It sounds like the problem thinking they're trying to address here is the idea, "I'm suffering because I've done something bad and am being punished by God."

But if they think this kind of thinking is directly linked to religion, then it's just ignorance and bigotry. Consider the folloing quote: "Everything happens for a reason. Sometimes the reason is you're stupid and make bad decisions." The people I know who most strongly connect with that quote have all been (right-wing) atheists.

By contrast, consider the following quotes:

'As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him."' (John 9:1-2)

'Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.' (James 1:2-4)

'In all this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials. These have come so that the proven genuineness of your faith—of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire—may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.' (1 Peter 6-7)

'Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children. For what children are not disciplined by their father? If you are not disciplined—and everyone undergoes discipline—then you are not legitimate, not true sons and daughters at all. Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of spirits and live! They disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, in order that we may share in his holiness. No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.' (Hebrews 12:7-11)

In other words, Christianity says that far from suffering always being a punishment from God for bad behavior, it is sometimes a gift from God to accomplish a greater purpose.

So consider three hypothetical universes:

1. Nearly all your suffering is your fault; the result of God's wrath and/or the natural consequence of your own bad choices.

2. Most suffering is pointless. It has no meaning or benefit or blame; it just happens.

3. Suffering can be valuable. It is allowed by God because it achieves higher purposes; we as individuals , and the universe at large, are both better off because of the suffering.

I agree with the authors, that universe #2 (if true) is better than universe #1. But universe #3 -- the universe actually described by Christianity -- is even better.

With due respect, many survivors of religion appreciate the harm that magical thinking causes. To acknowledge such is not bigotry but lived experience of exiting organizations that do not allow you to leave with your dignity intact. Is your counterthesis that the article is bigoted because it notes that magical thinking (attribution of positive and negative events as an effect stemming from an external entity's judgment) is usually not a good explanation for cause?

With due respect, you can't say "respect" and then "magical thinking" in the same sentence. More than that, "magical thinking" is basically content-free: you haven't actually described what behavior or ideas you're object to, so there's nothing really to say in response.

Your one concrete accusation is about people "exiting organizations that do not allow you to leave with your dignity intact". But that's 1) not specific to religious organizations 2) not a feature of all religious organizations. Try leaving the Chinese Communist Party, for instance, without leaving China. And while I'm sure that my Christian friends and family would be disappointed if I became an atheist, I don't think their disappointment and opposition would really be that much more than you'd get from your atheist friends and family if you decided to become a Christian.

I know that there certainly are religious organizations where that's not the case -- where they're much more willing to use guilt, or social ostracism, or even harassment to try to punish you for leaving; but that's just wrong. That's never how Jesus operated.

Put it this way. Are people harmed by the current medical system? Yes. Should we completely get rid of all doctors and hospitals and everything? No -- we should strive to root out the bad actors and correct the systems and culture which allow harm to take place.

Are people harmed by bad police departments? Yes. Should we completely get rid of all police departments? Some people say yes, but I disagree. We should strive to root out the bad actors and correct the systems and culture which allow the harm to take place.

Are people harmed by bad governmental policies? Yes. Should we completely get rid of the government? Again, some people say yes, but I disagree. I think we should strive to root out bad actors and correct the systems and culture which allow the harm to take place.

Jesus' bitterest enemies were the religious leaders of his day: and what really made him angry was the harm they caused to ordinary people. (Some quotes at the bottom.) Insofar as the "harm" you have in mind is genuine harm, it's probably something Jesus has already objected to.

Getting back to "ignorant and bigoted": I said that if the think that "I'm suffering so I must have done something bad" has a 1-1 link with religion, they are ignorant and bigoted.

They're ignorant because they're wrong in both directions: Many atheists do think that way, and many religious people do not think that way.

It's not bigoted be ignorant: if you don't know that many religions teach that God allows good people to suffer to accomplish higher goals, then you don't know. But if you judge people without actually taking the time to find out what they actually believe, then you are bigoted.

---

Here are some things Jesus said about some of the religious people of his day. No Christian should read these without taking a good look at their own life to make sure they aren't implicated as well:

"Woe to you, [religious people], you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.

"Woe to you, [religious people], you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.

"...Woe to you, [religious people], you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

"Woe to you, [religious people], you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

"Woe to you, [religious people], you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

"...You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?"

> "Everything happens for a reason. Sometimes the reason is you're stupid and make bad decisions."

> In other words, Christianity says that far from suffering always being a punishment

I fail to see how the first statement is supposed to imply that any suffering is necessarily a punishment for some reason. For example, consider a despot whose stupid decisions only have bad effects on its powerless flock. And even it can bring the collapse of its society in distant future in which the despot no longer exists. This gives a perfectly reasonable description of events without implying that the despot either suffered in any moment of its life.

Also there is a difference between believing in causality and certitude that an absolute rationalism is reachable by humans.

> I agree with the authors, that universe #2 (if true) is better than universe #1. But universe #3 -- the universe actually described by Christianity -- is even better.

Is there any religion out there that propose an univocal description universe among which all its faithful agree on? Divergence in Christianity interpretations was often presented as a justification for war between Christians themselves.

> Is there any religion out there that propose an univocal description universe among which all its faithful agree on?

Is there any belief system anywhere such that everyone allegedly on the same side believes exactly the same thing? Does atheism propose a univocal description of the universe which all the "unfaithful" agree on?

Do all physicists agree on everything? Do all economists agree on everything? Do all liberals (or all conservatives) agree 100% on every policy? Does a diversity of belief in any other area of life mean that the whole think is bunk, and that nobody is right about anything?

The world is a complicated place, and the truth is hard to find; moreover, even the best of us distort reality because we find the truth uncomfortable. That doesn't mean that there's no truth, or that some answers aren't better that other other answers. This applies as much to religion as to anything else in the world.

Apart the belief that there is no deity, atheism doesn't imply anything. It's not a doctrine or an economo-social program per se.

Much like physic, it doesn't prescribe what way is supposedly better to behave. This probably helps much on having broad consensus on very precise statements.

Economics, surely, is closer to a cult. It runs some quantification over the process, but there is always some core doctrine which prescribe what are the relevant metrics. Should biodiversity enter in the equation? Should the feeling of fulfillment of operators be considered? Is animal suffering a concern? Should next human generation be given a sustainable society?

Look like you might be in a cult.

Maybe Christianity is not a cult, but the cult. When I hear people call a group a cult, what they typically mean is that the group is a pale imitation of Christianity.

Many Christians would likely take issue with this description because they don't want to be on the wrong side of the dirty word cult.

But I personally don't think it's much of a problem if the person you worship is Jesus of Nazareth.

One thing TFA did do was to describe very well the bad things about a cult: separating you from friends and family, controlling you with guilt, forbidding you from engaging honestly with differing belief systems.

I have not been pressured to cut off from friends or family, regardless of their belief systems; I am not controlled by guilt; and I genuinely try to engage the best I can with other belief systems. I'm pretty sure I could make a case for atheism at least as strongly as you could.

>Christianity says that far from suffering always being a punishment from God for bad behavior.

Besides, you know... Hell, lakes of sulfur and eternal damnation.

> Besides, you know...

For those interested in knowing the actual Christian teaching on the topic of hell, just be aware that this comment is completely incorrect.

For those looking to find a definitive “actual” teaching on hell (or any topic) in Christianity, just be aware, it will take a while. There are a lot of denominations, each with many differing takes on hell.

The above comment is reflective of one such interpretation of hell. Not an exclusive interpretation, but still a valid one.

> Not an exclusive interpretation, but still a valid one.

This is only technically true in the sense that the weakest straw man still gets a seat at the table.

My comment is directed only to people who would be interested in investigating this topic with a sense of proportion. If you bring a sense of proportion to the investigation you will rule out fringe theologies and converge on a Christian teaching that looks nothing like the original canard.

My point is that there is no one Christian teaching. I know many people who believe in the literal fire and brimstone definition of Hell who are devout Christians. Trying to claim there is one “true” interpretation and all others are fringe is folly. What is true to one group is a cult belief to another.

If you want to claim that your Christian beliefs don't include that definition of hell, you’d have a much better argument. Just don’t claim you speak for all Christians…

> I know many people who believe in the literal fire and brimstone definition of Hell who are devout Christians.

This seems fishy to me. I'm sure you know (or know of) many people who you label in the category of devout Christians who believe in the existence of hell. It is a biblical teaching after all. But have you pressure tested their views in deep conversation to see if they hold to a 'literal fire and brimstone' view?

If you have, and feel confident that you are accurately representing their view, than I happily stand corrected. Just know that it doesn't track at all with my own direct experience, nor my studied understanding of the doctrinal teachings of the major Christian denominations.

> Just don’t claim you speak for all Christians…

This is an example of a statement that is so true it's devoid of information content. I would assume that a reasonable adult who is interested in investigating the bases for the theological doctrine of hell, is also well aware that there is denominational diversity of views within the faith.

The real problem with the 'not all Christians agree' public service announcements are that they have the insidious effect of leading people to believe that there is no subset of teachings on which Christians do agree and can speak coherently.

I know it's not your intention to undermine Christianity through this relativistic dilution and you are just trying to make sure the 'fire and brimstone and sulfur lake' view gets a fair hearing, but I do want to make the point that this pseudo-sophisticated bad faith argument is out there.

I mean, fire, brimstone, and sulfur lake are actual bible verses.

"But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” Revelation 21:8

"If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell." Matthew 18:9

"And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who performed the signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image; these two were thrown alive into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone." Revelation 19:20

You do believe the bible literally, right? Because if you were trying to avoid hell with your beliefs, and don't believe in biblical literalism, a large faction of Christians are certain that you will also be going to hell; a burning one. Take your pick which beliefs will save you, sure sounds important to make sure you don't accidentally choose the wrong one...

The reality of hell is absolutely grounded in both the Biblical texts and the Christian tradition. Furthermore the image of 'fire' to describe this reality cannot be disputed. Thank you for looking up the most relevant verses.

It's a topic worth understanding and studying with seriousness. Otherwise you'll be prone to interpret the teaching as just a capricious punishment from God for some bad things that you've done.

My original post was in response to a snarky comment made along those lines but it looks like that context has been lost.

> You do believe the bible literally, right? Because if you were trying to avoid hell with your beliefs, and don’t believe in biblical literalism, a large faction of Christians are certain that you will also be going to hell.

A rather large fraction of Christians don’t believe in literalism, and think it is not only a doctrinal error in itself, but also the source of numerous doctrinal errors.

At the risk of going too far off topic, there is a distinction between Biblical inerrancy and Biblical literalism.

For example, Jesus says: 'You are the salt of the earth.' He doesn't literally mean his followers are Sodium Chloride molecules.

Diving deeper in one specific interpretive case, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is Inerrant but the 'literal' interpretation is not always to be prefered.

This should be obvious because the Bible is not a book it's a library, and how you read it depends on which section of the library you are in.

Eh, not really. Some people do like to creatively interpret their holy texts to make them more palatable, but the Christian holy texts are pretty clear on that.

You could argue that some people don't emphasize the worst bits, but trying to backpedal on Hell would certainly mean that you're going to there to my family, and they're not even particularly fundamentalist.

Maybe this will be unpopular, but Hell is not that bad of a place. In my opinion, Hell is exactly what many people on earth are asking for.

Many people I know who dislike religion say that if there is a god, they wish he would leave them alone. They want to live in a world where god does not exist.

This is what Hell is. Hell is simply a place where god is not, completely separate from god and his influence.

The reason Christianity describes Hell as a place of suffering is because god is the sole source of good in the universe. So Hell, a place without god, is a place without any good.

<Many people I know who dislike religion say that if there is a god, they wish he would leave them alone. They want to live in a world where god does not exist.

On the other hand there's atheists like Terry Pratchett who described himself as “rather angry with God for not existing".

But suffering can be valuable without it (suffering) being caused by supreme being. No mater why i experience suffering i can learn from it, and prevent in future. By the way author talks about "reason" for suffering. There is no mention that you can't learn from it (meaning, benefit).