…and this is a 
Christianity's sins against science
Category: Religion
Posted on: May 10, 2007 10:03 AM, by PZ Myers
Brent got asked a question by Vox Day: to list Christianity's 10 greatest sins against science. He expands a little bit:
I'm reading all of these New Atheist books, I keep reading these condemnations of Christians being anti-science, but no one ever bothers to explain exactly what they mean by that. I mean, what the Hell does Galileo's trial have to do with Christian attitudes today, except as some sort of analogy for... something current? But what?
I mean, if the worst thing people have done is put someone on trial 500 years ago, is it really such a huge deal? Now, I'm assuming that there are other things, such as opposing Federal stem cell funding and pushing for ID in the public schools, but there has got to be more. So, in what other specific ways are Christians endangering science? Is Galileo still a top ten grievance? What else is there?
Bleh. Day is looking for some specific list of incidents, like Galileo's persecution by the church, or perhaps George Deutch's arrogant attempts to hide scientific conclusions at NASA. That's typically superficial of him; that's not the objection at all. The problem is that religion instills odious patterns of thinking in large numbers of people, ideas about how the world works that actually get in the way of improving our culture. The problem isn't Galileo specifically, but that religion provides institutions and a rationale for Galileo-like situations, and inculcates support for such decisions in the populace.
Here's my quick list of objections to religion. Please note that I understand there will be individual variation, both between people in a sect and between sects themselves (Calvinists and Unitarians will have different views of destiny, for instance, and Buddhists seem less prone to the tyranny of authoritarianism). Also, the general public will embrace these sins a little less fervently than creationists and fundamentalists, but they're all there to some extent—while sometimes I'll mention creationists as extreme examples, that does not mean I am implying that all religious people are creationists.
Oh, and forget 10; this dial goes up to twelve.
Theft. Atheists know this one on a daily basis: Tornado demolishes home, tearful survivor comes before news cameras and "thanks God" that she was spared. Football player scores goal, drops to knees and praises god for his touchdown. Cancer patient goes into remission, lies in bed surrounded by his expensive, highly trained medical team, calls it a miracle. What religion does is steal human accomplishment and bestows it on a fickle imaginary being. Modern medicine is not a product of religion, it's the highly refined outcome of years of empirical science, yet people still babble about miracles and prayers.
Literalism. We in the evo-creo wars know this one well. If the Bible says it, it must be literally true. There was a world-wide flood, there was an ark, the earth is 6000 years old, etc. One antiquated hodge-podge of a book becomes the arbiter of truth, with the added benefit that its clutter and inconsistency and diversity of authorship means you can justify anything with the right random quote.
Authoritarianism. Once you've abandoned individual thought to the dictates of a book, you're accustomed to surrendering intellectual autonomy…so you pass responsibility on to others. Religious history is a parade of petty tyrannies, where religious authorities, from your local parish priest to the pope and Pat Robertson, get to tell you what is right. Unfortunately, their credentials as authorities on righteousness always seem to rest on assertions about the words of prior religious authorities.
Hierarchies. The pattern of authoritarianism leads easily to hierarchies. Secular organizations often fall into hierarchies, too, and often they're an efficient way of getting things done; with religion, though, we go a few steps further, with the invention of an invisible, all-powerful being at the top who has everything but accountability. In addition, we impose this pattern on the world around us; our picture of the universe is colored by the scala naturæ, a false picture of our relationship to nature that distorts reality.
Dominion. Near the top of the chain of being, just below that imaginary old guy with the beard, is us. We rule the world. It's an interesting thought, but it's false: we are part of the world, the rest does not obey us, and we are fools on the road to destruction to pretend that we can dominate. It's a way of thinking that urges us to control rather than adapt, oppress rather than accommodate. It cheapens the complexity and beauty of the natural world that surrounds us.
Predestination. I've had a few one-on-one conversations with creationists, and one of the weirder but fairly common discoveries is that they reject the concept of chance. Everything must have an intentional cause. A branch fell off my tree because the wind blew it down; similarly, if an ancient ape evolved into a human it must be because…? They've filled in the ellipsis with "God", and they are not satisfied with explanations that do not invoke causes and intent. Try it yourself sometime; they have an almost allergic reaction to the notion of junk DNA, for instance, because there's no way molecules could have a random element, it must all be for a purpose.
This trait isn't exclusive to religion, of course; you can see causality built right into the structure of our language, and it's probably hardwired into our brains. Religion makes it difficult to oppose, though, because it provides a convenient catch-all repository of causality: god did it. It doesn't matter that it's a meaningless phrase, it seems to satisfy an intrinsic desire to wrap up loose ends with an explanatory purpose.
Miracles. Religion's universal lazy way out of anything. Forget evidence, forget logic, you got a problem explaining something? Poof. It was a miracle. It's a cheap excuse to throw away the hard work of reason.
Credulity. If you've got miracles, if you've got gods and devils and angels, who needs evidence and rigor? A chain of reasoning is going to be easily vitiated by a convenient miracle, so why bother? We are god's creation, we are under his divine plan, so bad things can't possibly happen to the world—a god will step in and make it all better. You don't want to be sick, so if you wish hard enough, and if Benny Hinn hits you in the forehead, maybe that will fix your problems. It's a strange phenomenon: we desire patterns of causality, but we also invent rationalizations for magical interventions that will take us off the track that natural causality puts us on.
Religion provides a get-out-of-jail-free card for the consequences of our actions. That irrationality percolates through our brains, and influences more than just what we do in church on Sunday—it makes us susceptible to snake-oil of all kinds.
Inflexibility. The first time I heard this argument I could hardly believe it: religion never changes, while science changes all the time, therefore religion is better. Its premise is false, for one thing — religion changes all the time, and I daresay that if we could use a time machine to gather together a group of Essenes with a matched group of Southern Baptists, we'd have us an entertaining bloodbath—but for another, why would inflexibility and absolutism be considered virtues? I have no illusions that any of us have perfect knowledge of all truth, so please, give me a philosophy that will adapt to the evidence and provides a path to perfecting our knowledge.
Blasphemy. This is a thoroughly stultifying concept. The idea that there are thoughts that must not be expressed, ideas that must not be pursued, dogma that must not be questioned…what an evil constraint. The whole idea is antithetical to science, which is built on a foundation of constant questioning, of always challenging the established wisdom.
Supernaturalism. One of the worst outcomes (or perhaps it is partly a cause) of religion is the willingness to invent a whole class of reality without evidence and without need. All the matter and energy, all the history and information of the entire universe is not sufficient, and we understand only a tiny fraction of it … so the religious invent a whole immense metaphysical realm of which they know even less, and pretend that it explains the lacunae in our knowledge of the world. It's a lie, through and through. There is no credible evidence for ghosts, and the whole concept is incoherent—apparently, supernatural entities are not of this universe, so they are not bound by its laws, yet somehow they can interact with us, which actually does make them part of our universe. The supernatural is cloud cuckoo land, with inhabitants who conveniently wink into existence to carry out miracles for us, and with magical real estate to which we will retire when we die.
Poppycock.
If you want me to believe, show me. But of course, the religious can't—the supernatural is not of this world, so I shouldn't be demanding my narrow and inappropriate natural demonstrations. So how do the religious know about it?
Faith. Faith is the greatest sin of religion. I despise it; I'm particularly appalled that it is so universally regarded as a virtue. Listen, if I ever call someone a "person of faith", you should be aware that I have just insulted them terribly. It's astonishing how easily that sails over people's heads, though.
Faith is this amazing idea that it is a good thing to hold incredible beliefs in the complete absence of evidence to support them; the more outrageous the belief and the weaker the logic behind them, the stronger your faith and the more virtuous your conduct. It short-circuits everything that works in the world and puts ignorance on a pedestal.
Faith is the opposite of science, yet it is also one common element that you will always hear valued in religion. It is the number one most common excuse for holding peculiar superstitious beliefs in spite of the evidence against them, their violations of sense, and their foundation in wishful thinking and rhetorical vapor—it's the one word non-answer to every criticism of religion. Faith. You might as well just say "gullibility" or "ignorance" or "delusion"— it's all the same thing.
That was fun and easy. I suspect some of the commenters here will also have no trouble turning the dial way up beyond twelve, too.
Comments
1) The incident on the Sea of Galilee. "Peter, why did you doubt?"
2) The incident with Thomas. "You have seen, and believed. Blessed are those who have not seen, and believe."
XIII: The Disparaging of Doubt
Posted by: Caledonian | May 10, 2007 10:10 AM
Moralism: High on my list is the religious' claim that they have the ultimate source of morality and you must be a part of their system to be a moral person. The insulting hubris of this position never fails to get my Irish up. This often comming from a being that drowns us in tsunamis, shakes us in earthquakes, blows us away with tornados, ravages us with disease, and supposedly oversaw and directed the slow tortuous killing of it's own son. Yeah, supreme morality my ass.
Posted by: Nevyn | May 10, 2007 10:21 AM
Evasion:
This is a useful tool for 'moderate' religionists (my father, for one.) When confronted with an aspect of religious belief, evaders say "That's not what I believe". As if their religosity is more deep and more profound than that of the common masses.
In a debate, the evader will dodge around until you just about think they follow their very own religion. The first time this happened, I was a bit confused. But faith is sneaky, and allows people to make up their own concept of God, and their own dogma.
Posted by: IanB in MD | May 10, 2007 10:23 AM
XIV: The disparaging of thought and reason altogether. That is included in most of the other numbers, but could stand to be specifically stated. After all, it all started when that uppity woman ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Having any knowledge has been set up as a mortal sin from the beginning.
Posted by: Carlie | May 10, 2007 10:23 AM
This sounds like an invitation for blog-whoring. I have a few items of my own:
All I ask of religion.
Not really a list of sins, but a list of all the things I need them to stop doing so that I can share this planet with them.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich | May 10, 2007 10:32 AM
XV: Certainty
Not so much certainty of knowldge (though it has that too) but of action: 'I know that this is the right thing to do'; 'I know that what I did was right' and 'if not, God will judge me'.
Well, I don't know that what I do is the right thing. I don't know how to act in an increasingly confusing world. But then that's the world: our day to day lives are confusing, are uncertain - to pretend otherwise is sheer idiocy. And to state that God will judge one's actions, not people living and dying here and now, is a particularly odious belief.
Posted by: Magie | May 10, 2007 10:32 AM
For a roundup of specific historical incidents, there is Andrew Dickson White's tome:
A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom
It weighs in at about 900 pages. BTW, the works of Galileo and Copernicus were not removed from the Vatican's Index of Banned Books until about 1830. What's that? Surely you knew that the largest Christian church on the planet maintained an official list of banned books well into the 20th century.
Posted by: quork | May 10, 2007 10:35 AM
PZ,
A bit more sinning against science,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3646170288558814724#0h06m05s
Could you ask the nearest Astronomer at scifoo to check out the figures :-)
and RD get a mention too...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3646170288558814724#0h03m19s
Posted by: deviljelly | May 10, 2007 10:39 AM
Ways of Knowing
Religions pretend that there are other ways than science of gaining knowledge about the natural world. They will refer to other "ways of knowing." But what are those "ways of knowing"? Scripture is not a reliable "way of knowing." Revelation is not a reliable "way of knowing." Faith is not a reliable "way of knowing." Peolpe who use this term need to back it up by explaining what other "ways of knowing" they are talking about, and why we should believe them to be reliable.
Posted by: quork | May 10, 2007 10:40 AM
BLACKMAIL
All religions use this, or in extreme cases are this.
"Do as "god" says, and you'll go to heaven. Don't do as "god" says and you'll go to hell."
OIf course, "god" is represented by the priests in power, and if they have secular power, they can ensure that you go to hell, and that the journey will be painful.
Posted by: G. Tingey | May 10, 2007 10:42 AM
The destruction of the Library of Alexandria should top any list of Christian crimes against science.
Posted by: Chuck Morrison | May 10, 2007 10:45 AM
Ethical monopolism. The claim by many Christians that theirs is the only objective system of ethics is just comical, given the wars Christians have fought with each other over small ethical differences. But their claim that "without religion, one can't have ethics" affects a whole lot of people, who bring up children in a religion they themselves don't believe, for fear the children will grow up without a moral code.
The fact is that the major ethical systems in philosophy are a-theistic, and that science is making major advances towards understanding why people innately think certain behaviors are moral or immoral. Religion really doesn't even have a dog in this fight any more, but simply by asserting the big lie, they have a lot of naive people convinced.
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | May 10, 2007 10:53 AM
Whoa. That was, like, the ultimate Pharyngula atheist post - a manifesto, if you like. Best of all: it stays sharp, without heading into Sam Harris-land. Me mucho gusto.
Posted by: forsen | May 10, 2007 10:54 AM
Nevermind the burning of the Mayan codices at Mani...
Posted by: ewige | May 10, 2007 10:54 AM
Inherently Evil
Man is seen as inherently evil. It is only through accepting Jesus Christ as our saviour that we do not succumb to our evil ways.
The exponential advancement of technology must be terribly scary to individuals who believe in this. Since man is evil his products must also be evil. No wonder there is so much resistance to technological advancements such as the biomedical revolution which may be able to significantly decrease if not eliminate genetic disorders.
This is close to Theft because if any good comes out of man's work it is only because of God, but there are other implications, like any resistance to technology simply based upon the premise that man is evil.
Ugh
I wonder what the God-fearing Christian thinks about the possibility of Strong AI.
Posted by: Charles | May 10, 2007 10:55 AM
"...if we could use a time machine to gather together a group of Essenes with a matched group of Southern Baptists, we'd have us an entertaining bloodbath..."
I'd gladly pay $19.95 to watch that on PPV.
"Faith is the greatest sin of religion. I despise it..."
Um... amen, brother. Ahem.
Posted by: Rich | May 10, 2007 10:57 AM
Hatemongering. Almost every religion tells you that *someone* is inferior and needs to be put in their place or killed. Not because of something they did, but because of something they *are*. Women, Jews, gays, lower castes, and most commonly, unbelievers and heretics. One of the ugliest of all human impulses is the drive to stigmatize and attack the Others. Far from suppressing this drive in order to maintain civilized society, religion routinely cultivates it.
Accordingly I'd like to state for the record that although I would like to see religions reformed so they no longer display the traits listed on this thread or abandoned, I don't want to kill, torture, assault or even threaten any human being to achieve this goal.
Posted by: Chris | May 10, 2007 10:59 AM
How about the idea that "there are some things man is not meant to know"? I don't know what to call this...Fear of the unknown? Fear of change?
That certain avenues of research should be off-limits, not because of ethical considerations, but because some religious folk feel weird about it, can be considered decidedly anti-science.
Posted by: raiko | May 10, 2007 11:02 AM
You know, back in the winter of 2002-03, when there was all this talk about war with Iraq but before the bombs started falling, it occurred to me that I didn't know that much about Iraq. So, I spent about a week catching up on its history and politics. Nothing deep -- a little bit about Alexander's experiences in Mesopotamia, then skip ahead to the Mossadegh coup in 53-54, the origins of the Ba'ath party and their split with the Nasserites, the Iran-Iraq war, Gulf War I, the UN weapons inspectors, the '98 bombings. And it was crystal clear that a) Saddam was not a threat to the US or its interests, b) there were no WMDs, c) Pan-Arab nationalists and Islamic theocrats are natural enemies and would never cooperate, d) Saddam was a tinpot dictator not unlike dozens of others dictators in the world at any given time, and e) the politicians and the media were lying to us at every turn.
And I remember sharing this information with "people of faith," and they seemed astonished by a) my curiosity, and b) my willingness to put knowledge and reason ahead of obedience to authority. They seemed to think that learning and thinking were acts of arrogance, and to act rashly and ignorantly was a virtue. That was the moment I went from casual secularist to angry atheist.
Posted by: HP | May 10, 2007 11:04 AM
How about altruism?
Personally, I think the idea that true self-sacrifice is virtuous is largely an artifact of religious belief.
Note: In many/most cases, I don't think of voluntary charity, showing courtesy, voluntarily helping others etc. as truly altruistic acts.
Posted by: ATW | May 10, 2007 11:06 AM
I think it's time for God to stop playing God.
Posted by: quork | May 10, 2007 11:08 AM
Heh -- This Is Spineless Tap? ;)
Hey, just come up with 87 more and you'll be ready to nail 'em up on a door someplace!
Posted by: Warren | May 10, 2007 11:09 AM
Judgement: Religion inevitably contradicts itself once again. The Christian belief is that you should not judge the others around you, treat others as you would like to be treated, and selflessness. Amongst all this is the contradicting belief that we will all be judged in the end. Look at your merciful "God" now! What kind of father figure teaches his children not to judge each other, yet judges their behavior in the end? The Christian faith teaches us a structure of judgement: Those who do not follow the ten commandments are evil, and will go to hell...which instills a sense that they are the enemy. PLEASE stop separating us
Posted by: Tony Elsmore | May 10, 2007 11:11 AM
ATW,
I think you may be wrong there. Suicide because of faith is different than altruism.
Putting ones self at risk in an effort to preserve or help the group, as in trying to save lives or defend them is a good thing.
Posted by: Steve_C (Secular Elitist) FCD | May 10, 2007 11:12 AM
ATW, are you referring to Cialdini's 'negative state relief' model of altruism at all? If not, you might be interested in:
http://psychology.utoledo.edu/images/public/geers-social/cialdini-schaller.pdf
Posted by: Magpie | May 10, 2007 11:16 AM
Vox Day is just looking for some responses that he can quote mine or chop into bite size pieces with careful use of ellipses.
If I was going to actually list any items that I think are particularly sinful it would be.
Taxes - I pay my taxes. Why shouldn't religious institutions have to pay taxes the same way that any other private entity or private citizen does. If I didn't want to pay taxes I would have to resort to years of stonewalling, lies, and trickery to avoid paying them. Whereas a religious institution would just have to claim that they are a religious institution and fill out the appropriate paperwork. But in the end I would have to pay them or go to jail and they wouldn't.
Although I suppose I could just go on the lam to avoid paying taxes. But only a total nutcase would do that.
Posted by: commissarjs | May 10, 2007 11:17 AM
"...Buddhists seem less prone to the tyranny of authoritarianism."
That's not quite accurate, PZ. It depends on the social context Buddhism finds itself in. For instance, in midieval Japan the Zen, Pureland and other sects of Buddhism ended up getting in bed with the shogunate government of Kamakura visa vis their respective clergies. This had the effect of creating a situation in which Nichiren, a Buddhist reformer priest, was persecuted and almost beheaded by government. Hence Buddhism can become very authoritarian if it allows itself to get in bed with politicians.
GE
Posted by: Guitar Eddie | May 10, 2007 11:18 AM
"God-fearing", that's a phrase that always amazes me that it is supposed to be a good thing to be in constant fear.
"Faith", is also amusing in that it really should also be Science's greatest DEFENSE from religion. If religion requires FAITH, then science is no threat to religion. Likewise, if faith is required, then doesn't that mean that there can't possibly be any evidence of "god's hand" in the natural world? That it should be possible to explain all of existence without belief in god, because god requires faith?
But the other side "faith" as an issue is that for the religious, since their book requires faith, they conclude that all books must require faith. It seems that their attacks on science always include the accusation, "but you atheists are just putting your faith in science". This inability to see the other than in terms of faith is what leads to the use of "Darwinists" to label evolutionists. They can only see our belief and respect for Darwin (and other scientists) in the same way they believe in Moses or Christ or Mohammed. As a "prophet" whose words are not to be questioned. They cannot see that Darwin is not respected blindly, but has earned that respect through constant testing of his theory. They cannot see that science is the process of always trying to dis-prove itself. The religious have been so indoctrinated with having to accept the "book" with unquestioning faith, that they think that is also the model for science. They fail to see that when sciece stops testing something and accepts it as a law, it is not done out of faith but because it has been tested.
Posted by: SteveM | May 10, 2007 11:19 AM
Someone should direct good ole' Vox to "The Republican War on Science."
Posted by: Ric | May 10, 2007 11:20 AM
I question whether there really is any true "altruism" in most religions, since the whole point of doing "altruistic" acts is to make the big sky fairy happy enough to grant you eternal bliss. That is no more altruistic than helping my co-workers in the hopes that the boss will give me a promotion.
A real example of religious altruism would be someone who goes around murdering just-baptized babies, thus ensuring that the infants will go straight to heaven as quickly as possible, but dooming the murderer to hell. That would be true altruism in the framework of religion.
Posted by: Tulse | May 10, 2007 11:23 AM
quork:
To quote Andrew Dickson White as an argument for or against anything is pure insanity! His book is a badly written fairy tale from beginning to end. Unfortunately he is the source of a lot of the myths that modern historians of science have to spend a lot of their time trying to destroy. One of those myths is that De Revolutionibus was not removed from the Index until the 1830s. Copernicus' book was referred to the Index for correction in 1616 it was declared free for anybody to read or study in 1621 with surprisingly few changes. Catholic scientists throughout the world taught the Copernican Hypothesis with the Churches blessing all through the 17th century. I am in no way defending the Catholic Church, or any other if it comes to that, I am myself a radical atheist (see Douglas Adams for the definition of radical atheist) but if you wish to argue something at least get your facts right.
Posted by: Thony C. | May 10, 2007 11:24 AM
Suppression/Denial:
Most religions actively suppress knowledge and actions that they do not like. Burning books and people seems to be a recurring theme. They also deny anything that does not support their beliefs, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Posted by: Shenda | May 10, 2007 11:32 AM
Superiority: They know better, they are better people. Science's efforts are puny and wrong.
Evasion: don't engage in the argument or answer the question asked on the terms it was asked.
Posted by: Peter McGrath | May 10, 2007 11:32 AM
"Hence Buddhism can become very authoritarian if it allows itself to get in bed with politicians."
Unfortunately. This is why I (a Buddhist) am worried by the recent demands by certain elements of the Thai monastic community to have Buddhism declared their state religion, and also why I am not all that sympathetic to the Dalai Lama. That being said, few Buddhists can be said to be hostile to science in the same way common among the Abrahamic religions.
Posted by: MJ Memphis | May 10, 2007 11:38 AM
Excellent post, PZ. And some interesting dialogue as well. I'll be bookmarking this entry specifically, as it succinctly explains issues that I have with religion, but that I have been unable to relate well to religious people.
Posted by: sinned34 | May 10, 2007 11:45 AM
Welsh Hindus fight to save "Shambo" the sacred bull" It says they are Hindus, it does not specify whether they are evolutionists or not.
Posted by: quork | May 10, 2007 11:48 AM
Projection
I'm refering to the statements that mythologists make about "it takes faith to be an atheist." Or the use of the term "Darwinism," to imply that we worship the man rather than accept his theory. They try to drag those with scientific and rational world views down to their level.
Posted by: idahogie | May 10, 2007 11:50 AM
Rationalization
Good thing happens--God's will, because you were a good boy.
Bad thing happens--God's will, because you were a bad boy.
Contempt for Human Life
Fundamentalists often complain that if evolution was true then we are no better than beasts, yet in the same breath they will tell us that, according to the doctrine of Original Sin, the Bible teaches that we are scum, far worse than any animal, deserving of an eternity of utter anguish in the fires of Hell merely for the sin of being born. Being "pro-life" is such a sham.
Posted by: tacitus | May 10, 2007 11:55 AM
Egotism
The belief that the universe and everything in it was created for you to exploit and enjoy.
Posted by: Steve_C (Secular Elitist) FCD | May 10, 2007 11:57 AM
Thony C.:
Surprisingly few changes? Am I supposed to acknowledge that they had the right to demand any changes at all?
You don't cite any sources, so I guess you consider yourself to be an indisputable source. Could you please submit your corrections to Wikipedia, which says In 1757 Copernicus' book was removed from the Vatican's Index Librorum Prohibitorum, the list of books banned by the Catholic Church.
Posted by: quork | May 10, 2007 12:00 PM
PZ got off all the biggies, so allow me to use a narrower focus-- CHRISTIANITY'S SINS AGAINST DAVE X--
1) Waking me up on the weekend. I don't get enough sleep as it is. I don't feel like showing up at my front door in my underpants, too tired to realize that there isn't an emergency. Just because YOU aren't allowed to stay up until 3am doesn't mean I don't. Your bright early morning is my middle of the night.
2) Your ugly bus. That's right. I hate your ugly school bus. God must have made you color blind, because nobody can make a school bus uglier than church group with a couple cans of paint. These things are already eyesores, why make it worse?
3) "Iffy" commitment to homeschooling. I'd sooner see every last one of your ugly schoolbus riding children kept at home for the duration of their 18 years than have them attending otherwise decent schools, where their parents feel the urge to muck about in my kid's biology class.
4) Your crummy music! I can dig on Al Green, Mahalia Jackson, and Edna Cooke any day. Unfortunately, Christian rock makes me want to stick a fork in my eyeball. In fact, let's just say that white Christians have more or less forfeited their right to continue to make records. With less honor than a band of thieves, the Christian music community shamelessly steals every current, popular concept; watering it down, and bending it to its message. YUCK!
5) Dumb sayings on church signs. These are like pearls of stupidity, but in lights. Undoubtedly, some asshat will quote one to me: "Didja see the one that said..."
6) Total library domination. Between you and the majority of other pedestrian readers, I'm sick of finding that my local library's "new books" shelf is constantly populated with Billy Graham/Benny Hinn/Chicken Soup bullshit books by Christian authors with nothing important to say. I use my library to expand my world, not simply confirm it over and over. Lay off!
7) B-I-N-G-O! Ok, I'm just jealous. I'm not allowed to run a gambling establishment out of my home and make the big bucks, so how come you can?
8) Ugly buildings! At one point in time, Christians contributed to the beautification of an area with a well-built church. Sure, the cathedrals probably cost more than a few peasant lives, but they sure are nice to look at. But today, it seems any bozo with a tract of land can slap together a pre-fab building (let's just call them oversize sheds) and be done with it. These metal barn things are annoying to look at with their grossly oversized, no property-tax paying, might-as-well-be-storage-locker appearance.
10) Flamingo flocking. For those of you who don't know, some churches like to put a bunch of flamingos on your lawn at night, and make you pay their youth group's favorite charity to have them picked up. In theory, this is only supposed to happen to other members of the church, who can "opt out" by purchasing "insurance". So it's basically a cutesy form of extortion-- the kiddies won't wreck your lawn if you pay up. As harmless as this sounds, I've seen it occasionally spread to non-church members as a way to do "outreach" or whatever. This hasn't happened to me yet, but if it does, I'm going to delight in setting the flock on fire.
11) Being "on fire"... Christians "on fire" are just plain creepy. I'd rather hang out with crackheads. At least I can always send THEM to the carpet for an hour or two by claiming I saw somebody drop a rock.
12) LYING. Don't tell me that God "speaks" to you. We both know you're lying. If he speaks to people, how come there aren't any decent God impressions on YouTube?
Posted by: DaveX | May 10, 2007 12:03 PM
Retrying Galileo
Maurice A. Finocchiaro
Posted by: quork | May 10, 2007 12:03 PM
This has got to be the best Pharyngula post ever. It should be in a book.
Posted by: rainbows4dinosaurs | May 10, 2007 12:04 PM
I think that "sins against science" is a bit too specific. Superstition stands against more than science per se, it stands against thought altogether. "Do as I say because God will kick your ass if you don't" is a threat that stifles not only intellectual achievement, but attacks every other human right as well.
Incidentally, I've pretty much given up using the word "religion". From now on, "superstition" will do just fine.
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | May 10, 2007 12:11 PM
Chuck:
Ummm...no, the jury's still out on that 1.
There were a number of times parts were destroyed - & some stories suggest it was Muslims, there was Caesar's attack.
I guess you could say, the Library wasn't burnt down in a day.
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | May 10, 2007 12:17 PM
Mooney and Nisbet are always available to help people who have been injured, or offended, or even put off by science. The long suffering cognitive misers (i.e. not cognitively astute schmucks which includes bumbling scientists) must be re-programmed and re-framed by their betters lest all is lost to the evil framers, also their betters. All is cognition and/or perception (i.e. mental).
The IVY League is the best place to become a framing genius and a better person.
There is an almost identical advertisement on the back of my telephone directory by some lawyers who really care and sincerely want to help people injured in horrible accidents.
Posted by: gerald spezio | May 10, 2007 12:17 PM
How about this:
XIV - Capital Prevarification - I am reading Hitchen's new book, and that is not here at work, but this is what I remember:
A Catholic Cardinal spread the lie to Africans that condoms have been designed to be specifically porous to the HIV, and that using condoms is actually more dangerous than riding bareback.
Yes, abstinences is the best preventative, but this lie has led to a new contagion.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich | May 10, 2007 12:26 PM
DaveX: you find a Christian on fire, my advice is don't piss on him.
Posted by: Peter McGrath | May 10, 2007 12:31 PM
What an odd sort of post, "Sins against science", as if "science" was something that could be sinned against.
Here are some contrarian statements (meant to be tongue-in-cheek).
In terms of "individual variation, both between people in a sect and between sects themselves", it seems that none of the 12 entries match my religious belief or practice. I suspect that they don't match the belief or practices of the vast majority of my congregation either. Maybe this is a list of fundamentalist Christian sins against science.
Posted by: Jeff Alexander | May 10, 2007 12:33 PM
I would suggest that those who would email Vox an answer this question to use Vox's own "sins" and interpretation of Christianity. Remember, Vox Day wrote, for World Nut Delay, this article: "The case against science."
I blogged on it (and so did PZ).
Vox then can't say "hey, that's not Christianity" if you use Vox's own version of Christianity. Don't let him slip with that evasion, uses Vox's own sins.
Posted by: Norman Doering | May 10, 2007 12:35 PM
Nah. It's religion in general.
See post #3 Evasion
Posted by: Steve_C (Secular Elitist) FCD | May 10, 2007 12:41 PM
I agree with Rainbows, this is one of your best posts ever, PZ. It's right up there with "The proper reverence due...".
I would also include "a warped sense of justice" as another point. I don't mean subscription to Levitcus as though they'd like it legislated.
I mean, in a given human life, there is only a finite amount of wrongdoing that a person can get done. While that amount may constitute levels of evil(sinning) ranging from a malicious lie to uninhibited genocide, the religious believe, unfailingly, that finite wrongdoing REQUIRES INFINITE Punishment.
Wow, what a fucking stupid and horrendous idea.
Posted by: Freelancer | May 10, 2007 12:43 PM
At risk of being pedantic:
That wasn't a crime against science as much as a crime against another religion. If the books of Chilam Balam are representative of the content of Mayan codices at the time of Spanish conquest, they were probably full of magical, prophetic and religious crap. Even the excellent Mayan astronomy was developed only for astrological purposes.
But of course, the lost of any testimony of a culture, even religious crap, is a terrible loss for the humankind.
Posted by: MartÃn Pereyra | May 10, 2007 12:52 PM
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile."
---Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Posted by: Rev.Enki | May 10, 2007 12:55 PM
One of my friends tried Buddhism for a bit, and was repulsed by a particular aspect of the religion which leads directly to a horrific acceptance of even the worst authoritarianism: Karma. When someone takes control and does terrible things, some Buddhists believe that to stand in their way would be a form of bad karma; the people who the terrible authority would harm deserve their pain, or they wouldn't be being harmed. To interfere with that is to prevent those peoples' karmic debt from being released, which according to these same Buddhists gives you bad karma as well. Thus, these people live with apathetic acceptance of everything because to do otherwise could do worse harm to both themselves and those they would help.
I can't honestly say how widespread this particular karmic belief is, however.
Posted by: ifriit | May 10, 2007 12:55 PM
We should include religions total degradation of woman and their status as inferior human beings,
going so far as to place total blame on them for all the sin in the world.
Posted by: JONBOY | May 10, 2007 12:56 PM
Theft. Graduate students know this on a daily basis: Graduate student does most of the research and writing, Professor is listed as primary author
Sure ain't true of my group.
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | May 10, 2007 12:58 PM
it seems that none of the 12 entries match my religious belief or practice. I suspect that they don't match the belief or practices of the vast majority of my congregation either.
Jeff, I hope you're joking and I'm missing it (quite possible, maybe likely). Indeed, it's pretty much impossible for you to have religious belief (or your congregation for that matter) without, at the very least, number 12 (faith).
Posted by: kmarissa | May 10, 2007 12:58 PM
(Apparently) I really like (in parenthesis,) parenthesis.
Posted by: kmarissa | May 10, 2007 1:01 PM
@Tulse -
That would be Andrea Yates...
Posted by: Rose | May 10, 2007 1:02 PM
Hypocrisy
It's a "sin" not scorned thoroughly enough, and the church - or religion in general - is not taken to task over it hardly ever. Why? It's due to many of the things PZ and others listed here, but nevertheless I feel this is the one thing that is interlaced with all the other flaws (and indeed serves as the basis of many of the others), and the thing I must highlight.
Examples are myriad, such as the supposed strong calls to feed the hungry, care for the sick, comfort the dying. All these things are called for in the Bible, yet go into any church in this country and you'll likely be asked to contribute money for various reasons, one of them being to upgrade the church itself (the building and its facilities). When was the last time a priest took the congregation down to a homeless shelter, the local psyche ward, or a juvenile detention center on Sunday morning and told them to get to work? Never.
Why do we, as the richest and most prosperous nation in the world, so steadfastly refuse to willingly commit time, energy, policy and resources to help the peoples of Africa? If this is such a godly country, surely the nearest god-worshipping CEO would immediately throw down the cloaks of his wealth and fly to Africa to build a school. This has actually happened once, though I do not know if the person in question (a former high-ranking Microsoft official) is Christian or not. Woody Guthrie was waxing lyrical about our profound capabilities and fortunes in the 40s, and that we could apply them to the world's problems if we truly wanted to.
I could get into other hypocrisies in other religions, but I have precious time I need to spend elsewhere.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | May 10, 2007 1:03 PM
Universality If their God is the God of the Universe, then their imaginary King is rightful King over you and everyone else. It's an assertion of power over the heads of everyone else, believers and nonbelievers alike. We see this in the attitude of divine right for Christians to put the Ten Commandments in courthouses and in Muslims for insisting that non-muslims obey their rules about referring to the Prophet Mohammad.
After all, if Allah is the God of the Universe, then I better be subservient to him no matter what my beliefs are.
It is a form of spiritual slavery. It says, "your soul/mind/body are not your own, they belong to my Master."
Posted by: Siamang | May 10, 2007 1:07 PM
Question: Why are we singling out Christianity?
Sure it's the most prevalent gig here in the US, but not in the world. Criticize religion in general for its failings.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | May 10, 2007 1:08 PM
It was Vox's throwdown. It's a response specifically to that.
Posted by: Steve_C (Secular Elitist) FCD | May 10, 2007 1:11 PM
Because the question was about Christianity. I think most of my points are general enough to describe most of the major world religions, though.
Posted by: PZ Myers | May 10, 2007 1:11 PM
Criminal Sloth
Succinctly summed up in the well-known evangelical marketing slogan, "Let go and let God." Everything happens because it's God's will and because God intended it to happen that way. Don't fight reality--don't even question reality--because Creation is good, because it's God's creation; who are we to second-guess it?
You get raped? God had a plan. Your religious doctor didn't try real hard to save your life? God made you sick--for a reason; God will heal you--if He has a reason. Prayers not answered? God said "no." Etc., etc.
Posted by: speedwell | May 10, 2007 1:12 PM
I can't believe nobody mentioned Dualism, the concept that human beings have two natures, one an evil fleshly nature and one a good, intangible, "spiritual" nature. The usual words we use for this concept are "body" and "soul," although in modern secular discourse, we still say "mind." This concept is so entrenched, it's almost impossible to talk about thought, agency, intent, cognition, and so on without invoking it. It's definitely responsible for a lot of egregious stuff.
For one thing, it gives cognitive-theory "God of the Gaps" assholes a place to pontificate; it contributes further to the notion that human beings are intrinsically evil; it is an underlying cause of gender essentialism (the idea that gender roles are inborn and natural and more or less immutable rather than acculturated); it gives rise to all sorts of woo about ghosts and spiritual development and whatnot, and it warps people's view of the actual science in the area. As near as I can tell (and I will be the first to admit I'm not a scientist), you pretty much have to check dualism at the door if you want to make any sense at all out of modern cognitive science, psycholinguistics, AI theory (to name a few that I know from experience).
Saying that you think dualism is BS is a great way to get a weird reaction from most people, who seem to think it's the equivalent of saying humans are "biological machines," and who then go on to insist, "Well, surely you must believe that there's something that makes us alive..." (Yeah, it's called "the emergent behaviour of a highly complex system.") Grrrr... If I could eliminate one religiously-based concept magically, poof, off the planet tomorrow, dualism would be what went.
Posted by: Interrobang | May 10, 2007 1:15 PM
There is a second, more twisted, side of #2, Literalism. I don't have a catchy name for it, but it's denialism of the really horrible and insane things that are in the bible. Leviticus is short enough to illustrate this without wasting too much of your time: read carefully about circumcised fruit (literally) and how their god thinks insects have four legs, and all the parts about putting people to death (including the French -- hint, snails). (God also prohibits taxation.) When confronted with the evils of the bible, the cretins snap into denialism mode so fast you can get dizzy watching.
By the way, you didn't pair of 'acts of god' visiting someone who immediately thanks the same god that it wasn't worse than it was. This has always puzzled me, but lately I'm more amused than anything else.
Posted by: Roy | May 10, 2007 1:19 PM
ok, I'm as atheist as the next pharyngulista, but when I see the Roman numerals I-XII all I can think of is "cranial nerves."
Posted by: CCP | May 10, 2007 1:24 PM
My fiance's brother-in-law went through a religiously psychopathic phase several years ago. He decided to take the Bible "promises" literally. He gave away everything he and his wife owned. I mean EVERYTHING. I could not even give her a good pot to cook in if he found out someone else needed it. He didn't go looking for a job--he figured that God would provide... somehow. He actually literally believed that I met my fiance and moved to Texas for a divinely inspired purpose that included the entire extended family. He believed with every fiber of his being that God would send him a winning lottery ticket, because he prayed "in the Holy Spirit according to the Word."
No, he's OK now. Fiance's sis turned up pregnant, and the self-made prophet sobered up quick. These days, he prefers we not talk about his little excursion into la-la land.
Posted by: speedwell | May 10, 2007 1:25 PM
IMMORALITY: There must be a large genetic component to morality. It makes sense that this would be a desirable trait from an evolutionary perspective. I think it's one of the main reasons that H. sapeins have been able to spread to every continent on the planet. We wouldn't have such a huge health care industry without it. That sickening feeling you get when you witness murder of innocent people (or animals or the destruction of habitat)...that is your genes influencing your behavior.
Religions have elements of morality because of the genetic component that all people have. However, these general philosophies are more often twisted into advocating very immoral behavior. Any approach to life that is based on the Old Testemant (eg, Christianity, Judaeism, and Islam) is obviously immoral; ie, contrary to the general moral and altruistic behavior that our genes tend to produce.
We have to start recognizing (and making others recognize) that morality does NOT come from religion. Indeed, religion often makes good people have very bad behavior. The sooner we realize that morality doesn't come from religion, the sooner we will be able