Prayer, Death, and Motivation
Greetings, I’m S.A. Alenthony, and as Adrian was kind enough to give me a bit of blogging time, I’ll do my best to write a few interesting (I hope) bits here and there, interspersed with Samantha’s Odyssey into the Heart of Creationism.
There have been several moderately publicized court cases this summer that involve religious parents being tried for the deaths of their own children. Below I’ll explain why I feel a strong resonance with these stories, and what they motivate me to do in turn; but first, I’ll summarize the details for anyone that isn’t familiar with the cases.
In the first case, the AP reported on July 31 that an Oregon man convicted of criminal mistreatment in the “faith-healing” death of his young daughter was sentenced to a whopping 60 days in jail. (Two months?! That’s it?)
A jury convicted Carl Worthington of a misdemeanor charge of criminal mistreatment after acquitting him and his wife of felony manslaughter in the March 2008 death of their 15-month-old daughter, Ava, from illnesses that could have been treated with antibiotics.
The pair belong to the Followers of Christ Church, which avoids doctors in favor of “spiritual healing.”
As for the second case, the AP reported on the following day that a Wisconsin man, Dale Neumann, that was accused of killing his 11-year-old daughter by praying instead of seeking medical care, had been found guilty of second-degree reckless homicide.
Neumann was convicted in the death of his daughter, Madeline, from undiagnosed diabetes. Prosecutors contended he should have taken her to a hospital when she couldn’t walk, talk, eat or drink. Instead, she died on the floor of the family’s home as people prayed.
Sentencing will be in October for both parents, who face up to 25 years in prison. (Which sounds far more fitting than 60 days.)
Neumann, who had studied to be a minister, testified Thursday that he believed God would heal the child, and that he never expected her to die. “If I go to the doctor, I am putting the doctor before God,” Neumann testified. “I am not believing what He said He would do.“ (Some might wonder, as I did, what this fellow must be thinking about his God now, given that he followed directions but the girl still died… Certainly I’m sure he’s rationalized something.)
The capability that religion has for inducing this sort of mindless, death-affirming behavior is, of course, just one of its many problems. I hardly need to point out, as a guest writer on an atheist blog, what an indictment of faith-based thinking these examples are. (Mainstream and liberal Christians will protest that such behavior is a fringe occurrence and not representative of them – and they are right. But that isn’t because of anything religion per se has done, but because of the steady progress of secular enlightenment over the centuries.)
These stories are troubling, exasperating and revolting, of course, but occasionally they don’t have bleak endings; it turns out my life provides one rare example. For I had the very bad luck of not only being born to a family of Jehovah’s Witnesses, but to also have developed a condition at birth requiring medical intervention.
If you are familiar with the cult that is the Witnesses, you’ll know that they have odd interpretations of certain biblical passages. There are several that they read as injunctions against blood-transfusions, regardless of the medical emergency at hand. So when I was diagnosed with Hemolytic Disease of the Newborn, a condition where the red blood cells are slowly destroyed by the immune system (another example of that intelligent human body design, eh?) my father told the hospital staff that the fact that I could die was not sufficient reason to perform the abominable transfusion. Luckily for me, the state of New York issued a court order for the procedure. (I learned about this well into my adult life from my mother, who was horrified at the time that my father had actually proposed trying to remove me from the hospital.)
Afforded a chance at a life that religion would have taken, I’ve tended to direct my energies in the direction most opposite to those of the Witnesses and other godly fanatics: I pursued a science career and married an atheist biologist. We’re raising two freethinking kids, and more recently, we’ve become active in volunteering with our state Academy of Science in order to try to motivate more young people to study in our fields. And I have bigger plans as well.
I bring all this up because, as important as it is for we secularists to speak out against ongoing outrages such as those demonstrated by “faith-healing” parents, it is equally important to try to be inspirational and motivational about what we are for. Too often, atheism appears as a viewpoint that only opposes something. A religious friend of mine says that many Americans view atheists negatively because they see us as being something like The Grinch That Stole Christmas. While we know this isn’t the case, the perception is out there, and it works against us.
If my experience has any motivational power to it at all, I hope I can use it to plant a seed in the minds of other freethinkers to get more involved, if they are not already: to sign up to judge a science fair competition at a nearby school; to support a local museum; or to spoil their own kids with telescopes and chemistry sets.
And may they help find the world its next Carl Sagan. And help put the Doctor before god.
Contact Adrian Hayter
My Facebook
My Atheist Nexus Page
My Twitter
My Reddit
My Atheist Spot
My FriendFeed
My Technorati
Atheist Forums
Loading ...
This is a well written and well reasoned post. My congratulations on your current life and condolences for your past.
Some more progressive Christians are willing to adapt their beliefs to allow for their god to work through doctors. At least their children aren't in immediate danger of becoming victim to their parent's delusions.
I've also seen a couple of stories this last month about mothers killing their children either at the request of their god or because of demonic influence. Let's hope this lunacy doesn't spread.
Just as a matter of curiosity, do you think it's possible for a human being to both believe in the existence of a god and be a free-thinking individual?
Aside from that, I do think it's abominable that parents would allow their children to die rather than seek medical care. My parents weren't exactly what you'd called progressive. But even the least progressive Christians I've ever known considered medicine one of God's gifts to humanity, not science's defiance of God's will.
Isn't it just possible, though, that religion isn't all bad, but like science, it's a neutral force that can be bent toward good or evil through people?
Many lives have been lost thanks to the JWs stance on blood, which is wholly unbiblical and unchristian. As Raisin Girl said, you'll find VERY few Christians who wouldn't consider medicine to be one of God's gifts to humanity (in fact many Christians work in the medical profession) but there'll always be the religious nuts and cultists such as the JWs who think they have a special edict from God to act in ways not commanded by the bible.
Yea that's about insane. There better be absolutely no clemency. They killed her plain and simple. These people probably would have happily burned their child at the stake at God's command.
Hi Raisin Girl. Thanks for the reply.
You wrote: "Just as a matter of curiosity, do you think it's possible for a human being to both believe in the existence of a god and be a free-thinking individual?"
My answer: Of course it is possible, and I know people that certainly qualify in that regard. The two things are not mutually exclusive. One of my favorite science writers is the brilliant Martin Gardner, a man that has spent a lifetime promoting skepticism, debunking paranormal claims, and being a voice of rationality – while he yet believes in a personal god. I’d certainly consider him a free-thinker of the highest caliber. (I wrote and posted a review of a relevant book by him here.)
All that being said, I think that this sort of “philosophical theism” practiced by Gardner–in which the believer is strongly aware of the tenuous nature of the belief, and understands that the reasons for belief are more emotional and not supported by reason– is rare, and that such “believers” are a minority in the landscape of modern belief, perhaps about as common as the folks on the other end of the religion spectrum, like the ones that take the bible literally or eschew modern medicine. A typical believer, selected at random from the middle of the distribution, likely believes because he or she was taught to believe from childhood, and that’s it. To believe in the truth of something without questioning it is not freethinking.
Moreover, I’d also say that freethinking theists are freethinking in spite of religious convictions, not because of them. At the heart of most religions one finds a directive to accept claims on faith, to accept revelation as a kind of authority. To be a freethinker means to call such “virtues” into question – not just once, but constantly. To do this honestly, and still maintain belief, is a bit of a balancing act. It can be done, but as Michael Shermer once said, and I paraphrase, the problem with being smart is that you can invent really clever reasons to believe in some not-so-smart things.
You also wrote: "Isn't it just possible, though, that religion isn't all bad, but like science, it's a neutral force that can be bent toward good or evil through people?"
I do not think that religion is “all bad.” However, I think that the good things it has provided (inducements to charity, great music and architecture, a sense of community, etc.) can be just as easily provided by something else, something based more on reason and not on faith, revelation, and worship of authority. Many, many religious people are good, caring, wonderful people. Many of them are intelligent, educated, and make enormous contributions to the general welfare of the planet. But none of that is because of anything endemic to religion. On the other hand, there is a plethora of bad behaviors that are made possible by promises of afterlife glory, or certainty in the teachings of some “prophet.” So while it isn’t “all bad” I certainly don’t see it as “neutral” either. More like “mostly bad.”
Hi Raisin Girl. Thanks for the reply.
You wrote: "Just as a matter of curiosity, do you think it's possible for a human being to both believe in the existence of a god and be a free-thinking individual?"
My answer: Of course it is possible, and I know people that certainly qualify in that regard. The two things are not mutually exclusive. One of my favorite science writers is the brilliant Martin Gardner, a man that has spent a lifetime promoting skepticism, debunking paranormal claims, and being a voice of rationality – while he yet believes in a personal god. I’d certainly consider him a free-thinker of the highest caliber. (I wrote and posted a review of a relevant book by him at http://alenthony.wordpress.com/2009/06/17/the-unl...
All that being said, I think that this sort of “philosophical theism” practiced by Gardner–in which the believer is strongly aware of the tenuous nature of the belief, and understands that the reasons for belief are more emotional and not supported by reason– is rare, and that such “believers” are a minority in the landscape of modern belief, perhaps about as common as the folks on the other end of the religion spectrum, like the ones that take the bible literally or eschew modern medicine. A typical believer, selected at random from the middle of the distribution, likely believes because he or she was taught to believe from childhood, and that’s it. To believe in the truth of something without questioning it is not freethinking.
Moreover, I’d also say that freethinking theists are freethinking in spite of religious convictions, not because of them. At the heart of most religions one finds a directive to accept claims on faith, to accept revelation as a kind of authority. To be a freethinker means to call such “virtues” into question – not just once, but constantly. To do this honestly, and still maintain belief, is a bit of a balancing act. It can be done, but as Michael Shermer once said, and I paraphrase, the problem with being smart is that you can invent really clever reasons to believe in some not-so-smart things.
You also wrote: "Isn't it just possible, though, that religion isn't all bad, but like science, it's a neutral force that can be bent toward good or evil through people?"
I do not think that religion is “all bad.” However, I think that the good things it has provided (inducements to charity, great music and architecture, a sense of community, etc.) can be just as easily provided by something else, something based more on reason and not on faith, revelation, and worship of authority. Many, many religious people are good, caring, wonderful people. Many of them are intelligent, educated, and make enormous contributions to the general welfare of the planet. But none of that is because of anything endemic to religion. On the other hand, there is a plethora of bad behaviors that are made possible by promises of afterlife glory, or certainty in the teachings of some “prophet.” So while it isn’t “all bad” I certainly don’t see it as “neutral” either. More like “mostly bad.”
Hi 3FINKA. Thanks for responding. You wrote:
"Many lives have been lost thanks to the JWs stance on blood, which is wholly unbiblical and unchristian. As Raisin Girl said, you'll find VERY few Christians who wouldn't consider medicine to be one of God's gifts to humanity (in fact many Christians work in the medical profession) but there'll always be the religious nuts and cultists such as the JWs who think they have a special edict from God to act in ways not commanded by the bible."
I tried to be clear that I wasn't trying to paint with so broad a brush as to imply that this is mainstream Christian behavior today. That being the case, there are an estimated seven to fourteen million JWs worldwide. I have been unable to find an estimate of the number of Christian Scientists, but I’d imagine the numbers are comparable. So it is still a problem, a problem that would largely go away (like some other problems) if people abandoned the notions such as the idea that if they just ask the right way, a deity will alter the fabric of reality for them.
I’m not the sort of atheist that calls for the complete eradication of all things spiritual: I don’t really have a problem with the liberal strains of religious beliefs, even though I still regard them as wishful-thinking and have no use for them personally. However, the idea that one can summon supernatural intervention by the mechanism of petitionary prayer can be downright dangerous, as the above examples show, and it is one of the fundamental (and unfortunate) features of many religious traditions. I don’t see any upside to it.
You said, "And may they help find the world its next Carl Sagan. And help put the Doctor before god."
I do agree that they should have gone to the doctor, but I think their motive might have been that back in the day there were no doctors and they had to rely on God to heal them. Their intention was not to hurt anyone.
God can use doctors to help people out and make them feel good.
The Jehovah's witnesses aren't Christians and are as you called them, a cult.
You should not judge Christianity nor the Bible based off of a cult like the JWs.
Hi Christopher.
If by "back in the day" you mean the 1600s, then I see your point. But today there really is no excuse for it. It really doesn't matter if your intentions are good, if you are simultaneously willfully ignorant about reality.
I certainly do not judge other Christians based on what the JWs do. But there are a number of features in JW "thinking" that are present in all religions, generally.
Regardless of whether you will find many Christians working in the medical profession or not, there is no way anyone can say honestly that medicine is a gift from God to humanity. The scientists that actually did give us most of todays medicine (most of which who were secular, not necessarily Atheist, but secular) did not have any help from God in any way, shape, or form, when they found said medicine through scientific research which in most cases took a substantial amount of time. I find it disgusting that anyone, be they of Christian or any other faith, could attribute the work of hard working individual mortal men and women to a deity who gave no input into finding the medicine of today, regardless of whether you believe that he put the substances used for the medicine on earth or not.
Please, give the respect where it's due…and that isn't to God in this case.
Regardless of whether you will find many Christians working in the medical profession or not, there is no way anyone can say honestly that modern day medicine is a gift from God to humanity. The scientists that actually did give us most of todays medicine (most of which who were secular, not necessarily Atheist, but secular) did not have any help from God in any way, shape, or form, when they found said medicine through scientific research which in most cases took a substantial amount of time. I find it disgusting that anyone, be they of Christian or any other faith, could attribute the work of hard working individual mortal men and women to a deity who gave no input into finding the medicine of today, regardless of whether you believe that he put the substances used for the medicine on earth or not.
Please, give the respect where it's due…and that isn't to God in this case.
Sorry, I know that comment was a little off-topic, but I just wanted to state my issue.
How does God use doctors to help people out and make them feel good? Surely what the doctor does is of his own free will, and nothing to do with God?
Of course you can believe in the existance of a deity and still be a free thinker, however, the more assumptions your world view is based upon, the less of a free thinker you are.
Think about it. If you're just a Theist, with no religious connections, you are still a free thinking individual because you have only made one assumption as to how the world was created. If you are a Christian, then you have made the further assumption that it is the Christian God that exists, and choosing a particular God makes you less of a free thinker because you've made more than one assumption. This keeps on going until you get to the fundamentalists, the ones who will reject science on religious grounds, despite the fact that they've been demonstrably proven wrong, and at this point you can't consider them to be free thinkers because there is certainly no free thought going on if you deny fact for fiction.
As more and more unbased assumptions are made, the chance that your view is correct decreases, and you eventually have to reject fact in order to maintain your world view.