As an atheist, what truly moves me to action is fundamentalism, which I believe is actively destroying society (e.g. preventing stem cell research because of idiotic absolutist classification of a clump of cells as a human in good standing). But the bone I have to pick with moderate religion is much smaller.
Moderate religion is usually pretty fine in practice, because our moral intuitions and enlightened time period generally override a rational interpretation of what's really written in the bible. However, I would still prefer that the moderates give it up already, and here are all the reasons I can think of why moderate religion is bad.
- The prevalence of moderate religion masks the true egregiousness of fundamentalist religion. For example, a moderate Christian doesn't think that Genesis is literally true, but when incredibly radical "Intelligent Design" comes along, which robs modern science of so much integrity that it might as well be asserting the full literal truth of the Genesis story, the average moderate is tempted to give it equal time in the classroom. Richard Dawkins expands on this in The God Delusion.
- Moderate religion seems like an inconsistent worldview that straddles the boundary between proven rationality and comforting superstition. Scientists traditionally use the humble line of having nothing to say about philosophy. But the truth is that science had a lot to say about the subject. For example, every philosophy about the meaning of life that was written before Darwin must be completely re-examined -- the knowledge of our natural origin changes everything.
Likewise, modern biology tells us that our cells, organelles, DNA and proteins are made of the same passive atoms as any other matter in the universe. It seems that the modern, enlightened, scientific worldview is a completely materialistic one. There don't seem to be any gaps for supernatural intervention, even in what was once the most promising place -- our brains.
In light of the changes that science has had on our worldview, moderate religion seems to be nothing but a historical relic. Imagine that a baby were born into a completely secular, modern society, schooled in modern science, but largely ignorant of religion. Can you imagine a priest who finds him at age 20 and tries to convince him that there is a God? Even such a fixture of moderate religion as solitary prayer would seem absurd and outlandish to this rational character. In the world today, I believe moderate religion is using its moderation as an excuse to avoid some major burdens of proof. - My last argument is a very interesting one I read in a recent post by renowned philosopher Daniel Dennett, recovering from surgery after his heart almost exploded, entitled Thank Goodness! (highly recommended).
I am not joking when I say that I have had to forgive my friends who said that they were praying for me. I have resisted the temptation to respond "Thanks, I appreciate it, but did you also sacrifice a goat?" I feel about this the same way I would feel if one of them said "I just paid a voodoo doctor to cast a spell for your health." What a gullible waste of money that could have been spent on more important projects! Don't expect me to be grateful, or even indifferent. I do appreciate the affection and generosity of spirit that motivated you, but wish you had found a more reasonable way of expressing it.
Dennett's point is that while a little prayer by a religious moderate is not a big deal, it is as inappropriate to the situation as sacrificing an animal -- a completely unjustified waste of time. Furthermore, praying in the hope of actually being helpful can seem, to an intelligent sufferer, like a mockery of the things that truly are helpful and valuable (such as the practice of medicine with scientific rigor).
17 comments:
Interesting post.
But the 1st and 3rd of your points are invalid, as they assume what must be your thesis: that religion is at its base mere superstition. You use the fairly dated dichotomy between "superstitious religion" on the one hand, and "rational science" on the other. In fact, rationality has little if anything to do with this argument. The Scholastic theologians during the Middle Ages were as rational as any scientist today; and their theology was just as rational.
The difference between science and religion is not that one uses reason and the other does not. Rather, science is a methodology and a body of knowledge that attempts to make as few assumptions as possible. Religion, on the other hand, makes at least one flying leap of faith.
And although it does seem terribly obvious that religion is soon to be history--and we will all be speaking Esperanto--things may turn out differently.
My reason for believing this is quite simple: science, for all its beauty, is mere reason. It is reason aided by the senses, and its products are great and beautiful, and best of all, practical.
But science does not, and cannot by its nature, speak to the entire human experience. Humans are not merely rational beings. And science, for all its greatness, is a limited field. The acknowledgment that it is limited is in fact the core of science's greatness.
A postscript: Fundamentalism is a disease. It is a reaction to the power and beauty, and more, the achievements of science. It is a post-modern perversion of religion. Conservative or orthodox religion has its place, as a backward facing vanguard. But fundamentalism is something different entirely.
Neither rationalism nor atheism keeps fundamentalism from spreading--only the moderate religion you reject. You do not have to believe. But consider, perhaps, the billions of people who do believe are not A) less intelligent than you; nor B) less knowledgeable than you; nor C) have not considered the ideas you have.
Joe,
I really appreciate the thoughtful comment. You raise a good point that theologians can be rational, except for their one "flying leap of faith".
In propositional logic, if you accept any contradiction as an axiom, you can then apply logical inference rules to derive any falsehood. It is the same with taking a leap of faith, because by definition that involves accepting an irrational statement. If you accept that the bible is literally true, then you can rationally believe absurdities and commit atrocities, because that is really what a literal interpretation of the bible calls for.
Regarding A, B, and C at the end of your comment, I believe all three are actually helpful to explain why many people are religious. And I would append childhood religious indoctrination to that list as well.
Regards,
Liron
A reasonably good summary of the "rational atheist" position - and with the usual flaw.
Many scientific hypotheses involve assumptions that are not known to be correct. A test of the hypothesis and its consequences is also a test of the underlying assumptions - sometimes the assumptions are shown to be entirely false, sometimes they just need tweaking.
When a believer makes the assumption that God is real, this assumption is not known to be correct. The hypothetical God and its consequences is then tested against the world - and found to explain much of it satisfactorily. Occasional tweaking is required, and some events may force complete abandonment of the God assumption.
Now, one may point out that because God is supernatural, he is not a valid scientific assumption - and that is correct. However, it is also irrelevant, because theories of "life the universe and everything" are not required to be scientific.
The believer, therefore, by testing an assumption of unknown worth against the evidence provided by day to day life, is acting entirely rationally. It is almost impossible for someone to live without being offered god as a base assumption for building theories of life on, and only the most rigorous, or those with the most concrete notions of god, will be forced to reject the assumption as incorrect.
I've been an atheist 32 years now, and a scientist for 20 - and it's a world-view and theory of life that works for me. In that time, I've seen the claim that science supports atheism made by many people, and it doesn't hold up.
Science deliberately excludes the supernatural as a base assumption, without knowing that assumption to be correct. That science has been enormously succesful in explaining the world suggests that the assumption is correct, but that is all - and we are far from having examined everything scientifically.
Even when science has examined everything, it will still be left with the problem that it has no control universe to study - if this universe is "god-powered", it is hard to see how we could establish such a thing without comparative studies.
The theist has made a single assumption that you have not - and that assumption is God. Unscientific it may be, but irrational it certainly isn't.
Anonymous,
Thank you very much for your reply. What is an example of a scientific assumption to which God is comparable?
When you say science makes assumptions, I can only assume you refer to the inherent uncertainty of any theory. It seems like you think that assuming the existence of God is perfectly scientific. If that is what you mean, then I must surely disagree at least in the case of fundamentalist gods, because I see no difference in the magnitude of worldview shifting required between fundamentalist Christianity, and belief in leprechauns. Both are possible, but both assumptions are unscientific, because in science, assumptions are specifically avoided when possible.
The God assumption is not an assumption, but only an ancient hypothesis that has failed miserably to shoulder its burden of proof.
Hmm. Did I claim that assuming God was scientific? If you look, I said it was rational, but not scientific.
It cannot be scientific, by defnition, since it involves the supernatural.
What I said was that this is irrelevant. Religion and belief in God are not scientifically true - so what? Is democracy scientifically true? Law? Justice? Charity? Market economics? Finance?
What does it even mean to ask the above? Nothing at all - none of these things are judged on their scientific truth. So why religion?
If religion makes claims to be scientifically true, then it can be slapped down good and hard, because it isn't. However, only a minority of fundamentalists claim that this is the case, and the Dawkinite fallacy is to behave as if this was then true for all religious belief.
When religion does not claim scientific truth, it is utterly pointless to say it is not scientifically true. It is, instead, by definition, excluded from examination by science - science can neither prove it true nor false. Indeed, to try to use science to proclaim the supernatural false is a circular argument, which pretends to justify an already chosen position by assuming it is true.
Science certainly provides to atheism a logical world-view and an intellectual structure as complete and all-embracing as any theist position - but what it does not, and cannot do, is prove atheism.
1. First, you speak of propositional argument and irrationality, but you are blinded by something. You presume that a leap of faith be necessarily irrational and false. Yet this is not necessarily the case. On what basis do you make this assumption that any "leap of faith" is irrational and/or false? (I could also argue that you seem to equate irrational and false.)
2. And as for your last comment regarding how most people are less intelligent, less knowledgeable, and less aware of ideas than you: although I certainly see how this idea can be helpful in explaining away something that does not make sense to you--is this a logical response?
If in some experiment you were running, only a small, small percentage of the test subjects performed as you predicted--acted as was logical based on your assumptions--would you not then assume that you were missing a variable? And why is that not the case here?
In this case, your explanation seems to be: I am acting differently because I am more intelligent, knowledgeable, and aware--all of which is possible. But statistically, it is extremely unlikely that you are the most of all three out of some billions--and out of history, even more billions--all these brilliant, knowledgeable, aware people--who chose to believe in things you do not. It just seems to me that your "helpful" explanation is more self-serving than anything.
More: it certainly is not the explanation that requires the fewest assumptions. You have, it seems, on this point, made a kind of irrational leap with no faith, but only self-justification in mind.
3. You can commit atrocities in the name of a kind of rational science as well. What was Marxism but the scientific method gone wrong? Out of a twisted scientific understanding of eugenics came the Holocaust. The worst regimes of the 20th century have been atheistic and scientific minded--and by harnessing the great power of science, and justified by their own scientific theories, they were able to commit atrocities on a scale never before seen in human history. Certainly, we can agree that, for the most part, the Nazis and Stalinists used perversions of science. But a lack of religion did not protect them from believing in absurdities and committing atrocities. Rather it enabled them to do so, freeing them from absurd moral codes.
4. Regarding a "leap of faith": A leap of faith is certainly non-rational. But it is not necessarily irrational. A "leap of faith" is a term Kierkegaard coined to describe the choice one makes to believe. And really, the term can be understood as describing the human faculty to choose. Do I ask a guy/girl out? Do I believe in God? Do I believe this is wrong? Do I go out tonight? Do I leap onto the subway tracks to save someone? To experience these choices as a human being is to make a "leap of faith". You cannot know the outcome of your decision--but you make it anyway. You choose one of many options based on reason, yes, but also your emotion, intuition, upbringing, beliefs--your entire being. And while science might be able to explain intuition, it cannot recreate it. And that is the limit of science--it may explain all the parts of experience, but it does not and cannot recreate experience. A novelist or filmmaker can--or approximately can; they can approach this ideal. Science does not try. The reason religion is so valuable, and so frightening, is that it is the only force that truly tries to guide one in making these decisions--in making choices. Science can only use one method to influence this choice: reason. But there is far more to being human than reason. And this we all know.
1. Faith is defined as believing something that is not supported by evidence. Fundamentalists have faith in things that science proves are false. Religious moderates place faith in statements that I consider meaningless, such as a God who is defined as the creator of the big bang.
2. It is clearly a combination of factors that causes someone to believe in God. A thorough knowledge is strongly correlated with atheism, as exemplified by the members of the prestigious National Academy of Science. I believe a thorough, comparative knowledge of various religions is correlated with atheism, and yes, intelligence as well.
If the outside evidence of this positive correlation were not there, then that by itself would not invalidate my arguments, but it would certainly trouble me.
3. A lack of religion never freed anyone to do anything, since religion itself has been used as justification for acts along the entire moral spectrum. I don't see why you bring up something like Marxism. I am interested in the set of beliefs about the world that religion asserts, and the only question I'm concerned with is whether particular beliefs are meaningful, and if so, whether they are true.
4. Religion's role as a personal philosophy that "guides one in making decisions" is a different matter from the faith that religion entails. Even if the former is valuable, the latter is not. That said, I am not particularly eager to take my life philosophy from writers who have religious faith, but of course they are all bound to come across the occasional good lesson.
1. You actually moderately mis-define "faith" here. Faith is not belief not supported by evidence, but rather faith in the absence of evidence; or even faith without definitive or with contradictory evidence. Given this, fundamentalism is not about faith, really, but about something else. And I am not quite sure you understand religious moderation as I do. But even if you do, I am not asking you to accept that the faith I have is meaningful.
2. I dispute your suggestion that knowledge or intelligence necessarily leads to atheism. The "evidence" you have presented is far from conclusive. I can point out that such scientific giants as Galileo, Newton, Joule, Kelvin, and Einstein were all believers. But this proves nothing more than the fact that a particular academy of scientists is dominated by atheists. You only present one specific piece of evidence.
More, even if a study found a correlation between atheism and any specific measure of intelligence, it would not be reasonable to accept the theory that less intelligence or knowledge causes people to be religious. If you truly accept the scientific method, you would not accept this theory unless there were some form of hypothesis and testing; and even then I doubt you would have the rather unscientific certainty you seem to have now regarding the matter.
3. I agreed previously that terrible things have been done in the name of religion. I do not think that religion has always been used to good effect, but to deny that the moral codes that different religions have has moderated the evils people have wished to commit is silly. At times, religion has also been used to justify evils. It can certainly be said that science has been used to justify evils; and it is also used to prevent them, as in the environmental movement.
4. In trying to separate "conscience" from "faith", you show that you do not understand what I stated. In answering the question: "Is there a God or gods?" you have no choice but to act on faith. Yes or no, your answer is based on faith--not evidence, because there is no conclusive evidence either way. Atheism is based on an act of faith; going on a date is an act of faith. Choice and faith are intricately connected--and both are essential to what it means to be human. When we choose, we choose based on faith and reason and evidence. We choose based on what we know, what we deduce, and what believe. Because to be human is to not know everything.
The heart of fundamentalism--religious or otherwise--is to claim to know absolutely what you merely believe. Fundamentalism is based on a denial of human fallibility, on a denial of human nature.
The power of science and of religion is that both assert vigorously the fallibility of human nature--in the face of God and in the face of truth. The core of religion, as in science, is doubt. They are both very different, yet similar--and neither can replace the other.
Good post! It is always nice to see another atheist blogging. I think that the issue of moderate religion is an important one to address. I agree with you that it is not problematic in the same way that religious extremism is problematic, but it is still important.
Why do u assume that "religion" equals "christianity"?
1. I think Joe is misunderstanding atheism atleast as I understand it. As an atheist, I don't see any faith involved in my position just as I don't see faith involved in my position that unicorns don't exist today. As Dawkins puts it, I just believe in one less god than monotheists. Further atheism does not have much to do with religion in general as non Judeo-Christian religions like Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism have no problem with atheism (in fact, the founder of Jainism was an atheist).
2. By my understanding of atheism, Einstein was an atheist as he definitely did not believe in a personal God/s. I am not sure that most atheists have any problem with Impersonal God/s. Clearly, almost all atheists would have no problem with pantheism since all atheists I have encountered believe that the universe does in fact exist.
3. As for historical goodness/badness, I think there is enough evidence either way. The essentially atheist philosophy of Buddhism led to considerable social progress and peace in India around 300 B.C. which was undone by the resurgence of religion which later led to destruction of major universities (and massacre of the students/professors) set up around that time just like the destruction of the library at Alexandria etc. later by religious people. What is clear is that lack of a scientific outlook in society leads to the majority of suffering/death of a HUGE number of people, much greater than just wars - i.e., lack of implementation of sound medicine, scientific progress in general and medicine in particular etc. Whether the scientific outlook is the outcome of a religious society or not is really irrelevant.
4. Philosophically, we cannot be sure of anything at all, as I cannot even be sure that the "I" that exists is the same over time or, to be pedantic, that my brain is connected to my body at any instant (due to quantum tunneling). I am definitely not sure that God or Gods do not exist but I would put my subjective probability (based on Occam's razor) of its truth as well over 99.9%, where I define God/s to be personal ones.
Oops, should have previewed. In 3 above, obviously "is" should be replaced by "isn't" in the first sentence.
"Why do u assume that "religion" equals "christianity"?"
I think he was just using Christianity as an example, because of the popularity of that particular religion in the western world. His examples work just as well if you replace Christianity with Islam, and the two together cover the vast majority of the world's population. Whether it applies to other religions, I don't know... I've never met a Buddhist or a Wiccan that pushed for their beliefs to be taught in school, but then I'm not sure that I've ever met a Buddhist or a Wiccan at all. :]
india dating [url=http://loveepicentre.com/]dating gift ideas[/url] jewish dating web site http://loveepicentre.com/ india dating
dating game questions [url=http://loveepicentre.com/]purchasing singles cds tapes[/url] online dating stories http://loveepicentre.com/ singles chat rooms
franklin medical centert [url=http://usadrugstoretoday.com/categories/erezione-pack.htm]erezione pack[/url] tinnitis and diet http://usadrugstoretoday.com/categories/mujeres-mejoramiento.htm kidney donation process http://usadrugstoretoday.com/products/combivent.htm
southeast louisiana veteran health care system [url=http://usadrugstoretoday.com/categories/female-enhancement.htm]female enhancement[/url] ron wyett video christs blood alive [url=http://usadrugstoretoday.com/products/lotrisone.htm]vein cut travertine polished[/url]
how to make my breast bigger malaysia [url=http://usadrugstoretoday.com/categories/anti-diabetische.htm]anti diabetische[/url] jacksonville florida health department http://usadrugstoretoday.com/products/cardizem.htm cancer on breast nipple http://usadrugstoretoday.com/categories/anti-allergique-et-l-asthme.htm
foods endorsed by kidney association [url=http://usadrugstoretoday.com/catalogue/n.htm]Buy generic and brand medications[/url] fatique with low blood pressure [url=http://usadrugstoretoday.com/products/minocycline.htm]are penis enlargment pills pernament[/url]
Post a Comment