Many atheists claim that without religion our society could be perfect. They claim that religion stifles creativity, science, and government. Ironically, they are right in some degree. Religious belief prohibits certain types of art, certain classes of experimentation, and some government practices. Some of the idea is that without religion people will be more united in belief (or disbelief, in this case) and that is probably true in some degree also. So, besides hope, what does religion really give us?
First, religion gives us freedom. Without religion, the concept of 'human rights' is subject to interpretation. Without religion good and evil are concepts that can change at a whim and depend entirely on whom you are speaking to and who is in power. Without religion murder can easily be justified as 'survival of the fittest', dangerous experiments on unwilling human subjects become 'trying to improve the race', and moral convictions become 'fanatical beliefs'. Ultimately, without religion, the only law is 'survival of the fittest' and 'might makes right'. Without religion human rights do not even exist. Without religion the only true goal is reproduction.
Religion gives us rights. If a right is not given by God, or some other supreme being, it is given by man and is subject to the whims of men. A right that is given by man can be taken away by man, but a right given by a supreme being is eternal and can only be taken away by that same being. This means that without religion, the right to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' can be taken away by the same government that granted it, without so much as a seconds notice. With religion we have the right to rebel against a government that becomes oppressive, even if we have sworn loyalty to it, because loyalty to our deity and our family trump our loyalty to government. Without religion, not only do we not have a deity to be loyal to, we have no moral reason to be loyal to our family besides making sure our own genetics are carried on.
Religion is not a crutch to give people hope; even if it is not true, religion is what gives people rights. Religion is what makes all men equal. Without it the claim that 'all men are created equal' is invalid. This means, that without religion, slavery is only bad because we think it is bad. Without religion slavery would be a philosophical issue, rather than an issue of rights. In reality, without religion, slavery is entirely justifiable. Without slaves the Greeks would never have had the time to develop the advanced mathematics that allow us to have the technology that I am using to write this and you are using to read it (their time would have been spent working to grow their food). The lasting effects of slavery in Greece are very positive. Without religion to proclaim that all men should be treated equally it is simple to show that slavery is actually good and results in only positive consequences. Of course, we know that this is not true, but if religion is bad, then it must be true and can easily be justified as true.
I am not going to condemn people that choose not to believe in religion; it is their right to choose how to believe. Even most religions agree that each person has the right to choose their beliefs. I am condemning those who condemn religion. Religion protects us from tyranny and gives us human rights. Without it we are subject to whomever has the most power and we have no rights besides those that are given to us or that we take by force. Without religion The Constitution is meaningless and powerless. A document cannot give rights and it cannot record rights unless they are inherent rights, and without religion there are no inherent rights. Without religion The Constitution is a document recording the rights a group of men believed everyone should have, not a document recording the rights that should be had by all men by divine edict.
The right for each person to believe as they choose is granted by most religions. There have in the past been religions that believed that people should be forced to believe what that religion taught. Notice that these religions either no longer exist, or have changed so materially that this belief no longer exists within the religion (with the exception of small groups of terrorists that occasionally try to resurrect those beliefs). This belief has been condemned by nearly all modern religions as infringing on the inherent rights granted by deity. So why do many atheists preach that religion should be extinguished, by force if necessary? If it is permissible that any set of beliefs should be enforced, why should it not be a more ancient religion that believed in enforced religion long before atheism ever thought of it?
Ultimately, it is inherently wrong to enforce any set of beliefs on people, whether it be Paganism, Islam, Christianity, or Atheism. This is why theft, vandalism, assault, rape, and murder are wrong. This is why democratic forms of government are better than others. Religion is the foundation of civilization. Whether it is right or wrong, religion is what keeps civilization civilized. Without it we are just animals that should be aggressively fighting each other for survival in an effort to continue to evolve to the next level.
Lack of religion gives us an entirely different set of moral guidelines and principals. For instance, the medical profession is entirely at odds with atheism, because without religion we should be letting the weak die in an effort to strengthen the species. Besides that we should also kill (or sterilize) everyone who is a descendant of someone with an especially bad genetic disease. Highly intelligent people should be breading like crazy, in an effort to out reproduce stupid people (interesting that those who believe themselves to be intelligent often choose not to reproduce). There should be experiments in evolution that involve the use of animal husbandry techniques upon humans, in an effort to improve the species. Dangerous experimentation upon humans should not only be legal, but should be funded by the government, again in an effort to improve the species. Slavery should be re-instituted to help fund this and to give smart people the time to make new inventions and discoveries that might help to ensure the continued survival of the species. (Slaves should be composed entirely of people with lower IQs, since the smart people are needed for inventing things or doing research. Race should not be a factor. A smart black guy, a smart Asian guy, and a smart white guy are equally as likely to come up with something that will benefit the species and as such all three should be given equal opportunity to do so.) Stupid people or people with serious genetic problems should be sterilized as soon as the problem is evident, again in an effort to improve the species.
Anyway, it should be obvious that all of these things bring up severe human rights issues. Without religion, the most important goal should be the continued survival and evolutionary improvement of the species. The only moral question should be 'will this improve the race as a whole?'. If the answer is 'yes', then anything is justifiable. Religion is our shield against this. Religion is what says that slavery is immoral. Religion is what says that it is wrong to experiment on human test subjects, unless the risk is extremely low. Religion is what says we should be kind to animals and to our planet. Even if we do not believe in religion, we should continue to fight for our right to believe as we choose. Without this right, we do not have any rights.
Lord Rybec
11 June 2009
02 June 2009
Questionable Science?
First I have to tell you that I am a scientist of sorts. I have always been interested in physics, electronics, genetics, and many other scientific subjects. I enjoy reading about new discoveries and various theories. I have even come up with a few of my own theories. So do not take this article as an anti-science pro-religion article. The intent of this article is to show that science and religion are two distinctly separate disciplines.
First, let's define a few words. We will start with the word 'fact'. I define a fact as something which has been shown to be true in at least one instance and has never been shown to be false. This definition makes sense, especially in its use within the realm of science. Usually in science, for something to be recognized as a fact, it must be show to be true by multiple independent researchers, but in many cases facts are accepted after one researcher shows it to be true, then other independent research is conducted to verify the original research. Note, however, that on occasion a 'fact' is discovered to be false in at least one instance and thus ceases to be a fact (look into what areas of the tongue taste what flavors for an example).
The second word is 'truth'. This is a religious word. Truth is something that is absolutely and irrevocably true. Truth transcends science and facts. The problem with truth is that it cannot be empirically proven. A person may know that something is absolutely true, but cannot convince others because they have no proof, or even no evidence, of what they claim to be true. Truth is absolute, but cannot be proven by any means available to man or science.
These words are exclusive to their specific disciplines. Truth has no place in science and facts have no place in religion. The reason is that religion and science have no overlapping ground. This does not mean that only one of the two can be valid. Rather it means that neither can infringe upon the realm of the other. In other words, science is not sufficiently equipped to argue with religion and religion is not equipped to argue with science. This is why arguments between the two most often end in stalemates. The two cover entirely different realms. Neither realm is suitable for the other to exist within.
Let's define science. Science consists of observations and predictions. Experiments can be devised and executed to observe reactions under controlled conditions, but it is still only observation. Science collects data, compiles and organizes it, and then looks for patterns. That is where science ends. Science may use the discovered patterns to make predictions, but may not interpret the data. This means that it is acceptable for a scientist to say that it is likely that a certain effect is going to happen given certain circumstances, but it is not acceptable for the scientist to claim that he absolutely knows that a certain effect will happen. Absolute knowledge does not belong to the realm of science. If a scientist makes such a claim, he is preaching his faith and belief that the effect will happen, not making a prediction based on observation. It has been shown that an observation may be taken any number of times with the same results, but then the next observation may yield results entirely at odds with all of the previous observations. Quantum physics actually predicts this. Science itself predicts that even an infinite number of observations may not yield every possible result.
Religion is nearly opposite to science in definition. Religion often is not based on any known observations. Empirical studies cannot prove religious truths. Even the appearance of deity can easily be attributed to hallucination or other forms of illusion. It is known that the senses can be fooled into seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching things that are not real and do not actually exist. On the other hand a person may claim that they have had a feeling that has given them absolute knowledge of truth, and science can do nothing to prove or disprove that claim or that truth. Many who have claimed to be scientists have tried to prove or disprove various religious claims and all have failed, except in the few cases where the claims have infringed upon the realm of science. Still, while no effort of science has ever been able to disprove religion, neither have any effort of science been able to verify religion.
This war between religion and science is not even real. Neither can cross the boundaries of the other. For a scientist to fight against religious principles he must create his own religious ideals that oppose those principles he is fighting against. Likewise, for a religious person to fight against a theory of science, he must create his own scientific theories that oppose those theories he wishes to fight against. This does not mean that religions cannot have scientific theories within them, but those religions must understand that the theories are subject to the rules of science, if they are to be considered scientific theories. Otherwise they are not theories, but rather religious beliefs.
Unlike science, religion is subject to interpretation. To interpret scientific data is to create a religious belief or principle based upon that data (this is where pagan nature worship originated). Science may not go beyond prediction and still be considered science. Religion on the other hand cannot make predictions. For religion to make predictions is to invite ruin. When religion crosses the boundaries into the realm of science, it must play by the rules of science. This means that if a religion makes a prediction, science may make a direct attack on that religion by disproving the prediction. Of course, if a scientist crosses the boundaries into religion, that scientist puts every theory and claim he has ever made in question. This does not mean that a single person may not make religious claims and scientific theories, but that person must be sure not to make a scientific theory based on belief, nor a religious claim that infringes on science; he must make sure his claims fall distinctly into the correct category. The two are not enemies, but they do not tolerate territorial disputes.
That said, there is one case where science and religion can get along. This is the case where the interpretations of religion and the predictions of science run parallel. For this to happen two things must be true. First, all of the claims made by the religion must be true, ie. they must be the correct interpretation. Second, science must recognize that everything may not be as it seems. No amount of evidence will reveal the absolute truth. Sometimes the evidence may actually be entirely at odds with the truth. If science refuses to admit this, it has failed. Equally, if religion refuses to admit that their interpretation may not be entirely accurate, it too has failed. Religion and science can only play together on the narrow strip of ground where they meet. Somewhere that ground does exist, but as it has not yet been found and indeed may never be found, science and religion should be treated as two distinctly separate, but valid realms of understanding. A scientist who claims that science makes religion invalid is a false prophet and a preacher who claims that religion supercedes science is a purgored scientist. Science cannot offer truth and religion cannot offer facts. Those on both sides need to realize this and get on with their lives. There are much more useful things they could be doing with their lives than participating in a war that cannot be won.
Lord Rybec
First, let's define a few words. We will start with the word 'fact'. I define a fact as something which has been shown to be true in at least one instance and has never been shown to be false. This definition makes sense, especially in its use within the realm of science. Usually in science, for something to be recognized as a fact, it must be show to be true by multiple independent researchers, but in many cases facts are accepted after one researcher shows it to be true, then other independent research is conducted to verify the original research. Note, however, that on occasion a 'fact' is discovered to be false in at least one instance and thus ceases to be a fact (look into what areas of the tongue taste what flavors for an example).
The second word is 'truth'. This is a religious word. Truth is something that is absolutely and irrevocably true. Truth transcends science and facts. The problem with truth is that it cannot be empirically proven. A person may know that something is absolutely true, but cannot convince others because they have no proof, or even no evidence, of what they claim to be true. Truth is absolute, but cannot be proven by any means available to man or science.
These words are exclusive to their specific disciplines. Truth has no place in science and facts have no place in religion. The reason is that religion and science have no overlapping ground. This does not mean that only one of the two can be valid. Rather it means that neither can infringe upon the realm of the other. In other words, science is not sufficiently equipped to argue with religion and religion is not equipped to argue with science. This is why arguments between the two most often end in stalemates. The two cover entirely different realms. Neither realm is suitable for the other to exist within.
Let's define science. Science consists of observations and predictions. Experiments can be devised and executed to observe reactions under controlled conditions, but it is still only observation. Science collects data, compiles and organizes it, and then looks for patterns. That is where science ends. Science may use the discovered patterns to make predictions, but may not interpret the data. This means that it is acceptable for a scientist to say that it is likely that a certain effect is going to happen given certain circumstances, but it is not acceptable for the scientist to claim that he absolutely knows that a certain effect will happen. Absolute knowledge does not belong to the realm of science. If a scientist makes such a claim, he is preaching his faith and belief that the effect will happen, not making a prediction based on observation. It has been shown that an observation may be taken any number of times with the same results, but then the next observation may yield results entirely at odds with all of the previous observations. Quantum physics actually predicts this. Science itself predicts that even an infinite number of observations may not yield every possible result.
Religion is nearly opposite to science in definition. Religion often is not based on any known observations. Empirical studies cannot prove religious truths. Even the appearance of deity can easily be attributed to hallucination or other forms of illusion. It is known that the senses can be fooled into seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching things that are not real and do not actually exist. On the other hand a person may claim that they have had a feeling that has given them absolute knowledge of truth, and science can do nothing to prove or disprove that claim or that truth. Many who have claimed to be scientists have tried to prove or disprove various religious claims and all have failed, except in the few cases where the claims have infringed upon the realm of science. Still, while no effort of science has ever been able to disprove religion, neither have any effort of science been able to verify religion.
This war between religion and science is not even real. Neither can cross the boundaries of the other. For a scientist to fight against religious principles he must create his own religious ideals that oppose those principles he is fighting against. Likewise, for a religious person to fight against a theory of science, he must create his own scientific theories that oppose those theories he wishes to fight against. This does not mean that religions cannot have scientific theories within them, but those religions must understand that the theories are subject to the rules of science, if they are to be considered scientific theories. Otherwise they are not theories, but rather religious beliefs.
Unlike science, religion is subject to interpretation. To interpret scientific data is to create a religious belief or principle based upon that data (this is where pagan nature worship originated). Science may not go beyond prediction and still be considered science. Religion on the other hand cannot make predictions. For religion to make predictions is to invite ruin. When religion crosses the boundaries into the realm of science, it must play by the rules of science. This means that if a religion makes a prediction, science may make a direct attack on that religion by disproving the prediction. Of course, if a scientist crosses the boundaries into religion, that scientist puts every theory and claim he has ever made in question. This does not mean that a single person may not make religious claims and scientific theories, but that person must be sure not to make a scientific theory based on belief, nor a religious claim that infringes on science; he must make sure his claims fall distinctly into the correct category. The two are not enemies, but they do not tolerate territorial disputes.
That said, there is one case where science and religion can get along. This is the case where the interpretations of religion and the predictions of science run parallel. For this to happen two things must be true. First, all of the claims made by the religion must be true, ie. they must be the correct interpretation. Second, science must recognize that everything may not be as it seems. No amount of evidence will reveal the absolute truth. Sometimes the evidence may actually be entirely at odds with the truth. If science refuses to admit this, it has failed. Equally, if religion refuses to admit that their interpretation may not be entirely accurate, it too has failed. Religion and science can only play together on the narrow strip of ground where they meet. Somewhere that ground does exist, but as it has not yet been found and indeed may never be found, science and religion should be treated as two distinctly separate, but valid realms of understanding. A scientist who claims that science makes religion invalid is a false prophet and a preacher who claims that religion supercedes science is a purgored scientist. Science cannot offer truth and religion cannot offer facts. Those on both sides need to realize this and get on with their lives. There are much more useful things they could be doing with their lives than participating in a war that cannot be won.
Lord Rybec
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)