the promised benefits in trusting the Lord are no different from the results anybody can have by trusting in anything. Those who rely more on their own abilities and potential than on promises of help from the supernatural will fare better!

I know a couple who couldn’t decide whether to sell their home. They weren’t sure what God’s will was, so they put their home on the market, declaring that if God’s will was for them to sell it, it would sell. But if it wasn’t, it wouldn’t! That’s a little scary if you’re not so sure in the first place that you should sell. If there was any evidence that believers fared a little better than non-believers by using this system, it wouldn’t be so scary, but that’s not the reality. Think of all the Christian elderly who lost their life savings in the Enron scandal. They asked for guidance and wisdom, and claimed the promises. Yet they fared no better than atheists who invested in Enron without any cryptic communication with the supernatural at all.

Prayer

The failure of biblical promises is also the failure of prayer. I won’t develop this section much, because it is so thoroughly covered elsewhere—especially in the links at the bottom of this page. Any reasonably intelligent person can quickly see that the only prayers that are answered are those whose answers can occur by mere chance. God never answers any prayer that could not be fulfilled by mere chance—restoration of a lost arm, for example. Is there any need to give this topic any further consideration at all?

Numerous scientifically conducted studies have proven prayer doesn’t work. Sure, believers can cite a study here or there, cherry-picking the most miniscule tid-bit of evidence that suits them; but the overwhelming bulk of evidence is on the side of prayer not working. At all. The results are not even close.

In perhaps the most notable test, a wealthy believer who wasn’t quite satisfied with the outcome of one test, financed a very thorough scientific test that he was confident would prove once and for all that prayer works. In this carefully conducted study, which this believer oversaw, the people who were prayed for actually fared worse! [source]

Every conceivable excuse is made on God’s behalf by believers, to hide the obvious. We are already so familiar with those rationales and excuses provided to maintain the illusion that prayer works—such as “God answered ‘Wait’”—that there’s no need to list and discuss them here. (They are discussed on the websites linked.)

The bottom line is that you can pray to anything, even a rock, and get precisely the same, results, logged over time, as you would praying to any deity of choice.

Prophecy

But wait. Didn’t the Bible make various predictions of events that came true, beyond what might be expected to happen through normal chance? (The flock are conditioned to believe that if a biblical prediction can be shown to have come true, then somehow proof is automatically lent to the entire religion, no matter how disproved it might otherwise be.) With the biblical text looking so pedestrian at this point, can a fulfilled prophecy be its savior? No, it cannot. Not even Isaiah 53. But this topic really needs to be perused in depth, which is beyond the scope of this essay. Plenty of detailed information and analysis can easily be found by anyone interested. Just don't look for it anywhere around a pulpit!

There is reason to be skeptical of prophecy up front. Does it make sense to imagine the Bible would be profoundly accurate in predicting future events, when it so grossly erred in describing the present? The principles of our solar system, for example (and all science, for that matter), were already a reality at the time, yet the Bible, following the erroneous thought of the day, assumes the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it. And would the same text which so horribly failed with respect to understanding women and slaves as full human beings suddenly be accurate about predicting the future? If believers’ claims about biblical prophecies were true, then we’d have an extraordinary case of inconsistency on our hands!

Believers will believe what the wish, even though biblical prophecies come true no more frequently than would be expected by mere chance. Failed prophecies are blatantly excused: God changed his mind; the prediction was "conditional" (meaning it wasn’t really a prediction); or the prediction itself is contrived to predict what has already come true (as in the case of Daniel and Revelation, for example); or what was predicted is presumed to have come true when there is no way to know (as in the case of the “23-hundred-day prophecy,” for example). One by one, a thorough study covers them all, and not one of them demonstrates a supernatural revelation to the exclusion of any ordinary human explanation. Not even one!

A common rationale employed to preserve the illusion of fulfilled prophecy is to blame the victims. If there was no “outpouring” of the sacred ghost after it was promised, and after astronomical numbers of prayers begged the deity to honor his promises, surely it was not because there was no ghost in existence to respond, nor because supernatural beings, while perhaps existing, don’t involve themselves in daily human affairs. So it had to have been the people’s fault! Shamefully, the people who prayed so earnestly just weren’t quite sincere enough after all, or didn’t believe hard enough, or came up just a few hundred thousand prayers short. It has to be the people’s fault, because we can’t be wrong about our doctrinal beliefs! (Shades of gay people’s plight. God can and does turn gays into straights upon request, provided they request hard enough. If it doesn’t happen, well, there you have it.)

Or you could say a godly ghost does in fact exist, and there was in fact an outpouring—you just didn’t catch it. Or, in another example, if Jesus failed to return on October 22, 1844, as predicted, then again it must be the people’s fault; they must be wrong in their interpretation of it, because they’ve already decided biblical prophecies come true, no matter what the evidence might show. Evidence is never respected unless it seems to shore up the desired belief; otherwise it always takes a back seat to what the believers prefer to believe. Never mind, for example, that God didn't bother to help them understand the 1844 prophecy correctly in the first place, even though they were utterly sincere and faithful in claiming the unequivocal promises which supposedly guaranteed prompt and effective customer service. Never mind that by God not communicating a little more clearly, his favorite, most faithful people became the butt of jokes. (So much for rewards and punishments.) Worse still, they were so sincerely convinced Jesus was coming, they didn’t even plant their crops that fall! 

These were not ordinary Christians, they were God’s own, specifically chosen, most faithful and ardent supporters. Why did God just let that happen to them? He could have said to them, somehow, “Look, I really appreciate your dedication—you’re my most faithful servants—but hey, there’s something wrong here, I think you should go ahead and plant your crops. I’m telling you this because I have promised you, in hundreds of Bible texts, to do right by you, if you’re just faithful in your belief in me. It’s not hard for me to help you understand this prophecy correctly, nor is it any sweat off my back to impress you to go ahead and plant your crops. I love you!” In other words, if God and his promises weren’t fictional, the great big “duh” is that he would have conveyed correct information to them in the first place.

But since we can see that the promises were worthless, to insist God exists is to wonder whether he was laughing at them as he watched this tragedy. Things begin to look a little suspicious; any normal person would employ a healthy dose of skepticism. After all, it would be less of an assault on the character of God for his followers to say nothing at all happened in fulfillment of this particularly vague prophecy on that day! Indeed nothing observable occurred to indicate anything prophetic did happen. But hey, if one can claim it came true out of sight, who’s to say it didn't?

          Would fulfillment of this particular prophecy, as the believers re-

          interpreted it, even be possible?  How many people’s life records

          can God judge per second, in real time? Check out that link above

          for a more fascinating discussion of the “23-hundred-day prophecy.”

There's no apparent end to the inconsistencies related to prophecy. If it’s God’s policy is to be very protective of the date on which he will return to earth and spare a relatively few of us from his wrath, then why does he bother with this extraordinarily cryptic prophecy to tell us—but only if we're clever enough to figure it out—in exactly what year, and on exactly what day, he takes on the heavenly project believers claim the prophecy predicts? 

I see a pattern here. Jesus himself deliberately deceived his flock in the New Testament by prophetically telling them he'd be returning quite soon, in their lifetimes. He knew (being God) that it would honestly be thousands of years (at least)! Maybe he didn’t want to discourage them, but he could have managed something a little less specific, without lying to them. Any high-schooler would be able to manage that. There is no adequate rationale to explain this away—except for the obvious one: the Bible writers didn’t get it right because they were making it up, writing without divine insight. Or, if Jesus really said it, then he was either dishonest or lacking the prophetic ability he claimed.

Here’s another excellent example. The SDAs believe Ellen White was as much a prophet as any biblical prophet. It’s now more than 150 years since she prophesied that Jesus would return within the lifetime of some of the people in the room. (Seems the lesson of 1844 was inadequately learned.) Here are her exact words, describing what an angel told her in vision:

        I was shown the company present at the conference. Said the angel, “Some

        food for worms, some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive

        and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus."

Do the believers take this false prophesy as pertinent to the question of whether Ellen White was honestly a prophet? They do not. This, atop all the other problems casting doubt on her claims, and they do not. Anyone who knows the nature of fundamentalism could have successfully predicted they would not, because in fundamentalism, reality (truth) is bent in service to “cherished beliefs,” rather than the other way around. (More about this on the Hypocrisy page.) With astonishing incredulity, they say Ellen White was correct when she said what she said, but, well, once again, it was the people’s fault. They weren’t ready, so God changed his mind. Please don’t bring up that God already knew that would be the case in the first place, because, like I say, there is no apparent end to the inconsistencies and contradictions of believers with respect to prophecy. The prophecy is clear, specific and unconditional. And it failed.

Would the SDAs give any prophet of any other denomination such a free pass? Of course not. False predictions are only used to prove other people’s prophets are false! Conversely, the vaguest interpretation employed to claim a prophecy was fulfilled (such as the Daniel 8:14 “23-hundred-day prophecy”) is clung to as validation of the entire religion! Correction: it is clung to as proof that one particular brand of Christianity is true and all others false! The competition among sects of fundamentalist Christianity is mind-boggling.

I don’t know whether that particular prophecy of Ellen White had already been proven false (everyone at the conference having died) by the time she died 59 years after making the prediction. But just 27 years after making it, she specifically cited the people’s unbelief, worldliness, unconsecration [sic] and strife as the reason for Jesus’ delay. Now that, even I could have predicted!

This barely touches the discussion of prophecy. Other writers cover the more general-interest biblical prophecies in extensive detail, including Isaiah 53 and those of Daniel and Revelation. Even as a kid in school, when we studied Nebuchadnezzar's Image, it seemed obvious to me that we were constructing a fulfillment of the prophecy after-the-fact. No one ever foresaw the world events that we later claimed it was referring to. It’s the legendary twenty-twenty hindsight—or the legendary fill-in-the-blanks to make them fit what was predicted. For example, I could say a 6-winged butterfly creating light by fluttering its wings was a prediction of Mortimer Adler’s “six great ideas,” which shed philosophical light on our lives. But I could not have made that connection until after Adler existed and presented his work. Virtually any prophecy can be shown to have been fulfilled in this manner.

Stepping back from the forest for a broader perspective, we might ask the purpose of all this cryptic “prophecy” in the first place. Apparently the thinking goes like this: It’s God’s way of showing those of us living millennia later, that indeed it’s all true—for who but God could have made cryptic predictions that we’d later figure out? They had to be cryptic so the then-current generations wouldn’t figure them out and be confused or discouraged by them. But any ordinary person of average intelligence would ask, why was all this secretive, cryptic messaging necessary, when God could simply reveal himself directly, to any extent he wished, in any age?

The answer brings us back to the puzzle pieces. They all fit perfectly when you acknowledge that this God is just like all the other similar gods of the day: fictional. If God were real, he could reveal himself ongoingly. He not only could but would, according to the holy writ, which asserts God never changes—which presumably meant to include his modus operandi. It is only when God becomes obviously unable to reveal himself in any kind of straightforward manner (being fictional) that the crutch of prophecy is needed in the first place. Believers in a god that exists only in fantasy have no choice but to employ assertions that he does indeed communicate with us today, but only through ancient, cryptic prophecies and mental impressions.

I again draw a distinction between Christians, who believe in their pagan-style super-human-like God who is said to intervene in human affairs with a human-like temperament, and others who may believe in a supreme being not revealed to us.

Recommendations

I can’t rank what’s best on the topics of religion in general and Christianity in particular—I haven’t read them all. But seekers might want to check out Sam Harris, for example. And Richard Dawkins. And Michael Shermer.  And the amazing 18th century writer, Thomas Paine, who was a staunch believer in God while rejecting scripture as entirely man-made (a position I can largely respect, as you know by now). Among many more.

Harris’ outstanding little book, Letter to a Christian Nation, is listed among my Amazon book reviews. If you are an honest seeker of truth, wherever it leads, this book—for one—is a must. You will never be the same after reading it, which I can say because I know it covers ideas people raised in fundamentalism do not normally encounter.

Also see the two websites recommended in the sidebar at the bottom of this page.

But this isn’t just about rejecting a certain religion

...It’s about the joy of living life proactively, once the baggage of religion is cut loose. It’s about being authentic and living fully, striving for goodness, making the world better, discovering purpose and fulfillment. Just knowing what doesn’t work isn’t enough. There must be dozens or hundreds of published testimonies of how individuals find meaning and fulfillment without the pretensions of religion. Harvard University, for example, has on its staff a “humanist chaplain” who endeavors to help guide non-believers in their journeys toward a meaningful life, in a way similar to how pastors minister to believers.

I’ve already alluded to a little bit of what works for me: finding inspiration in the strength and goodness of others. Another example relates to my brief stints of volunteering on medical missions in Peru and Ethiopia. (These were secular missions, as I do not have a favorable view of people who use humanitarian work as a platform for proselytizing.) Not only is such an experience itself deeply enriching, but there is also something about the wonderful people I met on those missions that makes me stand in awe. They are people, many of them, who have no interest in the supernatural, and yet their lives seem to be extraordinarily filled with purpose and meaning. They inspire me! They seem refreshingly genuine compared to so many who constantly fret over whether they are properly doing the “will” of supernatural beings. The non-religious volunteers I’ve worked with seem to grasp life directly. They don’t live in service to a set of prescribed and cherished beliefs against which everything they touch must be shaped. Thus they seem not as prone to bend truth, to twist and deceive as if some nobler end justifies any means. They don’t squander precious emotional energy convincing themselves that reality isn’t what it appears to be. This is in stark contrast to what we too often see among the religious—even the clergy.

So I know, from my own experience and the testimony of others, that life can greatly improve once a person is freed from the tangled, strangling security blanket of religious fantasy. 

Summary

Much of what we get from the Bible (especially the Old Testament) is the very opposite of what we should expect from a superlatively wise and powerful deity whose very essence is love. The fact that the Bible says up front that much of it will be “foolishness” to the unbeliever (the implication being it only seems foolish) doesn't make it no longer foolish. Perhaps the contradiction that most qualifies as the elephant in the living room is that we can supposedly know with precision the intimate mind of the Supreme Being who spoke a universe into existence, on the smallest of details about sex and a host of other minutiae, but not have a clue as to why he behaved so badly in the Old Testament—so suspiciously like the many false, man-made gods of the day which all Christians readily ridicule. For honest seekers of truth, it seems to me, this alone is a deal-breaker. For fundamentalists, all it means is that there is something wrong with the picture it paints of reality, which can be altered in Photoshop to leave a cherished belief intact.

It’s the same around the world, and in all times, ancient and modern: as long as there remain great mysteries of life, there will be those who won’t be content to wait for science and reason to unravel them, nor willing to wait for a real supreme being—if there is one—to reveal itself in reality. There will always be those who look to the mystical realm of the supernatural for some sign of cryptic communication with the gods. And many will go on believing what the gods, or dead people, or holy ghosts or bad or good demons seem to tell them, through mental impressions, even after science catches up and proves the mysteries to have perfectly natural explanations.

Others of us prefer reality. We respect reason. We are invigorated by truth, as best we can determine it, excited to explore wherever it takes us. And when reality—the truth about something—cannot yet be determined, we are content to leave the matter in abeyance. We are not inclined to make stuff up or convince ourselves that the way we'd prefer things to be is the way they actually are. We don’t need a crutch to ease the thought of death. We mature and outgrow the simplistic childhood need of “rewards and punishments,” and we don’t require a promise of heaven or the threat of torture to do good. We see goodness as a part of purpose and fulfillment.

In other words, our “beliefs” are subject to truth, not the other way around. We don’t feel threatened by truth, we thrive on it! We have nothing to defend, because we want to be challenged; we want our understanding to be correct, even when the news is bad. Thus our “beliefs” constantly evolve. The only thing we cherish is our commitment to truth, or as Peck put it, our dedication to reality. By embracing the pain of truth, rather than shunning it, life itself actually becomes less painful. We try to live by what we love, not by what we hate or disagree with.

This is in stark contrast to Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals, who worship their beliefs more than truth, fantasy more than reality. At some point they decide they have come to the ultimate understanding of something, after which this understanding is declared permanent, set in stone, greatly cherished. For them, challenges to cherished beliefs are always unwelcome. The bearer of any information to the contrary, even if based on new evidence, will be characterized as Bible bashing, Christian bashing or persecution. This is why a church can give its own false prophet a free pass while holding everyone else’s prophets to a higher standard. And it is why the Christian church has to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to every major social change for the better in history. It fiercely fought the abolition of slavery and continues to fiercely fight the full equality of women, the discoveries of science, the humanity and equality of gays.... And to seal its insulation from reality, the fundamentalist belief system labels it a sin to read or listen to anything contrary to the established belief. Read something new at the risk of hell fire. Really! A most convenient concept! (Remember, throughout all but the most recent years of the Christian Era, the Bible itself was banned by the Catholic church, so that the clergy didn’t have to worry about the believers discovering biblical shortcomings on their own.) In short, once fundamentalists decide they're right about something, they can never be wrong—so there’s no need ever to discuss it further. Further evidence is deemed impossible. ...Unless, that is, it’s evidence in support.

In the end, I think it all goes to show the power of the religious thought paradigm that one is immersed in from the cradle. From almost any angle, little of it should make sense to grown adults in the twenty-first century of the Common Era. But we are rather predisposed to hanging on to it because of what we are: human beings.

________________

© 2007 by Larry Hallock

I would very much appreciate hearing all readers’ feedback, in as much detail as you wish, whether favorable or otherwise.  - LH