Science must destroy religion

[dimentichisimai]

From the article:

Yeah, this translates to:
Let’s all worship at the altar of Science, with Darwin as the Patron Saint *) and Richard Dawkins as the High Priest. Sheesh.

*) Not that I have anything against Darwin the scientist.

Yeah, or it translates to: let’s make up a whole bunch of frivolous holidays, celebrations, and group therapy sessions to make ourselves feel better about the fact that we believe our lives ultimately have no meaning. Let’s try to justify all of our social institutions with utilitarianism so that everything doesn’t completely hit the fan when we all start believing that all the worlds evils are utterly pointless.

According to an old Greek legend, King Midas once caught the creature Silenus and asked him for the secret of life, this was his answer:

“Suffering creature, born for a day, child of accident and toil, why are you forcing me to say what would give you the greatest pleasure not to hear? The very best thing for you is totally unreachable: not to have been born, not to exist, to be nothing. The second best thing for you, however, is this—to die soon.”

That’s what Mr. Harris is up against. Good luck.

 

[Candide_West]

It might well be the case that Harris’s article represents a more substantial public attack upon religion than has generally been encountered. He is not simply questioning the value or veracity of religious faith - he is actively calling for it to be quashed. That is quite confronting for a society that is used to granting at least tacit respect to religious beliefs in general.

While I found that I agreed with the article on a number of points I have to say that I disagree with the main thrust of what he was getting at. I don’t think there needs to be any active exersion on the part of scientists to attack religion. Science by it’s very nature slowly and steadily erodes away the “mysterious” by which I mean the things that we do not yet understand. The further it advances the less space there is to manouever in the “supernatural”.

Once upon a time the weather, earthquakes, the apparant movements of celestial bodies, the origin of species, illnesses and virtually everything else was attributed to gods or other supernatural agency. Science has given us understanding of those things and in so doing has removed the “supernaturalness” from them. It has done this without trying to use it as a tool to destroy religion or anything else.

My prediction is that science will keep on advancing steadily into the regions of the unknown and as it does so the supernatural explanations of those things will one by one simply lose their utility.

I agree that religion will continue to present resistance to the advances of science, a resistance which will (as it always has) slowly yield. Attempts to accellerate this process will in all probability result in backlash, as I’m sure you know religions in general thrive under persecution. Firstly it gives them something to push against, to strive to overcome and thus creates a stronger in-group mentality and thus offers a higher retention and (due to our nature as a social species) a higher recruitment rate too. Indeed there is a substantial amount of effort amongst a number of religous groups around the world at the moment to create an artificial sense of religious persecution (with varying degree of success amongst their adherents).

Secondly religions selling paradise in the next life do much better when people are miserable in this life. Because it means that many people NEED that belief in order to cope with their life on earth. This of course is another area where science and applied science has hurt religious recruitment. It on the whole makes people’s lives safer, longer and more enjoyable. People who live long, happy, healthy lives usually feel less need to look for another life somewhere else to make up for this one.

So I think that scientists out there should ignore this and just carry right on with the real work of science - finding out the “what’s” and “how’s” and “why’s” so that we can use the answers to make the world a better place. If in the process religion becomes slowly less relevant to people then so be it.

 

[Cristiano]

I never want people to lose their faith. It’s this faith that is keeping me and my children safe. According to many posters of faith here - mostly Christian - if they didn’t believe in their Deity, they would murder, rape and pillage all the day long Their faith is the only thing stopping them.

Long may they continue to believe - well, at least until my kids are grown and can take care of themselves

Sarah x

I think that you are quite confused here. Most of the Christians say that if God did not exists they would murder, rape and pillage all day long. Christians understand that our overall morality is not really defined by our belief but the fact the God exists and he has given us a natural law. You are also confused if you think that your kids would be able to take care of themselves, even as grown ups, in such a world.

 

[atheistgirl]

I think that you are quite confused here.

Nope.

Most of the Christians say that if God did not exists they would murder, rape and pillage all day long.

That’s what I just said, and it’s been said by Christians and Catholic here.

Christians understand that our overall morality is not really defined by our belief but the fact the God exists and he has given us a natural law.

Which is why I said I never want those people to lose their faith in their Deity. They are a danger to wider society, me and my family without their faith.

You are also confused if you think that your kids would be able to take care of themselves, even as grown ups, in such a world.

Nope.

Not confused at all.

But my daughters, as adults, would be better able to take care of themselves, than they could right now.

My sons, meh, they’re as strong as buffalo now, and as cunning as foxes, goodness only knows what they’ll be like as adults

Sarah x

 

[tonyrey]

I applaud Sam Harris and his contributions. It only highlights the moral contemptibility of his worldview and discredits atheism.

Even negativity highlights the intellectual, moral, social and spiritual superiority of religion which interprets life positively as intended to be valuable, purposeful and meaningful rather than valueless, purposeless and meaningless. I wonder how Sam gets blood out of a stone…

 

[Cristiano]

Nope.

That’s what I just said, and it’s been said by Christians and Catholic here.

Which is why I said I never want those people to lose their faith in their Deity. They are a danger to wider society, me and my family without their faith.

Nope.

Not confused at all.

But my daughters, as adults, would be better able to take care of themselves, than they could right now.

My sons, meh, they’re as strong as buffalo now, and as cunning as foxes, goodness only knows what they’ll be like as adults

Sarah x

You keep repeating the same mistake! You are confused between primary cause and correlation. The point has nothing to do with faith in God but has everything to do with the existence of God. Natural law is based on God and not on the believe in him, even in the absurd case where nobody where to believe in God natural law would still exists and people would behave properly. It does not matter how strong and smart your children are, they will never be independent, that is an impossibility for human beings.

 

[atheistgirl]

You keep repeating the same mistake! You are confused between primary cause and correlation. The point has nothing to do with faith in God but has everything to do with the existence of God. Natural law is based on God and not on the believe in him, even in the absurd case where nobody where to believe in God natural law would still exists and people would behave properly. It does not matter how strong and smart your children are, they will never be independent, that is an impossibility for human beings.

I don’t agree with a single assertion you’ve made here, apart from my kids being smart and strong

even in the absurd case where nobody where to believe in God natural law would still exists and people would behave properly

Why do some Christians here then claim they’d do whatever they like if they thought God did not exist? That seems to contradict your assertion.

What you call natural law, I call evolved sense of empathy with our fellow man and creatures. We learned a long time ago it’s better to cooperate and support each other than not, as the individual and society thrive.

Sarah x

 

[tonyrey]

While I found that I agreed with the article on a number of points I have to say that I disagree with the main thrust of what he was getting at. I don’t think there needs to be any active exersion on the part of scientists to attack religion. Science by it’s very nature slowly and steadily erodes away the “mysterious” by which I mean the things that we do not yet understand. The further it advances the less space there is to manouever in the “supernatural”.

Once upon a time the weather, earthquakes, the apparant movements of celestial bodies, the origin of species, illnesses and virtually everything else was attributed to gods or other supernatural agency. Science has given us understanding of those things and in so doing has removed the “supernaturalness” from them. It has done this without trying to use it as a tool to destroy religion or anything else.

My prediction is that science will keep on advancing steadily into the regions of the unknown and as it does so the supernatural explanations of those things will one by one simply lose their utility.

I agree that religion will continue to present resistance to the advances of science, a resistance which will (as it always has) slowly yield. Attempts to accellerate this process will in all probability result in backlash, as I’m sure you know religions in general thrive under persecution. Firstly it gives them something to push against, to strive to overcome and thus creates a stronger in-group mentality and thus offers a higher retention and (due to our nature as a social species) a higher recruitment rate too. Indeed there is a substantial amount of effort amongst a number of religous groups around the world at the moment to create an artificial sense of religious persecution (with varying degree of success amongst their adherents).

Secondly religions selling paradise in the next life do much better when people are miserable in this life. Because it means that many people NEED that belief in order to cope with their life on earth. This of course is another area where science and applied science has hurt religious recruitment. It on the whole makes people’s lives safer, longer and more enjoyable. People who live long, happy, healthy lives usually feel less need to look for another life somewhere else to make up for this one.

So I think that scientists out there should ignore this and just carry right on with the real work of science - finding out the “what’s” and “how’s” and “why’s” so that we can use the answers to make the world a better place. If in the process religion becomes slowly less relevant to people then so be it.

Your entire argument is based on the false assumption that science alone can make people happy by catering for their material needs - which is disproved by the increase in mental disease, depression, divorce, abortions, suicides, broken homes, race riots, violent crime, political corruption, social injustice, famine on a massive scale, one third of the world’s population living in needless poverty and the prospect of a nuclear holocaust. **Science without morality is a recipe for disaster.
**

 

[atheistgirl]

So I think that scientists out there should ignore this and just carry right on with the real work of science - finding out the “what’s” and “how’s” and “why’s” so that we can use the answers to make the world a better place. If in the process religion becomes slowly less relevant to people then so be it.

Totally agree with this.

I have seen science improve the world through medicine, agriculture, engineering, but I have yet to see hunger, transport issues, poverty, disease, and security be addressed by faith.

Sarah x

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Totally agree with this.

I have seen science improve the world through medicine, agriculture, engineering, but I have yet to see hunger, transport issues, poverty, disease, and security be addressed by faith.

Sarah x

It seems you may not fully misunderstand what faith is. It is a motivation and a state of trusted belief. Science is simply a process to understand the structure of the natural world. To presume they are at odds or that one serves man while the other doesn’t presents a false dichotomy.

 

[Cristiano]

…Why do some Christians here then claim they’d do whatever they like if they thought God did not exist? That seems to contradict your assertion…

Of course there are some Christian that say that and the bottom line is that their belief is not Christian at all. There are also some Christian that say that implying that their lack of belief would only be driven by the absence of a God and that would be consistent with what I say.

I think that calling natural law a sense of empathy that evolved with time is non sensical unless there is an ultimate purpose that transcends the individuals. If there is no God then there is no ultimate purpose and even less one that would transcend the individuals themselves. Such purpose would go against what secularist mention as the inner call for gratification.

 

[ASimon]

It seems may not fully misunderstand what faith is. It is a motivation and a state of trusted belief. Science is simply a process to understand the structure of the natural world. To presume they are at odds or that one serves man while the other doesn’t presents a false dichotomy.

Science is the process to understand the structure and workings of the Universe. If it appears limited to the natural world, it’s because none of the claims regarding the supernatural world have ever cashed out.

If we ever came to realize that, say, astrology was legit, or that God existed, or that there was afterlife on a separate plane of consciousness, this understanding would become part of our scientific understanding of reality. Until then, science is not, in principle, against these concepts. Only in practice, because none of the claims have ever stood up.

 

[atheistgirl]

If there is no God then there is no ultimate purpose

I agree, I don’t think there is an ‘‘ultimate’’ ‘‘purpose’’.

The universe doesn’t know we’re here, and doesn’t care.

This earth, and everything on it, will one day be utterly obliterated, when the sun dies down to a certain point.

By then, we may have conquered other planets, or be living in space colonies.

If we haven’t, or aren’t. That’s it. Game over.

Sarah x

 

[cjmclark]

Totally agree with this.

I have seen science improve the world through medicine, agriculture, engineering, but I have yet to see hunger, transport issues, poverty, disease, and security be addressed by faith.

Sarah x

You do realize that the Catholic Church is the largest charity in the world, right?

If you want to see what you describe here, look up Catholic Relief Services. In fact, I’ll just go ahead and give you the link: crs.org/how/

 

[atheistgirl]

You do realize that the Catholic Church is the largest charity in the world, right?

If you want to see what you describe here, look up Catholic Relief Services. In fact, I’ll just go ahead and give you the link: crs.org/how/

I’m very well aware of that, and have stated here and elsewhere my admiration.

My point was, it’s not ‘‘fath’’ or any supernatural entity, that is supplying the answers to improving the world, it’s cold, hard, science.

Good people, believers and unbelievers, then use the products of this cold hard science, to the betterment of mankind in many places. Some may act because their faith tells them to, some may act because their secular humanism tells them to.

But it is science that is solving the problems, providing the answers to the challenges we face, and giving us the tools to deal with them.

Sarah x

 

[Candide_West]

Your entire argument is based on the false assumption that science alone can make people happy by catering for their material needs - which is disproved by the increase in mental disease, depression, divorce, abortions, suicides, broken homes, race riots, violent crime, political corruption, social injustice, famine on a massive scale, one third of the world’s population living in needless poverty and the prospect of a nuclear holocaust. **Science without morality is a recipe for disaster.
**

Nope, that is entirely irrelevant to my point. To be clear this started because Sam Harris said that science and religion conflict therefore scientists should speak out against religion.*

My point is that this is incorrect because (essentially) scientists have got better things to do.*

So your point that people like other things too is a total non-sequitur.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Science is the process to understand the structure and workings of the Universe. If it appears limited to the natural world, it’s because none of the claims regarding the supernatural world have ever cashed out.

If we ever came to realize that, say, astrology was legit, or that God existed, or that there was afterlife on a separate plane of consciousness, this understanding would become part of our scientific understanding of reality. Until then, science is not, in principle, against these concepts. Only in practice, because none of the claims have ever stood up.

This is completely false. The natural sciences operate under methodological naturalism. I know, because I am scientist myself, and my work, like that of any other researchers in the natural sciences, is strictly limited to this method.

In a 1998 statement titled Teaching about Evolution and Science,

nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309063647&page=58

the American National Academy of Sciences (NAS) said:

“At the root of the apparent conflict between some religions and evolution is a misunderstanding of the critical difference between religious and scientific ways of knowing. Religions and science answer different questions about the world …] Science is a way of knowing about the natural world. It is limited to explaining the natural world through natural causes. Science can say nothing about the supernatural. Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral.”

 

[tomarin]

Why does everyone have to agree with the shrill braying of Sam Harris? Who died and made him Pope?

 

[cjmclark]

I’m very well aware of that, and have stated here and elsewhere my admiration.

My point was, it’s not ‘‘fath’’ or any supernatural entity, that is supplying the answers to improving the world, it’s cold, hard, science.

Good people, believers and unbelievers, then use the products of this cold hard science, to the betterment of mankind in many places. Some may act because their faith tells them to, some may act because their secular humanism tells them to.

But it is science that is solving the problems, providing the answers to the challenges we face, and giving us the tools to deal with them.

Sarah x

I’m sorry, but this doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. Science itself is a tool, a means to an end whose “goodness” is determined by the individuals employing it. This to me is like saying that hammers improve the world - which would be true if they were being used to build houses, but not so true if they were being used to bash people’s heads in.

Science itself does not provide an impetus for improvement…that impetus is provided by the motivation of its practitioners. As you said, that motivation (good or ill) may be provided by secular humanism or by faith. Science by itself is morally neutral and is not the replacement for religion that many people would like it to be.

It was compassion engendered by faith that compelled the Church to develop and open the first modern hospitals. Science gave them the tools to do so, but the motivation came from faith.

 

[ASimon]

This is completely false. The natural sciences operate under methodological naturalism. I know, because I am scientist myself, and my work, like that of any other researchers in the natural sciences, is strictly limited to this method.

In a 1998 statement titled Teaching about Evolution and Science,

nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309063647&page=58

the American National Academy of Sciences (NAS) said:

“At the root of the apparent conflict between some religions and evolution is a misunderstanding of the critical difference between religious and scientific ways of knowing. Religions and science answer different questions about the world …] Science is a way of knowing about the natural world. It is limited to explaining the natural world through natural causes. Science can say nothing about the supernatural. Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral.”

I won’t deny that there is an apologist strain in the scientific community that has long tried to play the “non-overlapping magesteria” card. I’m assuming they fear retribution for appearing to challenge the claims of religion too directly. No matter - history has shown countless examples of questions that religion once presumed to answer (and with authority), and whose answers have long since been debunked and/or eclipsed by science.

The idea that science and religion represent “different ways of knowing” and need never be in conflict is false. There is a conflict, and it is zero-sum. There is no reason, whatsoever, why science cannot offer answers to supernatural questions, even while acknowledging that complete answers may not be within grasp. Certain claims are unfalsfiable, but if they remain so, it’s not to do with the inadequacy of scientific tools. It’s because the claim itself was so extravagant in the first place.