Christian Science and rationality

I view religion and rationality as very separate. But with most religious ideas, I can at least grasp why people believe them. However, when it comes to Christian Science, I just don’t get it no-how.

A column on the local paper’s religion page by Adam Scherr (March 20, click here) urged inclusion of “spiritual care” in health coverage. He says his family “chose spiritual care for one simple reason—it is effective and results-based.” He tells of an arm injury: “Through my practice of Christian Science I was confident that I would see a healing result … I prayed and trusted that healing would occur.” He refused medical treatment.

I too had a recent arm injury, and it too healed by itself. But I hope Mr. Scherr never gets heart disease, kidney disease, cancer, or anything else that just doesn’t heal by itself.

Old joke: a guy stands on his roof as floodwaters rise. A navy rescue diver swims by and offers to carry him to safety. “No thanks,” he answers, “I trust in God, he’ll save me.” Then comes a boat, and he waves that away too; “God will save me.” Then a helicopter: same answer.

Finally, he drowns. Meeting God, he asks, “Why didn’t you save me?”

God replies, “I sent you a diver. I sent you a boat. I sent you a helicopter. What more did you want, schmuck?”

God sends us doctors. He sends us medicines, and treatments. And Christian Scientists wave them away.

How is that “spiritual” or Godly? To stay healthy, eating food also helps. Christian Scientists don’t refuse food. Why refuse medicine? Because, they believe, faith and prayer is effective, but medical science is all bunkum. That was the doctrine of their prophetess, Mary Baker Eddy, writing back in the 1870s, when the state of medical knowledge was in truth still primitive, compared to now. Refusing to recognize the advancement is absurd. And it’s funny how the extreme skepticism Eddy’s followers still exhibit toward medical science turns into extreme credulity when it comes to prayer.

The prehistoric average lifespan was twentyish. As late as 1900, it was only 31, worldwide. Today it’s about 67, and nearly 80 in developed nations. Christian Scientists hold that faith and prayer, not medical treatment, are the keys to health. So the huge observed improvement in health and longevity must have occurred because people in the last century became so much more spiritual and prayerful—especially in developed nations. Right.

A scientific study by W.F. Simpson has found that Christian Science believers – despite healthier life styles in some respects, e.g., regarding tobacco and alcohol – had significantly shorter lifespans than a comparable non-CS control group. What a surprise.

But I suppose that if you believe you’re going to Heaven, then dying sooner is no bad thing. Maybe that’s the rationality of Christian Science: getting to Heaven quicker.

My libertarian instincts say let them. Unfortunately, there is evidence (click here) that Christian Science beliefs have (for obvious reasons) helped spread contagious diseases. And then there’s the issue of their children.

Jury Duty: Aaron Dare Mortgage Fraud

A departure from my usual blogging: I was recently an alternate juror on a major criminal trial, involving mortgage fraud. Because of the length of what I’ve written, I have decided to post it as a separate document: CLICK HERE.

It’s QUITE a story. (And my perspective is somewhat different from what you might infer from the newspaper.)

Flood myths

I recently attended a talk by Dr. Frank Wind, a professional geologist and storyteller, entitled “Awash in Tales – the Biblical Story of Noah’s Flood and Other Flood Myths.”

He began by citing the famed 17^th century calculation by Bishop Ussher that, based on the Bible’s chronology, the creation occurred in 4004 BCE – to be exact, on October 23. (There is argument about what time of day. Seriously.) Noah’s flood was placed at 2348 BCE. (“BCE” is the same as BC, but is used by those who prefer to leave Christ out of it). According to Dr. Wind, this sort of “young Earth” chronology had been pretty much quietly forgotten by most of Christendom, until its recrudescence as part-and-parcel of the late 20^th Century American anti-evolution crusade.

What put the kibosh the 4004 BCE stuff – originally, at least – was unignorable scientific fact. Frank Wind discussed the work of Hugh Miller (1802-56), a Scottish scientist who authored The Testimony of the Rocks. Miller, like many other scientists of his time, had difficulty reconciling that evidence (of a very old Earth) and the Bible; but in the end he came down on the side of scientific truth.

Miller was particularly intrigued by the fact that flood myths are ubiquitous in human cultures all over the world. While some have little resemblance to the Bible’s tale, apart from the water ingredient, many do entail striking parallels. One notable example occurs in the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, which predates the Bible by around a thousand years. (In Gilgamesh, the hero was Utnapishtim. But Noah became more famous because his name was easier to remember.)

All this prompts the question of whether these flood stories all have a common ancestry – perhaps some big inundation whose trauma deeply impressed itself on the early human psyche. In his slide show, Wind did present one slide entitled “Geologic Evidence for Noah’s Flood.” It was blank. Geological investigations in the Mesopotamian region, the “cradle of civilization,” more or less, have revealed evidence of only minor local flooding, but nothing like a cataclysmic world deluge.

However, there is another candidate: around 5600 BC rising waters after the last Ice Age may have smashed through a barrier between the Mediterranean and the theretofore inhabited basin that now became, suddenly, the Black Sea. While there is some suggestive evidence for this hypothesis, so far no smoking gun.

Meantime, Biblical literalists of course insist on the truth of the Noah story, and this entails some, well, difficulties. Like, how could an ark with the dimensions specified in the Bible have had room for every species? Some fundamentalists answer that the ark wouldn’t have had to – it could have taken aboard just every type – e.g., one pair to represent every variety of penguin. And then, after the flood, they would simply have diversified into all the different penguin species we see today. There is a word for that – evolution! (However, not even the most rabid Darwinist would argue that so much evolution could occur in just a few thousand years.)

Furthermore, Noah’s vessel would have had to contain not only the animals – some pretty sizeable, including dinosaurs, as shown in displays at Kentucky’s Creation Museum – but also food for them. One might suppose that for the predators, at least, that ark would have been one big buffet. But the Kentucky museum says all the animals were vegetarians.

(“Prepare to believe,” says the Museum’s website banner. I go to museums to learn.)

And trying to explain fossils has always been a bit of a nuisance for creationists. They are forced to insist that the entirety of fossils were all laid down in the flood – which of course (forgive the pun) won’t wash. (The fossil record contains evidence of extremely varied life over successive periods covering billions of years; to think they all lived side-by-side is preposterous.) Creationists also have a spot of bother trying to explain who the Neanderthals could possibly have been. One hopeful theory is that this seemingly different species was actually the same as us except they lived for such vast ages that their bones changed. After all, some early Biblical personages did live quite long, topping out with Methuselah at a ripe old 969. (Too bad the Bible failed to record his health tips.)

But, per one of Frank Wind’s cartoon slides, science says “Here are the facts, what conclusions can be drawn?” Creationists say “Here’s the conclusion; what facts can we find (or, often, make up) to support it?”