Craig A. James's Blog

Are religious people happier than atheists? It turns out that this statistic, while strictly true in America, is quite misleading. The deeper truth is far more interesting ... and it's a perfect case study in meme theory.

Tom Rees over at Epiphenom posted a fascinating new bit of data that just calls out for an explanation:

"Much is made of the apparent fact that religious people are happier and better adjusted than the non-religious. However, as regular readers of this blog will know, this is to a large extent an illusion. ... [If you dig deeper] you'll find that religion is only linked to happiness in countries where a lot of people are religious.

... Although non-religious people feel uncomfortable in religious countries, religious people have no problems living in non-religious countries.

In other words, religious societies reject and shun atheists, so naturally non-religious people are unhappy in these societies. But Dr. Rees makes an even deeper point: secular societies make religious people feel welcome, so there is no converse effect. In secular societies, everyone is equally happy.

The conclusion is inescapable: atheists and agnostics are unhappy in religious countries because of the religious people, whereas religious people do well in secular countries because they're made welcome. You can be an evangelical Christian in Sweden or Denmark, but it's hard to be an atheist in Turkey, Iran or even America.

It's very satisfying to deflate this myth. Religious bloggers and ministers love to crow about the fact that atheists and agnostics are unhappier than "the faithful." Now we can turn and point to them as the cause.

But while this solves one mystery, it presents us with a challenge: why is religion so hostile to atheism? A cultural factor like this that spans so many countries and cultures begs for a deeper analysis.

It's easy to find some superficial reasons for the hostility that atheists and agnostics feel. Maybe Christians aren't "hostile" but rather are doing atheists a favor by saving their souls from eternal damnation. Or maybe atheists are unhappy because humans naturally yearn for God's love, and the atheists won't accept that love. Or maybe atheists actually know God exists, and their unhappiness comes from the stress of having to deny the truth (I've been accused of this by readers).

I think we can dismiss these reasons out of hand. They're false and insulting.

The real reason for religion's anti-atheist hostility is because it's good for religion. Religions that foster hatred and hostility toward atheists are, simply put, better than religions that don't. And we use "better" here in the Darwinian sense.

One of the most fascinating facts about biology is that 99.99% of all species that ever existed are extinct today. If we merely look at the successes (for example, homo sapiens) without considering the failures (such as neanderthals), we're not being very good scientists. It's competition and death that drive evolution forward. In order for the more fit species to survive, the less fit species has to die. And in order to understand the survivors, we have to study the failures.

The same thing applies to the evolution of religions. We have to look at the ones that died along with the ones we know today. In the cultural-evolution or "memetic" way of thinking (the study of how ideas evolve and spread across society and down through history), religion isn't a set of distinct faiths, but rather is a great mass of competing ideas fighting for "survival of the fittest." At any point in history, there have been many thousands of religions around the world. Within each religion there are often hundreds of differing opinions and interpretations of the main ideas.

In order to survive, a particular idea has to spread across society and down through history. But that's no trivial task: there are plenty of others competing. At each generation, only the "fittest" ideas survive to be passed along. This is the primary driving force that shapes any one religion's beliefs as time passes. And it's also true between religions: eventually, the "fitter" religions steal away all the believers from the "weaker" religions, which die out and pass into the history books.

What makes one religion more "fit" than another? There are many factors indeed (that's why I wrote The Religion Virus ), but it brings us back to today's topic.

Children are born atheists and must be indoctrinated early and thoroughly in order for their faith to stick. Atheism is a huge threat to that process. If a culture allows atheists in their midst, the children will be exposed to powerful and persuasive ideas (logic, science, rational thinking). These atheistic ideas challenge the faith-based dogma that the children have to learn. Children are much more likely to have weak faith or no faith if they are exposed to atheism. (See Teach the Children for more on this topic.)

Thus, hostility to atheism is a "good" trait for religions to have. A religion that persecutes atheists will be more successful than one that doesn't. As generations and centuries go by, it's almost inevitable that religion will become more and more hostile to atheism.

Atheists aren't really such a sorry, unhappy lot. It's religion's fault, and now we know why: it's good for religion to be hostile to atheism. Religions with a live-and-let-live attitude died out a long time ago. They're extinct, and we're left with the survivors, the "fittest" religions ... the ones that don't like atheists.

Dear Loyal Readers,

UPDATE (November 2013): As even the casual reader can see, I've actually decided to stop blogging for a year or two while I pursue other projects.  Thanks to all my faithful readers.  I've closed out comments, too; 95% of comments are spam now.  It's time to move on.

What does it take to be a quarterback for an NFL team? It starts with a kid who is willing to put in thousands of hours in high school and all through college then into the big leagues. It takes inborn athleticism combined with a fast-thinking intelligence and relentless determination.

That's just to be on the team. To be a first-string quarterback, you have to be the best of the best.

Tim Tebow is such a man. He worked extraordinarily hard to get where he is ... which is why Tim Tebow's religion is a real shame. Christianity has stolen Tebow's pride. Instead of taking pride in his accomplishments, he gives the credit away to God. The simple fact is that it's Tebow throwing the ball, not God.

In less than a second or two, Tebow's mind absorbs the receiver's position, speed and direction, and on
That is talent. Tebow deserves to take pride in his skill. But instead, Tebow gives his accomplishment away. Tebow believes there's a god out there who alters the laws of physics of the universe because this god, who created the unimaginably vast universe, cares whether the NFL team called the "Denver Broncos" wins or loses. And the reason this god cares is because Tebow presumably prays more earnestly than the opposing quarterback.

What's wrong with pride in one's accomplishments? Christians, Jews and Muslims count pride as one of the big sins. Why? Having pride in one's work is admirable. Pride makes us do our best and then lets us take pleasure in a job well done.

That is what Tebow should be doing rather than thanking God.

Several years back I wrote a blog about this same topic (except that it was about friends and family) that is still one of my favorites. I closed it with this:

Religion lets people avoid personal responsibility by asking, and getting, God's forgiveness. Never mind whether the victims agree with God. I suppose that's a pretty good bargain – "Believe in me, and you're off the hook for your sins." But the flip side of the deal is that God also steals all the glory. Everything good is God's doing. Humans get all the blame, and God gets all the credit.

The headline says it all: Firefighters say Bible pulled from burned house is 'a miracle'.

"A family is counting their blessings tonight after an early morning fire in Dearing, GA destroyed most of their home. But one pretty special item was left unscathed ... Bernice Hunt's Bible was pulled from the ashes without a charred edge or a burnt page. The only damage at all was a little moisture from the fire hoses."

So let me see if I get this. God decided to burn this woman's house to the ground. He let all of her possessions go up in smoke. She already lost her husband, has cancer, and had open-heart surgery ... presumably God was responsible for all of that too.

So what 'miracle' does God perform for this poor, sick widow? He saves his own Holy Bible from the flames!

I mean, after all, it is His own word, isn't it? I guess if I were
The real mystery is how thoroughly this attitude about God pervades Judeo-Christian-Islamic thinking. It's automatic: some massive catastrophe comes along and causes death, destruction and grief, but somewhere there's a tiny random fluctuation in events that spares a baby or a bible, and that is the miracle.

God, as usual, gets all the credit and none of the blame.

Death is always sad, but it can bring out kind and comforting words from family and friends. These good wishes really do help us feel better. Whether it's a simple expression of sorrow, some shared tears, or an enlightening story, our friends' kind words help us accept death, cherish the memories, and get life going again.

Now it happens that most of my relatives and close friends aren't Christian. We're a broad assortment of Deists, pantheists, paganists, agnostics and atheists. There's hardly a Christian among us.

So what do Christians write in their condolences? "The peace of the Lord is on your father." Or, "Your mother is resting in Jesus' arms now."

I know they mean well. But if these Christians were true to their faith, they'd say, "So sorry that your loved one is now being tortured with indescribable pain that is perpetually searing the flesh from her bones. I'm saddened that she will be screaming in agony for the rest of eternity. She seemed like such a nice lady. Too bad she didn't believe in Jesus."

Eternal cruel, sadistic, horrifying torture – that's true Christianity. Never mind that my loved ones are, to the last one, kind and moral people. I can't think of one family member or close friend who isn't a decent human being, and an asset to family, friends, community and humanity. They're good mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters, friends and neighbors. They work hard and support themselves and their families. They vote in elections (mostly). They give back far more than they take in life.

But none of that matters. Most of my close friends and family don't accept the two-thousand-year-old myth that a woman was impregnated by God and had a son, who was actually God himself, who then arranged to have himself tortured to death, but he didn't really die and came back to life for a few more days, and then he died, except that he still didn't die because God pulled his son (who was really himself) up to heaven. And if you believe this story, all your sins are forgiven, no matter how horrible, but if you don't, all your good deeds are for nothing.

So it's pretty offensive when, in our grief over the death of a loved one, some well-meaning Christian writes about how the dearly departed is now in Jesus' arms or basking in God's glory. It's dishonest.

Christians who are offering kind thoughts to grieving friends should stick to a secular message. "I'm so sorry for your loss" would be just fine.

this_url=""

Death is always sad, but it can bring out kind and comforting words from family and friends. These good wishes really do help us feel better. Whether it's a simple expression of sorrow, some shared tears, or an enlightening story, our friends' kind words help us accept death, cherish the memories, and get life going again.

Now it happens that most of my relatives and close friends aren't Christian. We're a broad assortment of Deists, pantheists, paganists, agnostics and atheists. There's hardly a Christian among us.

So what do Christians write in their condolences? "The peace of the Lord is on your father." Or, "Your mother is resting in Jesus' arms now."

I know they mean well. But if these Christians were true to their faith, they'd say, "So sorry that your loved one is now being tortured with
Eternal cruel, sadistic, horrifying torture – that's true Christianity. Never mind that my loved ones are, to the last one, kind and moral people. I can't think of one family member or close friend who isn't a decent human being, and an asset to family, friends, community and humanity. They're good mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters, friends and neighbors. They work hard and support themselves and their families. They vote in elections (mostly). They give back far more than they take in life.

But none of that matters. Most of my close friends and family don't accept the two-thousand-year-old myth that a woman was impregnated by God and had a son, who was actually God himself, who then arranged to have himself tortured to death, but he didn't really die and came back to life for a few more days, and then he died, except that he still didn't die because God pulled his son (who was really himself) up to heaven. And if you believe this story, all your sins are forgiven, no matter how horrible, but if you don't, all your good deeds are for nothing.

So it's pretty offensive when, in our grief over the death of a loved one, some well-meaning Christian writes about how the dearly departed is now in Jesus' arms or basking in God's glory. It's dishonest.

Christians who are offering kind thoughts to grieving friends should stick to a secular message. "I'm so sorry for your loss" would be just fine.

Santa has a cool live-and-let-live philosophy: my head can be full of all sorts of naughty thoughts as long as I only act on the nice thoughts. I've had plenty of nasty fantasies in my lifetime about what I'd like to do to certain people ... but I didn't carry them out and never would. I've also had lots of nice thoughts and actually done many nice things for lots of people.

In other words, he knows when you've been bad or good. Not when you've thought bad thoughts or thought good thoughts. It's what you do that counts.

So Santa Claus has always been good to me. It's our actions that make us truly moral or immoral citizens of this crazy world, and Santa rewards the people who are good.

What about Jesus Christ? According to Amy Henry's blog, The Flawed Theology of Naughty and Nice Lists, it doesn't much matter what you do. It's what you believe that matters. You can be angry, vengeful, hurtful, even murderous as long as you're truly sorry and ask Jesus for forgiveness.

Amy believes we should beware of Santa's naughty-or-nice philosophy. She thinks it sends kids the wrong message. What really matters, according to Amy, is what's in our hearts. What you actually do is far less important than what you believe.

"... thank God that He doesn’t separate us out into naughty and nice, but places us in one big category called ‘forgiven.’

And Amy isn't alone in this strange theory. It's what Christianity is all about, from the Pope himself down to the meekest shepherd tending goats. Christian morality isn't about what you do, it's about what you believe. If you fail to live up to Christian standards and hurt someone else, Jesus will forgive you. (Never mind that your victim might not feel that you deserve forgiveness.) No matter how awful your sin, and how many you hurt, you can be forgiven if you're truly sorry and believe that Jesus Christ is your savior.

In my book, Christian morality is fundamentally flawed. I'll take Santa Claus morality any day.

Newt Gingrich is known for outrageous outbursts and wild ideas, but he's putting out some really scary stuff this week.

His latest attack is on the independence of the judiciary. Any time a judge issues a ruling that Gingrich doesn't like, he wants to send U.S. Marshals out with congressional subpoenas to haul the judge in front of Congress, where the judge would be grilled by every angry member of Congress who didn't agree with the judge's ruling.

Does that sound like a good way to ensure an independent judiciary?

Next, Newt will simply ignore the law if he becomes president. Under his leadership, the Executive Branch of government will simply ignore the Judicial Branch whenever Newt doesn't like the law.

Yeah, I think I'll do that too – just ignore any laws I don't like. If Newt can do it, why can't I?

And if that isn't enough to destroy the careful balance of powers enshrined in our Constitution, Gingrich wants to
Really. He actually said that.

And Gingrich isn't just all talk. For example, he provided $200,000 seed money for a witch hunt that ousted three of the judges who ruled that same-sex marriage is legal.

This may just be Gingrich pandering to Iowa, where conservative Christians reign. But I don't think so. I think this man, if elected president, would embark on a massive campaign to trample civil rights for non-Christians, the LGBT community, and anyone else who he doesn't think is a proper American.

It was bad enough when Gingrich was House Speaker, but this man could theoretically become president.

Hey readers, life has been keeping me far too busy and I wasn't able to blog last week. To fill the gap, here's a great little drama from Saturday Night Live: what would happen if Jesus really did come down to meet Jesus?

The funny part is that although it's actually full of truth, lots of Christians are complaining, include Faux News and Pat Robertson! Their reactions are almost as funny as the skit.

Enjoy!

Secular News Daily is reporting a new Georgia law that will require "In God We Trust" on all car license plates. Georgians who don't like it will have to pay extra to get a state-approved sticker to cover it up!

Atheists are naturally up in arms about this glaring violation of the First Amendment. But I sort of like it. I believe this could be one of the best things that happened to secularism in America in the last ten years – if they're foolish enough to go through with it.

Why? Because it could force the Supreme Court to take "In God We Trust" off of our money.

Atheists have objected to "In God We Trust" on currency and as the national motto for decades, but the courts have been unsympathetic. The Supreme Court stated that
But having a dollar in your pocket is quite different than being required to drive around with "In God We Trust" on your car for everyone to see. Imagine what Christians would do if they had to drive around in cars that said, "Trust Reason, Because There Is No God." They would be quite within their rights to refuse.

It's hard to imagine that the Supreme Court will be able to sidestep this one. It will reach their doorstep. And once it's there, it's hard to imagine that they would force non-religious citizens to drive around advertising religious beliefs. Maybe I'm naïve, but I don't think so.

Now think about what happens next ... if it's unconstitutional for Georgia to force atheists to have "In God We Trust" on every car, how can you simultaneously allow the slogan on our money? Banning it on license plates while allowing it on money would require a lot of legal sleight-of-hand tricks.

I actually hope Georgia goes through with this discriminatory plan. It will become a perfect opportunity to fight back against the erosion of our First Amendment rights.