Burden of Proof
Recently Nightline held a “debate” on the existence of God. The debate was initiated by Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, who claimed to be able to prove through science alone (without any appeal to faith or the Bible) that God exists. Representing the opposing team were Brian Sapient and Kelly of the Rational Response Squad. True to expectation, what ABC touted as a meeting of minds played out as Philosophy 101.
Ray Comfort initiated the debate with the “watchmaker” argument: watches are complex. We know that watches are made by watchmakers. Animals are complex, therefore animals must have a creator (i.e. God). Figuring he had won the debate, he went on to argue that evolution is absurd because a can of cola does not begin as a primordial pool of fizzy liquid around which a thin shell of aluminum forms over millions of years. Never mind the fact that evolution only addresses living things that can reproduce. Finally, Comfort closed discussing how God gave us our morality in the form of 10 commandments, punishment in the form of hell, and how Jesus is the only way to avoid hell. QED.
As a rebuttal, Brian and Kelly could have simply stated that Comfort’s first point was not science, but rather the philosophical argument from design, which has several counters, not the least of which is that watches do not breed. Likewise for Comfort’s soda can argument. They could have also mentioned that Comfort’s closing argument was simply a statement of Biblical faith, which Comfort had agreed not to invoke prior to the debate. QED.
Instead, Brian and Kelly spent most of their time pointing out that the Bible was irrational. Kelly went so far as to invoke Hitler, arguing that as a Catholic Hitler escaped hell, while the non-believing Jews he killed were all condemned. This of course meant that Kelly automatically lost the debate via Godwin’s Law.
In the end, neither side presented their case well, nor did they provide good counterpoints to the other side. Given that far greater minds on both sides of the fence have wrestled with this debate, I’m not surprised at the outcome. Watching the debate however reminded me of how most people fundamentally misunderstand science.
Cameron and Comfort claimed to have scientific proof of God. What they don’t seem to understand is that making such a claim reduces God to a physical process. If you say scientifically that God is light, then God travels at 186,000 miles per second in a vacuum. If God is love, then God is a chemically driven process within our brains. If God created the universe, then God is the big bang. If God can be described by science, then God is reduced to fundamental physics. Science assumes a materialist paradigm and describes physical processes of cause and effect.
Of course few believers constrain God to the physical plane. Most Christians, for example, seem to adhere to a form of Cartesian Dualism, where the mind or soul is separate from the physical processes of our bodies and is capable of controlling our physical behavior. God, likewise exists outside the physical universe, but is able to intercede on physical processes. Such an assertion is completely unscientific. This is not to say theological dualism is necessarily invalid, but simply that dualism lies outside the boundaries of science. If God exists outside the physical universe, then God cannot be described or proven by the scientific method. Unfortunately many believers assume that science stands in opposition to faith because it only considers the physical. Many like to frame them in opposition. Either believe in evolution, or believe in God, as if those are the only choices.
Atheists often make the same mistake about science. Asked why they don’t accept the idea of God, most atheists will simply state that they see no evidence of God. The implication being that if God existed there would be some scientific evidence. Of course most atheists would reject a physical God. The idea that God is the energy of which we are all made is not the God in which they don’t believe. What most atheists reject is the concept of dualism. Their worldview is materialist, hence that which falls outside of scientific investigation simply doesn’t exist. Since science also adopts a materialist paradigm it is impossible for science to prove atheism wrong. What few atheists admit is that science also cannot prove dualism wrong. God could have created the universe yesterday, and science would have no way of knowing.
Neither side can claim science as proof, despite what both sides often claim.
As a result, debating the existence or non-existence of God becomes a fool’s game, because neither side agrees on what constitutes the burden of proof. Read any Christian apologetics and the argument goes: It is reasonable to assume God exists. From this assumption we can show that God must exist. The burden of proof that God doesn’t exist therefore falls upon the atheists. Read any atheist apologetics and you find the same argument: it is reasonable to assume God does not exist. From this assumption we can show that God doesn’t exist. The burden of proof that God exists therefore falls upon the believers. In the course of debates both sides present themselves as being reasonable and open to persuasion. In truth, however, the constraints each side places on what constitutes proof makes such persuasion impossible.
After all, for that which is true no proof is required. For that which is false no proof exists.
May 27th, 2007 08:51
Hi Brian-
I hadn’t heard about this. Thanks for bringing it up.
Putting the matter of religion aside, it brings up the notion of the everyday understanding of “science.” What is scientific to the average layperson is not what is scientific to scientists. Although I’m not a scientist, I worked for a scientist for many years and became aware of the differences in vocabulary, use of language, and ways of thinking between the scientific and the non-scientific community. (e. g., What we normally refer to as “steam” is not what scientists refer to as “steam.” Who knew?)
This difference in understanding results in a lot of miscommuication, misconceptions, and misunderstandings (as illustrated in the debate).
Which brings up the defintion of the word “debate…” In a debate, the sides are supposed to address the points of the other side, not just state their own views. (Grant brought this up before in “Forty Hours and a Resolution,” about a “debate” in Congress.)
Words are wonderful…but they can be frustrating.
Susan
May 28th, 2007 18:22
Hi Brian,
I’m lurking on this one, but I thought I’d just say that I appreciate listening to you ‘thinking aloud’ so to speak.
I can’t really find an entry point because I don’t know enough about standard theological stances about ‘God’. Across the spectrum, there seem to be so many variations on what ‘God’ is. I am curious and interested to listen and understand better what ‘God’ is for some of the intelligent and rational people for whom I have great respect.
These are people who accept the scientific approach to proof, and who also have an active faith life within a major Christian tradition. Faith and science are not necessarily contradictory.
Father Frank Brennan here in Australia is one of these. I feel I could benefit from seeing more clearly what he understands by ‘Christian’, ‘virgin birth’, ’son of god’, etc. Last year he held up a Cambodian buddhist as an exemplar of the true Christ, in the week before Easter. Clearly, he has a wide and encompassing view of Christ and God. A view that lives in the realm of metaphorical truth more than literal facts.
So, just as the scientist understand science more deeply than the layperson, so people with a deep religious practice understand ‘god’ more deeply than non-practising onlookers, or those whose practice is shallow.
Susan, it is so true that we miscommunicate, thinking that words carry the same meanings for all. Even ordinary words like ’steam’.
I got annoyed last week by yet another newspaper article criticising religion by pointing at a very simplistic ‘god on Sunday’ picture of religious practice. I wish these journos would spend some time with people who are more deeply engaged in meaningful practice, rather than just looking through the windows and imagining they know what they’re looking at.
May 28th, 2007 19:54
Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould was perhaps the most vocal supporter of what is known as Non-Overlapping Magisteria, or NOMA. Essentially, that there are two major realms of truth, Science for the empirical realm, and Religion for meaning and moral value. Gould argued that these two realms did not overlap, but rather complemented each other.
Despite the common view in America that scientists are all atheists, about half of scientists are religious. If you count “spiritual” it encompasses about 70% of all scientists. I would presume the vast majority of believer scientists adhere to NOMA. The geneticist and conservative Christian Francis Collins goes even further to argue that our standard scientific findings, everything from evolution to the big bang reinforces the idea of a Christian God.
The only people who really see serious conflict between science and faith are radical atheists such as Richard Dawkins, who see faith in any form as a delusion, and creationists such as Ken Ham, who feels that dinosaurs rode with Noah on the ark, and scientific evidence to the contrary are lies of the Devil.
May 28th, 2007 20:43
ah, yes… NOMA … I’m glad there’s a word for it.
The phrase you use, “reinforces the idea of a Christian God” makes me wonder ‘whose idea of a Christian God’, or ‘which idea…’.
When I was young, I read George Bernard Shaw’s short book, “Black Girl in Search of God”. It uses a simple story to illustrate some of the different gods that appear in the Bible, from the vengeful Old Testament God (some psalms are truly horrific) through to the New Testament god of forgiveness and love.
Shaw ends the book with the girl totally confused by contradictions.
Perhaps Francis Collins is just referring to HIS Christian God.
June 1st, 2007 11:20
Just a note from the resident Official Right Wing Wacko (religious is just accepted from that, right?)…
Since we’re talking about words and meaning, I don’t “constrain” God to anything, nor could I if I tried.
He is that He is. And I can do nothing to change that.
Dan
June 4th, 2007 08:46
[…] “If you count “spiritual” it encompasses about 70% of all scientists.” I used to assume that “spiritual” meant “religious,” but then I got out into the great big world and people weren’t using those words synonymously. I can’t, however, quite grasp what people mean by it. […]
June 17th, 2007 04:30
Interesting article, but I struggle to find any conclusion other than the one you stated half way through. (quoted below)
“What few atheists admit is that science also cannot prove dualism wrong. God could have created the universe yesterday, and science would have no way of knowing. Neither side can claim science as proof, despite what both sides often claim.”
While you are right, it is impossible to disprove the existance of god, you have fallen in to the trap of assuming that the chance of god existing is 50/50 (or so you appear to summise) Science may not be able to disprove god, but that does not mean that it cannot make him statistically improbable. We cannot say for sure that goblins don’t exist but we are able to rule them out as incredulous using statistical logic.
On to your final lines -
“After all, for that which is true no proof is required. For that which is false no proof exists.”
This is idealism, philosophers would argue that there is never enough proof to prove that anything really exists. Also to say that no proof exists for that which is false is misleading. The human brain is far from perfect and things are mistaken for proof all the time, besides it is clear to me that there are many people in this world who don’t find any difficulty in believing in something without any proof.
June 17th, 2007 10:30
David,
Actually, I did not “fall into the trap” of assuming 50/50 odds. I’m not making an apologetic argument here. What you are stating is the standard Dawkins argument that an acceptance of science requires one to reject concepts of God. That is true for Dawkins, and it is probably true for most atheists. But science is agnostic on the issue.
There is a long history of science vs. religion. The Church condemned Galileo for asserting a sun-centered universe. Surely, if the Earth is not the center of the universe, all of Christianity would be invalidated! With Newton came the idea of determinism, and a clockwork universe surely disproves God. Now even creationists accept Newtonian physics without a second thought, choosing instead to argue against evolution. For surely if evolution is true, religion has no validity!
The main point of my post was to counter the argument that one must be required to choose science or faith. I find that trend troubling, because most people when given that choice will choose faith. This is why the majority of Americans reject evolution. They equate evolution with a rejection of God, and they cannot let go of that.
But science simply deals with the facts, and lets philosophy handle the rest.
We are rational creatures, but we also crave meaning. The Dawkins dream of a purely secular world will never happen, and calling people stupid or delusional for not accepting reality is just as bad as condemning non-believers to hell.
As a scientist, I don’t care what people believe or don’t believe about God. I’m more concerned about keeping science alive in a demon haunted world.
June 17th, 2007 18:40
Surely if determinism is true, then people don’t have the power to choose anything and debating the choosing of faith over science (or visa versa) is pointless.
Anyway - that aside
I think we may differ on this subject slightly becuase of our demographic - I would assume you are living in the United States, where clearly from what you say (and from what i hear) atheism is having a hard time. Isn’t trying to make it easier on people by letting them buy in to both arguments overly convienient? Personnally I can’t get round the paradoxes that would put me in.
Im not claiming to be an authority on the subject - Im only 23 and am in the middle of studying religion here in the UK, I only mention this to point out that rejection of religion here is much more acceptable, and indeed probably the majority view, provided people were interested enough. (Thats not to say that religous people here hold their beliefs with any less conviction than those from other nations..) but there doesn’t seem the need for people to ’sit on the fence’ here. People are either religous or not and it doesn’t pose any problems. I think some countries are closer to a ‘purely secular society’ than you think.
June 17th, 2007 21:43
Actually, that would be fatalism, but the result is similar. My point in bringing up determinism is that there was once a time when determinism, backed by the clockwork of Newton’s laws, was seen as a strong argument against God. Specifically, that one must choose between Newton’s science and Christianity. The development of Newtonian mechanics in the late 1600s drove the rise of philosophical determinism in the 1700s. Laplace, for example, saw determinism as the nail in God’s coffin. It wasn’t, and now even creationists accept Newton’s laws.
I am in the States, so there is a difference of perspective. It is rather ironic that the UK, with its national religion and Queen by Divine Right is the more secular nation, while the US, with its secular constitution and separation of church and state is driven by deeply held faith.
Atheists don’t simply have a hard time in the US, in large regions of the country they are vehemently despised. For example, atheists rank at the bottom in terms of “worthiness” to be President. Only 45% of Americans would consider voting for an atheist. That is roughly equivalent to the percentage would would have voted for a Black or Jew in 1937. Atheists are seen as unpatriotic, hateful, and incapable of moral conduct (since they don’t have God to tell them right from wrong.)
But I digress.
Back to your point, I actually think it is making it easier on people if you tie atheism and science together. Atheists such as Dawkins, Harris and Dennett are not theologians, and they don’t understand the worldview of religious adherents. So they make simplistic arguments against religion while making outrageous claims that religion is the root of all evil. Religious adherents look at their statements regarding faith, and see them for what they are: strawman arguments. So they assume that when these guys talk about science they must be equally confused. In my view it would be better simply to present the scientific facts, and let the theologians deal with the consequences.
There are, of course, very secular societies (Sweden, Denmark, Japan, etc.), but they are not entirely secular. Sweden had a state church until 2000, for example. What these countries lack is not religion, but a “fervent majority” of religious adherents. That is what we have in the US, and it isn’t going away any time soon.
June 18th, 2007 07:22
There is logic then there is wishful thinking. Logic obeys rules. Creationist rules indicate that we are too complex therefore a creator, watchmaker call him what you will has made us. They would also no doubt agree god is at the top and he is more complex than us. He following such rules can not arise by acident. Therefore if we follow the rules of creation he must have been created, but hey, wait he is at the top so there is nothing that can have created him, and he can’t have evolved or come about by accident. Conclusion unless we suspend the rules of creation God can not exist, by the rules of creation. He could exist by the rules of evolution, but then if we accept that so could we, so we are not evidence of a creator.
If you talk to Jehovah’s witnesses as I do, you find a lot of what is in the bible such as dying on a cross, they claim it was a stake, and the birth of christ at chrismas is unlikely because the shepherds were in the fields at night. Therefore christmas in winter = birth no no. You will find inumberable inconsistences across those who profess to believe in an all knowing infalable god. The mustard seed is not the smallest seed that grows into the largest tree, the Guiness book of records is much more acurate on this point.
In the bible, god, who can by the way creat a whole planet, can only tell a man to throw his daughters to a mob so the man can escape. Now tell me what kind of all knowing loving father is that, and as for the man, well if any of you have sons or daughters what would you do? I won’t get on to slavery, of which god apparently approves, though you must not take your own people as slaves, but then in the next breath we read if you have any of your family in slavery you must free them after seven years and give them a golden handshake. The book of deuteronemy was conviently found at the back of a temple and it justified, how neat, what the king of the time was doing. Handy fellow this god, gives leaders books just when they need them.
Of course believers are good people, the god of the bible does set down morals by which we should live. Remember if you have a disobedient child who will obey neither its mother or its father then that child shall be stoned (killed), nice morals. The fathers only solution to his disobiedient children is to drown all humans on the planet, with the exception of eight of them who could read the flatpack build your own ark instructions. Yet apparently god is love, he is the alpha and omega, really, so anyone for St Stalin?
Of course most christians will say ah but that is the old testemant, well yes, it is supposedly the inspired word of god, the same one you believe in. But Jesus said…. Try reading Luke, oh and what about the Cananite woman who came to Jesus for help, racism?
I wish the believers and some of the non-belivers would actually read the bible, preferably with some brain cells functioning at the time, before they go around telling us how wonderful it all is. Religions, most of them, are very good propaganda, they are succesful because they expoit peoples fears, a bit like some people fell they need a stiff drink before going into a meeting. Rather than solve the issue that causes them to need that drink in the first place.
May people say ah but it helps people get through life. So do drink, drugs, and a host of other things, all can be equally dangerous without moderation. Religion is like a pain killer, it masks the symptoms but does not solve the problem, that’s great for those selling religion, because generation after generation keep on taking it.
If you sell realestate you have to prove it exists. If you sell anything be it service or product, you have to prove it exists. If you sell god you can keep that cash rolling in, ching ching, and no one has to prove that god exists. If you don’t like it you have to prove a negative. Nice little earner, ching ching.
Cheers
David
June 18th, 2007 07:52
p.s. If God (male) created Man - Adam (male), Then God (male) created Woman - Eve (female) from part of Adam - Man(male). Why are men now created from Woman? Perhaps we should worship women we know they exist, and most deserve the respect and reverence we give to God.
June 18th, 2007 08:42
You’ve listed many of the standard arguments against Christianity, and religion in general. They are all pretty simplistic and cynical, and Christians have refutations to the points you make. But in the end, you will feel they haven’t proven their point, and they will feel you haven’t proven yours.
Which comes back to the point of my post. We all start with certain assumptions about the world. Biblical literalism may make no sense to you or I, but it does make sense to some. For them, the burden of proof lies upon us to prove them wrong, just as for us the burden of proof lies upon them to prove their assertions to be correct. Such arguments always fail.
All the world’s crazy but you and I. And even you are a bit crazy…
June 18th, 2007 11:59
Yes I agree, there are degrees of crazy, to some a different culture or eating a type of food might seem crazy. Most things come down to interpretation. One point I would like to make though Brian, in the UK there are a lot of chuches built by the rich near to their country houses, this was in times gone by, but if you look around the world at many of the religious buildings, and who had them constructed you will see it was those with the power. The upper eschilons of society, those manipulating others, religion is nothing more than a tool to control people.
However I and you can jump through logic hoops, show that kings convieniently found holy books, that in part of the bible it says that “If Jesus had walked upon the earth…..” but there are many who just aren’t going to see this. Yes my arguments are simplistic, remember simplistic is what appeals to those with faith. People want certainty they want heaven, vahala, elisia, asphodel, or if you’ve been bad hell, or tartarus etc etc, there are many myths, just repackaged versions of the same stories, made relevant to the culture that they were written for. Some of us can understand this others either can’t or don’t want to. Some have vested interests in us not understanding. I have an idea that the first person to print the bible in english came to an untimely end. Having a special few people to interpret holy books is a common theme throughout the history of civilization.
Thanks Brian, look forward to another reply. Regards David
June 18th, 2007 13:39
To put it more succinctly both sides can argue, but God exists for those who believe he does, that is why when you ask who created God you get something along the lines that he just is, he has always existed.
You could have a smiliar argument about father christmas, a pagan festival as are most celibrated by christians, borrowed. I know father chrsitmas exists because 1) I’ve met him. 2) I’ve seen him at the movies. 3) I’ve seen him on television (must be real). 4) I’ve had presents from him. Ok sorry Brian, I’m getting simplistic again.
The same again for fluoride, eminent people have found some reasons such as, 1) It is a neurotoxin. 2) It can destroy the enamel producing cells in your teeth. 3) It makes bones thicker and more brittle. Yet the majority believe it is good for your teeth, and you could get two panels of experts one side would prove it is good, the other that it can be harmful.
People believe what they want to believe. There are similar biased arguments on Global Warming. As you say debating the existence or non-existance is a fools game. However if nobody plays the game then by default one side might assume (they’ve won) supremacy. If nobody does it, how will people realise the absurdity of the cause? Much pure scientific research could be shown to have no imidiate use, so why bother doing it? Isn’t that pointless?
June 18th, 2007 18:36
David,
We do the same thing with science. Why is there cause and effect? There just is. We live in a universe which is structured enough for us to describe its workings with great precision. For some, this predictability is evidence that God doesn’t exist, for others the existence of order and structure is held as manifest evidence for God. Science doesn’t care.
Here is the issue I have with trying to argue that science equates to atheism: It is too easy to set up a strawman of something you don’t believe, and then poke holes in it. It is also too easy to pat yourself on the back for doing so and declare that anyone who doesn’t accept your truth is ignorant, stupid or crazy.
Atheists are viewed in America as being arrogant and intolerant. Having people like Dawkins argue that religious teaching equates to child abuse and that God is a delusion simply reinforces that stereotype.
Worse, it makes my job harder. As soon as you start asserting that science takes a theological position it can be used against you. Hence the introduction of so-called Intelligent Design in American schools. Across the US, evolution is taught as being atheistic. It is so deeply ingrained that when Republican candidates were asked about their acceptance of evolution, several of them took it to mean “Do you believe in God?”
It doesn’t mean science should tiptoe around religious faith. If you want to believe the universe was created in six days a few thousand years ago, fine. But science shows us a 14 billion year age. It shows us that evolution exists, and that our sun is simply a small star in the vast cosmos.
Religion isn’t the problem. Ignorance is the problem. I would rather spend my days fighting ignorance than tilting at the windmills of faith.
June 19th, 2007 01:36
Hi folks, me again… Hi David B… I’m not American either.
David N…”However if nobody plays the game then by default one side might assume (they’ve won) supremacy. If nobody does it, how will people realise the absurdity of the cause?”
They learn the absurdity of their cause by seeing that the game has changed and they are now irrelevant.
If nobody plays the game, then the playing field is empty cos we all packed up our bats and balls and went home to tea with our teddies and trucks. We went off to start a different game. Claims of ‘winning supremacy’ ring hollow when no one is looking at the guy with the bat any more cos they’re busy with their teddies and tea.
There can only be a game if two sides are playing. A guaranteed way to stop the game is for one side to stop playing.
When my kids were little and in combat, I enforced the rule that I was ONLY interested in who was going to stop first. Didn’t care who caused it, who did what to whom. Who is going to stop first was all that counted. They learnt to stop very quickly.
Somebody has to stop first, if things are to move on. Otherwise we are just left here recycling the same old hash.
Once the combat has stopped, there is a chance to look back and see what kind of remedial action, if any, is needed.
I suspect that when you stop arguing and try to look at the evidence together, then you’re making progress because this is likely to reduce ignorance and narrowness.
I get the impression that Americans like the combat and prefer to keep slanging it out with bats and balls while other countries have gone on to play other games, without encountering the danger of ‘claimed supremacy’.
June 21st, 2007 09:26
“I suspect that when you stop arguing and try to look at the evidence together, then you’re making progress because this is likely to reduce ignorance and narrowness.”
Isn’t this precisely what atheists try to do?
Brian, you point out that atheists such as Dawkins make the situation worse by being intolerant of religion, but having read some of his books most of his arguments are logically sound and rational. He attacks religion from a scientific stance, he doesn’t interfere particularly in the theology. These scientists are trying to do away with ignorance.
I expect many scientists/atheists would welcome open and frank discussions about the subject, but in my experience, those who believe are much less likely to see the opposite point of view that those who don’t believe.
June 21st, 2007 17:46
Yes, I suspect that atheists are more evidence-oriented than people who put a religious text at the centre of their world view. I suspect that we all forget the evidence from time to time and rely on world-view. So a dialogue between atheists and believers is tricky cos they’re standing on different foundations with respect to ‘evidence’.
I haven’t read Dawkins, so I’m afraid I can’t comment on his approach.
June 21st, 2007 22:49
David,
I have read a few of Dawkins’ books as well. His discussions of evolution are quite good, but his writings on theology are weak at best. It is most disappointing because he is clearly capable of reasoned thought. Just to give you some examples from the God Delusion:
He begins by defining atheism as the encompassing position. Agnosticism, spirituality, Deism, and what he refers to as the “Einsteinian God” (a kind of reverence for the mechanism of nature) he declares a priori as under the umbrella of atheism. Theism is defined as the literalist, creation in 6 days, end times kind of religion. In other words he sets up a strawman of the most anti-scientific religious stance and proceeds to show that it is unscientific.
He argues that very religious scientists such as Gallileo and Newton “would have been atheists” if they had known about evolution. He says this despite all indications that this is not the case. Newton, for example, developed his universal laws of motion precisely because of a deeply held conviction that God’s laws must apply everywhere.
He sets his casual understanding of theology to be equal to theological scholars and clergy by declaring that religion is not a proper “field of study”, and that no one can claim “expertise” in religion because it is not true. By that argument, no once could claim expertise in Shakespeare or Aristotelian cosmology because they aren’t true either.
And so it goes…
Like Dawkins, I too am a scientist (physicist to be exact). But rather than calling religious adherents stupid or delusional, I’ve devoted my life to teaching students about how science works, and how to apply scientific methods to answer questions and to solve real world problems.
That is how you try to do away with ignorance.
June 22nd, 2007 04:04
Unfortuantly there are people that attribute many of todays global problems (though not exclusivly) to the seperation between different beliefs. In short, they think they are tackling real world problems.
I’ve been playing devils advocate a little, my own views on this are a little undecided, Apart from doing research for my degree, I was offered a membership to The National Secular Society not too long ago http://www.secularism.org.uk/ - I have been wondering whether to take it.
June 22nd, 2007 10:57
David,
There are similar ones in the U.S., such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation. I’ve never been a fan of secular advocacy groups. I can agree with some of their goals (separation of church and state, etc.), but they always strike me as standing AGAINST religion rather than standing for free thought. Personally I’d rather support advocating scientific thought, such as through The American Association for the Advancement of Science or the British Association for the Advancement of Science.
June 24th, 2007 05:49
Hi all, very interesting. Let us consider advertising, if you are a big brand leader, you keep advertising your wares with big bucks. If another small company comes along with a similar product it is hard for them because the public associate you with that product. If I mention vaccuum cleaner what word comes to mind. If I mention cornflakes?
So when I was talking about playing the game, I was implying that if those with different views keep quiet then the big players, such as organised religion go unchanllenged. I was not advocating conflict, rather pointing to the fact that by those who stand for evidence and reasoning as a way of life should keep promoting this. If when they promote things such as evolution they encounter hostility from religions then they must try and counter it, even if they are not always eloquent in doing so. David mentioned Richard Dawkins, it should be remembered that of all the sciences, biology and its related areas have come in for much religious attacks.
It is probably better to think of yin and yang or a set of old fashioned weighing scales, for harmony you need balance. If there were only one political party you get the horrors of dictatorships, ok so you get some heated debates between right wing and left wing parties, that is no different than between religious and the non or not so religious, even the religious argue amoungst themselves, just look at how many flavours there are who all claim to believe in the same god and all claim that there way of worshiping is the correct one!
I take Gillian’s point, but what if the democrates decided ok lets all give up playing the game
Brian’s point we should concentrate on doing away with ignorance, and not get sucked into the religious debate is a very good point. Suppose you were a geologist teaching the subject, you start discussing the age of the earth based on observed and measured data. Ok, so there might be inaccuracies, I won’t quote Charles Babbage, but any how a religious person says ah but the world is 6000 years old. What do you do? How do you counter such ignorance? I guess you could ignore them, can’t answer them? You could give them a book to read, trying to explain from your angle. I guess some how since the time of Gallileo physicists have managed to persuede most that the world orbits the sun. Given more time no doubt people such as Richard Dawkins may succede in some biological areas of contention.
Science by its very nature requires and encourages questionng, Religions deter it, doubting Thomases are frowned upon. Atheists dare to question, so they have an affinity with the scientific methods. You can see how religious people would put science and atheism in a neat little box. We only have the freedoms we enjoy today because people have stood up and argued. Charles Bradlaugh won political rights, trades unions and there kin have won rights for workers that we take for granted. Washington won rights for the people of America. Please remember most religions, certainly the monotheistic ones are fear based. Do this or else. You are not supposed to require they prove anything.
Aguing is a bit like advertising, you can tell everyone to get out of their cars and use public transport to save the planet. But if you don’t improve public transport they won’t buy your ad. WIth science and technology it is almost the other way around, people benifit in so many ways, unfortuanly they are unaware of it. Which is why you have people dedicated to the public understanding of science, which is where those with different views get a bit upset. They who can’t prove want you to prove…..