Firstly, let me start by saying that Atheists are some of the toughest people to lump in a single group, partly because they do not share anything apart from the lack of belief in a supranatural mythical being, and partly because they come from so many variable backgrounds and over many generations. So let me take this opportunity to distance myself from much of the ridiculous religion bashing that happens on Shoutwire and other venues of the interwebs. I certainly do not support the typical angry teen who wants to go against the “establishment” stereotype. In fact on many occasions on this site I have put the view point of certain religions to the table, including the view point of Muslims. I will not even try to put arguments for atheism, because my point is not preaching, but an adequate response to what I considered substantial errors of science by a student studying a facet of science. There is no one that speaks for atheists in their entirety, so I will not attempt to speak for such a group. However I will speak for myself and similarly minded people.
Religion has nothing similar to science, neither in definition, nor in content. Science cannot have “supranatural” aspects, because one or part of the definition of science is the observation, definition and explanation of the natural. The “Supranatural” is in essence an experience, occurrence or a claim that goes against the natural, as documented by the experience of humanity. Religion deals with many supranatural claims, such as the stories of mythology dealing with Greek gods, or in Islam where Mohammad is said to have traveled to Jerusalem then to the Heavens in one night. Now that we have established that Religion deals with the supranatural, we can move to Science.
According to Final Flash, Gravity is a supranatural concept. That is a strange fallacy to come from a student of science. Gravity is an observation of how variable masses interact with each other. Gravity is defined, consistent and reproducible. Meaning, if I threw a ball from the top of a building, it will always fall down, towards the earth, at a fixed acceleration if one is to ignore air resistance and terminal velocity. That is the very definition of the natural. Natural observations are not necessarily entirely understood or explained. But one cannot deny that it is natural. If I threw the ball from above a building, none of the observers will be surprised, or as much flinch, if the ball simply followed what we have experienced in nature, which is the ball falling straight to the ground. However, if I looked at the ball, and managed to levitate the ball from a distance, that would be supranatural. Observers will be astonished, because that defies what they have observed during their entire life, it defies nature. If I bring humans from 2000 years ago, and from today both would agree on how a dropping ball is a natural observation, and how a levitating ball is a supranatural observation, despite the fact that humans from today are far more inclined to understand the mechanics behind it. The “Supranatural” is not what humans cannot explain, but it is what goes against the normalcy of everyday life and experience.
Physical laws are a number of laws that may not be entirely accurate, but are based on observation of what has occurred in nature. If what is predicted by those laws is adequately reproduced in nature, or the laws sufficiently describe or at least approximately model it, then they are followed by the scientific community. The laws of Physics are not “Religion” for the simple fact that they can be reproduced and corroborated. If the laws of Physics, or any scientific modality for that matter, fail at describing a certain event or observation, further refinement and laws are put in place. Religion on the other hand, is a claim, made by certain individuals, with no way of reproducing, corroborating or proving, and requires its followers to believe it absolutely, completely and without any refinement or peer review. For example, Muhammad claimed to have traveled to Jerusalem and to the heavens in one night. No one saw that, no one recorded it, but religious followers are expected to believe it happened without any question, despite it negating any logical means of transportation at that time. Attempting to compare Religion and Science in any light to give an impression they are anything alike, will always fall flat on its head. Any Religious person should concede this aspect of the argument. Stop comparing Science and Religion, and do not even try to use the words “Religion” and “Science” interchangeably as if they meant the same thing, because it really undermines your argument and sheds a bad light on your scientific qualifications.
Theists and Atheists both deride religion. Atheists do not really bash the fact that Religion is too simplistic when it attempts to explain scientific issues, at least not the well researched and educated atheists. The problem entirely started when religious institutions such as the Catholic Church directly intervened with any scientific achievement that would contradict its literal understanding of creation. Islam did deal differently with scientific advancement than the Christian institution, but it is fraught with its own set of problems. The problem with religions is that they sometimes entirely contradict what science discovered, and yet the religious people are not willing to refine those contradictions or entirely dispose them.
A very simple and shared story amongst Islam and Christianity is the story of Adam and Eve. The famous story, with which the first two human beings were created in heaven, then cast to earth after they sinned. It is clear that this story defined the beginning of the Human race. In addition, it has put forth the idea that Humans started as an exact copy of the sentient beings that we are now. The question is this. Is it another concept people have taken too literally? Did Adam and Eve even exist? Did the story even occur? Evolution clearly contradicts this story, because evidence shows that humans were of an apelike ancestry, and that they gradually transformed to what they are now over millions of years. There was no sharp cut point at which Humanity was created. Now if it should be taken literally, then there is a direct contradiction with what Religion claims, and what Science predicts. If it should be taken metaphorically, does that mean that religious people were mislead all these centuries since the inception of this story? Even worse, who decides what should be considered a “metaphor” and what should be considered “literal”?
The “enlightened” religious individuals like to dismiss anything that contradicts science by claiming it was a metaphor and should not be taken literally. Why do you have to go to Mecca to complete a pilgrimage? Maybe Mecca was a metaphor to a point of unity, a capital of some sort, and you can actually visit any capital in the world such as London, Paris or even Washington DC to complete an Islamic Pilgrimage. You see, when you set yourself down the path of “metaphors” and “literality” there are no guidelines to which one would adhere, and the arguments could get so ridiculous, to an extent they can be similar to my last example.
Another problem with “Scientific” claims by religion is the fact that those elements are nothing more than backpedaling through thousands of obscure and vague statements that can be morphed into what you like in order to support your claim that religion has scientific proof. If you do not want any criticism regarding the “Scientific” claims of Religion, then stop touting them as evidence for your religion, because they simply are not. Do not cherry pick what you like and dismiss what you dislike as a “metaphor” and just admit that Religion is not science, never has been, and never will be.
It is true, that it can be ridiculous to claim that “Religion is the root of all evil”. However, it can’t be denied that Religion was behind some of the most brutal and evil actions in the history of Humanity. The issue with religion, is that people are expected to follow it, accept it and abide by it in its entirety, because defying one aspect of it is as blasphemous as defying the entire religion. Religion was the prime motivation behind the crusades, and religion is the subject that motivates the lunatics of this world such as Bin Laden. Did they misuse Religion? Perhaps. But the fundamental issue here is that the “absolute belief” system works entirely to the advantage of crazed lunatics. “Absolute belief” is the major issue behind why the concept of Religion has lead to blind hate and atrocious actions in history. If Religion did not promote that concept, if it was acceptable to throw and dismiss that part of Religion which goes against the acceptable moral conduct of Humanity, and promote what is acceptable moral conduct then we would have much less ammunition to criticize religion.
Another issue with Religion is the fact that people tend to deal with it as if it was this separate entity that exists in its own boundaries, detached from humans and their actions. But from an Atheist's viewpoint, Religion is nothing but the work of Humans. Humans are the ones that set what religion is, and they manipulate it to their own gains. Or at least the influential ones in that Religion do, while the vast masses of followers just accept what those certain individuals have said, and follow it regardless of rationale or evidence.
Please do not even attempt to put “reasons” as to why people do not believe in the existence of a certain supranatural being. One famous Atheist puts it this way, not exactly his quote but the point is the meaning. Being a follower of a certain religion, you are in essence an atheist to every other religion in history. You do not believe in Greek Mythology, you do not believe Egyptian gods, you do not believe in ancient pagan religions of the Arab peninsula. Atheists just add one more to the list of supranatural beings you do not believe in to their list, which is your god.
When we choose to be Atheists, we only choose to be freed from the archaic and false obligations set by ancient mythology that religious people choose to continue to follow. However, we most certainly do not set our own “individual” rules. We follow the most important set of rules, the law, a consensus of what is acceptable and unacceptable at the time, which has to be secular and devoid from any religious influence. Your second reason which is lack of being able to “imagine” anything that is not physical is so false on so many levels, mainly because I can easily imagine anything. I just imagined that the Earth is flat, set on the back of a huge turtle. The difference is, I would not go to believe what I imagine is actually real because I know that my imagination is not what sets scientific belief.
Finally, yes an adherent of Religion can actually do “good” deeds. Of course they are capable of that, just like every other human. You gave an example that Islam asks you to pray 5 times a day, give a certain percentage of your fortune to help the poor etc. It all sounds good, but what about the way Islam treats the gays? God punished them by death according to stories in the Quran. What about the way Islam treats religions that are not monotheistic? Pagans are requested to convert, or die. What about the way Islam punishes pre-marital sex or extra-marital sex? If you have premarital sex you are to receive hundreds of lashes, and if you have extramarital sex you are to be punished by death. At this day and age, none of these religious laws fit the consensus, and should be dismissed entirely. When Religious people finally stop taking their Religion as the absolute truth, and finally accept to move beyond those laws, and choose what is acceptable and what is not, is exactly the point where Religion ceases to be a religion, and becomes the secular law we have today.
P.S. I am not really back. I will however drop by every now and then and gtfo before the lulz kill me. Turns out I am allergic to it.
No comments:
Post a Comment