My main problem with Christian Science

**Christian Science is a bogus system with lots of money behind it (more in previous eras than now but still substantial), and still some political support. My complaint is that it is so BELOW visibility. Starting to read "Caught in the Pulpit" by Dan Dennet and Linda LaScola: stories of clergy who have lost their faith and yet are trapped in their clerical and pastoral roles. My problem is that I am as legitimately in their field of inquiry but no one knows or cares about about Christian Science anymore. What's so embarrassing and humiliating is that I got snagged in this 19th century relic and wasted over 35 years of my life on it. If I had been a Catholic or Episcopalian priest people would be interested in me and I might even get some speaking gigs, etc. But as it is, it's like being guilty of philately. Not worth anyone's attention. And I feel like the waste of my life should be worth somebody's attention and sympathy. 

"The Reason for the Season"

**True, Dan. Yet, I try to respect people’s religious beliefs insofar as they keep them to themselves, especially at this time of year. And for the most part, most of them do. But silence on the subject shouldn’t be interpreted as acceptance of the premise. The other day I was cautioned to remember "the reason for the season" after I 'd joked about all the frenzied commercialism rampant since Thanksgiving. It's not a direct denigration of religious beliefs to simply point out some of the underlying counter-facts that cause those beliefs to crumble. Several good books have been written, some of them recently, showing that a person named “Jesus” (or one of the many forms of that name) cannot be reliably verified to have existed. More likely the “person” referred to is an agglomeration of characters, real and mythical, that served to symbolize a specific religious movement. This doesn’t diminish, for me, the value of certain “Christian” ideals, even when they’e been imported from other traditions. The “Beatitudes,” the “Golden Rule,” and the like, are plainly good rules for human living. But they don’t require the existence of a particular historical figure to make them credible. They are good ideas unto themselves that do not depend on any kind of deity for their validity. Many rituals and other habitual activities that give comfort have grown up around these myths, and one can attempt to graciously back away from puncturing the bubble of comfort they provide.

Even good religionists participate vigorously in the commercial enterprise known as “Christmas,” which started as an economic incentive many years ago. Gracing it with religious gravity only makes it ludicrous to those who know what is really going on. Yet, even severely religious people eagerly go out and buy so much stuff at this time of year as to make it an essential practice in order to sustain the economy (hence, “Black Friday” and the like).

In short, the “reason for the season” is money. Not the birth of a mythical character, even one identified with good human attitudes.

That doesn't mean that sincere, loving human beings can't hijack the commercial juggernaught of Christmas to extend good wishes, cheer and benevolence to their fellow human beings. And I hereby do.

Brainwashing children

I will have more to say later about Barbara Bradley Hagerty's new book, "Fingerprints of God." When I have more time, I will take up some of the issues raised in this well-written book. Suffice it for now that her book confirms for me the fact that those raised in a religion find it very difficult to depart from it even when reason and solid, testable facts intrude. I believe this is especially true for people raised in Christian Science. Where other kids may recoil from stern fundamentalism - and thus be ripe for apostasy - most CS kids are raised in such an atmosphere of pleasantness and self control that they come to associate the metaphysical claims with goodness. So even when their theology is refuted by facts, they still cling to the notion that there MUST be something to the concepts they were raised with. Hagerty's book confirms this. Even after interviewing articulate atheists and scientists, she still, in the end, relaxes into the belief system that gave her comfort and hope.

I am not such a person I was raised as a Catholic, and though I was assiduous in my practice I eventually left the religion, though I clung to the idea of some kind of God for many years afterward. Now that I am free of all that I notice the stickiness of religious education, and recoil against it. I see great wisdom in Dan Dennett's proposal that all kids be required to learn about all religions. Only in this way can the relentless drumming of one orthodoxy be prevented from establishing tyrannical control of a person's mind.

Faith and health

The grammatically challenged website On Faith, poses this question, ably answered by one of my favorite thinkers, Dan Dennett:

Do you believe that faith can effect [sic] your health or is that a lot of new age nonsense?:

Dennett:

Of course faith can affect your health, as various studies have shown. So can faith in new age nonsense. So can faith in the Yankees or the Red Sox. People cling to life to learn the outcome of the World Series, after all. This has been measured statistically. More seriously, I do not know of any studies that compare the health and longevity of those who attend church regularly to those who devote regular hours of work to some secular charity (Oxfam, you name it) or to volunteering for a political party, for instance. It might turn out that religious allegiance is a better health promoter than any other form of voluntary contribution, but so far as I know, this has not been determined.

The larger problem with this week’s ON FAITH question is that it is being asked at all. This question should not be seen as a matter of personal conviction or opinion at all. People’s hunches, anecdotal recollections, or personal convictions are of no more weight here than they would be about the causes of global warming. You have asked an empirical question, and there are established methods for answering such questions. Encouraging any other approach is actually undermining proper respect for scientific methods and facts, right alongside the nefarious tactics of the tobacco companies, the global warming skeptics, and the “teach the controversy” Intelligent Design crowd who have so successful persuaded so many people to treat factual material as if it were mere opinion.

But you can put a respectable spin on it: by asking the question you are gathering data on people’s convictions, data that can later be compared to the facts, whatever they turn out to be. It will be interesting to see, for instance, how many respondents declare with confidence that they know the answer to your question quite independently of any careful research. And it will be interesting to learn if they are right.