The very nature of making a truth claim implies some degree of testable prediction about the future. A simple example would be the statement "I own a chess set." The implication here is that if you sift through every possession I own, amongst them you would find a chess set. Science makes testable predictions in this vein;
- If we add wings and the right type of engine, this vessel will fly.
- If we use the proper type of filament and apply electricity, it will produce light.
- If we replace a particular organ, this patient will live.
- If we apply our hand to the knob and turn, the door will open.
Religion does no such thing, but the fact that religion attempts to make such claims is the reason that science has been a one-way erosion of religion from the get go. Don't believe me? Try this simple, two-question test:
- Think of one thing for which we once had a religious answer, but for which we now have a scientific answer (this one should not be difficult).
- Think of one thing for which we had a scientific answer, but for which we now have a religious answer (don't waste too much of your time).
The notion of faith is used, without evidence, to force assertions into areas we have not explained (argument from ignorance) and even into subjects we have explained. The idea that you can believe anything without evidence or good reasoning is anti-scientific, and this isolation of thought is why schoolboards everywhere are having to combat religious wackos who want to dilute science at best, but more often purge the parts of it that conflict with their faith. The fact that some scientists believe in a god or that some believers accept Evolution has everything to do with the partitionable nature of the human mind, and nothing at all to do with the idea that the two schools of thought are compatible. Scientific reasoning will lead you to conclude that men do not rise from the dead, and that they do not walk on water. It would be a terrible scientist that would accept either claim without evidence.
So the truth claims made by religions do not meet the criteria for being a legitimate truth claim by any sane standard. Science thrives on such things.
Also, science places a very high premium on overturning truth claims upon the discovery of new evidence. This is why if you were to revive a very well-educated man from the fourteenth century, his understanding of math, science, history, and any academic discipline would embarrass a modern five year-old. But his understanding about scripture would be spectacular, easily exceeding most religious people nowadays. Why is this? There are only two real possibilities:
- That we reached the zenith of our understanding of god at a time when our understanding of every other subject was completely inchoate. (not likely) or...
- Religion, and the faith that supports it, is the mere maintenance of dogma, and does not admit of change - even in the face of academic advance.
Religion does not overturn its claims because its truth claims are not
falsifiable. The presumably liberal theologian who penned the article says theistic Evolution is compatible with his faith, but I'd be curious to know if there is any fact of the world that would not be compatible with his faith? That is not because his faith is strong, but because it is built on an idea that is not falsifiable (the way scientific ideas must be). Self-fulfilling prophesies are worthless as a means of explanation.
Moreover, even theistic scientists like Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller compartmentalize their scientific mindset by failing to hold their religious beliefs to the same standards they hold their science. If you are asking if an idea is merely possible given your presumptions, you will almost never be disappointed (my belief that pixies authored the universe and put all the natural mechanisms in place remains strong, as every new discovery confirms and strengthens my belief by revealing a mechanism of the universe, which I know was put there by pixies). Instead, if we are using scientific reasoning, we must ask if the best explanation for a universe that is pitiless and indifferent in its execution and laden with all manner of engineering flaws, is a loving, omniscient god (or pixies). Clearly, it's not.
Why this guy's outro was made of failThis part made me want to claw my eyes out:
Sometimes, atheistic evolutionists annoy me. They overstep their bounds, confident that because they feel they have good answers for the what and how of creation, they do not need a Who or why.
The universe does not
need a who or a why - it appears to be chugging along just fine with its mindless processes and inanimate objects. We probably get annoyed with you because you insist it does need a who or a why without providing any evidence. That is not "overstepping our bounds," it is simply making a rational appraisal. Do you have some manner of evidence that the universe has an ultimate purpose or was blasted into being by a god? Show us. But in science it is never noble to pretend to know things you do not (it's even less noble to say we are overstepping our bounds by calling you on it).
He goes on:
But more than annoy me, they make me sad. For when they close their minds to the possibilities outside their sphere, they also close their hearts to a relationship with the God of love, Who has transformed my life and filled it with meaning and purpose. I feel sorry for them.
Ah, the old implications that atheists are forlorn people who are close-minded to their salvation. What crap. My mind is open to god the same way it's open to unicorns. If you take me out behind your house and show me that you have a unicorn tied up (and I can actually use its blood to heal my wounds), I will change my mind so fast it would make your head spin. The same is true with a god. My mind isn't closed, there's just no evidence. What there is, is an entire demographic of religious people who use crummy arguments to support a conclusion that is not bound by reason, even as they claim their faith is reasonable.
Don't feel sorry for us. The univere is a wonderous place full of unimaginable surprises. We
are capable of seeing it for the magnificence it possesses in full, rather than through the blurry lens of fantasy. Furthermore, we don't have to deal with the cognitive dissonance, n00bs!
Ultimately, it all boils down to evidence and good reasoning. Science embodies them, and religion thrives on finding ways to avoid their constraints. This leaves about as much room for compromise as a coin toss.
Comments (20)
That was absolutely amazing. I loved this post. So true.
wow. very well explained. this is one of the best articles ive read here on xanga.
"My mind isn't closed, there's just no evidence. What there is, is an
entire demographic of religious people who use crummy arguments to
support a conclusion that is not bound by reason, even as they claim
their faith is reasonable."
you articulated my sentiments here. i find it quite exhausting to explain myself over and over again to family and friends why ive turned atheistic when my upbringing and early education were so saturated with christian doctrines.
Unicorn Picture
There is your real unicorn, however, leave it's blood alone...ewww. Sadly, all this proves is that Unicorns are real, it still doesn't explain a God of any sort.
Hey, at least I changed your mind about one thing.
Great article, it's sad when a so called scientist has to end with preaching God's love, his sadness for non-believers and that everything has to have a who & why.
You're right, the universe doesn't NEED a who or a why, it's people who need these things, these answers (well, most anyway). I'm undecided about religion. Yes, "faith" is essentially "making stuff up" in layman's terms, but I understand why some people make stuff up, or otherwise have faith in things that go against natural logic - in order to get through the hardships of life. Sometimes people need to escape reality in order to keep their sanity.
This was not the point of the article, anyway, sorry I became sidetracked. hah.
A great and well thought out post. Bravo.
Great post.
<li>Think of one thing for which we once had a religious answer, but for which we now have a scientific answer (this one should not be difficult).
<li>Think of one thing for which we had a scientific answer, but for which we now have a religious answer (don't waste too much of your time).
Gotta love that.
I had used the "thought experiment" of the scientist from centuries ago transported by time travel to the 21st century, and doing the same with a theologian of the early Middle Ages. The theologian would likely be able to immediately have a meaningful conversation with a colleague, but the case would be quite different for the scientist. He would need years to get even remotely caught up. Sad, really, that believers don't see the stagnant, backwards nature of their worldviews.
I am not worthy. Most religious folk dismiss the idea that science is a viable means of explaining anything. They cannot determine the difference between belief and fact, because someone has instilled upon them at a young age that this unprovable concept of a creator with outlandish stories about a talking snake and a boy in a whale for 2 days is in fact a historic documentary rather than silly mythology. I think religion is a neurological disorder that actually inhibits the processing of basic logic by getting "installed" before basic logic has been established. But that's just my belief. It's not fact. And might I add, you're an excellent writer....
Hey Zero. Brace yourself for the (almost) inevitable comments claiming that science is based on faith.
@ImaPINKGirlx - Awe, thanks for the accolades. :D
You said: "Sometimes people need to escape reality in order to keep their sanity."
Why? Atheists seem to do just fine. In fact, seeing the world as it really is would be far more conducive to finding solutions to life's troubles. So a realistic outlook, I would think, would be better for tackling the troubles of life.
We need not seek solace in what is untrue in order to get through life. *hug*
JT
@In_Reason_I_Trust - Got it covered. Click here. Or here.
JT
@ginsu417 - *blush* Thanks. :D
JT
"Don't feel sorry for us."
I think that's the best line in the whole thing. I have very many religious friends who have expressed pity to me because I don't have faith, and I used to actually feel sorry for myself because of it.
But why should anyone be pitied who can see the beauty in the facts of the universe, in the universe the way it is, in truth, if I can go that far?
I still believe that everyone has their own truth, and some find it in religion, but I also think that can sometimes be because a person doesn't understand what science really is.
@AibellFaeire - Thanks for swinging by. :D
You said: "I still believe that everyone has their own truth"
How does everybody having their own truth differ in appearance from some people being transparently incorrect?
JT
top post, as per usual. you are my favourite sub by miles.
@Zerowing21 - I suppose what I meant was that because there are a lot of things we don't know are correct or incorrect, there are a lot of things that can be both true and false at the same time. It's more philosophical than it is scientific - or maybe it's just pseudo-philosophical babble.
I just think people have to discover what provides meaning for their lives for themselves, and if that's believing in God, I am not going to be the one who tries to tell them it shouldn't be. Does that mean I think people should ignore science? Not at all - in fact, I think most people need to get their heads out of their asses on that account, religious or not - but there can be more to truth than facts.
That all probably sounds very silly.
@AibellFaeire - Honestly, it does sound a little silly. But that's ok. :D A lot of things that are true (quantum physics and evolution, for example) seem counterintuitive initially. It's how we reason our way to those conclusions that separates them.
So, for your benefit (and my own if you have a solid response to my questions/reasoning), here is where I cannot see eye-to-eye with you on.
1. "there are a lot of things we don't know are correct or incorrect"
Sure, there are things we haven't explained. But there are lots of things we have explained. These things are true regardless of how people feel about them, and we can demonstrate how.
Plus, even if we don't have a demonstrable answer, an "answer" is not true simply because we made it up.
2. "there are a lot of things that can be both true and false at the same time"
Can you name one? By virtue of being false, something is not true, and vice versa. Kind of like saying that someone is a married bachelor.
3. "I just think people have to discover what provides meaning for their lives for themselves"
Meaning can be found without delusions. Lots of atheists do it. Moreover, being wrong, even for the sake of comfort, is never noble - it is cowardly at best. Sam Harris has penned an excellent response to this argument. If a better response exists, I've not read it:
If I told you that I thought there was a diamond the size of a
refrigerator buried in my backyard, and you asked me, why do you think
that? I say, this belief gives my life meaning, or my family draws a
lot of joy from this belief, or I that I wouldn't want to live in a universe where there wasn't a diamond the size of a refrigerator buried in my backyard, and we dig for this diamond every Sunday
and we have this gigantic pit in our lawn. I would start to sound like
a lunatic to you. You can't believe there really is a diamond in your
backyard because it gives your life meaning. If that's possible, that's
self-deception that nobody wants.
4. " if that's believing in God, I am not going to be the one who tries to tell them it shouldn't be"
I would argue that it's your responsibility to do so. This is drawn from every human's responsibility to have good reasons for what they believe. I expound on this at length here. But if you don't want to go read my prattling, here's the reader's digest version.
Virtually all people have good intentions. When our children are sick, we all want them to get well. The problem is that moral questions, questions of what we "ought" to do, are dependent on what is true about the universe. If prayer can cure a disease, then that's what we should do if we want them to get well. The numerous parents in the last year who have prayed their children to death rather than taking them to the doctor were not bad people in the sense of moral desire - they had good intentions and desired a morally good outcome: they wanted their children to get well. The problem is that because they failed to map out reality to the best of their ability, they became monsters. They killed their children, even when they pursued the opposite effect.
The same is true for so many other propositions. If a god exists that hates homosexuals, we shouldn't allow them to marry. And if Allah really exists, and really wants the infidel to be slain, then flying a plane into a skyscraper is the morally right thing to do. Of course, if both of those propositions are false (as any reasonable analysis confirms them to be), then these people are evil; they are worse than evil. And all because they found meaning in religion, in belief sets that by any meaningful standard were untrue.
So every person has a responsibility as an occupant of this planet with desires for morally "good" outcomes, to make sure they have good reasons for what they believe. Will unreasonable beliefs always produce maladaptive actions? No. But they often do, and they produce nothing good that cannot be found within truth and reason. So if a religious person finds "meaning" (I think "meaning" here is euphemistic for "comfort" or "delusion") in faith, they're merely using it as a crutch, and they are failing in a responsibility they have not only to themselves, but to you and me, their neighbors on this planet. I would argue that it is immoral to not criticize people for this.
5. "there can be more to truth than facts"
Such as? I might be inclined to give you good reasoning here as being another aspect of truth. But good reasoning also defeats religious belief.
Please understand, I don't think you're dumb. Quite the opposite, actually. And I'm elated that you're interested in the subject and trying to reason your way through it. If I didn't think you were a very capable thinker who may be able to take something from hearing my disagreements, I wouldn't bother.
Best,
JT
@Zerowing21 - I'd like to start off saying that I really appreciate the thought that went into this reply. I know it probably took a very long time to type out, and it really provided a lot of insight. I didn't once think that you thought I was dumb, just that you didn't agree with me. Thanks for helping me think through a lot of what I said - I find that as a young person with a few literature and a philosophy class under my belt, what often comes out of my mouth is half-thought out or ideas whose conclusions I can feel, but can't quite express. You'll pardon if my reply to your comment follows that pattern. Thanks for the patience you've already shown.
Having gotten that out of the way...
1) I have never thought of it that way before. A made up answer doesn't really answer a question, you're right, and I've never put those thoughts in that order before. However, even though I can agree with what you've said, it still, for a reason that is more emotional than logical, I’m afraid, strikes me as incorrect. There are many questions that, unfortunately, for which science doesn’t have any direct answers. I’m not even really talking about the big ones, the “Why are we here?” or “How’d we get here?” or what not. The more individual questions, like, “Who am I?” or “What is important to me?” These questions aren’t something we’ll find in a laboratory or by reading physics textbooks, and the sources for these answers are much more difficult to find.
2) I’m speaking mostly of paradoxes, which are pretty abundant, even in science. A simple one, just for example’s sake, is: There are 2 mittakes in this sentence. There is really only one mistake, which makes the sentence false. But that means there are 2 mistakes (because it SHOULD say 1 mistake), making the statement true.
I wish I could think of a bigger, more important version of a paradox, but that’s the example that comes to mind.
3) I’ve never heard that example before, and I like it a lot. However, we don’t know that the existence of God is a delusion.
I’m just going to point out here, because it seems to have come up, that I don’t like organized religion. I believe it has done more harm than good, but there is a difference between believing in God and believing in organized religions. I think it’s very easy to fall into the church on Sunday, youth group on Wednesday, routine of religion, without any real understanding of what you believe or who God is for you. But for those people who believe in God, but not organized religion, I see nothing that is inherently against science or logic. It depends on what you think God does, of course, but the idea of a deity is not necessarily against science.
4) While I agree with many things you said here, I can’t help but think that morals are not black and white, and who are we to say what is right and what is wrong? Science, for instance, provides no place for morals. Should everyone in the world drop their religious beliefs and go by science only, there will still be an argument over what is moral and what is not. I’m not by any means saying that people should just read the Bible or the Koran and take what they say as the end all and be all of morality, but you can’t possibly believe that without religions, we would all be able to skip along happily believing in the same morals.
There are some things that are less easy to define as moral or immoral than hate or murder. I hate to be that guy who brings up hot button topics on unrelated blogs, but abortion for example. If pro-life people are right and life (or what I think they mean to say is consciousness) begins at conception, then abortion should indeed be classified as something evil. However, if they are wrong and it is not, then abortion becomes trickier to classify as such.
I hope you (or anyone else reading this) doesn’t get hung up on that paragraph as it was just an example, but I think you’ll see my point. Morals are inherently a gray area, with or without science, and I, who am eighteen years old and really know nothing of the world, am not going to be the one who tells others that their beliefs and morals are evil, especially since I am not sure what I believe. I will, however, except the responsibility to argue beliefs with people and make them question what they think, because I think that’s an important thing to do for people you care about – but I am not about to pretend I have any idea what I’m talking about when it comes to the large question of morality. I don’t even really pretend to know what I’m talking about in this particular comment. =)
5) I think we’re viewing truth as two different things – you in a scientific sense and I in a more poetic (and therefore inherently sillier) sense, but I’ll try to explain in the most logical, least pseudo-philosophical way that I can. I think it is harder to define truth than it is to define facts. Facts are things we can measure and observe. Truth, however, is not only facts, but the conclusions that we make from facts. Because we as human beings have prejudices, the implications that we will get from facts will be different between us. You will see a different thing from a set of facts than I will.
Most scientific facts will probably lead us to the same conclusions. However, if you’ll take into account... oh, for lack of a better example, the way people see each other. You may see a person do something and think, “That person is behaving badly” (or maybe immorally =P ) but I would see the same person do the same thing and think, “That person is doing a good thing.” One could argue that one of those conclusions would have to be wrong, but I would argue that both of them are true.
Now, if you don’t agree with my definition of truth, my whole argument falls apart, so please, feel free to correct my definition, and I’ll see what I can make of yours. =)
Thanks again for your respectful and highly thought-provoking reply. I hope I’ve elaborated my side a little better. If it would be easier than replying in a comment box, feel free to private message me or e-mail me at audioaesthetic@yahoo.com.
I await your reply with bated breath. =P I really appreciate you walking through this with me, it’s severely interesting.
Sincerely,
Nancy
great post. totally agree.
@ the bit about intelligent design- Your thought exercise is flawed.
A look at the universe reveals that it hasn't fallen apart. Generally, one would take a look at a piece of machinery that is operating and hasn't been rendered inoperational as the work of a competent engineer. Are we still here? Has our sun imploded sucking us all in to a gravity well? Has the earth torn itself apart as the laws of gravity stop functioning because someone forgot to refill the cosmic energy tank after the first 100,000 millenia? Remember the part in every discussion where someone questions the point of something and a religious person will say "who are we to question [or interpret] the will of God?" Yeah, we're right about there. So, unless you're an omnipotent and omniscient being who's taken a good long look at the universe and determined that it could have been done better, you can't really have too much to say on the matter. For all you know the universe is and has always been at it's best possible configuration and operating as perfectly as possible. Or maybe the designer was just really lazy and just designed something that would just work and wouldn't have to be perfect but that would suit whatever plans he had in store for it. Either way, you can't really speak on the perfection or imperfection of the universe. There's nothing to compare it to and without that perspective you're just pulling your opinion out of your behind.
That doesn't follow. Science is looking for a natural explanation. If science were looking for a supernatural explanation, it wouldn't be science would it? As someone said in response to this entry on a more recent one, it appears that you're attempting to debunk beliefs in religion with science and it really doesn't work like that. The second you get into supernatural explanations, science doesn't apply. If there is a designer and he decided to tweak something in the universe while the program is running, so to speak, who's to say it would even be detectable? Who's to say we wouldn't just suddenly lose a planet or discover a scenario in which one of the laws of the universe that we've devised doesn't apply and have to revise it?
You ask for evidence, knowing that empirical evidence is completely irrelevant to a discussion about things beyond the reach of our senses. You're asking for something that cannot exist and then basing your arguments partially on that fact. This you call fairness. This you call reason.
Costa Rica airport | good first cars | hair sticks
Acai berry | here | here