http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2Kh-xzerjE
Friday, June 26, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
It's My Faith
So for this first post i want to address religion's insulation against criticism in they eyes of many faithful. I hope you read the rules and MORE IMPORTANTLY, i really want you to read all of it and respond.
“It’s called faith for a reason, because I have proven it to myself, for myself. You will never ever be able to convince me otherwise.” The vacuity of statements like these astounds me. Not only would this not be allowed in every other realm of inquiry and discourse, but it is unscholarly, dishonest, and unwaveringly ignorant to a degree that I would almost think unchallengeable by any other mark of ignorance. That’s all it is: an ignorant evasion to real dialogue. But this is exactly what is hoped to be escaped by those who would dare utter such a thing – dialogue.
They in essence have found a rude way of saying flat out that they don’t want to talk about it, and simultaneously reinforced a religious virtue – blind faith (ignorance). This is very upsetting for people of faith to hear, but this is exactly what it is. I “taking it back” or rewording it to be more politically correct will not really rob it of this truth. I suppose it would be only fair to make a basic argument to why this is true. I will very basically show you why religion, just like everything else, should be criticized and scrutinized by the human brain.
“My religion is true for me.” This is simply not true. It can’t be true. A religion cannot possibly be true for specific people and not be true for everyone else. Religion, like Christianity or Islam, purport universal truths. That is to say that if there is a hell that you can go to for being a bad person, than everyone else can go to it too. If there is a god that created the world in seven days, than it is indeed the world upon which we all stand today, meaning this truth (and every other religious “truth”) is a truth for all of us, whether or not we know it. So, either your religion is true or it is false, but it is indeed not just true for you and other specific people.
This is also true of physics - a school of science, that unlike religion comes up with testable hypothesis and equations, where such new ideas undergo rigorous scrutiny as to ascertain absolute validity. Physicists contribute to human knowledge what we call universal truths, just as religion says it does. These things are universally true (I know I sound redundant but I must concrete this point to move on) and being supposedly true for everyone, we are allowed to argue them. This sort of academic scrutiny is exactly how we have come to develop science as a school of thought and experimentation. Without scientific examination anyone could allege anything to be true, and we would have no way to argue it.
Let me use an example. Suppose I was to carry around a shoebox and I came to your door telling you of the new highest religious truth ever known. Inside my shoebox is a small dragon that has come to this plane of reality and that requires worship and sacrifice to it, less it becomes angry and will tear your house and family asunder. I am sure you might be a little perplexed or skeptical at such a bold statement to say the very least, but I assure you that I have come to this revelation through the holiest of means and I come to your door so that you might be spared the horrible fate that will inevitably befall you should you chose to ignore the great dragon in the shoebox. What would you say? What would you think? Experience has told you “I’ve never actually seen a real dragon before ever! I would not be inclined to think one actually exists.” This thought right here is a step in the name of inquiry based on experiential data. It is reasoning like this that science uses every day to examine itself on every claim it makes. Might you not want to see inside the shoebox? Wouldn’t you want some actual evidence for these claims? I open the shoebox and indeed there is nothing there, and I tell you that the dragon is invisible. You cannot sense it in any way but in your heart, it takes an act of faith.
Alright we have reached a fork in the path. You can take it on faith that this dragon is real or you can choose not to. Surely you would have some good reasons not to believe me. Certainly to many this would sound like unconditional lunacy. But what if some people did believe me, and followed a new Church of The Invisible Dragon. If you are a religious person, this new church might very well qualify as blasphemy. In that case I as the leader in the church would probably deserve to die (as both The Bible and The Quran call for.) But maybe, just like every other religion, it should be tolerated and accepted because maybe it’s true. After all it is not hurting anyone right?
Both forms of reasoning are bad. The first because it obviously justifies murder on a religious basis which likewise has no real evidence to actually support it. The latter because it is at the very least implausible and therefore dishonest for the faith hungry masses, and because maybe other tenets of this religion may actually be harmful to society. I have to make one note here. How religion is harmful to society is another argument for another day. While firmly related to the topic at hand I will have to address it in a different post. This post is merely meant to argue as to why we are allowed to put religion under the same lamp of scrutiny to which we put every other field of knowledge and understanding.
“I don’t argue/tear down what you believe!” That is because I will support my claims with facts. I hear this often from believers who want all beliefs about the truth of the world to be on some sort of equality, and of course equal immunity. Undeniably this is an impossibility. What they are really asking for is for us to conveniently ignore how ridiculous some of these claims actually are. If you are making claims as to the reality of the universe (such that god really exists) you are inevitably going to run into questioning, and through such questioning many people are going to come to the conclusion I have: “Highly improbable.” Just because you can’t prove something wrong doesn’t mean it’s on equal terms with a belief that opposes it. In the case of religion, God is an invisible being and many religions believe a lot of incredible things about the past that cannot be tested. Likewise God cannot be seen by his very nature and is therefore very hard if not impossible to disprove. This on the surface is very true. But just because we cannot absolutely prove that God does not exist does not mean that there isn’t more than sufficient evidence, indeed copious amounts of evidence, to support the dismissal of such a preposterous concept. ** I must make a second note here. While I am reasonably equipped to write the lengthy piece required to refute the plausibility of god’s existence, that too is definitely not for this post. But it is inherently important to it. For critical reading on this matter you should reference: Letter to a Christian Nation and End of Faith (ch.1&2) by Dr. Sam Harris, and The God Delusion (ch.2-4) by Dr. Richard Dawkins. These are just a few to start with.
A lot of people are not equipped to argue with the reason wielding, evidence bearing scientist on this matter; this is why they do not wish to argue. Many of them see the immediate mountain they would have to climb to get a footing in an argument in the existence of God (especially nowadays.) But because they decline to enter a debate does not mean that their side should ever stand up as credible. In fact this is the point of the whole argument. For them to be so unwilling to defend a belief that in its nature carries with it so many other necessary beliefs and behaviors is the biggest point against it. We have to submit such ideas to critical analysis if they are going to be held true. And in fact we cannot even entertain –ever- the idea of their plausibility until such criticisms are leveled. It would be (and indeed is) the boldest insult to human intellectualism.
Another example is worth considering here. Suppose for a moment that someone on television was declaring that the germ theory was false. That germs aren’t real and that there are other reasons that people get diseases. Would you think this true? Would you stop washing your hands before you eat or prepare food? Would you stop giving your children inoculation shots and antibiotics? If you would do so without any evidence of these claims you would be a delusional fool. It is exactly this kind of questioning that we owe any claim. If this person were to contribute evidence (and it would have to be a lot of dynamic evidence) that germs weren’t real we would put that man upon our shoulders and carry him around. He would assuredly win a Nobel Prize.
So, the question that begs to be asked of these believers - the ones who would shake off any attempt to engage them to actually support religious claims with reason and evidence - is this: “Do facts even matter in keeping faith?” I would have to imagine religious peoples gathering around a weeping statue, or mass attention being drawn to the skies when Jesus’ face appears in the clouds means that yes, people do want tangible confirmation of what they believe, many emphatically so. But these are the same people who upon the submitting of reason leveled against their religion will reject all such data (or merely someone pointing out the severe lack of data upon which to support religion.)
It would take great courage to admit when you’re wrong when it comes to a religion, where more or less at least a piece of yourself was devoted to this ideal. I and others have to realize that. More courage than even coming to the debate. That is the problem with these people who won’t discuss. Many people being ill-equipped (and I think religion itself is ill-equipped) will have to acquiesce that their faiths don’t make sense, and that they in all probability are artificial. This has got to be incredibly difficult. There is too much at stake apart from pride and ego. This is a belief system that promised salvation. Salvation, in its promise to humanity, is something I have a hard time imagining; but I must admit it sounds really nice. **
This seems ultimately insulting. I am not here to hurt feelings, but it being a byproduct shouldn’t stop me from saying what I am saying. I earlier in this piece used terms like “ignorance” in a way that would make many uncomfortable, or to many more make me appear arrogant and judgmental. I do not intend this. I am not arrogant about this argument I make, merely vehement. We have in our midst religions that inevitably call for the end of the world (like the Rapture in Revelation) and when mixed with 21st century nuclear and biological weapons, it is ultimately scary. From 2000-2008 America held in its highest office a man who would hold prayer before oval office meetings. This is the same man who with a phone call could have launched the beginning of the end of human civilization. His religion was one that could have viewed such an end as a glorious thing. Do you understand why religion is scary to some people? Why we must fervently argue against some people’s beliefs. This in due course is touching on the harm of religion which as I iterated earlier is not meant for this post, but I thought this specific example was necessary to put this post into context.
I do not take pride in tearing down people’s faith. They indeed have invested in them a lot of hope and emotional stock. I would wish to separate the faith from the faithful, when it comes to the criticisms I heave at our superstitions. But it seems it cannot be helped but to insult people when you criticize religion. I will apologize for hurt feelings, though I do expect a lot of enmity and insults to be held against me. This has nothing to do with pride or arrogance when it comes to religion. The fact of the matter is it is dangerous (in addition to ridiculous) to believe what some do.
“What do you believe in?” I believe in the human capacity to reason and grow. Science has proven its usefulness, and we have shaped the world with it for the better and for the worse. We have the capacity to find hope in what is real. We have the aptitude to stand in the world in amazement of our own existences without superstitions. We have the good fortune and indeed the responsibility to continue asking questions about ourselves and our universe in the tradition of good academic intellectualism. Should we do this to make the world a better place it would speak well of our species, but that is up to us.
So, in closing, I try to reasonably debate why we cannot abide any supposed purports of truth to not be subjected to some intellectual scrutiny before being held true. Especially when such truths carry with them so many necessary behaviors observations of faith and other superstitious rigmarole. I hope for a world where my grandchildren can have their own grandchildren without being burned alive in a fireball that ruins the habitability of this planet, brought to fruition because somebody’s god thought it was necessary. So let’s talk about it. In my next post, I hope to touch on just some of the reasons why religion is dangerous.
“It’s called faith for a reason, because I have proven it to myself, for myself. You will never ever be able to convince me otherwise.” The vacuity of statements like these astounds me. Not only would this not be allowed in every other realm of inquiry and discourse, but it is unscholarly, dishonest, and unwaveringly ignorant to a degree that I would almost think unchallengeable by any other mark of ignorance. That’s all it is: an ignorant evasion to real dialogue. But this is exactly what is hoped to be escaped by those who would dare utter such a thing – dialogue.
They in essence have found a rude way of saying flat out that they don’t want to talk about it, and simultaneously reinforced a religious virtue – blind faith (ignorance). This is very upsetting for people of faith to hear, but this is exactly what it is. I “taking it back” or rewording it to be more politically correct will not really rob it of this truth. I suppose it would be only fair to make a basic argument to why this is true. I will very basically show you why religion, just like everything else, should be criticized and scrutinized by the human brain.
“My religion is true for me.” This is simply not true. It can’t be true. A religion cannot possibly be true for specific people and not be true for everyone else. Religion, like Christianity or Islam, purport universal truths. That is to say that if there is a hell that you can go to for being a bad person, than everyone else can go to it too. If there is a god that created the world in seven days, than it is indeed the world upon which we all stand today, meaning this truth (and every other religious “truth”) is a truth for all of us, whether or not we know it. So, either your religion is true or it is false, but it is indeed not just true for you and other specific people.
This is also true of physics - a school of science, that unlike religion comes up with testable hypothesis and equations, where such new ideas undergo rigorous scrutiny as to ascertain absolute validity. Physicists contribute to human knowledge what we call universal truths, just as religion says it does. These things are universally true (I know I sound redundant but I must concrete this point to move on) and being supposedly true for everyone, we are allowed to argue them. This sort of academic scrutiny is exactly how we have come to develop science as a school of thought and experimentation. Without scientific examination anyone could allege anything to be true, and we would have no way to argue it.
Let me use an example. Suppose I was to carry around a shoebox and I came to your door telling you of the new highest religious truth ever known. Inside my shoebox is a small dragon that has come to this plane of reality and that requires worship and sacrifice to it, less it becomes angry and will tear your house and family asunder. I am sure you might be a little perplexed or skeptical at such a bold statement to say the very least, but I assure you that I have come to this revelation through the holiest of means and I come to your door so that you might be spared the horrible fate that will inevitably befall you should you chose to ignore the great dragon in the shoebox. What would you say? What would you think? Experience has told you “I’ve never actually seen a real dragon before ever! I would not be inclined to think one actually exists.” This thought right here is a step in the name of inquiry based on experiential data. It is reasoning like this that science uses every day to examine itself on every claim it makes. Might you not want to see inside the shoebox? Wouldn’t you want some actual evidence for these claims? I open the shoebox and indeed there is nothing there, and I tell you that the dragon is invisible. You cannot sense it in any way but in your heart, it takes an act of faith.
Alright we have reached a fork in the path. You can take it on faith that this dragon is real or you can choose not to. Surely you would have some good reasons not to believe me. Certainly to many this would sound like unconditional lunacy. But what if some people did believe me, and followed a new Church of The Invisible Dragon. If you are a religious person, this new church might very well qualify as blasphemy. In that case I as the leader in the church would probably deserve to die (as both The Bible and The Quran call for.) But maybe, just like every other religion, it should be tolerated and accepted because maybe it’s true. After all it is not hurting anyone right?
Both forms of reasoning are bad. The first because it obviously justifies murder on a religious basis which likewise has no real evidence to actually support it. The latter because it is at the very least implausible and therefore dishonest for the faith hungry masses, and because maybe other tenets of this religion may actually be harmful to society. I have to make one note here. How religion is harmful to society is another argument for another day. While firmly related to the topic at hand I will have to address it in a different post. This post is merely meant to argue as to why we are allowed to put religion under the same lamp of scrutiny to which we put every other field of knowledge and understanding.
“I don’t argue/tear down what you believe!” That is because I will support my claims with facts. I hear this often from believers who want all beliefs about the truth of the world to be on some sort of equality, and of course equal immunity. Undeniably this is an impossibility. What they are really asking for is for us to conveniently ignore how ridiculous some of these claims actually are. If you are making claims as to the reality of the universe (such that god really exists) you are inevitably going to run into questioning, and through such questioning many people are going to come to the conclusion I have: “Highly improbable.” Just because you can’t prove something wrong doesn’t mean it’s on equal terms with a belief that opposes it. In the case of religion, God is an invisible being and many religions believe a lot of incredible things about the past that cannot be tested. Likewise God cannot be seen by his very nature and is therefore very hard if not impossible to disprove. This on the surface is very true. But just because we cannot absolutely prove that God does not exist does not mean that there isn’t more than sufficient evidence, indeed copious amounts of evidence, to support the dismissal of such a preposterous concept. ** I must make a second note here. While I am reasonably equipped to write the lengthy piece required to refute the plausibility of god’s existence, that too is definitely not for this post. But it is inherently important to it. For critical reading on this matter you should reference: Letter to a Christian Nation and End of Faith (ch.1&2) by Dr. Sam Harris, and The God Delusion (ch.2-4) by Dr. Richard Dawkins. These are just a few to start with.
A lot of people are not equipped to argue with the reason wielding, evidence bearing scientist on this matter; this is why they do not wish to argue. Many of them see the immediate mountain they would have to climb to get a footing in an argument in the existence of God (especially nowadays.) But because they decline to enter a debate does not mean that their side should ever stand up as credible. In fact this is the point of the whole argument. For them to be so unwilling to defend a belief that in its nature carries with it so many other necessary beliefs and behaviors is the biggest point against it. We have to submit such ideas to critical analysis if they are going to be held true. And in fact we cannot even entertain –ever- the idea of their plausibility until such criticisms are leveled. It would be (and indeed is) the boldest insult to human intellectualism.
Another example is worth considering here. Suppose for a moment that someone on television was declaring that the germ theory was false. That germs aren’t real and that there are other reasons that people get diseases. Would you think this true? Would you stop washing your hands before you eat or prepare food? Would you stop giving your children inoculation shots and antibiotics? If you would do so without any evidence of these claims you would be a delusional fool. It is exactly this kind of questioning that we owe any claim. If this person were to contribute evidence (and it would have to be a lot of dynamic evidence) that germs weren’t real we would put that man upon our shoulders and carry him around. He would assuredly win a Nobel Prize.
So, the question that begs to be asked of these believers - the ones who would shake off any attempt to engage them to actually support religious claims with reason and evidence - is this: “Do facts even matter in keeping faith?” I would have to imagine religious peoples gathering around a weeping statue, or mass attention being drawn to the skies when Jesus’ face appears in the clouds means that yes, people do want tangible confirmation of what they believe, many emphatically so. But these are the same people who upon the submitting of reason leveled against their religion will reject all such data (or merely someone pointing out the severe lack of data upon which to support religion.)
It would take great courage to admit when you’re wrong when it comes to a religion, where more or less at least a piece of yourself was devoted to this ideal. I and others have to realize that. More courage than even coming to the debate. That is the problem with these people who won’t discuss. Many people being ill-equipped (and I think religion itself is ill-equipped) will have to acquiesce that their faiths don’t make sense, and that they in all probability are artificial. This has got to be incredibly difficult. There is too much at stake apart from pride and ego. This is a belief system that promised salvation. Salvation, in its promise to humanity, is something I have a hard time imagining; but I must admit it sounds really nice. **
This seems ultimately insulting. I am not here to hurt feelings, but it being a byproduct shouldn’t stop me from saying what I am saying. I earlier in this piece used terms like “ignorance” in a way that would make many uncomfortable, or to many more make me appear arrogant and judgmental. I do not intend this. I am not arrogant about this argument I make, merely vehement. We have in our midst religions that inevitably call for the end of the world (like the Rapture in Revelation) and when mixed with 21st century nuclear and biological weapons, it is ultimately scary. From 2000-2008 America held in its highest office a man who would hold prayer before oval office meetings. This is the same man who with a phone call could have launched the beginning of the end of human civilization. His religion was one that could have viewed such an end as a glorious thing. Do you understand why religion is scary to some people? Why we must fervently argue against some people’s beliefs. This in due course is touching on the harm of religion which as I iterated earlier is not meant for this post, but I thought this specific example was necessary to put this post into context.
I do not take pride in tearing down people’s faith. They indeed have invested in them a lot of hope and emotional stock. I would wish to separate the faith from the faithful, when it comes to the criticisms I heave at our superstitions. But it seems it cannot be helped but to insult people when you criticize religion. I will apologize for hurt feelings, though I do expect a lot of enmity and insults to be held against me. This has nothing to do with pride or arrogance when it comes to religion. The fact of the matter is it is dangerous (in addition to ridiculous) to believe what some do.
“What do you believe in?” I believe in the human capacity to reason and grow. Science has proven its usefulness, and we have shaped the world with it for the better and for the worse. We have the capacity to find hope in what is real. We have the aptitude to stand in the world in amazement of our own existences without superstitions. We have the good fortune and indeed the responsibility to continue asking questions about ourselves and our universe in the tradition of good academic intellectualism. Should we do this to make the world a better place it would speak well of our species, but that is up to us.
So, in closing, I try to reasonably debate why we cannot abide any supposed purports of truth to not be subjected to some intellectual scrutiny before being held true. Especially when such truths carry with them so many necessary behaviors observations of faith and other superstitious rigmarole. I hope for a world where my grandchildren can have their own grandchildren without being burned alive in a fireball that ruins the habitability of this planet, brought to fruition because somebody’s god thought it was necessary. So let’s talk about it. In my next post, I hope to touch on just some of the reasons why religion is dangerous.
Rules & Author's Preface
I opened this blog to start addressing many different issues concerning rationality vs. religion. While I do so as a thought process for me, allowing others to read and respond, I will inevitably end up reciting things already written and addressed by other authors (The Four Horsemen: Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens being the most famous) I have read as well as those I have not read. It is not my intention to plagiarize or even regurgitate; I want to address issues with my own intellect in an effort to compile sufficient text for an eventual book or something. That being said I must give reverence and credence to those who came before me, and from time to time thus I might cite famous authors who have already speared certain specific issues to a great degree.
I invite you to share your thoughts on the matter. I must in all good scholarly conduct admit that I might indeed be wrong. If you are a religious person, you probably have very deep feelings about the subject matter. This should not stop you from contributing. In fact you're the person I wish to hear from the most. As I will do my best not to attack you personally and hurt your feelings, I would ask you do the same for me. This is a place for intelligent discussion not for breaches in intellectual civility.
Some of you have been invited from my facebook page to here. If this is the case just don't use my real name in posting responses. Also please visit (at your own convenience) some other websites on the matter:
www.ffrf.org/
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2346399275&ref=ts
http://richarddawkins.net/
I invite you to share your thoughts on the matter. I must in all good scholarly conduct admit that I might indeed be wrong. If you are a religious person, you probably have very deep feelings about the subject matter. This should not stop you from contributing. In fact you're the person I wish to hear from the most. As I will do my best not to attack you personally and hurt your feelings, I would ask you do the same for me. This is a place for intelligent discussion not for breaches in intellectual civility.
Some of you have been invited from my facebook page to here. If this is the case just don't use my real name in posting responses. Also please visit (at your own convenience) some other websites on the matter:
www.ffrf.org/
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2346399275&ref=ts
http://richarddawkins.net/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
