Sedecrem

I am a strong Atheist and Scientist, and would like Theism to be eliminated. I wanted to get peoples thoughts on the position of the so-called Science vs Religion debate.

It seems that science now has enough evidence to win the war but Theism still persists. What is is about Theism that allows it to survive in an age where Science has disproved (a debate topic on its own) all of it's claims? By rights Theism should no longer exist, it no longer offers anything to the world or society. It simply does more damage than good.

I would like to hear peoples thoughts on this subject. I am inclined to think that Theism persists in those who haven't had their consciousness raised to consider what it is they are truly doing, in those who are too undereducated to know better or in those who persist in the face of this adversity because they have been taught since birth that blind faith is a virtue and are in too much of a child like mindset (or trapped in their societal upbringing) to consider reason.

What do you think?

__________________
Faith is the surrender of Reason, that which separates us from the primates.

'Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?'
Douglas Adams

tecoyah

In my experience, those who reach a certain level of consciousness no longer feel the need to eliminate theist practices, as they usually understand the dynamics behind faith, and the place it has in spiritual growth. Everyone takes a different path, and religion is a large part of it for many.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

filtherton

I don't think that science will ever "disprove" theism, since proof- in any sort of absolute sense- isn't something science is really capable of. More generally, i don't think science can be the catalyst for any sort of obsolescence when it comes to theism- the two can essentially occupy mutually exclusive areas. The pursuit of scientific knowledge and the pursuit of spiritual knowledge don't necessarily take someone to the same places, and it could be argued that they can't.

Also, i don't think that it's is necessarily accurate to claim that theists are only theists because they simply haven't thought about it. On its face it betrays a lack of knowledge of how theist beliefs are created.

Science is a useful tool, but that is all it is. It says nothing absolutely definitively about anything.

n0nsensical

To borrow my own post from the other thread
I take a humbler approach to the 'evidence'. We don't actually know much about the fundamental nature of the universe beyond our models for the behavior of matter and energy. I don't believe there is any evidence specifically precluding the existence of a 'supreme being' or other religious concepts even if it doesn't fit with traditional views of 'God'. But there are many such views, and it doesn't mean that the current crop of believers in any given faith are correct. But the bottom line to me is belief is just as (un)supported as disbelief. I see both views as a matter of faith, an entirely separate concept from science. Science is based in reason and logic, but faith cannot be as we simply lack the base of evidence on which to support any argument.

Truly a lot of harm has been done in the name of God. But harm has been done in the name of science as well. Neither is intrinsically good or bad but it's what we do with it. I would say theism still has plenty of good to offer humanity, just maybe not in many of its currently popular (particularly radical and fundamentalist) forms.

__________________
The spice must flow...

"My friends I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will – that will then prevent us – that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East."
--John McCain May 2nd 2008

asaris

I've often said in these forums that the accusation that theists must be stuck in some sort of childish mindset is, at best, rude and bigoted. I'm not the stupidest person in the world, and very well educated, and I'm still a theist. I've met people far smarter than I am who are also theists. We could be wrong, but we're not wrong merely out of childishness or parochialism, and to accuse us of that simply reveals your own ignorance.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Baraka_Guru

This is an important point, though I don't necessarily agree that it is childishness that leads one to this view.

Also, where do we draw the line between theism and religion? (Not all religions are theistic at their core; consider Buddhism.) To suggest something like theism needs to be eliminated smacks of thought control and/or oppression. This position is also unnecessarily confrontational and militant. To suggest that the only problems in the world are caused by theists is also a false view. Some great problems have arisen out of godlessness--sometimes under the facade of godliness.

But in direct response to the OP, I find it hard to accept a position suggesting that science has proven all of its claims. This can be a dangerous view, as science is not as concrete as people would like it to be. Alchemy was once a science, as was social Darwinism and eugenics.

If anything, we should try to look at the bigger picture and instead see how science interacts with theism. (They do on many levels.) Theism is not a denial of science, and science does not abhor theism. No. It takes individuals to do these things. Some of the greatest minds in history weren't only devout followers of God, some were also polytheists. If anything, theism should be regarded as philosophy. I would be wary of atheistic scientists who would do away with philosophy altogether. This would require erasing history and human knowledge.

__________________
"The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. [...] In our age there is no such thing as 'keeping out of politics.' All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer."

—"Politics and the English Language," George Orwell

"Humankind cannot bear very much reality."

—"Burnt Norton," Four Quartets, T. S. Eliot

Crompsin

Why attempt to get rid of that which you personally don't believe?

"Ban the tooth fairy! Science has proven that parents leave the cash!"

The most scientific approach would be to leave all option open for everyone.

__________________
C19H28O2 = C6H2(NO2)3CH3

All your base are belong to us.

Ustwo

No, theism won't ever be gone unless we somehow evolve away from the instincts which cause us to seek intent behind all actions.

Looking for intent is good for survival but allows us to believe some really stupid things.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Jinn

It's an interesting point, yet I personally believe that there is a link between ignorance and religion. That's not to say that I believe that all religious individuals are "stupid", but believing in a mythical creature proscribed by a book means that either (a) the person does not understand critical thinking, or (b) choses not to exercise it in respect to one or two things.

Some of the most "book smart" people I know are religious. I believe religion and intelligence co-existing in a brain only happens in one condition; b. In the case of b, they're well-educated individuals who understand how to think critically, and choose not to (for whatever reason).

__________________
If you struggle with something your entire life, try harder.
Awareness without action is worthless, and failure is not an accident.

filtherton

At some point in all sets of ideas critical thought breaks down- everyone chooses not to exercise it with respect to one or two things.

Ustwo

I'm not sure about that.

I am undoubtedly wrong about things, at least one or two, yet I never put my metaphorical hands on my metaphorical ears and do the intellectual equivalent of nah nah nah nah I don't hear you.

I may weigh some evidence higher than others, but I have logical reasons for it. If the evidence turns out to be wrong, its wrong, but its not for lack of critical thinking.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

filtherton

One doesn't need to put their metaphorical hands on their metaphorical ears to believe in the existence of god- for that to be necessary there would need to be some sort of proof that there did not exist a god- and that probably isn't possible.

Also, there are perfectly logical reasons to believe in the existence of a god- the concept of logic only speaks to an argument's consistency, not it's ability to withstand scientific scrutiny.

Ustwo

Faith in gods existence is by definition is taking off your critical thinking hat.

If you are an intelligent person, and believe in god, at least a god in anything beyond the most basic, no matter what your reasons, you took off your critical thinking hat and said 'it is because it is'.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Crompsin

...

How is logic any different than religion, again? I'm confused.

Although I'm about as religious as a Britney Spears' underwear drawer, I see religion as a way to deal with logic other than "shit happens."

__________________
C19H28O2 = C6H2(NO2)3CH3

All your base are belong to us.

Willravel

No.

__________________
ɯǝɥʇ ǝʌlos uɐɔ ǝʍ ʇɐɥʇ ǝɔuɐɹouƃı ɥƃnoɹɥʇ ʇou sı ʇı 'sɯǝlqoɹd ǝʇɐǝɹɔ uɐɔ ǝƃpǝlʍouʞ ɟı

MSD

From what I've seen, I'm fairly sure that the tendency to be religious is, at some level, based on physical structures in the brain. I am certain that my brain is not "wired" for religious belief, but I'm quite certain that others (like my mother) are. I don't think that denying scientific evidence based on religious faith is rational, but on the other hand, I don't think that someone who accepts science and still believes in God is harming anyone, even himself.

filtherton

It is only so if you define it as such, in which case, i would be interested in reading your strict definition.

It is possible to use critical thinking to come to conclusions unsupportable by objective evidence. Everyone does it all the time, including scientists- string theory is a good example.

One might use their critical thinking abilities to come to the conclusion that the humanity's ultimate potential will come to fruition through some sort of libertarian utopia. Another person might use their critical thinking abilities to come to the exact opposite conclusion. Neither conclusion is really all that testable, but that doesn't mean that critical thought must have been lacking in their formulation.

albania

I think that the answer is probably no. For one I know plenty of intelligent people, that is people who have some natural talent in their ability to think, that are religious and sometimes very much so. On that front at least anecdotally I would say that being intelligent does not necessarily preclude one from being religious.

However, I think more convincing is the argument that religion is a living type of thought. One that evolves and some ways resembles an organism; this idea is directly related to the very popular(well at least among some circles) concept coined by Richard Dawkins called a meme. Just by the sheer number of people that believe in religion, it should be clear that only an ideological revolutionary event comparable to a 10km wide asteroid hitting the earth could wipe out religion. The truth is the scientific revolution has had it’s chance to completely wipe out religion but the best it could do was carve a niche out and coincide with it. As an aside France is a really interesting case for this; see the French revolution and the policies associated with religion and look how a couple of hundred years later the religion meme makes it’s way back in the different form of Muslim immigrants. There is a really interesting discussion of what this entails by Daniel Dennett(I believe I’ve already advertised him back in one of the threads about atheism). Anyway I don’t recall how much he discusses religion as an evolving phenomena in this video, but he does try to introduce discussion on how religion could be shaped(from an evolutionary standpoint) just like a farm animal to meet our needs. It's long and I think he builds up to the things that are relevant to the discussion. IMO, it's worth the look, plus, I think he has a really interesting point to make about skyhooks(idk if it’s a term he coined) which is somewhat tangentially related to this:

<embed style="width:400px; height:326px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=2393547403945995297&hl=en" flashvars=""> </embed>

__________________
My fairest child, I have no song to give you; No lark could pipe to skies so dull and grey: Yet, ere we part, one lesson I can leave you For every day.
Be good, sweet maid, and let who will be clever; Do noble things, not dream them, all day long: And so make life, death, and that vast for-ever One grand, sweet song. -Charles Kingsley

Elphaba

An author that has my respect and has been generally acknowledged for his intelligence and great breadth of knowledge chooses to identify himself as a Christian. He spoke recently that our concept of a god is likely to be so much smaller than what may be the truth. He posed the proposition that "god" is *all* that there is. As difficult as that concept may be to comprehend, I think there is much for the "intelligent" person to consider.

I think that there is something far larger than our current conceptions of a god. The theists may sense that "something" and will not willingly throw their beliefs aside if they become a minority. For myself, I attempt to be respectful of all beliefs.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

tiger777

The reason why religion still exists is because humans generally tend to follow their traditions. Therefore when a great deal of people are religious and have been for thousands of years and their parents tell them to believe in their religion etc, there's a high probability that child will follow in line. Also I don't think countries have sufficient teaching in areas such as logic, reason and critical thinking. They generally just try to feed you information and promote memorizing things rather than teaching the concepts behind them so you can logically come to conclusions of your own.

Also another problem is it is impossible to prove if God exists or does not exist. Independent reality isn't available to us since everything is subjective to us because we are stuck with the limited sensory ability we have. Objects come to us purely from our senses we would have no knowledge of them without our ability to perceive them. Just as when we listen to our ipod, the music comes from our ipod, it isn't the actual music it's just reenacting the event that it recorded with it's limited capabilities. Thus the true nature and reality of everything we observe and experience will forever be hidden from us because we are a slave to our senses. In the empirical world scientific explanations are the highest truth we can achieve. They don't necessary entirely explain everything but they are the best thing we've got to work with. Imagine we are a baseball mitt and there are balls flying around everywhere, we don't catch them all, some pass by our grasp due to the fact that our mitt isn't infinitely large, there are certain things we cannot catch due to our limited capabilities to do so.

Ustwo

I'm afraid this is just trying to find a place for god while being able to ignore the entire concept.

God/Gods have always been attributed to do things like change the seasons, make the sun rise, bring fertility, and such.

Science comes along and says 'umm not so fast'.

This then supersedes science by saying well 'god is the gravity, god is the sun, god is the rain, god is the, well everything, so god is all.'

But once you remove any real actor part on god, god just 'is' you have really eliminated the need for god. The universe would not change if the 'all god' became a 'no god'.

In a more devout time someone with this theory of sorts would be lumped in with the atheists. An all god isn't a loving god, caring god, or even vengeful god, its a meaningless god.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

jorgelito

There is no logic in theism, that is exactly the point. That is why it's called faith. They are two separate animals. I'm not so sure why people are so quick to assume that religious people are stupid, or unscientific or somehow inferior. Newton, Einstein, and countless other scientists were/are religious.

I don't think tradition is the answer either. My father is a top scientist in his field. Not one you would call stupid or dismiss. He converted to Catholicism even though no one else in the family was at the time. The other scientists in my family are Buddhist, Muslim, Christian (including Baptist, Evangelical, non-denominational) and yes, atheist as well.

Many of the doctors and lawyers, engineers and other 'intelligent" scientists I know are religious. Heck, my doctor and dentist are Jewish.

No, religion and science are not mutually exclusive.

Baraka_Guru