The
Psychology Hidden Behind Christianity
In the previous chapter, we investigated
how Christianity arrived in
From
Parent To Child To Grandchild To Great-Grandchild…
It’s not a shocking discovery that parents
pass on their religious beliefs through their children. Muslim parents tend to
have Muslim children; Christian parents tend to have Christian children;
atheist parents tend to have atheist children. These traditions simply cannot be
maintained by chance alone. Because religious beliefs are certainly not in our
DNA, a child’s environment must necessarily affect his religious affiliation in
some manner. In fact, all children are born agnostic and remain so until
influenced by the religious convictions of their parents. I think it would be
more than fair to say that if the most avid Christian preacher of your hometown
had been born in
In almost every case, individuals become
members of their respective religious groups because their parents were also
members. Likewise, the parents are only members because their parents were also members. This pattern should prompt the
question of how far back this visionless trend continues. To answer, recall the
primary reason from the previous chapter why
As for the individual, we can easily
observe how a child’s religious beliefs originate from the influence of the
parents. To what extent does this coerced indoctrination occur? I won’t be the
first to propose that children are mentally conditioned, more commonly and
inaccurately known as brainwashed, to believe whatever their parents desire
them to believe without question. If this claim sounds absurd, it’s probably
due to an ignorance of what the mental conditioning process actually entails.
The activity in question is nothing more
than establishing a belief system in a person’s mind, intentionally or not,
using a series of simple manipulative steps. The necessary stages for such
conditioning are exhausting the subject, getting the subject to admit that the
current support system isn’t perfect in some way, removing the subject’s
support system, introducing the subject to a new support system, explaining the
consequences of not accepting the new support system, keeping the subject
isolated from other support systems, explaining the urgency of accepting the
new support system, offering a reward for accepting the new support system, and
maintaining the subject’s new support system for the length of time desired.
The first three steps are part of the cleansing phase. However, no cleansing is
necessary if there’s no conflicting information already present within the
subject’s beliefs. Thus, there is no need to tire a young child or remove an
existing support system to install the new one.
These methods aren’t fantasy; they’re
science. The
When children are at a very young age,
their parents unknowingly initiate the conditioning process by informing them
that everyone is imperfect. Because they’re not perfect, they must take a role
model who seemingly defines perfection: Jesus Christ. By turning their lives
over to Jesus, they receive forgiveness for their imperfections and
inadequacies. Next, parents must make their children fear the consequences of
remaining alone with their imperfections. As a result, they are convinced that
Hell is the ultimate destination for people who don’t rely on the support
system. In this place called Hell, those who choose not to accept Jesus will
burn in perpetual agony. Since the consequences of not accepting the support
system are so horrific, and the steps necessary to eliminate the consequence
are so simplistic, children will learn to adopt these beliefs if only to keep a
distance from the supposed punishment. By this point, children certainly become
willing to follow those who know this system best.
To continue the conditioning process,
parents must successfully keep their children free from external contradicting
influences by encompassing them within a Christian environment in a Christian
country with weekly Christian refreshment. Other religions would obviously
present conflicting information and weaken their bonds with Jesus Christ, the
head of the support system. The other religions would also illustrate the
contradictions and consequential uncertainties shared amongst all beliefs. This
mental havoc would also create cognitive dissonance, the tendency driven by
uncomfortable feelings to repel or justify contradictory information, before
there is enough conditioning to stabilize the belief.
Just as
Paul told the Romans that there was a sense of urgency in accepting Jesus,
parents tell their children that they’ll go to Hell if they know about Jesus
and refuse to worship him. Since Jesus could possibly return today or tomorrow,
time is of the utmost essence. They absolutely must accept Jesus as soon as
possible in order for God to save them from the perpetual punishments of Hell.
If they choose not to accept Jesus before they die, that trip to Hell would
certainly be in order. Finally, we must not forget about the ultimate reward
for accepting Jesus: an eternal stay in Heaven with infinite happiness. How
many impressionable young children could possibly refuse this “genuine” offer?
At the
tender age this process usually begins, children typically aren’t able to
rationalize these assertions or challenge their validity. Just the opposite,
children habitually give benefit of the doubt to their parents and role models.
As time goes by, the vast Christian American environment consistently pounds
the imperative system into their heads day after day, week after week, month
after month, and year after year. By their teenage years, most Christians
couldn’t possibly consider the presence of an error in the Bible, much less a
completely erroneous foundation, because it’s unquestionably the perfect word
of God to them. They believe this notion because they’re lifelong members of a
society that has continually reinforced the “special” nature of Christianity.
Needless to say, every religion is “special” in its own isolated environment of
observance.
When
skeptics ask Christians why they think their religious beliefs are absolute
facts, a semi-logical response is rarely produced. Unfortunately, they are
never able to see the world as clearly as those who have freed themselves from
the intangible bonds of false religions. No Christian would deny that the
blood-drinking cult down the street is full of brainwashed members, but
Christianity is “the one true religion” with an “authentic savior” who suffered
and died for their sins. This nonsensical response comes directly from the
conditioning statements reinforced ad
nauseam. The defensive assertion offered is a logically unsound loop that
has been centrally repeating in their minds for years.
We can utilize the exact same conditioning
techniques on unwitting subjects in a number of situations. For example, these
methods would work wonders in convincing obese people to lose weight through
diet and exercise. First, we must make the subjects realize that they don’t
have a healthy body if they haven’t already made this casual observation. Next,
we must inform them of the opportunity to join a weight loss support system
capable of improving their appearances. We should then warn the overweight
people of consequences to their well-being if they refuse to accept the weight
loss system. Along the way to losing weight, we must keep the overweight
individuals free from external influences that would support their “natural
shape.” We should also design the system in a way to avoid influences offering
an alternative method, such as liposuction, to meet their goals. Then, we
should make sure the overweight people realize that every passing day is a
drastic step toward a premature death if they’re still in excess of their
scientifically determined ideal weight. Following that, we should tell them
that they could even suffer a heart attack tomorrow if they don’t immediately
begin to lose weight. All the while, we continuously remind them that losing
weight will result in obvious rewards of improved health and appearance. In
fact, this change could subsequently open doors for job promotions, better-looking
partners, more respect, etc.
The method used on these obese subjects
matches systematically with the process of introducing developing children to
Christianity. However, the overweight people are at an age where they can
investigate the legitimacy of the claims by using a variety of analytical
methods. Impartial studies will typically support these weight loss claims.
Furthermore, these claims are much more ordinary and readily believable than
the incredible ones made in the Bible. However, people can’t necessarily be
conditioned with the truth as long as they’re willing to question their present
beliefs upon the arrival of new evidence. In other words, we’re not presenting
the weight loss system as “absolute truth.” There’s an enormous amount of evidence
debunking the extraordinary claims made by the Bible, yet those who are aware
of the evidence and still believe it’s the inerrant word of God are not willing
to impartially analyze what’s being discussed because of the conditioning’s
lasting effects.
Cognitive
Dissonance
To explain cognitive dissonance more
thoroughly, I’ll start with a hypothetical experiment. Suppose we wanted to
test the power of God and prayer in order to verify or debunk related Christian
claims. To begin the study, we gather a group of fifty atheists and a group of
fifty Christians who volunteer to have an extremely lethal dose of bacteria
injected intravenously. Following the injection, we provide the fifty atheists
with a regimen of broad-spectrum antibiotics to counteract the infection. We
then isolate the atheists in a secret location and tell no one that they are
involved in the experiment. Essentially, they don’t exist to the rest of the
world. Likewise, we isolate the Christians in a secret location but refuse them
the antibiotic regimen.
News of the fifty Christians injected with
the lethal bacteria will then be broadcast over the entire Christian world. The
report will ask everyone to pray to God for their facilitated recovery from the
infection so that deductive reasoning will force the world to acknowledge the
one true religion because of the unquestionable and verifiable power of God and
prayer. Because no one knows about the atheists in isolation, no one is
specifically praying for them. All they have are antibiotics, while the
Christians have the power of prayer from hundreds of millions of certain
volunteers and the omnipotence of God. After two months, we will end the
experiment and see which group has the most survivors.
Whether or not the public is willing to admit
it, I think everyone knows which group would fare better in this study. No
semi-rational Christian would ever
sign up for this deadly experiment even with the added promise of a great
monetary compensation for the survivors. They know that God isn’t really going to answer the divinely
directed requests of hundreds of millions of Christians because God only seems
to answer prayers in some mystical and unobservable fashion. Deep down, these
Christians may even realize that they can’t consider prayer dependable. Thus,
the failure to acquire volunteers who won’t receive antibiotics creates
friction with what the typical Christian believes is absolute truth. The uneasy
feeling felt throughout the body creates a drive within the mind to explain
and/or separate from the logical contradiction. We call this internal
phenomenon cognitive dissonance.
As a way of irrationally explaining the
lack of activity from God, a Christian would quickly assert that the almighty
doesn’t like us putting him to a test. In addition, we would also hear that God
wants us to believe in him based on faith, not what we determine from our own
limited human understanding. As I mentioned previously, because of this
proposed choice, God performs his miracles in superstitious ages or in scenarios
disallowing falsifiable tests or independent observation. In other words, the
power of God is there even though there’s no logical way to draw such a
conclusion. This irrational explanation is a little too convenient for me. An
enlightened person will realize that Christians receive answers for prayers
just as often as atheists receive answers for problems. Sometimes prayers are
“answered,” and sometimes they’re not; sometimes problems will have solutions,
and sometimes they won’t.
It’s because of this suppressed
“futileness-of-prayer” realization that I feel there is a subconscious
mechanism trying to protect individuals from illogical thinking. In such a
case, this hypothetical defense mechanism has simply been repressed from years
of conditioning. Naturally, I don’t have the means to prove this hypothesis and
wouldn’t expect any believer to accept it without the necessary support, but it
makes perfect sense when you’ve been on both sides of the fence.
Matthew 21:22 and a few other biblical
verses tell us that we will receive whatever we ask for in prayer. This
statement is not taken out of context, and we can easily disprove a literal
interpretation of Jesus’ proposal through objective testing. 2 Chronicles 16:12
condemns Asa for consulting physicians with his health problem rather than
seeking God’s help. As you can see, the Bible is unambiguous on its demand for
prayer over medicine, yet common sense and observation tell us how deadly a
combination of prayer and medical rejection can be. This is why no Christian
would sign up for the experiment. This is also why it’s illegal for parents in
America to refuse medical services for their children, regardless of the
parents’ personal beliefs. Medicine has proven its effectiveness; prayer has
not. Because the evidence contradicts their deepest convictions, Christians
provide nonsensical solutions to the perplexity and ignore valid rebuttals when
they can’t answer them.
Cognitive Dissonance And The Average Christian
Cognitive dissonance
also has a crescendo effect based upon the amount of belief invested in the
disputed claim. Let’s consider a few more examples to illustrate this point.
Roger, our hypothetical Christian friend,
bought a car for $30,000 yesterday thinking it was a great deal. He obviously
doesn’t want to hear that it’s on sale for $25,000 today. In fact, he may have
to “see it to believe it.” The realization of losing $5,000 by not waiting one
more day creates an uneasy feeling within Roger. Although he can’t truthfully
deny his losses once he sees the new price for himself, he may predictably make
several casual comments along the lines of “I can’t believe it.”
The
following week, a criminal burglarizes Roger’s house. The police eventually
arrest Roger’s coworker, Larry, in connection with the crime. If Larry seemed
like a decent individual, Roger will probably find it hard to believe that
Larry was the one who robbed him. Despite tangible evidence pointing to this
conclusion, Roger may not be fully convinced that Larry was acting on his own
accord. He personally needs to hear
Larry’s confession in order to believe the police report.
Years later, Roger’s mother is the victim of a
violent murder. This time, the police arrest his father for the crime. Unlike
the situation with his coworker, Roger will require a much greater amount of
evidence before he even begins to acknowledge that his father may be the one
who committed the heinous crime, regardless of how obvious the situation is to
an impartial observer. Understandably so, he desperately wants to believe the
murderer is someone other than his father. Because it’s perfectly natural for
people to avoid information contradictory to what they rigidly believe, Roger
may refuse to accept the story even if his father admits his guilt. The
stronger the conviction in question, the stronger the resistance against
contradicting evidence will be.
Now,
imagine how Roger feels after receiving information that’s contradictory to the
core religion that has served as his life’s foundation for the past forty
years. These solid ideas tell Roger that there’s no good reason to accept the
existence of his version of God or the presence of his slain mother in Heaven.
Most people in Roger’s situation will repress such “baseless” information and
simply not acknowledge it. Some will defer the argument to so-called experts in
the same religious camp. Others will find a quick quasi-plausible justification
and forget about what they heard. While these actions will successfully
alleviate the uncomfortable feeling accompanying the realization of conflicting
information, the individual experiencing these emotions has not actually
rectified the problem. To Christians, the invalid dispute is now gone; to everyone
free of conditioned thinking, it still requires a logical and justifiable
resolution.
Roger’s latest problem should lead us to
another important question. To what extent has society mentally conditioned
Christians to believe the perfect nature of their religion? Allow me to use an
unusual example to answer.
Suppose the world witnesses the descent of
a great entity from the sky. This being proclaims that its name is God and the
time for the world to end has finally arrived. Needless to say, most people are
going to want to see proof of its claims. Whatever miracles one requests of
God, he is happy to oblige. He has the power to make mountains rise and fall at
will. He can set the oceans ablaze at the snap of a finger. He can even return
life to those who died thousands of years ago. God can do anything asked of him. Then, someone from the gathered crowd makes
an inquiry as to which religion holds the absolute truth. God replies, “The
religion of truth is Islam. The Qur’an is my one and only holy word. All other
religious texts, including the Bible, are entirely blasphemous. All those who
don’t acknowledge my word will undergo a lengthy punishment for not following
my teachings. Now is your chance to repent.”
What choice does Roger and the Christian community
make in this situation? This deity has already demonstrated that it possesses
the omnipotence and omniscience of a supreme being. Do Christians readily
switch over to the side of observable and testable evidence, or do they declare
that this being is the Devil tempting their faith in God? Think about it for a
minute because it’s an interesting predicament. I believe we all know that a
good portion of Christians would denounce this new being in order to please
“the one true God, Heavenly Father of Jesus.” As a result of their collective
decision, the supernatural entity forces them to undergo unimaginable torment
for a few weeks before offering them a final chance to repent. Do the
Christians embrace the teachings of this creature after experiencing its
capabilities firsthand, or do they still consider it the final test and refuse
to denounce their faith in the Bible?
What exactly is the meaning of this
example? No matter what level of sophisticated evidence contrary to their
beliefs might be provided, some Christians will always find a way to set aside
reasoned thought in favor of what they have always been thoroughly conditioned
to believe. If Christians won’t accept the answers of such a powerful creature,
how would they ever have the capacity to make informed and impartial choices
based on evidence presented by their peers?
When You Can’t Handle The Truth
In this introductory material, we
investigated how and why religious beliefs have been passed on from parent to
child for centuries. Parents unwittingly continue this tradition through a
repeated process of mental conditioning that sharply influences the child to
think along a certain path about their religion from a very mentally immature
age. We can successfully utilize the same process in a variety of other real
world situations to verify its utility. Psychological defenses against the
absurdities of religion may be deeply repressed by those who experience a high
level of religious influence. When opposing data meet the conditioned beliefs, cognitive
dissonance takes over and represses such information or irrationally justifies
the discrepancies in a manner that allows the confronted people to forget them.
For centuries, this psychological phenomenon has prevented people from
accepting rational conclusions about Christianity.