To a Jehovah's Witness (part 2)
This is part 2. Click here for part 1.
Different people present different kinds of evidence for their beliefs - over the years, I have come across many arguments and examples which have been presented as evidence for a variety of different religious beliefs – so let us consider some of the types which you might use to try to convince me to share your faith. To consider every argument from every religion would take many lifetimes, so a few examples are all I can hope to cover. Most, if not all, of the arguments and evidence I have come across fit into a fairly small number of broad categories, so I will try to address these in turn.
1) Historical evidence. Proponents of many religions argue that clear historical evidence exists to support their specific beliefs, but there are important reasons to doubt this claim. First, we must note that many religions make this same claim, and clearly they cannot all be right. Further, while there is certainly great resistance to change, people will tend ultimately to accept what they can see plainly in front of their faces, so if one specific religion truly had clear and unassailable historical evidence to support it, we would expect over the centuries to see a gradual and consistent (albeit perhaps slow) shift towards that religion gaining believers at other religions' expense. However, once factors such as economics and conquest are taken into account, no such consistent trend exists.
More fundamentally, the specific historical claims themselves seem frequently to be somewhat exaggerated, to say the least. As I said, a complete analysis of every specific claim made by every religion would be virtually impossible – and certainly beyond the scope of this essay! - so an example will have to suffice: once of the most crucial beliefs underpinning Christianity (and to a lesser extent also Islam and others) is the existence of Jesus, and most people, regardless of their own religion, tend to assume that there is strong historical evidence that Jesus existed, even if they disagree about his nature. On closer inspection, though, this does not appear to be the case. Outside of the Bible itself (which cannot really count as evidence for its own claims!), the earliest written mention of the mere existence of Jesus was the writing of Josephus2, some 60 years after Jesus' alleged death3. During his supposed life and for several decades thereafter, there is no record of his existence whatsoever. It is true that many people at the time would have been illiterate, but officials at least were not, and if Jesus existed and acted in any truly noteworthy way – particularly when (for example) modern Christian belief depicts him performing miracles before crowds of thousands – then does it not seem rather far-fetched that no one, anywhere, thought to write it down?
Of course, this is only a very brief summary of just one example, but nonetheless perhaps demonstrates that even the most fundamental and widely-believed claims of historical evidence should be examined carefully and impartially before being considered to provide satisfactory evidence for any religious belief.
2) Miracles, prayer and healing. You might argue that your religion is evidenced by miraculous healings; by the fact that some accidents or other dangerous incidents sometimes have unlikely, positive outcomes; and by the existence of unexplained sightings or phenomena (such as reported sightings of Mary4, often used to advocate Catholicism). It is true that unlikely events sometimes occur, but simple statistics would predict this, without the need for external intervention; it is not a miracle when someone wins the lottery, because there are millions of people who did not. It is also true that there have been many unexplained phenomena of many kinds throughout history, but the problem is that nothing about their nature suggests that they support any one, specific explanation (religious or otherwise) more than any other. For example, there have been many sightings of UFOs which have never been explained; does this provide definitive evidence of extraterrestrial visitation? Clearly not – there are invariably a wide range of possible explanations, including unknown natural phenomena or clever hoax, As discussed above, any one of these explanations might be true, and the only reason to favour one in particular is if there exists positive evidence which supports that specific explanation and no others. In other words, even if no definitive 'natural' explanation can be found for a phenomenon, this lack provides no evidence in support of any specific religious or other supernatural claim, because any number of other explanations are equally (if not more) plausible.
Sometimes, religious people argue for the efficacy of prayer. However, this has been studied scientifically (for example, in its effects on recovery rates from illness and injury5) and has been found to have absolutely no effect whatsoever. As for faith healing: again, there is no evidence to support any of its claims of efficacy. Certainly, many people seem to feel better, or even believe that they have recovered more quickly from injuries, after faith healing – but precisely the same is true of homeopathy, crystal healing, and any number of other 'alternative' treatments. When these are actually examined, however, they have been found to be no more effective than placebo - i.e., patients believe they are receiving the real treatment, but in reality they are not (e.g., they are taking an empty sugar pill instead of a medication; patients' symptoms frequently improve anyway, implying that merely believing that one will recover makes it more likely that one really will, regardless of what one believes the cause of that recovery to be). There is no evidence that this is any different for faith healing.
3) The anthropocentric world. Some people argue that the world is so perfectly arranged for our use that this cannot be coincidence; this implies that the world was designed by an intelligent creator, and therefore that their (theistic) religion is true. Of course, even if it were true that the existence of a creator was necessarily implied, this could support any number of religions and not just the one they believe in. However, a more serious objection to the argument is that, while the suitability of this world for humans is indeed not a coincidence, this does not imply a designer. First, it should be remembered that much of the modern world is of our own making; for example many of the species of animals and plants we eat are the results of generations of selective breeding. Second, we evolved to adapt to our surroundings, so naturally they will be well suited to us! Effectively, we were built for the world, not the other way around.
4) Beauty and morality. You might suggest, as many religious people of different faiths do, that all beauty and morality in the world is the work of the god you believe in. It is probably self-evident that this interpretation lacks any evidence, and indeed I think it is more commonly used to reinforce and justify existing religious beliefs, rather than to actually underpin them. Nonetheless, it is worth stating that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and that there is ample evidence to believe that morality has nothing to do with religion. Altruism makes good evolutionary sense (and indeed it is observable in many non-human animals); besides which, the existence of moral sentiment in societies which predated any modern religion is well evidenced by historical writings, and several largely-secular countries today6 (Sweden being one example) have significantly lower crime rates7 and higher quality of life than many more religious nations, even those (such as the USA) which are broadly matched in terms of economic conditions. There is no evidence that the existence of morality supports any religious claim.
5) The world would be better if everyone believed. This is not really evidence per se, but it is a common argument, so is worth considering: would the world not be a better, safer, more harmonious place if everyone were religious? There are undoubtedly many possible objections to this claim, but a couple of examples will suffice here. First, given all the bloodthirsty rivalry between competing religions throughout history (and continuing today) it is clear that the argument's only hope of coming true is if everyone on Earth converted to the same religion; while this might indeed remove one of the common motivations for bloodshed, it would be true whatever the remaining religion happened to be, and would equally be true if the whole world were atheist, so this can hardly count as an argument in favour of any specific religion. Second, as discussed above, several modern countries have low crime rates and high quality of life despite being largely secular, so clearly religion is not a prerequisite for these things.
6) The thought of an afterlife is comforting. You might argue that your religion is a great comfort in times of distress, and that the prospect of there being no afterlife – and therefore no reunion with lost loved ones – is a bleak and unpleasant prospect. This is entirely true, and entirely irrelevant. We have no evidence to believe that the universe bends itself to our wishes and hopes – things just are the way they are, whether we like them or not. I have lost loved ones, too, and the belief that this loss is final and irreparable is extremely painful. Certainly, I would find it comforting to imagine that I might see them again one day, but unfortunately, if this is not the way the universe works – and there is absolutely no evidence that it is – then my wishing or hoping for it will not make it true. Neither will yours.
7) Religious experiences and feelings. By far the most common form of evidence which people use to explain their faith, both to others and to themselves, is their own personal religious experiences, the feelings of comfort and support which their religion provides them, and (depending on the religion in question) their emotional sense of having a 'personal relationship' with God. This is a complex issue to discuss, for a variety of reasons, and it is also perhaps one of the most delicate: if you present personal testimony as evidence for your beliefs, and its value as solid evidence is challenged, it is easy to take this as a personal affront, even when it is honestly not intended as such.
I believe that these experiences and feelings, no matter how powerful and how thoroughly convincing they are for those who have them, cannot in truth be said to provide any evidence for the faith in question. First, let us consider the easier part of this problem: why are your personal experiences and feelings not convincing to others? First, simply because they are personal – try as you might, you cannot convey what the experience or emotion feels like for you subjectively; the best you can do is describe it, which can never be enough. Second, and more important, believers of every religion have the exact same feelings and experiences you have, just as powerfully and convincingly, and they argue that these provide evidence for their religion. Imagine: if you are a Christian, and a Muslim or Hindu tells you of the powerful experiences they have had of their gods, and they describe in detail the feelings of comfort and support they derive from their faith, would this convince you to convert to Islam or Hinduism? The answer, almost certainly, is no – and yet this is precisely the same kind of 'evidence' which you are seeking to use to convince others that your faith is correct. In my place, you would not be convinced by your own evidence.
It should be noted here, also, that this same argument applies equally to the questions of morality, faith healing and the efficacy of prayer, among others: many religions make the exact same claims (and with the same amount of evidence) that you are making for your own faith. If you are not convinced when a believer of another religion uses the same arguments to support their faith as are commonly used to support your own, you cannot logically expect these same arguments to convince others to believe what you believe.
I have explained why I think that your personal feelings and experiences cannot be convincing to others; but it does not stop there. This is perhaps the most awkward thing to discuss, but I must, if we are to understand each other's positions: in truth, your personal experiences and feelings should probably not convince you, either. The human brain is quite flawed in many ways – in engineering terms, it is a kluge: a rough solution which is good enough in most circumstances, but far from perfect – and, to be blunt, this means that there are many ways in which the brain can deceive itself. There are many examples of this – perceptual aberrations8; limbic epileptic seizures producing hallucinations, a convincing sense of a 'presence' in the room and powerful emotional responses9; the ability of humans to convince themselves of whatever they want to be true, evidence notwithstanding10; some personality types lending themselves specifically to the creation of and genuine belief in a complex variety of supernatural phenomena - a high score on a personality trait called 'schizotypy'11 is one very common example (a normal-personality variant of schizophrenia, meaning that it has some things in common with schizophrenia, but is present throughout the 'normal' population); and there are many others. None of these necessarily imply what laypeople would call 'delusions' or 'madness' – they are just some of the things which very commonly affect large swathes of the 'normal' population.
One of the most convincing points, though, in my view, is the fact that religious experiences have been induced artificially in the laboratory12, by stimulating a part of the portion of the brain called the temporal lobes. The participants in these studies experience profound and convincing religious experiences, just from having parts of their normal brain functioning altered. This, obviously, is not absolute proof that all such religious experiences result from the brain becoming stimulated in a way which produces this same effect – a religious person could argue that God has created this part of our brain to facilitate communication with him, or some such – but we must remember the point, above, about the likelihood of different explanations depending upon the number of unproven assumptions on which they rely. As it has been demonstrated that religious experiences can result from nothing more than stimulation of the brain, and as (as I have said earlier) God is not a simple explanation and requires a huge number of unproven assumptions, we can conclude that the most likely explanation for religious experiences is that their cause is in the brain, and not in the hand of God.
These examples are just a selection of the ways in which people can think, feel and experience things which are not really there. I do not propose to go into detail about the neuroscience here – that has been done in greater detail elsewhere, and many of these details are freely available for anyone who wants to read them. All I have intended to show is that, unfortunately, one's senses and feelings cannot entirely be trusted. Personal experience does not, and cannot, provide the hard evidence required to establish that a religious faith is true.
In asking me, and others, to reconsider our beliefs and adopt your own, you are asking that we keep a truly open mind, that we reject nothing without genuinely thinking about it first, and that we seriously consider the possibility that we might be wrong. This is an entirely reasonable thing to ask, and if you want to challenge anything I have said – if my reasoning is flawed, my conclusions unsound; or if you have evidence which I have not considered above – then please let me know. You have my word that I will consider your arguments seriously and keep an open mind.
In return, I ask the same of you. Please consider all of the above carefully and seriously. Genuinely stop and think about your beliefs and your reasons for them. If you agreed with me, after considering the above, about evidence being a reasonable and proper thing to seek, then perhaps it would be worthwhile to evaluate the evidence for your own beliefs. If all the evidence you find falls into the categories considered above, and if you can find no logical basis to disagree with the criticisms made of them – bearing in mind, most crucially of all, that one's own feelings of certainty and comfort from one's faith can be entirely deceptive – then perhaps you will consider doing what you would like me to do, and reevaluate your own beliefs. This would not be easy - in fact it can be very painful, which is perhaps why so few people (of any faith or none) ever attempt it – but personally, I believe that life is more rewarding if one is honest with oneself.
Nic Shakeshaft
Devon, UK
January 2009
References
For the general reader, I thought that links to material freely available online would be more useful than references to scientific papers not accessible in the public domain. The result is that some of the following are rather general, but will hopefully still provide a useful starting point for anyone interested in pursuing any of the subjects raised. If anyone is interested in more detailed reading – or would like to suggest any references I have omitted - please let me know.
1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor
2 http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html
3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus
4 http://paranormal.about.com/cs/marianapparitions/
5 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12082681/
6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_by_country
7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_murder_rate
8 http://www.o4sr.org/publications/pf_v2n1/memory.htm
9 http://www.epilepsy.com/epilepsy/epilepsy_temporallobe
10 http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html
11 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizotypy
12 http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.11/persinger.html
Different people present different kinds of evidence for their beliefs - over the years, I have come across many arguments and examples which have been presented as evidence for a variety of different religious beliefs – so let us consider some of the types which you might use to try to convince me to share your faith. To consider every argument from every religion would take many lifetimes, so a few examples are all I can hope to cover. Most, if not all, of the arguments and evidence I have come across fit into a fairly small number of broad categories, so I will try to address these in turn.
1) Historical evidence. Proponents of many religions argue that clear historical evidence exists to support their specific beliefs, but there are important reasons to doubt this claim. First, we must note that many religions make this same claim, and clearly they cannot all be right. Further, while there is certainly great resistance to change, people will tend ultimately to accept what they can see plainly in front of their faces, so if one specific religion truly had clear and unassailable historical evidence to support it, we would expect over the centuries to see a gradual and consistent (albeit perhaps slow) shift towards that religion gaining believers at other religions' expense. However, once factors such as economics and conquest are taken into account, no such consistent trend exists.
More fundamentally, the specific historical claims themselves seem frequently to be somewhat exaggerated, to say the least. As I said, a complete analysis of every specific claim made by every religion would be virtually impossible – and certainly beyond the scope of this essay! - so an example will have to suffice: once of the most crucial beliefs underpinning Christianity (and to a lesser extent also Islam and others) is the existence of Jesus, and most people, regardless of their own religion, tend to assume that there is strong historical evidence that Jesus existed, even if they disagree about his nature. On closer inspection, though, this does not appear to be the case. Outside of the Bible itself (which cannot really count as evidence for its own claims!), the earliest written mention of the mere existence of Jesus was the writing of Josephus2, some 60 years after Jesus' alleged death3. During his supposed life and for several decades thereafter, there is no record of his existence whatsoever. It is true that many people at the time would have been illiterate, but officials at least were not, and if Jesus existed and acted in any truly noteworthy way – particularly when (for example) modern Christian belief depicts him performing miracles before crowds of thousands – then does it not seem rather far-fetched that no one, anywhere, thought to write it down?
Of course, this is only a very brief summary of just one example, but nonetheless perhaps demonstrates that even the most fundamental and widely-believed claims of historical evidence should be examined carefully and impartially before being considered to provide satisfactory evidence for any religious belief.
2) Miracles, prayer and healing. You might argue that your religion is evidenced by miraculous healings; by the fact that some accidents or other dangerous incidents sometimes have unlikely, positive outcomes; and by the existence of unexplained sightings or phenomena (such as reported sightings of Mary4, often used to advocate Catholicism). It is true that unlikely events sometimes occur, but simple statistics would predict this, without the need for external intervention; it is not a miracle when someone wins the lottery, because there are millions of people who did not. It is also true that there have been many unexplained phenomena of many kinds throughout history, but the problem is that nothing about their nature suggests that they support any one, specific explanation (religious or otherwise) more than any other. For example, there have been many sightings of UFOs which have never been explained; does this provide definitive evidence of extraterrestrial visitation? Clearly not – there are invariably a wide range of possible explanations, including unknown natural phenomena or clever hoax, As discussed above, any one of these explanations might be true, and the only reason to favour one in particular is if there exists positive evidence which supports that specific explanation and no others. In other words, even if no definitive 'natural' explanation can be found for a phenomenon, this lack provides no evidence in support of any specific religious or other supernatural claim, because any number of other explanations are equally (if not more) plausible.
Sometimes, religious people argue for the efficacy of prayer. However, this has been studied scientifically (for example, in its effects on recovery rates from illness and injury5) and has been found to have absolutely no effect whatsoever. As for faith healing: again, there is no evidence to support any of its claims of efficacy. Certainly, many people seem to feel better, or even believe that they have recovered more quickly from injuries, after faith healing – but precisely the same is true of homeopathy, crystal healing, and any number of other 'alternative' treatments. When these are actually examined, however, they have been found to be no more effective than placebo - i.e., patients believe they are receiving the real treatment, but in reality they are not (e.g., they are taking an empty sugar pill instead of a medication; patients' symptoms frequently improve anyway, implying that merely believing that one will recover makes it more likely that one really will, regardless of what one believes the cause of that recovery to be). There is no evidence that this is any different for faith healing.
3) The anthropocentric world. Some people argue that the world is so perfectly arranged for our use that this cannot be coincidence; this implies that the world was designed by an intelligent creator, and therefore that their (theistic) religion is true. Of course, even if it were true that the existence of a creator was necessarily implied, this could support any number of religions and not just the one they believe in. However, a more serious objection to the argument is that, while the suitability of this world for humans is indeed not a coincidence, this does not imply a designer. First, it should be remembered that much of the modern world is of our own making; for example many of the species of animals and plants we eat are the results of generations of selective breeding. Second, we evolved to adapt to our surroundings, so naturally they will be well suited to us! Effectively, we were built for the world, not the other way around.
4) Beauty and morality. You might suggest, as many religious people of different faiths do, that all beauty and morality in the world is the work of the god you believe in. It is probably self-evident that this interpretation lacks any evidence, and indeed I think it is more commonly used to reinforce and justify existing religious beliefs, rather than to actually underpin them. Nonetheless, it is worth stating that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and that there is ample evidence to believe that morality has nothing to do with religion. Altruism makes good evolutionary sense (and indeed it is observable in many non-human animals); besides which, the existence of moral sentiment in societies which predated any modern religion is well evidenced by historical writings, and several largely-secular countries today6 (Sweden being one example) have significantly lower crime rates7 and higher quality of life than many more religious nations, even those (such as the USA) which are broadly matched in terms of economic conditions. There is no evidence that the existence of morality supports any religious claim.
5) The world would be better if everyone believed. This is not really evidence per se, but it is a common argument, so is worth considering: would the world not be a better, safer, more harmonious place if everyone were religious? There are undoubtedly many possible objections to this claim, but a couple of examples will suffice here. First, given all the bloodthirsty rivalry between competing religions throughout history (and continuing today) it is clear that the argument's only hope of coming true is if everyone on Earth converted to the same religion; while this might indeed remove one of the common motivations for bloodshed, it would be true whatever the remaining religion happened to be, and would equally be true if the whole world were atheist, so this can hardly count as an argument in favour of any specific religion. Second, as discussed above, several modern countries have low crime rates and high quality of life despite being largely secular, so clearly religion is not a prerequisite for these things.
6) The thought of an afterlife is comforting. You might argue that your religion is a great comfort in times of distress, and that the prospect of there being no afterlife – and therefore no reunion with lost loved ones – is a bleak and unpleasant prospect. This is entirely true, and entirely irrelevant. We have no evidence to believe that the universe bends itself to our wishes and hopes – things just are the way they are, whether we like them or not. I have lost loved ones, too, and the belief that this loss is final and irreparable is extremely painful. Certainly, I would find it comforting to imagine that I might see them again one day, but unfortunately, if this is not the way the universe works – and there is absolutely no evidence that it is – then my wishing or hoping for it will not make it true. Neither will yours.
7) Religious experiences and feelings. By far the most common form of evidence which people use to explain their faith, both to others and to themselves, is their own personal religious experiences, the feelings of comfort and support which their religion provides them, and (depending on the religion in question) their emotional sense of having a 'personal relationship' with God. This is a complex issue to discuss, for a variety of reasons, and it is also perhaps one of the most delicate: if you present personal testimony as evidence for your beliefs, and its value as solid evidence is challenged, it is easy to take this as a personal affront, even when it is honestly not intended as such.
I believe that these experiences and feelings, no matter how powerful and how thoroughly convincing they are for those who have them, cannot in truth be said to provide any evidence for the faith in question. First, let us consider the easier part of this problem: why are your personal experiences and feelings not convincing to others? First, simply because they are personal – try as you might, you cannot convey what the experience or emotion feels like for you subjectively; the best you can do is describe it, which can never be enough. Second, and more important, believers of every religion have the exact same feelings and experiences you have, just as powerfully and convincingly, and they argue that these provide evidence for their religion. Imagine: if you are a Christian, and a Muslim or Hindu tells you of the powerful experiences they have had of their gods, and they describe in detail the feelings of comfort and support they derive from their faith, would this convince you to convert to Islam or Hinduism? The answer, almost certainly, is no – and yet this is precisely the same kind of 'evidence' which you are seeking to use to convince others that your faith is correct. In my place, you would not be convinced by your own evidence.
It should be noted here, also, that this same argument applies equally to the questions of morality, faith healing and the efficacy of prayer, among others: many religions make the exact same claims (and with the same amount of evidence) that you are making for your own faith. If you are not convinced when a believer of another religion uses the same arguments to support their faith as are commonly used to support your own, you cannot logically expect these same arguments to convince others to believe what you believe.
I have explained why I think that your personal feelings and experiences cannot be convincing to others; but it does not stop there. This is perhaps the most awkward thing to discuss, but I must, if we are to understand each other's positions: in truth, your personal experiences and feelings should probably not convince you, either. The human brain is quite flawed in many ways – in engineering terms, it is a kluge: a rough solution which is good enough in most circumstances, but far from perfect – and, to be blunt, this means that there are many ways in which the brain can deceive itself. There are many examples of this – perceptual aberrations8; limbic epileptic seizures producing hallucinations, a convincing sense of a 'presence' in the room and powerful emotional responses9; the ability of humans to convince themselves of whatever they want to be true, evidence notwithstanding10; some personality types lending themselves specifically to the creation of and genuine belief in a complex variety of supernatural phenomena - a high score on a personality trait called 'schizotypy'11 is one very common example (a normal-personality variant of schizophrenia, meaning that it has some things in common with schizophrenia, but is present throughout the 'normal' population); and there are many others. None of these necessarily imply what laypeople would call 'delusions' or 'madness' – they are just some of the things which very commonly affect large swathes of the 'normal' population.
One of the most convincing points, though, in my view, is the fact that religious experiences have been induced artificially in the laboratory12, by stimulating a part of the portion of the brain called the temporal lobes. The participants in these studies experience profound and convincing religious experiences, just from having parts of their normal brain functioning altered. This, obviously, is not absolute proof that all such religious experiences result from the brain becoming stimulated in a way which produces this same effect – a religious person could argue that God has created this part of our brain to facilitate communication with him, or some such – but we must remember the point, above, about the likelihood of different explanations depending upon the number of unproven assumptions on which they rely. As it has been demonstrated that religious experiences can result from nothing more than stimulation of the brain, and as (as I have said earlier) God is not a simple explanation and requires a huge number of unproven assumptions, we can conclude that the most likely explanation for religious experiences is that their cause is in the brain, and not in the hand of God.
These examples are just a selection of the ways in which people can think, feel and experience things which are not really there. I do not propose to go into detail about the neuroscience here – that has been done in greater detail elsewhere, and many of these details are freely available for anyone who wants to read them. All I have intended to show is that, unfortunately, one's senses and feelings cannot entirely be trusted. Personal experience does not, and cannot, provide the hard evidence required to establish that a religious faith is true.
In asking me, and others, to reconsider our beliefs and adopt your own, you are asking that we keep a truly open mind, that we reject nothing without genuinely thinking about it first, and that we seriously consider the possibility that we might be wrong. This is an entirely reasonable thing to ask, and if you want to challenge anything I have said – if my reasoning is flawed, my conclusions unsound; or if you have evidence which I have not considered above – then please let me know. You have my word that I will consider your arguments seriously and keep an open mind.
In return, I ask the same of you. Please consider all of the above carefully and seriously. Genuinely stop and think about your beliefs and your reasons for them. If you agreed with me, after considering the above, about evidence being a reasonable and proper thing to seek, then perhaps it would be worthwhile to evaluate the evidence for your own beliefs. If all the evidence you find falls into the categories considered above, and if you can find no logical basis to disagree with the criticisms made of them – bearing in mind, most crucially of all, that one's own feelings of certainty and comfort from one's faith can be entirely deceptive – then perhaps you will consider doing what you would like me to do, and reevaluate your own beliefs. This would not be easy - in fact it can be very painful, which is perhaps why so few people (of any faith or none) ever attempt it – but personally, I believe that life is more rewarding if one is honest with oneself.
Nic Shakeshaft
Devon, UK
January 2009
References
For the general reader, I thought that links to material freely available online would be more useful than references to scientific papers not accessible in the public domain. The result is that some of the following are rather general, but will hopefully still provide a useful starting point for anyone interested in pursuing any of the subjects raised. If anyone is interested in more detailed reading – or would like to suggest any references I have omitted - please let me know.
1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor
2 http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html
3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus
4 http://paranormal.about.com/cs/marianapparitions/
5 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12082681/
6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_by_country
7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_murder_rate
8 http://www.o4sr.org/publications/pf_v2n1/memory.htm
9 http://www.epilepsy.com/epilepsy/epilepsy_temporallobe
10 http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html
11 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizotypy
12 http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.11/persinger.html