Religion is a Mental Illness

Is Ayaan a Christian? Am I a Christian?

I want to make a three-way distinction. You can be a Cultural Christian, a Political Christian, a Believing Christian, or any combination of

richarddawkins.substack.com

I want to make a three-way distinction. You can be a Cultural Christian, a Political Christian,  a Believing Christian, or any combination of the three. People may disagree about which of these constitutes being “A Christian”. For me it has to be Believing Chistian.

I am a Cultural Christian, specifically a Cultural Anglican. I was educated in Christian schools. The history of my people is heavily influenced by Christian tradition. I like singing Christmas Carols, and am deeply moved by the sacred music of Bach and Handel. My head is full of Biblical phrases and quotations. And hymn tunes, which I regularly play by ear on my electronic clarinet.

I think Ayaan Hirsi-Ali (who is one of my favourite people in the world) is a Political Christian. She was brought up in the culture of Islam and is well aware of the horrors that that religion is still visiting on Muslims around the world, especially women. She sees Christianity as a relatively benign competitor, worth supporting as a bulwark against Islam. Just as most of us support a political party without agreeing with all its policies, because we prefer it to the alternative, a Political Christian may support Christianity without being a Believing Christian, because it’s better than the main alternative. Ayaan is a Cultural Muslim, and it is this that has driven her to be a Political Christian.

Believing Christians believe that there is a supernatural creator at the base of the universe called God. They believe a First Century Jew called Jesus is the son of God. They believe Jesus’s mother was a virgin when she gave birth to him. They believe that Jesus came alive again three days after he died. They believe that we ourselves have an immortal soul which survives our bodily death. They believe that God listens to our prayers.  I strongly suspect hat Ayaan doesn’t believe any of these things. She is not a Believing Christian.

In my language, that means she is not a Christian at all. Others may include Cultural Christian in their definition of Christian, in which case I am a Christian. Indeed, Ayaan herself is reported to have called me one of the most Christian people she knows.  But by the same token, the implication would be that she is a Muslim because she is a Cultural Muslim. And she certainly would not call herself a Muslim.

So, Ayaan is a Political Christian but she is no more a Believing Christian than I am. Her example leads me to consider my own position. Am I a Political Christian? I am in no doubt that Christianity is morally superior to Islam. Just look at the regions of the world with an explicitly Islamic government, or where Islam is the dominant political influence: Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Somalia, Northern Nigeria, Brunei, Turkey (betraying the admirable secularism of its post-Ottoman foundation) Saudi Arabia and many other countries of the Arab world. Laws vary, but recurrent patterns include mistreatment of women as second class citizens, persecution of gays, forced marriage, violent intolerance of what is considered blasphemous, anti-Jewish prejudice going so far as to laud Hitler, draconian punishment for apostasy, and for adultery which is often deemed to include simply talking to a member of the opposite sex other than a spouse or relative. Christianity has its bad points, and in earlier centuries it has been as bad as Islam. But today there’s no contest. When it comes to evil, Islam wins hands down, by a huge margin. No other religion comes close.

If I were American I would vote Democrat because, in spite of their idiotic stance on the male/female distinction, they are hugely preferable to the Republican alternative. Similarly, if I were forced to vote for either Christianity or Islam as alternative influences on the world, I would unhesitatingly vote Christian. If that make me a Political Christian, so be it. I am perhaps as much of a Political Christian as Ayaan is. But does that make either of us a Christian?

In my language, certainly not. For me, as a scientist, truth or falsehood of beliefs is what really defines a word like Christian or Muslim. If you are going to call somebody a Christian without qualification, I think it’s a confusion of language to mean anything less than a Believing Christian. You are at liberty to dissent from that definition. But let us at least be clear what definition we are using. If Ayaan says she’s a Christian and I say she’s not, we are really not disagreeing. We are defining our terms differently. She uses “Christian” to include “Political Christian” for herself and “Cultural Christian” for me. I don’t think you can be a real Christian if you don’t believe the fundmental tenets of Christianity.

The only disagreement is a semantic one. I am a Cultural Christian but not a Believing Christian, which, in my language means I am not a Christian. You, Ayaan, are a Political Christian, which in your language, but not mine, makes you a Christian. But we are neither of us Believing Christian. And this, in my language but not yours, makes neither of us Christians. So, dear Ayaan, let’s not agree to differ. Let’s agree that we don’t really differ. 

I’m happy to say I’ll be having a public conversation with Ayaan Hirsi-Ali at the inaugural Dissident Dialogues. Obviously her announcement that she has become Christian will be a major part of the discussion. The conference will be in New York, May 3rd & 4th. Distinguished speakers include Steven Pinker, John McWhorter, Kathleen Stock, Alex O’Connor, and many other leading thinkers.

The American Museum of Supernatural History

By embracing indigenous superstitions, the West’s great science museums are abandoning their mission to educate and compromising their scien

realityslaststand.com

The integrity of science museums has been a subject of ongoing concern, primarily voiced by academics and journalists who have expressed apprehension over the undue influence exerted by corporate interests and religious pressures. For example, George Monbiot of the UK’s The Guardian, in April 2021, expressed dismay that the London Science Museum was accepting funding from Shell, alleging that this shaped certain elements of their climate change exhibit. Similarly, in 2006, Robert Pennock, writing in Museums & Social Issues highlighted a case where the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History initially supported a creationist film after receiving $16,000 for facility use. The Smithsonian later withdrew its support and refunded the money, following publicized claims by the filmmakers that the Smithsonian was open to Intelligent Design–a concept with an “aim to redefine science by allowing an appeal to supernatural beings and powers.”

This incident, reported in The New York Times, likely prompted the Smithsonian to reevaluate its sponsorship policies in a way that, according to Christián Samper, is “consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian Institution’s scientific research.” Pennock also cites the Fort Worth Museum of Science and History's refusal to show a film on volcanoes because it included references to evolution that contradicted biblical accounts of Creation.

Pennock emphasizes that science museums have a duty to uphold scientific integrity by maintaining loyalty to facts and evidence. He argues that science itself should be considered a stakeholder in these institutions, and those managing them have an “ethical duty to safeguard scientific integrity.” As educational centers, Pennock asserts that science museums also bear the responsibility of teachers.

In the past two decades, science institutions have faced challenges from another source: indigenous religions. Unlike Christian fundamentalist beliefs, these indigenous beliefs often receive enthusiastic support from academics, scholars, and mainstream media journalists. This support might stem from a desire to oppose Western civilization and align with the “victims” of modernity as part of an effort to “decolonize” museums. Alternatively, it may also be linked to a trend of virtue signaling, which has allowed the misconception that “indigenous knowledge is science” to take root in academic circles.

I recently reported on this trend in City Journal, discussing New York City’s American Museum of Natural History’s Northwest Coast Hall. One exhibit features a display case with a warning label about the “spiritually powerful” objects contained in the case. This exhibit blurs the line between fact and fiction by presenting creation myths as history. It also asserts that artifacts are imbued with spirits that release “mist” visible only to elders, implying that the objects should be repatriated.

What surprised me was the reaction in discussions with other scholars and in comments on the City Journal page. Many seemed to think these deviations from science were not a big deal. For example, one commentator said: “Let Native American [sic] have their day in the museum. I don’t see a huge amount of harm.” One colleague suggested this was merely to entertain urbanites, doubting that New York businessmen visiting the exhibits would ever convert to these animistic beliefs. However, the museum is intended to educate, with hundreds of thousands of impressionable schoolchildren passing through each year. More critically, presenting these religious myths as facts deviates from the museum’s mission: “To discover, interpret, and disseminate—through scientific research and education—knowledge about human cultures, the natural world, and the universe.” They have completely abandoned scientific integrity.

A similar but less prominent example of this abandonment can be seen at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History–the same museum that faced the Intelligent Design film issue previously mentioned. In the temporary exhibit “Our Places: Connecting People and Nature,” there is a display case featuring a clan hat from Alaska. The accompanying information, titled “Restoring Connections, Building Relationships,” tells museumgoers that the hat on display is a replica of an original hat curated by the museum for 135 years. The original hat was too fragile to display, so Smithsonian staff collaborated with Kiks.ádi clan leader Ray Wilson from Sitka, Alaska, to recreate it. They used 3D-scans of the original hat and then “digitally repaired” the hat. Next, following the Tlingit cultural protocol, the Smithsonian staff made a new hat with wood, deer hide, sinew, and ermine skin. This replica of the original hat demonstrates how science and technology can aid in reconstructing historical artifacts.

However, in 2019, the Smithsonian and its indigenous collaborators conducted a Tlingit ceremony in Alaska to “put spirit into the new hat – making it a living sacred object (at.όow), just like the original.” This last action and its portrayal as factual is an abandonment of scientific integrity. The indigenous collaborators are equating religion and science in a manner not dissimilar to the Intelligent Design filmmakers, who also seek to redefine facts through appeals to the supernatural.

Some may still argue that such exhibits and their associated descriptions have little effect on the actual science conducted by museums or taught to children. However, I contend that these exhibits are just the tip of the iceberg. A deeper investigation into behind-the-scenes activities reveals how indigenous religious beliefs threaten scientific progress, mar the scientific environment, and lead to discriminatory practices. I will now provide some examples.

The Willamette Meteorite Agreement of 2000 resulted in the American Museum of Natural History “recognizing the spiritual relationship of the Grande Ronde Community to the Willamette Meteorite.” This agreement allows the tribe to perform ceremonies in the museum, celebrating this spiritual connection. Additionally, it forbade the museum from removing any part of the meteorite for trade with other museums, a practice once common for diversifying collections for exhibition and research. These scientific exchanges benefited both museumgoers and researchers. However, indigenous religious beliefs have restricted these practices. Moreover, the publicity and support for this agreement has led other museums to adopt similar practices. For instance, the Evergreen Aviation and Space Museum in McMinnville, Oregon handed over their piece of the meteorite to the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde. 

The negative influence of indigenous beliefs on science is also evident during tribal visits, such as when the Tohono O’odham Nation visited the American Museum of Natural History in 2021. During their visit, the tribe reviewed the items that were being curated, discussed the history of the collection, and “ritually cleansed ceremonial pieces” at the museum, which was closed to the public during the visit. Additionally, in November 2021, David Grignon, the tribal historic preservation officer from the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, “ceremonially cleansed sacred items” in the museum’s Division of Anthropology “smudge room.” For a scientific museum to have a “smudge room” is akin to a chemistry lab having an alchemy room. Museum spaces should be dedicated to scientific research, curation, and exhibits–not to religious activities.

However, none of these examples are as shocking as the protocols established to curate so-called “objects of power.” These protocols were introduced at the 2021 annual joint conference of the American Institute for Conservation and the Society for Preservation of Natural History Collections. Developed in collaboration with Northwest Coast cultural advisors at the American Museum of Natural History, Amy Tjiong and colleagues outlined the necessary steps for curators and researchers when handling these “objects of power,” defined as objects “used in association with traditional/spiritual healers’ practice, sacred ceremonies, or warfare.” The new protocols include the need to “greet” the object and “explain” to it that permission has been granted from community representatives. The objects must also be clearly tagged, covered with “muslin,” and glass cabinets should be “covered with brown paper to prevent disturbance and unintentional encounters.” Lastly, bundles of “Devil’s Club (Oplopanax horridus, a shrub used to contain power)” should be hung in doorways and cabinets where these “objects of power” are stored. 

To further promote the myths that surround these objects, museum staff decided to heed warnings by their indigenous partners. For instance, museum staff were told to “Be wary of any object that incorporates human hair.” This guidance influenced the handling of a Haida orca headdress: “Community members instructed the museum not to put this headdress on view. Museum professionals were warned that handling can be dangerous.” Consequently, this object is not currently on display.

Most absurdly, museum staff and indigenous partners debated over whether to display a whistle. According to Clyde Tallio from the Nuxalk Nation, “Whistles are so powerful they have caused intercultural conflicts.” Museum protocols explain that, “Nuxalk elders say whistles would not normally be on display, but instead are traditionally stored in boxes.” Because of this, Tallio advises that whistles should not be observed directly, but should instead be placed in closed boxes with an accompanying photo and text explaining its sacredness. However, museum staff decided to take extra precautions: one Nuxalk Kusiut whistle was “removed from display entirely, as it is a summoning tool for supernatural beings.” 

Are museum staff actually buying into these beliefs, or are they appeasing their indigenous partners to continue curating and studying artifacts? The influence of repatriation ideology, movements, and laws, notably the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, are increasingly depleting museums and universities of Native American “human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony.”

Perhaps museum staffs know or suspect that if they don’t play along, their indigenous partners will suddenly demand everything back. Regardless of the reason, it seems difficult to trust any science coming from people who take seriously the concept that whistles can be used to summon “supernatural beings.”

Perhaps most offensively, they caution, “DO NOT APPROACH” objects of power “if you are feeling discomfort, i.e., if you are in a physically or emotionally vulnerable state (including menstruation and pregnancy).” This clearly sexist warning abandons science and implies that women, particularly during menstruation and pregnancy, are emotionally unstable and weak. Allowing religious beliefs to be taken seriously in a place of science hinders scientific progress, enables discrimination, obstructs the teaching of science to those who partner with museums, and casts considerable doubt on the quality and objectivity of the research coming out of these institutions.

Carl Sagan wrote a book promoting science, skepticism, and critical thinking titled “The Demon-Haunted World.” Museum staff might benefit from reading this book, recognizing that the “demons” mentioned in the title can’t be summoned with a whistle. Because they’re not real.

"If someone could actually prove scientifically that there is such a thing as a supernatural force, it would be one of the greatest discoveries in the history of science. So the notion that somehow scientists are resisting it is ludicrous." -- E.O. Wilson Esquire Magazine (2009)

"I don't differentiate much, except in degree, between people who believe in religion from those who believe in astrology, magic or the supernatural."

-- Andy Rooney

“I feel that we should stop wasting our time trying to please the supernatural, and concentrate on improving the welfare of human beings.

I think that we should use our energy, our initiative to solve our problems and stop relying on prayer and wishful thinking.

I believe that if we have faith in ourselves, we won’t have to have faith in gods.”

-- Ruth Hurmence Green

“Supernatural explanations always mean the end of inquiry: that's the way God wants it, end of story.

Science, on the other hand, is never satisfied: our studies of the universe will continue until humans go extinct.”

-- Jerry A. Coyne

'If someone could actually prove scientifically that there is such a thing as a supernatural force, it would be one of the greatest discoveries in the history of science. So the notion that somehow scientists are resisting it is ludicrous."

-- E.O. Wilson

“I have never, not for one moment, been tempted toward religion of any kind. The fact is that I feel no spiritual void. I have my philosophy of life, which does not include any aspect of the supernatural and which I find totally satisfying. I am, in short, a rationalist and believe only that which reason tells me is so.”

-- Isaac Asimov

“When we find out that an assertion is a falsehood, a shining truth takes its place, and we need not fear the destruction of the false. The more false we destroy the more room there will be for the true.

There was a time when the astrologer sought to read in the stars the fate of men and nations. The astrologer has faded from the world, but the astronomer has taken his place.

There was a time when the poor alchemist, bent and wrinkled and old, over his crucible, endeavored to find some secret by which he could change the baser metals into purest gold. The alchemist is gone; the chemist took his place; and, although he finds nothing to change metals into gold, he finds something that covers the earth with wealth.

There was a time when the soothsayer and auger flourished, and after them came the parson and the priest; and the parson and priest must go. The preacher must go, and in his place must come the teacher—that real interpreter of nature. We are done with the supernatural. We are through with the miraculous and the wonderful.

There was once a prophet who pretended to read in the book of the future. His place was taken by the philosopher, who reasons from cause to effect—a man who finds the facts by which he is surrounded and endeavors to reason from these premises, and to tell what in all probability will happen in the future. The prophet is gone, the philosopher is here.

There was a time when man sought aid entirely from heaven—when he prayed to the deaf sky. There was a time when the world depended upon the supernaturalist. That time in Christendom has passed. We now depend upon the naturalist—not upon the disciple of faith, but upon the discoverer of facts—upon the demonstrator of truth. At last we are beginning to build upon a solid foundation, and just as we progress the supernatural must die.

Religion of the supernatural kind will fade from this world, and in its place we will have reason. In the place of the worship of something we know not of, will be the religion of mutual love and assistance—the great religion of reciprocity. Superstition must go. Science will remain. The church, however, dies a little hard. The brain of the world is not yet developed.”

-- Robert Green Ingersoll

Otago study helps explain how religious beliefs are formed

Feeling anxious can direct our attention and memory toward supernatural beings such as gods, a University of Otago study has found.

www.otago.ac.nz

Feeling anxious can direct our attention and memory toward supernatural beings such as gods, a University of Otago study has found.

Lead author Dr Thomas Swan, of the Department of Psychology, says the research may help explain how religious beliefs are formed.

For the study, published in The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 972 participants completed an online recall test to determine if a bias to recall supernatural agents was stronger in anxious people, rather than non-anxious people.

Those who felt anxious were more likely to remember beings with supernatural abilities than beings without.

“Anxiety is an emotion that evolved to make us pay greater attention to potential threats, so when we feel anxious, a god that can read our thoughts and punish us for them, or flood the Earth, is going to be memorable,” he says.

Previous research has shown anxiety can lead to greater levels of religious belief, with the explanation being that belief provides comfort. However, this so-called ‘comfort theory’ has problems: why are there punishing gods and hellish afterlives when these are far from comforting?

Dr Swan believes the theory also fails to address what comes between feeling anxious and becoming a believer. This research suggests the first step involves the cognitive effects of anxiety, which cause people to attend to and recall threats.

“In our previous research, we found that supernatural beings are perceived as potentially threatening because they have abilities that defy our expectations about the world. The present research confirms that the cognitive effects of anxiety also extend to the threat that is afforded by supernatural beings.

“Ironically then, our research suggests comfort theory has it somewhat backwards: anxious people are attracted, at least initially, to the scary traits of gods, which may explain why so many gods have scary features. Comfort, we suspect, comes later when some people transform their view of the god into something more palatable that they are happier believing,” he says.

The research also suggests other supernatural concepts – such as ghosts, psychics, and astrology – will be digested in the same way because of how they alarmingly defy our expectations about what is possible.

Dr Swan hopes the research prompts people to develop a greater understanding of how their emotional states affect the information they look at and remember, particularly religious information.

“We should all be mindful of how we came to believe the things we do, especially those with anxiety disorders who feel anxious much of the time – they should be mindful of what they are attracted to and why. If they find themselves reading fantasy novels, that may be harmless. If they find themselves joining a cult, then it's time for some reflection. The same goes for people without disorders who are just in anxious situations, such as sitting in a hospital bed or suffering financial troubles.”

On the flipside, he hopes religious groups pay more attention to people's mental states.

“They should be providing care but also giving people time to overcome their troubles before integrating them into a highly religious system of beliefs and practices. If they are still willing to join the religion when the turmoil is over, that might be a more ethical moment.”

Tis the season to celebrate the supernatural, whether that means visiting a haunted house or donning a spooky costume. But while some might scare themselves silly in the name of Halloween fun, 42 percent of Americans believe ghosts are for real, according to a 2013 Harris Poll. The belief in ghosts dates back to at least ancient Mesopotamian times, and it seems to have lodged itself in the collective psyche. But in many cases, science can explain what might seem like a message from beyond. Here are five scientific explanations for encounters with the supernatural.

The “Fear Frequency”

Just below the range of human hearing, infrasound can cause some strange sensations. Humans can’t hear sound below 20 hertz, but some people subconsciously respond to lower frequencies with feelings of fear or dread, reports Jennifer Ouellette for Gizmodo. In one account from 1998, engineer Vic Tandy of Coventry University spent a night in a lab believed to be haunted. He and his colleagues experienced anxiety and distress, felt cold shivers down their spines, and Tandy even reported seeing a dark blob out of the corner of his eye. It turned out that there was a silent fan creating sound waves at around 19 hertz, the exact frequency that can cause the human eyeball to vibrate and “see” optical illusions. “When we finally switched it off, it was as if a huge weight was lifted,” Tandy told Chris Arnot for the Guardian.

Unusual Electromagnetic Fields

Electromagnetic field (EMF) meters are commonly used to identify electrical problems. They’re also a staple of the ghost-hunter’s toolbox, reports Erika W. Smith for Refinery29. Neuroscientist Michael Persinger thinks normal variation in electromagnetic fields could be a possible explanation for supposed hauntings. He tested this theory in the 1980s by having people wear helmets that delivered weak magnetic stimulation. Eighty percent of his test subjects said they felt “an unexplained presence in the room” when they wore the helmets. What’s more, famous spooky spots like Hampton Court Palace have been found to have unusual electromagnetic fields, reports Neil Dagnall for the Conversation.

Carbon Monoxide Poisoning

On a Halloween episode of This American Life, host Ira Glass and toxicologist Albert Donnay unearth an old ghost story published in the American Journal of Ophthalmology in 1921. As recounted by “Mrs. H,” her family moved into an old house and began experiencing what seemed like paranormal activity—the sound of footsteps, strange voices and even feeling like they were held down in their beds by an unseen person. Meanwhile, the houseplants were dying, and Mrs. H’s children felt weak and suffered from headaches. A quick investigation revealed that a faulty furnace was filling the house with carbon monoxide fumes. Carbon monoxide poisoning can cause hallucinations and sickness, explaining all of their symptoms. After the furnace was repaired, the “hauntings” stopped.

Sleep Paralysis

The most common explanation for a ghost sighting is sleep paralysis, sleep specialist Priyanka Yadav tells NBC News’s Diane Mapes. The body is naturally paralyzed during REM sleep, but the feeling of paralysis can cause terror if experienced while awake. Sometimes, the body and brain get their wires crossed, and a person can experience a few seconds to a couple minutes of waking paralysis, which is often accompanied by hallucinations. Yadav says the hallucinations can involve anything from spiders to ghosts and are usually characterized by a feeling of dread. When someone reports a “haunting” that happened right around bedtime or after waking in the middle of the night—and that they were so scared, they couldn’t move—it’s enough for Yadav to diagnose a case of sleep paralysis.

The Power of Suggestion

Social psychology might have an explanation for reported hauntings that the natural sciences can’t resolve. Refinery29 reports that one study found the power of suggestion to be strong enough to make people believe they witnessed a supernatural event. Participants watched a video of a purported psychic supposedly bending a key with his mind. The people who were exposed to positive social influence—meaning that an actor in the group said they saw the key bend—were more likely to report they saw the key bend, too. Participants who were in a room with naysayers and skeptics were more likely to doubt the validity of the trick, but just one person’s confident assertion that they believed the psychokinesis was enough to make others believe it as well.