THIS past week we’ve seen the majority of Facebook’s userbase swap their profile pictures for images of cartoons from their childhood. This was part of a well-intentioned, but ultimately superficial campaign to reduce child abuse by drawing attention to the issue. So effective was it, I was prompted to comment, “I was about to punch a child, but then I saw Fred Flintstone and I reconsidered.” The campaign had the effect of making people feel like they were contributing (whilst allowing them to compete on who knew the coolest/most obscure cartoon character) without their actually having to make any effort whatsoever: slacktivism at its finest.
But the Facebook campaign utterly pales in comparison to the ultimate in slacktivist action. Imagine, if you will, hundreds of thousands of people sitting at home, feeling smugly satisfied that they’re contributing to the relieving of the world’s problems whilst in reality they’re accomplishing nothing. Imagine that these people gather together to bask in the warm glow of shared altruism, whilst living free from any form of altruistic action. Imagine that these people see terrible things around the world, and believe that they can contribute to fixing these things without doing anything at all tangible.
You don’t have to stretch your imagination very far. Prayer is all these things and less. Prayer manages to instill a sense of accomplishment when nothing valid has been achieved by relieving the faithful of any burden of duty.
The effects of this can vary from simple laziness to fatal neglect. In February 2010, a couple in Oregon were jailed for criminally negligent homicide after their son died of a simple and easily treatable infection. The parents were members of the Followers of Christ Church, who preferred prayer to medicine and acted on their conviction, holding prayer vigils over their dying son.
Another case from early 2008 involved an eleven-year-old girl in Wisconsin whose parents ignored the symptoms of diabetes and chose instead to – you guessed it – pray for her recovery. When the girl died of such easily curable ailments, the Police Chief commented,
“They believed up to the time she stopped breathing she was going to get better. They just thought it was a spiritual attack. They believed if they prayed enough she would get through it.”
Needless to say, prayer is an absurd and futile occupation – simply people making requests to empty rooms. Money wasted on medical studies of intercessory prayer have discovered that prayer has no positive effect on the world. Indeed, the Templeton Foundation, the nefarious pseudo-science academy, (tagline: “insights at the boundary between theology and science”. What next? “Insights at the boundary between clairvoyancy and psychology”?) discovered in 2006 that in some cases prayer makes things worse. Dr Charles Bethea, who worked on the study, found that there was no change in recovery for those who were not prayed for and for those who did not know they were being prayed for, but that there was a higher incidence – 59 percent – of recovery issues for those who knew they were being prayed for. Bethea had to consider that being prayed for makes people anxious, “Did the patients think, ‘I am so sick that they had to call in the prayer team?”
Prayer too has a significant problem for the theologically inclined. It is said by way of explanation when bad things happen to good people that ‘God has a plan’; some mysterious plan that will make everything work out well in the long run.
Late-great comedian George Carlin explained how pompous prayer looks in relation to The Divine Plan [via YouTube],
“Suppose the thing you want isn’t in God’s divine plan. What do you want him to do? Change His plan? Just for you? Doesn’t that seem a little arrogant? It’s the divine plan! What’s the use in being God if every run-down shmuck with a two-dollar prayer book can come along and fuck up your plan?”
And Carlin continues that, if the prayer isn’t answered, the faithful can commiserate with recourse to The Plan. But wait, he says, if it’s God’s will, and He’s going to carry out The Plan regardless, what’s the point of praying in the first place?
Another important question we can ask is “why won’t God heal amputees?” This marvelous website deals with that very question. I’m sure we’ve all heard the anecdotal evidence from a believer who just knows prayer works because they once prayed over some trivial matter and it came true! Sam Harris sets a challenge to the faithful: Gather the legions, have them pray in unison over the lost leg of a war victim, and see if God grows the leg back. Of course, we know it couldn’t happen, because there’s no recipient of said prayers and the laws of physics are indifferent to lost legs or their recovery.
Being grateful for prayer during or after a successful medical recovery is another twisted piece of thinking. By all means be grateful to friends and family for their keeping you in their thoughts if it comforts you, but when medical staff have poured genuine bravery, skill and effort into you and the thanks go to God, something is badly awry.
Philosopher Daniel Dennett authored a piece called Thank Goodness after he was rushed to hospital, in which he makes note of all those whose scientific and medical abilities went into the process of saving his life. He notes that he can be directly grateful to those whose goodness benefited him, and that he can endeavor to be good in kind to others. Contrarily, gratefulness to God is useless even if you’re a believer – it won’t make a jot of difference to him whether you’re thanking him or not. How could a mere human ever hope to repay the creator of the universe? Especially, notes Dennett drolly, after he sacrificed his son for us.
Prayer, it seems, is the pinnacle of intellectual laziness. It is feeling accomplished whilst accomplishing only a feeling.
Someone once said:
“Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime. Give a man religion and he will die praying for a fish”.
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
December 7th, 2010 at 5:44 pm
Wow, I bet that saved a few children. Dog bless `em, dog bless everyone.
December 7th, 2010 at 6:14 pm
I remember seeing a picture on the Cheeseburger network, of two cats, one appearing to be praying and the other one looking down slighly aloof. The caption was something like ‘atheist kitty finds your prayer cute but ultimately futile’. I printed off a copy to give to a work colleague who I know to be an atheist and cat lover and the printer started to churn out the comment thread as well. The picture was meant as a joke, but guess what, the comments were an argument between sane people and stupid theists bleating that prayer isn’t futile.
December 7th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
Just read this article and it got me off my arse and I donated but I also shared this on my Facebook status (see below) with my friends. Maybe others on this site can prompt people to donate – come on the Freethinkers!!!
Read the below article which got me thinking…I noticed lots of people changed their profile pics over the weekend to raise awareness of children being abused…. Question is have you supported the NSPCC and its work and if not why not? Here’s the site to donate to http://www.nspccwishes.org.uk/donate?ac=115435
December 7th, 2010 at 6:34 pm
On the subject of prayer, I’ve always felt this summed it up nicely:
http://atheistblogger.com/wp-c.....8/pray.jpg
On the subject of the Facebook cartoon thing, this spoof site had a great piece:
http://newsthump.com/2010/12/0.....hundercat/
Also from that site, a great piece on the currently-topical christian persecution fad:
http://newsthump.com/2010/12/0.....hristians/
December 7th, 2010 at 7:14 pm
Prayer is asking an omniscient god to change its mind.
December 7th, 2010 at 7:28 pm
I love that episode of the simpsons were bart and homer become catholic it’s utterly fucking hilarious
And as for fave cartoon charachter, skeletor all the way
and I suppose prayer was slacktivism before the word slacktivism was invented
December 7th, 2010 at 7:34 pm
Sorry to be off topic but has anyone seen this?
http://www.cphpost.dk/componen.....?task=view
December 7th, 2010 at 7:51 pm
@iggy pop: Thank you for the link… you beat me to it
https://www.nspcc.org.uk/Applications/Donations/DonatePredonation.aspx
December 7th, 2010 at 7:52 pm
@Stonyground Saw this on new Humanist earlier on today… What a hoot!
December 7th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
Why knock people who are at least reminding others of the appalling evil of child abuse?
December 7th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
Not only true, but poetic! Bravo.
Stonyground, that’s hilarious, and saddening in its idiocy, too. Here’s another bottle of stoopid to mull over.
Barriejohn: I’m with you as far as the raising awareness issue goes. I think what the article is saying is that people tend to do that and nothing more, having ‘done their bit’. That’s the way I read it, anyway.
December 7th, 2010 at 10:02 pm
No, iggy pop, I haven’t and I won’t. There are only two charities that I support and I won’t change that because of someone trying to shame me into it.
If there’s one thing I can’t stand it’s that bloody holier than thou attitude some people have.
December 7th, 2010 at 11:06 pm
Has there ever been MRSI studies on prayer? Which parts of the brain are active when people pray and is this the same as meditation? If there is not a religious expanation for prayer then there must be a scientific. What did Richard Dawkins mean when he said that people are hot wired for religion.
December 7th, 2010 at 11:26 pm
Wow! Strange attitudes being exhibited here today! Surely, anything that raises awareness of child abuse, and supports those who are fighting it, is worthwhile?
December 7th, 2010 at 11:37 pm
J, here’s a great study on prayer!
“Parts of the prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortices, which play key roles in vigilance and scepticism when judging the truth and importance of what people say, were deactivated when the subjects listened to a supposed healer.”
http://www.boingboing.net/2010.....shuts.html
http://scan.oxfordjournals.org.....l.pdf+html
December 8th, 2010 at 6:33 am
Barriejohn, do you know that child abuse happens, or would you need a avatar change to inform you of it. See how dumb the idea is, we all know that it happens, and changing pictures does bugger all to help or hinder the abuse.
December 8th, 2010 at 7:14 am
Mike: I don’t think that the idea of drawing attention to child abuse, and therefore encouraging people to support those who are fighting it, is “dumb” in the least. I think the campaign is a great idea, and has little correlation with the totally ineffective practice of prayer.
December 8th, 2010 at 7:43 am
Barriejohn: Normally I find myself nodding in agreement with your comments, but today’s are a bit shrill. Nobody is claiming that highlighting child abuse is a shit concept.
Don’t attempt to shame us into accepting your POV, matey. We’re not Catholic, so guilt doesn’t work on us.
Terrific article! Best I’ve read here in a long while, but… The *majority* of facebook users joined in with this well-intentioned but ultimately lazy campaign? Really?
Of my 60-something facebook friends, three bothered. One always has a cartoon as his avatar, anyway. Maybe my mates are all just heartless kiddie-fiddlers (despite none of them being priests)?
December 8th, 2010 at 8:01 am
Chris: I don’t think that I am the one who is being “shrill” here. And how does “guilt” come into it? My point is that, unlike “divine intervention”, the NSPCC are at least doing something about the problem, so the campaign does have a practical point. We know what the church’s answer would be!
December 8th, 2010 at 9:41 am
We’ve discussed the NSPCC on here before, how they have become a bloated organisation with inflated salaries for the top people; they have also been chastised for spend more on campaigning than on actually helping children. And the NSPCC were rather quiet about catholic child abuse. A brief internet search digs the dirt: try NSPCC waste money.
Tin hat at the ready!
December 8th, 2010 at 10:28 am
Nothing strange about it at all, Barriejohn. I’m not about to be browbeaten into supporting something just because someone else says I should. It’s called freedom of choice.
As Angela says, where were the NSPCC when news of priest abuse broke. Indeed, where have they been this past half century, someone at the NSPCC must have known about it. I’m pretty sure some of the victims would have got in touch with them. Why have we heard nothing from them?
One other point, where were all these UK facebookers, so keen to help stop child abuse, when the pope was here? They certainly weren’t out on the streets protesting about child abuse when he was swanning around the country.
December 8th, 2010 at 10:31 am
I wasn’t aware that anyone was being “browbeaten” – certainly not by me – and I guess this campaign was aimed at younger people in particular, many of whom seem, from my experience on the web, to be much in need of a shove in the right direction! The reaction to my remarks seems way over the top.
December 8th, 2010 at 10:38 am
You are all wrong! God does heal amputees! There is evidence! A Cardinal says so:
http://www.catholic.net/index......8;id=31068
There, what did I tell you! Praise the Lord!
December 8th, 2010 at 10:56 am
Here’s the pic to which Stonyground was referring:
http://atheistetiquette.files......st_cat.jpg
December 8th, 2010 at 10:57 am
There must be reasons why the SPCA received a royal warrant and the NSPCC hasn’t. Something to do with fat-cattery, I suspect. Republican trolls need not reply.
December 8th, 2010 at 11:01 am
A man sees a boy with a box of kittens. The man goes over and says, “Oh what cute kittens!”. The boy replies, “Yes, they are Christian kittens”. About a week later the man sees the boy again with the same batch of kittens. Once again he walks over and says, “My, those are just adorable!”. The boy replies, “Yes, they are atheist kittens”. The man asks, “Wait, weren’t they Christian before?”. The boy looks at the man and says, “Yeah, but they have their eyes open now”.
December 8th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
Another problem with prayer is that it is so selfish and self-indulgent. It’s all about “Do this for ME because I want to get to Devon*”.
*Obviously there’s no such place as Heaven, but Devon does exist and it’s a very nice place.
December 8th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
‘Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power -Eric Hoffer- ‘
‘The religions of mankind must be classed among the mass-delusions of this kind. No one, needless to say who shares a delusion ever recognises it as such’- Sigmund Freud
December 8th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
@Angie RS
The NSPCC are a bunch of shysters. They hire child actors, come up with practically meaningless slogans e.g. “Child Abuse must Stop”, show photos of a child on a drip and, worst of all, imply that if you contact them tehy can actually do something fast. They cannot. Their powers were removed, for the best of reasons, a long time ago.
I’ll tell you what they do if you phone and say that your next door neighbour is abusing their child. The will ‘phone Social Services if they can be bothered to get up off their arses and do even that. In my area, very rural and poor, the have these dreadful adverts on local television and the money that impoverished people send goes right out of this area.
I wanted some of this money to go towards keeping a Child Centre open for, mainly, poor single women trying to work. No chance. The useless Advertising Standards when I sent details listing my disquiet sent me a reply, semi-literate as it happened, which had merely been passed on by the NSPCC. I tried local MPs. Didn’t want to know.
The NSPCC is respected for a historical past and now gets the unearned and undeserved respect usually reserved for religious figures. I wonder if the elderly woman sending her couple of quid would think if she knew of the high salaries, and generous expenses, given to NSPCC executives.
The NSPCC awaits exposure and the sooner the better. They make what little they do, so called research and a few Centres, go a long way. They are also a comfortable niche for people who haven’t been able to handle the pressures of front line work in Social Services – whose workers do the tough jobs and make the tough decisons on which the NSPCC implies they do.
They love attending meetings and “advising”.
December 8th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
Wow! Did Barriejohn put a cat in a wheelie-bin or something? All that for merely saying that raising awareness can’t be a bad thing, seems a bit much.
While I doubt the efficacy of the campaign, it’s not as if it was a bad thing per se. Though I agree the NSPCC wouldn’t be the best choice of recipient for donations, any attempt to raise awareness of the problems has to be a good thing.
December 8th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
“Ivan
December 8th, 2010 at 10:38 am
You are all wrong! God does heal amputees! There is evidence! A Cardinal says so:
http://www.catholic.net/index&.....p;id=31068
There, what did I tell you! Praise the Lord!”
I think I’d want some independant verification of this “miracle” before I’ll believe it.
December 8th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
You lot know of course that whole facebook profile pic thing; it’s nothing to do with the NSPCC? There never was a campaign to change avatars into cartoon characters – but it became a meme people spread the word and hey presto – internet history is made.
Excellent article though.
The other internet meme related to this is that paedos use cartoon characters as avatars as it attracts children to them
)
Oh for a more innocent age.
December 8th, 2010 at 5:38 pm
I don’t know what was said about the NSPCC but, from quite a bit of professional experience before I retired, I can’t stand them. Anyway, just to finish with a few comments if you can bear them. Here are a few child care issues they might, but didn’t, have focussed on with some benefit to the children.
Female Genital Mutilation. An issue that still deserves highlighting and putting pressure on politicians and Local Authorities to tackle.
Child Abuse by the Roman Catholic Priesthood. Haven’t seen anything from the NSPCC on that one.
Beating the hell out of black kids, usually in London and certain urban areas, to drive out demons. Still needs publicising.
The NSPCC spread themselves in mild, bland injunctions which no doubt still brings in the cash. I understand from a contact in the NSPCC, who is as cynical as I am but he has a mortgage, that they have hopes of a windfall from David Cameron’s Big Society idea. I can just see it. Sack hundreds of social workers who do no what they are doing, even if in many instances there are no “right” decisons, and replace them with people who have not the legal authority, the knowledge or, indeed, an ability to get their hands dirty.
And here I am making an early New Year Resolution. I will not write anything here about the NSPCC again. It must bore you all rigid and it just annoys me even writing it.
No more posts from me till after Christmas. Thank you all for your comments during the year, often erudite, always entertaining and of a quality which makes this site a pleasure to read.
With good wishes.
Broga
December 8th, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Currently in England and Wales there are currently 180,000 registered charities taking in around £52 billion a year. Whilst I believe most of them are very genuine and honest in their intents, I also feel that some may not be honest in their intents, ie money laudering, or in the case of guide-dogs for the blind, so big and uncoordinated, that they are actually almost useless. A few years ago here in Glasgow several charities were investigated and, in almost all the cases, more than 70% of the money raised went into ‘administration’ fees. I believe people should donate to charity, if they are happy to do so, and not through self imposed guilt.
I also feel that, for example. in the case of lifeboats, that it has allowed the government to shirk their responsibilities.
December 8th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Have a good one Broga.
*has enjoyed your posts in this his debut year here*
December 8th, 2010 at 7:26 pm
I often wonder about the definition of child abuse. I think illegal chinese immigrants sold as prostitutes would certainly qualify. But, here is a set of facts that shed a new light:
My mother was married when she was sixteen. Her friend, Ona, was married when she was fourteen.
Society has redefined what is sexual abuse, including consentual sex. But, the truth remains that every football dad would love to dive onto the sideline and fuck every cheerleader. And every soccer mom would like to get gang banged by her son’s team. The only difference between a pedophile sitting in prison and everyone walking on the street, is a conscious decision not to act upon those impulses. There are those who admit they have them, and liars.
NeoWolfe
December 8th, 2010 at 7:32 pm
barriejohn: I’m sorry. Somehow, I attributed the comments of an earlier contributor to your good self.
This will teach me;
a) to assume that a previously sane contributor is unlikely to post nonsense
and
b) to put my reading specs on rather than squint at the damn screen.
While I don’t agree with your POV, you weren’t the one being shrill/manipulative and I apologise unreservedly.
Chris
PS – Loved the cat joke!
December 8th, 2010 at 8:12 pm
NeoWolfe:
I’ve always maintained that there should be separate terms for the abuse of pre- and post-pubescents. It goes without saying that any child abuse is bad, but I believe those feel an attraction to children who haven’t yet developed sexually actually do have a totally different problem.
As a side note. I’ve noticed that whenever the subject of child-abuse comes up, the conversation virtually always narrows down to sexual abuse. As one who experienced violent abuse myself, I’d just like to point out that violence against children is probably much more prevalent.
December 8th, 2010 at 9:03 pm
Chris: I did wonder what it was that had upset you so much!
It would be better if we could dispense with the NSPCC, RSPCA, and RNLI, as their duties are all the proper sphere of government, but as has been said above, there’s no chance of that happening under the present regime, so look for a lot more administrators feathering their nests in future. And the internet campaign was nothing to do with the NSPCC to my knowledge, so I am certainly not “browbeating” people into supporting them. I only ever support small, local charities myself, and someone in Africa whom I know and trust to use my money wisely. I still think that the phrase “slacktivism at its finest” was uncalled for.
December 8th, 2010 at 9:21 pm
“I still think that the phrase “slacktivism at its finest†was uncalled for.”
I don’t see any better way to describe changing an avatar to feel as though one has made a difference. It achieves nothing, and it highlights nothing. People know child abuse happens and people know child abuse is wrong. There’s nothing to be gained by ‘raising awareness’ because awareness could not be higher.
It reminds me of when I was in school and learning valuable lessons in ethics from Religious Education class. We were taught that genocide is wrong. I think we kind of knew that already.
December 8th, 2010 at 9:27 pm
@ Ivan
Thanks for the link. I totally agree that if a carinal of the catholic church publishes something online as ‘fact’, then fact it is. And I guess we all might as well just admit the game’s up.
Silly us for ever thinking the church could be wrong!
December 8th, 2010 at 9:45 pm
JMW: I think that the campaign was aimed at the younger generation, many of whom might not have given much thought to the issue. What would you have in place of ethics lessons then?
December 8th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
JohnMWhite:
In 1973 or 74, my mother tried to get help regarding somewhere to go, help with legal matters, and so on, because of domestic violence in general, and violence directed to her child (me) in particular. There was virtually none, and certainly none that she could afford. Even divorce was still a semi-shameful act back then, and what constituted ‘abuse’ was still a much debated subject. It’s precisely because of awareness-raising campaigns that we are now all aware of such things, and have practices and organisations in place to help the victims.
December 8th, 2010 at 11:59 pm
Hmm, the wikipedia article on the NSPCC makes interesting reading.
December 9th, 2010 at 1:46 am
Well, that’s my eyes wide open now.
December 9th, 2010 at 2:34 am
Daz said:
“I’d just like to point out that violence against children is probably much more prevalent.”
I’m sure you are correct. My father, at one time, owned a Harley Davidson 74, and bought a leather jacket to go with it. It had a metal studded waist belt about two inches wide, and that is what they used to use on my ass when I got out of line.
But, just like statutory rape perameters, violent child abuse definitions are changing. When they were beating me with a riveted belt or a coat hanger, there was no legal recourse. Now there is, at least to some extent.
Humanity is adrift in an ocean of grey, trying to decide what is moral. And rightly so. For thousands of years we have been leaning on goat herder mythology to guide us. We stoned to death disobedient children and gays. Now, realizing the bullshit, we find ourselves groping for new guidelines painted in black and white. Yet, in human institutions, there is only shades of grey, and despite our best intentions, there are tons of unintended consequences. Interesting to observe, frustrating to live.
NeoWolfe
December 9th, 2010 at 3:36 am
NeoWolfe:
Compared to you, I was lucky. My dad used fists and feet. I’d like to add, for anyone who may have misunderstood me, that I’d never downplay sexual abuse. Rather I sometimes think that non-sexual abuse can be forgotten in the rush to condemn the more heinous, but thankfully rarer, kind. (Maybe it’s because I’m more personally involved, but I find it harder to judge my words, and how they’ll be read, when talking about it.)
Harry:
Just read the wikipedia article. Very … interesting. Maybe it’s a natural progression for these types of organisation — I remember lots of similar talk about the RSPCA becoming more interested in careers and self-promotion than protecting animals.
December 9th, 2010 at 12:16 pm
The miracle the other Ivan refers to is alleged to have taken place in Spain in 1640, so we are a bit late to try to get some modern scientific verification. But there is, it seems, quite a bit of contemporary documentation, some of which survives today, and some other of which survived as late as the Spanish civil war. It is not the regrowth of a new leg that is claimed. Rather the original leg was restored. The leg was amputated due to gangrene, and buried. 2 1/2 years later, it is alleged, he woke up in the morning and found the original leg reattached, complete with known marks and scars. The original burial site as disinterred and found to be empty. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Calanda
You can also find the largest surviving piece of the True Cross in Spain at the Monasterio de Santo Torribio, near Potes, though you won’t normally be able to look at it directly, it’s inside a very large and OTT reliquary. Apparently Torribio was permitted to bring this chunk back to Spain from Jerusalem in the 5th century, along with some smaller pieces he gave to other foundations. Quite why he was permitted to take all this is unexplained.
December 9th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
barriejohn,
I take your point about the NSPCC and RSPCA, but disagree about the RNLI. If it were in government hands it would be rationalised and life boat stations would close because of efficiency savings, yadda yadda.
Because it it run by the volunteers who actually risk their lives, and the local communities they are part of, it can and does keep stations open regardless of what bean-counters might think.
December 10th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
My bad about the NSPCC having no Royal Warrant, they do, but they do not use it as they don’t want to be confused with a charity which actually does some good, the RSPCA. (Check with Wiki to see which of these organizations brought the first recorded child cruelty case and won)