I have been seeing a lot of things lately relating to atheism and some other faiths, predominantly Christian due to seeing stuff in english, but the trend has been consistant.
The majority of people posting are very much on the side of science or religion as if this is a choice you have to make.
As an atheist I am automatically supposed to be on the science side as if having studied and formed the secure belief that there is no deity responsible for our creation or lives instantly means I am anti-religion.
As Christians or Jews people are supposed to be totally anti science and believe there is no such thing as evolution and to mention anything in contradiction to any story in the bible is heresy.
The very idea that you have to be one or the other shows a massive amount of ignorance from both sides that has really started to get on my nerves. Some of the most infuriating things I will post here.
First and foremost a massive amount of the money invested in science has and still does come from various religions around the world. So those who love their science need to show some respect and give thanks to the people who saw fit to spent church, synagog etc. money on furthering mankinds knowledge.
Some of the greatest scientists in the world are or have been religious and their faith has helped them in their work. Two examples of this I am constantly annoyed about being forgotten are Darwin and Newton, both of whom were born and died Christians who never declared their discoveries disproved the presence of a god. Newton declared the universe as so intricate and complex that it could only have been created by a divine being and Darwin struggled to understand how his discoveries fitted into his god's plan.
Basic level misunderstanding.
Evolution is just a theory is a classic example, scientific communities require evidence to take something from the status of hypothesis to theory and that is as high as it goes. Science doesn't deal in absolute truth as such because it understands that knowledge is our understanding of the facts we have at a given time. New discoveries disprove old so the most proven theory is still just considered a theory. We have absolute proof of evolution not just from fossil records but having observed it happening in recent years, usually as a response to damage we have caused.
The gospel doesn't say it's the gospel truth. The religious writings in the old testament are bible stories to enforce faith and give people answers to questions they had when they were written some are even written as stories told by key figures to explain why we should live a certain way or be thankful for what we have. The bible doesn't mention electricity or computers it doesn't mean we shouldn't have them just that they had no knowledge of such things at that time. The same is true in many religions where stories are used to illistrate points not be treated as the ultimate in truth.
There are a lot of basic knowledge gaps on both sides. I like many others thought one of the commandments said thou shalt not kill but in truth it's thou shalt not murder so with church approval you can kill all you like, I actually saw this error posted by a person declaring themselves an authority on the biblical texts, something I am not. There are a terrifying number of people who believe Darwin promoted the idea 'survival of the fittest' but this was said by people discreditting him he actually said ' it is not the fittest, strongest or smartest who survive but the organism most suited to its environment' not as catchy I'll admit but a more accurate explaination of natural selection. These gaps lead to people assuming to know the other side with very incomplete knowledge or utilising the oppositions ignorance to use partial quotes without any of the background.
See and touch versus faith argument.
I can see, smell and touch grass, trees etc. so multiple sense tell me these exist. The moon, sun, stars and some planets I can see with my naked eye but have never touched, other things I have seen photos of like astral phenomenon but will likely never get to even see for myself. I have no absolute proof that when I look up at the sky I am not seeing an elaborate facade that revolves around the earth changing as it goes like a slow kalediscope. I do know for absolute certainty that most of the photos I have seen of astral phenomenon have been enhanced to make them understandable to those of us who can't decipher the blurred mess that actually is detected by astro physicists.
I have faith in the people enhancing the photos, expalining the shape of the solar system we are a part of and in the information my own senses provide for me. This may not seem too far fetched but when you break it down it starts to look almost foolhardy. I am aware that the brain fills in most of the detail of the world around us, so our sense provide more of a guide than true reflection of the world around us, and I know how easily my sense can be fooled. There are symptoms like ghost limb from amputees etc. that show trusting our senses is not totally reliable. I know the world revolves at 600 miles an hour but if I spin a ball at a fraction of this with an ant on it it flies off rather than staying put, so have to believe in a weak universal force known as gravity to combat this, a force so weak I overcome it by breathing stops me fallng off a fast spinning ball of dirt with a molten metal core. The crazy part is most will read this and think it's perfectly reasonable but now consider how you would explain it to an infant and how much it relies on faith.
Search for simplicity.
Usually the stone cast at the religious group who clutch their chosen book declaring all answers reside within, but in truth something scientists want just as badly. Most of us know the formula E = MC2 though most would be unlikely to even tell you what the letters represent. Keeping things simple makes people feel they understand it and therefore belive it. We have disproven some Newtonian principals but they are acurate to a level most of us would ever care about and so much simpler than the standard model that they are stil in use. Scientists are happy using things that are not totally accurate for the sake of simplicity as long as tolerance is acceptable.
Truth is religion presents more complexity than many accept. For this example we will stick to Christianity as it uses old and new testament which I know some of. Jonah and the whale who can't swallow anything larger than an orange and many other stories are evidently not totally true if they are even partially so, which we don't really know. So unless you are willing to be a blinkered muppet who beieves every word in a book even despite simple proof that some of it is false you have to give it a lot of thought and filter through the stories to find the true meanings behind them, not so simple anymore is it.
Need to enforce ignorance. This has become more heartfelt since I have home educated. A couple we met who had their relationship saved by the husband becoming a Christian decided that the bible was to become their world, before they'd even read it. Subsequently they wouldn't teach science, history and even geography because there were things in thes topics that went against the word of the good book.
Even before this however I remember telling work colleagues that my son was starting to attend church and having one ask why I didn't just tell him this was nonesense and how I would be glad when he grew out of this.
We need to understand all aspects to form real understanding which is why we should try to teach as evenly as possible. Like most occupations those teaching are generally religious and teach faith as truth with conviction of belief then have to teach science disagreeing with some of the stories, which the students will find confusing but should hopefully start them asking questions.
Physcology is deemed a science, though some don't like to consider it such. Part of this states that if enough people believe something and it affects their lives, their belief makes it real. I am paraphrasing badly here but bear with me. When an entire community live a set way because of a faith the effect on their life is real and in some way this makes the object of their faith real because of measurable effects on them. As such the sheer number of religious people in the world and their impact on our world as a result of their respective faiths means that at some level their deities have measurable effects so must be real. This is one I love presenting to atheists who condemn religions so heavily to make them think a bit or at least change colour.
There are so many examples of how the power of the mind can affect our world and lives that dismisisng something so many hold dear as nonesense without a second thought is a sign of absolute stupidity.
The last one which is my least favourite from the science camp. By definition scientific thinking means never closing your mind to anything. Therefore dismissing all religions as nonesense without any factual basis is not scientific thinking. When scientists stop questioning themselves they cease to think deeply enough to be of value. Some great historical discoveries have been made following religious texts and the gaps in the theology have inspired many to search for answers beyond the pages of their scriptures, as such we have benefitted from people studying faiths and research it led them too.
Those of us with IQs above our shoe size won't be on either side in a debate like this because we will have seen both used well and badly and accept that neither will ever provide all of the answers.
It constantly astounds me how many are too ignorant to accept that both have a place in the world and likely always will.
While I could talk about my whole life story leading to where I am, the point at which I started moving in the direction of Christianity as an adult rather than away from it (as I had progressively done up until that point) was when I was 18 and was thinking "there's no evidence for a god existing, so I guess there mustn't be a god," despite being fully convicted that there was a god up until that age. Most atheists I know around my age would call that cause for celebration; me, having some rudimentary understanding of philosophical principles (without actually knowing that it was philosophy at the time -- I thought philosophy = old upper class white guys make unfounded, non-practical assertions about the number 42) found nihilism (another term I wouldn't know or understand for years to come) in the prospect of there being no god, and found this completely unworthy of celebration, and found that this nullified the worthiness of celebrating anything. Bleak perspective.
ReplyDeleteIt was at this age where, going through my now deceased grandmother's massive collection of books, I found a book claiming to present evidence for the existence of a god. It didn't claim to prove that any specific god existed, but it did effectively defend (at the minimum) a deistic god (well, that's probably saying it wrong -- it didn't present deism as true, as deism asserts that its god is uninvolved in the universe; this book more accurately argued that the universe is created by a god capable of creating a universe, and did not attempt to defend any position of who that god might be beyond that).
Having paid attention to a lot of God vs Science arguments, I've learned that people are not very smart. Amongst the academic crowds, and those who professionally argue these issues, the topic generally isn't God vs Science, but rather some variation of "Does Science Prove/Disprove God?" A much better talking point rather than simply assuming that religion and science are opposing forces...however as I examine the arguments on both sides, they still prove that people are not very smart. Here in Australia, there was recently a series of debates (which didn't actually follow debate structure, because of reasons) between William Lane Craig and Lawrence Krauss. I didn't go to the technically-not-debates, so I can only go by hearsay, but I hear bad things about both sides. I was already familiar with WLC, who argues the same 5 points fairly consistently -- he has a couple points that I think are strong philosophical cases for God, a couple arguments that I can't even remember, and somewhere in the middle is a moral argument which I think fails on account of being an appeal to emotion and having premises that I don't think are factually accurate. As for Krauss, I'd never heard of him before. This prompted me to have a look at an earlier debate he did with WLC a couple years back, and to see what else I could dig up about him (with minimal effort). From the material I found, the most valid thing he had to say was a 20 minute spiel about some very interesting scientific facts which did nothing to enhance his position or weaken WLC's position.
Something I've found to be a general frustration while reading or listening to various atheist arguments is for the atheist to attempt to nullify any argument for a god as "The God of the Gaps," articulated as "I don't know, therefore God." Whenever I witness an argument being called out as a God of the Gaps argument, this proves to be oversimplification to the point of inaccuracy, as every argument that I've witnessed being called out in this way includes a discussion of alternative possibilities, and then attempts to show that God being causally involved better explains the facts than the alternatives. The other point of frustration for me comes when those calling out an argument as a God of the Gaps argument turn around and in full seriousness use the same logic that they accuse the theistic apologist of using to say "I don't know, therefore no God."
DeleteOn your point about Jonah and the whale, I think it's a category error to say that the story isn't intended to be read literally on account of what scientists have learned about whale anatomy. The simple fact is that the whale swallowing Jonah and carrying him for three days is not presented as a normal fact. I suspect, and I'm just going out on a hunch here, that to ancient Israel it was not considered normal for someone to get swallowed by a whale, and it was considered very abnormal for someone to survive the experience. The whole concept of miracles is that God normally behaves one way with the natural world, and, in the case of miracles, God behaves in a different way. There is not a single miracle I know of in the bible that is supposed to make the reader think: "Oh, of course, that's how that works." The very idea of miracles is that that's how that normally doesn't work. A lot of atheists say that because every depiction of a miracle goes against the repeatable fashion of the universe, that it's unscientific and therefore not true. They're right about the first part: miracles are not scientific; by definition if under the right circumstances something is normally repeatable, it's not a miracle. This doesn't demonstrate that it's untrue, this demonstrates that attempting to assess its truth via science is missing the point. Many religions actually think that being unfalsifiable by science is a strength. I disagree. A lot of things are unfalsifiable, but that doesn't mean they're true, it just means that I can't disprove them. This sets Christianity apart from a lot of religions in which their premises happen in the dream time, or revelation occurs in private -- Christianity sets its claims in this world, in public, laying its head on the chopping block of history.
On your point about psychology, I'd disagree that the real-world effects of people's belief in a deity or deities makes those deities real. It demonstrates that the belief or religion is real, but I don't think it makes the deity itself real. Years ago I would have jumped for joy at the idea that believing in something makes it real, "because it's real to me," but I don't believe that's the case. Maybe I just need to believe in the belief in something making it a reality...
DeleteThat makes me think about the philosophical issue: how do I know that anything other than my mind exists? The truth is, I can't prove that anything outside of my mind exists, due to the personal nature of the experience of reality. I generally assume that my body, the universe around me, and the people in it (including their minds) are real, but I can never prove it. That problem, in turn, gets me thinking of Schrodinger's cat, which, as far as I can tell, is based off of observations about this universe, however in this context of stuff that happens here, sounds like nonsense to me. However, in the context of multiple universes, and other realms such as heaven or hell, I wonder if Schrodinger's cat applies. If another universe exists, to the best of my knowledge it's a completely different space-time. It's not really far away from this universe; it's a separate reality. From the perspective of that universe, it's real...but from our perspective, is it real? And if heaven and hell are not really far away from here, but are realities that are not a part of this reality, from our perspective are they real? Questions without answers....
There’s a lot of don't know therefore in both camps which is used to batter both by showing they’re working in fields we will never fully understand. In science these are hypotheses in religion a matter of faith, they’re both the same, far from the gaps being weaknesses I see them as strengths, because they make us think.
DeleteBrought up in a Christian country, attended a Christian school, I said the Lord's Prayer and realised early I didn't believe it, something seen as a weakness by most around me. I questioned everything and thank one science teacher for teaching me the most important lesson in science. Never dismiss anything without empirical proof, and still be prepared to be wrong. He stated we only say dragons aren't real because no-one has seen one, but none of us have seen the accepted real earth’s core. The argument is hideously flawed but I thought it was great.
I realised to consider myself a scientific thinker, confidence there is no deity of any kind wasn’t enough. I must examine the various evidence that could prove me wrong. Nearly 30 years later I have read, watched and heard a lot of evidence, none empirical or something I felt strong enough to contend with other things I had studied. Over time I have become an atheist with stronger faith but the scientific thinker in me must be prepared to be wrong. Ironically my love of science means I refuse to discredit any religion and consider my atheism as faith not fact.
Too many blindly faithful declare atheism is a sad existence because there is nothing at the end of my life and I have no guiding force, which is crazy and insulting. You and other intelligent Christians etc. don't say things like this. When my life ends the energy from my body will feed other life, its' not life after death but I like the idea. My son should outlive me so the most important thing I have ever done will survive. My guiding force like many atheists and theists alike is my own sense of moral integrity and desire to be a positive force in this world.
The psychology argument has limited merit but it's interesting. I’ve read some really random junk, this one was cool. It took that people believing in something will live as if it’s true meaning over time the world would be as if it was true, therefore true or false became of no consequence so one could assume it as truth. Three volumes in a part paragraph so a lot missed. I like reading things I don't believe in sometimes to challenge my mind, often I just get annoyed but if the stuff is well written and argued I really enjoy it.
The miracles argument is great. Science has them too but you don’t find them in most books. Single observed and proven occurrences defying explanation and understanding are great and I have read about a number of unexplainable scientific miracles. One of the most bizarre was a miracle animal birth where it could be proven there had been no male intervention on a species that reproduced sexually. The animal, I wish I could remember what the heck it was, was the only one of its type in the country. The offspring was horrifically deformed and only survived a matter of months but there was no denying its existence. Post mortem revealed it had enough DNA to become a viable embryo, all from the mother but not fully species accurate, hence death. This has happened once in observable time and there is no explanation for it, so qualifies as a miracle in some ways, the unhappy ending would likely have it classed a curse but that's semantics.
Newton claimed only a higher power could have created the universe. Science is finding that what he understood of the universe was only scratching the surface, which means we still are. Despite being a Christian he actually refused to say it was the God his religion recognised personally though others declared it on his behalf. I class him as a great scientific thinker, refusing to allow his own faith interfere with what he declared and being open to any possibility. This is why I tend to be harsher on the science side of the pointless debate.
Mmm, guiding forces or supposed lack thereof...a lot of silly things have been said about morality in relation to religion or its absence, and a few not so silly things. WLC's moral argument hinges on there being such a thing as moral absolutes, and that if moral absolutes exist they must come from God. It's perfectly theologically sound and internally consistent to say that God is eternal and a moral agent in a position to judge others in accordance with the moral position he's given them, therefore absolute morality exists and it comes from God. Unfortunately for WLC, I don't think the reverse is true. While most people do feel that certain things are absolutely morally wrong, there is nothing that is universally believed to be morally wrong -- if there were, then the things that 95%* of people consider to be absolutely wrong would never happen. The first premise of WLC's argument can't be proven true in natural materialism, and evidently appears false if human behaviour and attitudes are the test (theologically, our attitudes and behaviour should not be the test of moral absolutes, but if we're not depending on holy scriptures or theology, then we have to look at this world for evidence). All that can be said is that if there is a god of some variety, then there might be moral absolutes, but if there is not a god, then there are not moral absolutes. This issue, in itself, does not (as far as I can tell) point towards God's existence, however it does raise philosophical issues surrounding morality.
Delete*If we're really getting pedantic, what's considered absolutely wrong by the majority in our cultures is not necessarily considered absolutely wrong, or even wrong at all, in other cultures. So that 95% statistic, while more or less truish-esque of our own cultures, is not a universal statistic by any means.
Something that's always puzzled me is when people say that morality should be based on science. Science informs us about what stuff does. This doesn't inform us of whether or not we should value others, and in what way/s. Social science can take a given moral assertion, and then test to some degree how much certain attitudes or behaviours fall in line with that assertion. For example, I can assert that freedom is morally important, and then research to find out if certain practices are promoting, enabling, reinforcing or limiting freedom. But my assertion that freedom is important isn't scientific (and personally, I often contemplate the pros and cons of freedom, as it raises the questions: free from what? free to what?), it's merely me asserting how I think the world should be. Science doesn't work around "should," it works around "is." Physics does not ask "should we stick to the earth?" It asks "what are the mechanical process that cause us to stick to the earth?"
Fun Story: A couple months ago in my Science, Technology and Society class, a discussion popped up between me, an atheist and a Catholic. Like you, the atheist went to a Christian school. He was fairly well-informed about Christian theology. The Catholic girl, not so much. The result of this was that 80% of the time I was taking his side instead of hers, not so much for the challenge of defending a view I disagree with but because most of the stuff she said wouldn't make it past Sunday school.
In an American study about religious knowledge they took note of people’s faith. The atheists scored highest by an enormous margin, especially when looking at all faiths. The part that was deemed most shocking was the number of Christians who knew far less about their faith than atheists.
DeleteIt reflects unfairly on America as many of these studies do, it just proved they aren't afraid to find this out. We are among the last generations of people where most atheists have given a great deal of thought to their faith, yours less so. The youngest atheists I have encountered are as blindly faithful as many American Christians and that’s terrifying.
I happily accept conversation, debate and full on stand up argument from theists and atheists who have given time and thought to their decision and accept their beliefs as faith not absolute. I see so much trash about how atheists are so much better than theists, smarter, more peaceful etc. and I hate it. You being Christian doesn't make you a young earth creationist who doesn't understand evolution, when my son was taking us to church well over 90% totally accepted evolution has and still does happen. My being atheist doesn't mean I hate God or worship Satan, I would have to believe in them to hate or worship either. There is also a stupid idea that faith separates people so you and I put in a room with a Hindu, Sikh, Jew and Muslim would never get on with anyone else there, which is nonsense.
Morality is very personal. What I teach my son will not be all the morals he adopts when he grows up. People reading the bible will not automatically pull the same from it, I have seen eye for an eye used to justify revenge without considering the later correction that covers the turned cheek, you covered that one on your blog better than I can. There is no totally fixed morality, many don't accept killing in the streets but it's OK in wartime etc. I wouldn't kill my wife, but if she was suffering intense daily pain, wanted to die and was incapable of doing so morality could be reconsidered. Situations change opinions and what appears horrific in one situation appears justifiable or even morally right in another. There is no perfect moral grounding in my world I have principals but know things could need to happen to make me reconsider these. I struggle with this and the situations that could change them scare me, but I refuse to be blind to them.
Religion and science are not good or evil, but they have been used to enable both by various people. The reason behind the Nobel peace prize is that the invention of dynamite was to save the lives of miners, which it did by the thousand, not to kill in war, so was introduced to redress the balance. His science was used to save and kill but wasn't good or evil. Religion has inspired people to devote their lives to improving the lives of others, or force others to worship only their God by force, the people made the difference not the scriptures.
I remember being in a discussion regarding fate and guidance, religious or otherwise and was thoroughly mind blown by some there. We can never know or prove that we are operating by free will not fate, the very fact we try to demonstrate free will is something we will be doing by having been guided to the concept so it is fated that we will do irrational things. Looking back at things after the event doesn't prove either, because it could be fated or coincidental and appear the same. As a person who doesn't believe in fate or external guidance I found some of their stuff brilliant, especially because I have since become a parent and remember some things they were able to state as guiding influences to the parents there at the time. In my youth I worked little, messed around a lot and was very irresponsible with my life. Now I am a boring old man who has been guided this way in large part by the presence of a wife and son I love above all else. I’m aware of external influences I now allow to direct my life and have allowed myself to move into an environment where life is predictable enough to show potential for fate.
DeleteRemembering that it's impossible to show I was not victim of fate historically, I am in a situation where I could be used to prove guidance and fate I don't believe in. The theist could even say it was divine intervention that led me to the person that would help me turn my life around and become the person I needed to become and I couldn’t disprove it. It can be great to see things where you know you could be demonstrated wrong so easily and still maintain you are right, I don't feel it was fate or guidance but I sure as heck do consider myself very lucky, where's the line?