult to combat. Hence the primary importance of secularism—the complete separation between church and state—as a means of breaking the dangerous and undeserved political power of religious institutions while at the same time respecting the freedom of conscience of individuals.



Religion and the Sceptical Movement


Sceptical associations, such as CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) in the United States and the Sceptiques du Québec in Québec, are known for their rather mitigated—even timorous—approach to the question of religions in general and Christianity in particular. Although they sometimes dare to consider religious issues (see, for example, [Young-2001] et [Blanrue-2001]) the predominant attitude among sceptics is one favourable to the NOMA principle and mechanically respectful of religious beliefs. And yet, the raison d'être of these associations is precisely that of not respecting paranormal belief but rather examining them, exposing them to open criticism. As discussed above, Christian dogma is certainly paranormal and thus falls necessarily within the purview of sceptical examination. There is no reason to make an exception.

And yet, sparing religious beliefs from full examination is in fact the normal response. In a newspaper interview in September 2003 [Corriveau-2002] with the then-president of the Sceptiques du Québec, it was declared that that association respects the principle of non-intervention in the territory of believers and restricts its criticism of religious belief to any purely empirical implications. Why? Because, it is said, it is impossible to conclude anything definite about the existence of god. And yet, although it may be impossible to "measure" divinity, it is indeed possible to measure, i.e. count, the number of proofs of the existence of god. The count is zero. This measurement is comparable to the number of proofs of astrology or of homeopathy. Undeniably, the attitude put forward by the association's president is one of special favourable treatment for religion.

A glaring example of the incoherent attitude of sceptics towards religion can be found in issue number 48 of Le Québec sceptique, magazine of the Québec Sceptics Association. In one article [Bélanger-2001], an astrology and parapsychology course offered in a privately run professional development institute is (rightly) condemned as the teaching of nonsense. But in the same issue, in another article [Coulombe-2001], the instructor of a course in Catholic morality and religion explains how he awakens the critical faculties and rationalism of his students in order to fight against paranormal beliefs. However, if the intention is to speak honestly of critical thought in the context of Catholicism, then the necessary first step would be to expose the complete irrationality of Catholic mythology and the seriously problematic moral precepts which follow from it. Otherwise, the label "nonsense" would apply very well to the latter course.

Let us imagine the following hypothetical scenario: an instructor of astrology who possesses a certain degree of scientific education is concerned about the other pseudoscientific beliefs of his students, in particular, Christian creationism for example. So, in his astrology course, he takes the time to present an overview of the basic scientific principles of astronomy and cosmology, in order to give his or her students the tools necessary to confront the dubious arguments put forward by creationists. Would this fine support for scientific education, by our valiant astrological instructor, be sufficient to justify the principal subject matter of his or her course—i.e. astrology



The Mandate of Sceptical Associations


In response to the question "Why do you not criticize religion?", sceptics normally reply that they consider only purely empirical allegations, never the philosophy. Sceptics are willing to refute allegations of statues of the Virgin Mary weeping tears of blood, but shy away from expressing any evaluation of the foundations, dogmas and theories of a religion. However, this distinction is not made by these same sceptics when considering other pseudosciences. They make no bones about criticizing the theory underlying astrology—that the stars can influence human behaviour—and do not limit themselves to contesting those astrological pronouncements which are falsifiable. Sceptics are not shy about denouncing the fundamental theoretical flaws inherent in fortune-telling, homeopathy or spiritualism. So why should religions be excluded from their field of critical inspection?

Among sceptics it is often said that religious doctrines are non-falsifiable and thus beyond the purview of scientific inquiry. Yet it is common practice in the pseudosciences to make declarations which are non-falsifiable or falsifiable only with great difficulty: for example, the fortune-teller who claims to hear the voice of a deceased person, or the astrologer who makes predictions so vague that they could apply to almost anyone, or the homeopath who claims that controlled clinical studies are neither possible nor necessary because homeopathic treatment targets the individual in his or her specificity. This sort of subterfuge is part of the standard arsenal of pseudoscientists which sceptics have no qualms about exposing... except of course in the case of religion.

But, one might ask, do sceptical associations have the resources necessary to extend their field of inquiry? Don't they already have enough to do without adding religions to the list of their targets? Very well, why not remove astrology and "alternative" medicine from their list in order to free up some space! But seriously, recognizing the pseudoscientific aspect of religion does not necessarily imply the undertaking of specific tasks. What is required is a consistent statement of principles, such as: "Although we do not currently have sufficient resources to undertake a systematic criticism of religious beliefs, we nevertheless recognize that these beliefs are as irrational as the allegations of the pseudosciences, because they run counter to well-established scientific knowledge. We remain open to the possibility of collaborating with other organizations which fight against religious obscurantism." The Québec Sceptics Association has already taken a few tentative steps in this direction, and that is a very good sign. Let us continue!

To conclude this discussion of the role of sceptical associations, let us consider the opinion of Paul Kurtz who, as founder of CSICOP and CSH (Council for Secular Humanism), knows what he is talking about:

Within the current skeptical movement, I have argued that CSICOP should deal primarily with paranormal and fringe-scientific claims, and with religion only where an empirical scientific claim is made and can be tested. This is a matter of the division of labor and expertise. But I never meant to imply that religion is beyond the domain of skeptical inquiry. Secular humanists and skeptical inquirers have the right, and indeed the duty, to submit these claims to examination. [Kurtz-2002]

Sceptics must therefore, in Kurtz' opinion, criticize religious beliefs. He recommends that sceptical associations concentrate especially on the empirical and the measurable, but for purely pragmatic reasons, as a simple division of tasks. There is no reason for sceptics to refrain from questioning the philosophical foundations of religion, just as they may question the foundations of astrology or of any other pseudoscience.

To the best of my knowledge, Kurtz words are not divinely inspired and no-one is thus required to accept them religiously. But his recommendations are, in my opinion, reasonable.



Falsehood Has Its Consequences


The reader will have noticed that a major premiss of this article is that things which are "true"—i.e. models which are realistic—are less dangerous than those which are "false"—i.e. models which represent our observations of the real world in an inadequate way or not at all. Furthermore, it is supposed that sceptics do what they do specifically for this reason. They criticize astrology (as one example) not for pleasure (although the analysis of a pseudoscience may be in and of itself an interesting and pleasurable intellectual exercise)¸ nor because they dislike astrologers (who among us does not know a charming astrologer?), but rather because astrology is, in the final analysis, false, and falsehood has its consequences. Because their model does not fit reality, the consequences may be negative, indifferent or positive. However, the choice of a realistic model reduces the risk of disastrous consequences. If you do not accept this principle, beware of the implications!



Judging Christianity


In this article I have gone beyond pointing out certain aspects of Christian faith. I have also made a number of value judgements, most of them negative, about Christianity. But in the final analysis, is Christianity good or bad? Although the implications of Christian mythology can be negative, they can, as we have seen, sometimes be positive. Throughout the history of Christendom, taking all into account, has the net influence of Christianity been for good or for evil? If Christianity had not become the state religion of the Roman Empire in the fourth century, would modern science have emerged much earlier than it did? It is possible, by selective choice of examples, to sum things up in a way which is less negative than what is suggested in this article. This historical question remains highly controversial.

Nevertheless, there is one conclusion which is certain and beyond reasonable doubt: good or bad, Christianity is false. There thus remain two principle motivations underlying Christian faith: credulity and pragmatism. And if one accepts Christianity for pragmatic reasons, one must be convinced that the bottom line is more positive than negative—and not only historically, but also for the present and the future as well. To accept Christianity implies the rejection of the principle that that which is false is more dangerous than that which is true.

The list of several Christian dogmas discussed above does not include those beliefs which are the most naive and would make a "modern" believer blush--or laugh. But most of the stories of miracles and divine interventions, etc., are still part and parcel of Catholic doctrine or of the doctrine of several protestant churches. These churches use such fantastic stories to impress and convert the naïve. It is in the poorest countries that Christianity makes its greatest gains. We have a duty to denounce the hypocrisy of those "modern" believers who, with one hand, reject such nonsense but, with the other, continue to support a church which promotes it. Similarly we must denounce the duplicity of those faithful who reject papal pronouncements against divorce, contraception or homosexuality, but who remain members of the Catholic Church. But perhaps worse still is the intellectual cowardice of those non-believers who staunchly oppose any open criticism of religion under the pretext of respecting believers' alleged "need to believe." On the contrary, rather then respecting beliefs, we should respect believers, and we will not do so by treating them as immature children. We respect them by being honest with them.



Conclusion


In my opinion, supernatural religion is the pseudoscience par excellence, the prototypical paranormal belief system which, by virtue of the respect which it traditionally enjoys, legitimizes and helps perpetuate all others. And it is indeed because of this tradition that religions constitute the strongest, most dangerous and most firmly entrenched of paranormal beliefs.

The language used in this article to describe Christianity may shock some readers. But it must be recognized that this choice of words is not substantially different from terms commonly used by sceptics to describe pseudosciences.

The simple act of criticizing the foundations of a religion may lead to accusations of some intention to burn the religious at the stake just as heretics were often persecuted in the Middle Ages [Coulombe-2001]. Such extravagant manoeuvres must not silence criticism of religion. To the best of my knowledge, no sceptical organization has ever promoted the death penalty (even less so burning at the stake!) for fortune-telling or homeopathy. Sceptics merely offer, to those persons willing to accept it, a refreshingly cold shower of reality. I propose that we extend this offer to religious believers. Unfortunately, inter-religious and intra-religious violence and intolerance are so widespread that many believers apparently find inconceivable the notion of criticism of the philosophical foundations of their faith, without such critical observation degenerating into physical threats. However, the sceptical approach is extra-religious and respectful of the right to belief.

Criticism of the foundations of religions is not really the task of associations which promote secularism and church/state separation because such organizations must maintain a degree of neutrality; their mandate is to protect freedom of conscience and to fight against the political influence of religious institutions. The task of fundamental critique of religion falls more within the sphere of activity of sceptic groups.

Over the last several decades, a great many of the faithful have abandoned the Catholic Church and turned towards a wide variety of other religions and beliefs. But this exodus is not necessarily due to any recognition of the falseness of Catholicism. People leave the Church for many reasons: they find Catholicism less satisfying, or they are outraged by the behaviour of priests or by papal declarations, etc. Consider, as an example, the vulgar opportunism of Raël who profits from the scandal of priests who abuse minors in order to score points in the religious marketplace. If the fundamental falsehood of Christianity and of Catholicism were openly discussed, if a frank and unfettered critique of religious morality were practised on an ongoing basis, then disaffected believers would probably be a little less credulous and better prepared to confront the traps set for them by sects and other dubious tendencies.

As for that other pseudoscience of morality, even more dangerous than Christianity on a planetary scale because it currently has the wind in its sails—I am referring of course to Islam—how can we dare criticize its theoretical foundations if we have not first done a more complete job here at home, in what was once called Christendom?



References


References are listed by alphabetical order of the author's name and include the year of publication.



XHTML CSS