I am an atheist, and I agree that science, for the most part refutes religion and the concept of God. But having observed the activities of atheist activists such as Richard Dawkins, I begin to wonder if science should not be used as an instrument to practically refute religion. Although science is right on most occasions, this type of debating generates a bad attitude towards science which I find unhealthy. One such example can be observed in documentaries made by the evangelicals who teach their children that science is rubbish. It would perhaps be easier for the common man to understand the world of rationality and logic as compared to that of science. Perhaps the consensus should not be that religion is stupid because science says so, rather that religion is stupid because it is religion.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
In all things refuted, there has to be a measure of contrasting logic as a qualifying reference, or empirical proof. If the science cannot stand alone as the merchant of logic, then it's because it lies at a level of sophistication that does not reach the ignorant man (masses). This means that science alone will not slay its anti-thesis in the form of religion. The religion thrives because the ignorant man can understand it. Moreover, the science offers no reassurances; religion does. This makes religion attractive and easily spread.
So, to expect the ignorant man to embrace your thought that religion is stupid for simply being itself is asking him to disenfranchise himself from himself because his is the ignorance religion purveys.
What you say is true, but what I propose is that instead of using the "Dawkins method" or scientific method to refute religion, it would be more practical to use the "Hitch method" of logic, reason and exegesis which would be closer to the realm of understanding if not acceptance by the religious masses.
Or maybe this is a scenario where all roads lead to Rome, and we should have multiple methods of attempting to reach people so we don't miss any that might not respond to only one or the other.
"I am an atheist, and I agree that science, for the most part refutes religion and the concept of God."
Religion perhaps, but not really the god concept, just the specific claims about said concept. One could believe in a god that resembles a teapot which orbited around small Kepler Belt Objects, and it isn't so much that I wouldn't take them seriously because "science", but because I have a rather strong desire for a reasoned epistemology.
"But having observed the activities of atheist activists such as Richard Dawkins, I begin to wonder if science should not be used as an instrument to practically refute religion. Although science is right on most occasions, this type of debating generates a bad attitude towards science which I find unhealthy."
Not mentioning the conflict between science and religion is unlikely to make it go away, and religious apology and denial of science is much older than Dr. Dawkins, so I think your point may be backwards. We wouldn't need so many scientists being openly anti-religious and condescending, if religious people hadn't tried so hard to demonize science and throw out strawmen, with the express purpose of sowing disinformation and hindering peoples willingness to actually LEARN the science.
"One such example can be observed in documentaries made by the evangelicals who teach their children that science is rubbish."
Funny thing, as one has to actually learn science to cherry-pick and twist it in such a fashion, so they are actually learning it. As such, things they would have denied just a few years ago(like what they call microevolution), they now accept as fact. So much so, in fact, that they HAVE are having to homeschool their children to prevent them from being able to reach the logical conclusion that their "macroevolution" is but a bagful of "microevolutions". So, as such people FORCE these troglodytes to accept obvious facts about reality, these idiots are having to give more and more ground.
"It would perhaps be easier for the common man to understand the world of rationality and logic as compared to that of science."
Nope, hell, even a lot of scientists don't like strict formal logic. Also, logic is about consistency, not actual reality. Ellie is pink, MoFo's!
"Perhaps the consensus should not be that religion is stupid because science says so, rather that religion is stupid because it is religion."
Anyone who has actually dealt with religion is unlikely to argue that religion is stupid purely because of science, but that it is stupid for a manifold of reasons, science being one of those reasons. There are a number of other avenues that elucidate the clusterfuck of religion, such as philosophy and basic epistemology, which is why a persons religiosity has a direct negative correlation to education.
I think your points are quite sound and immaculately technical. But I would like to clarify why I picked on Dawkins, his mission of refuting religion publicly, and the whole shebang of scientific, anti-religion documentaries is why I bring up the point of practicality as a real-time function and that it may not be the best way to target change in the religious world. Being a philosophy student I must wholeheartedly agree that every branch of it shines light on why religion is stupid. And if not rationality and logic maybe exegesis?
"I think your points are quite sound."
Thanks.
"But I would like to clarify why I picked on Dawkins, his mission of refuting religion publicly, and the whole shebang of scientific, anti-religion documentaries is why I bring up the point of practicality and that it may not be the best way to target change in the religious world."
Well, if we actually look at history, people like Dawkins are responding to an organized and well-funded religious campaign against science(evolution in particular). Dawkins, being a professor of EvoBio, is one of the poor teachers having to dewash the brains of the miserable bastards that have been indoctrinated with all this religious nonsense. People like him wouldn't exist, and wouldn't need to exist, if people like Hovind, Ham, or Comfort didn't exist. Also, people always put emphasis on every purely anti-religious documentary Dawkins appears in, but rarely ever mention some of the purely scientific documentaries he has been a part of. How many actually watched his documentary about "The selfish gene"? Obviously not all that many, as all they can think of are his anti-religious works, meaning that the MOST effective and likely means of combating religious misconception is to directly confront it.
"Being a philosophy student I must wholeheartedly agree that every branch of it shines light on why religion is stupid. And if not rationality and logic maybe exegesis?"
For sure. The study of the history and formulation of holy texts, and a comparative study of past and present world religions, is an extremely effective way to demean and undermine the actual authority of such texts. The sheer amount of things that have been borrowed, bent, and screwed between them is enough to make anyone question the originality of ANY religion. Not to mention that the ancient Greek and Roman atheist philosophers make points that are just as accurate today, meaning that while knowledge of almost everything else has improved and expanded, gods are the same old re-purposed bullshit that continue getting passed from generation to generation like a bad penny.
But I would like to clarify why I picked on Dawkins, his mission of refuting religion publicly, and the whole shebang of scientific, anti-religion documentaries is why I bring up the point of practicality AS A REAL-TIME FUNCTION and that it may not be the best way to target change in the religious world."
sorry must have made that edit after you already began responding to it.
No problem, but I feel that we have to view things in progression to understand their context, otherwise function becomes a mystery. Without any knowledge of the history of religious misinformation and public deception, one might think Dawkins is just a wall-eyed babbon gibbering on about biological evolution for no reason at all, so it is important to realize that he is RESPONDING to something. We could discuss the effectiveness of his chosen tactic, but as I stated earlier, he seems to have picked what worked. It may not excuse it, but it does explain it, so it seems to me a somewhat important factor in why he does what he does.
ADITYA KIRAN BUKKAPATNAM:
"I agree that science, for the most part refutes religion and the concept of God."
Science does not really address the concept of god since science deals with observation and experiment.
You first provide a decent, not contradictory hypothesis and then science will take its course.
The problem is that religion has not presented that hypothesis yet.(believable case).
"science should not be used as an instrument to practically refute religion."
Science does not refute religion, it is religion(some not all) that refutes some well established scientific facts.
When that happens believers should understand that there is something wrong with their beliefs but believers are usually not reasonable enough for that and thus they bash science instead.
"understand the world of rationality and logic as compared to that of science."
Science IS a higher branch of rationality and logic.
"Perhaps the consensus should not be that religion is stupid because science says so, rather that religion is stupid because it is religion."
Religion is not stupid.
Religion is a very successful con game to keep people under control.
Religion survived 1000's of years to this day.
Also, the victims of brainwashing(in theism) cannot be called stupid for believing nonsense, but rather artificially made stupid to see the world in a different way.
The difference is that one is impossible to heal, while the other can heal with patience, will and proper education.
eg. scapegoating is considered a good thing by theists instead of an evil thing.
Jeff Vella Leone :
I do not claim that the victims of religion are stupid, but I must insist that the ability of the network of religion to survive or influence does not increase its sophistication.The "success" of religion in keeping people under control in no way contributes to the intelligence of the concept. In fact the only intellectual value of religion is the creativity in the generation of the myth that it is, and also in literary value. So i must hold my point that religion in itself is stupid in the intellectual sense.
"religion in itself is stupid in the intellectual sense."
Is not the same as your previous claim
"religion is stupid"
I was just pointing out that it is not stupid but a very well evolved psychological game that can control people to do things they do not really want otherwise.(eg suicide bombers)
Do not underestimate the power of mind control, you ignored the real power of religion.
Religion was the very first weapon of mass destruction and it is clearly not stupid, it is in fact a very intelligent and effective way to keep order if you know what you are doing.
It is not moral but a fascist empire will find it very handy.
The problem with your argument is that you are giving the institution of religion, a bit too much credit. I agree with the fact that it has great influence, but it was not originally designed for the purpose of manipulation. The problem at hand is not the evolution of religion into a tool, but its nuance as an ideology or world view. I could replace the word religion in your argument with money, or politics and it would hold true. Whereas the original idea of religion is a result of lack of understanding, and plays into the realm of the God of the gaps argument. Yet I do concede that the contemporary UTILIZATION of religion is intelligent, yet the religion ITSELF is still stupid.
"but it was not originally designed for the purpose of manipulation."
Can you back up that claim?
Theism was created mainly for that purpose.(most likely by the Romans inventing Christianity)
"Whereas the original idea of religion is a result of lack of understanding"
possibly since we do not know when/where exactly was the first concept of religion created.
so instead of switching the argument about origins, why not we stick to the facts.
fact is that religion is not a stupid concept today, people who believe in it might be stupid or artificially made stupid,(casual smart stupid person) but the creator is clearly intelligent and uses religion to control.
"yet the religion ITSELF is still stupid."
You mean the theology or the effects of religion?
"but its nuance as an ideology or world view."
what do you mean?
Actually I can back up that claim. The exegesis of most ancient scriptures begins with verses that explain something, usually with the origin of the cosmos or life. For example the book of Genesis in the bible or the hymn to Agni in the Rig Veda. These are creative yet unsatisfactory EXPLANATIONS for something. So I think it can be concluded that at least one of the major reasons for the creation of religion is to explain the world around us. And I repeat myself, the concept of religion whether today or a few thousand years ago is the exact same and it remains stupid. The only thing that has changed are the intelligent USERS or AGENTS.
It can be argued that they use the explanation of creation to control and attract people who want a quick answer.
So you cannot claim that religion actually was created because of a misunderstanding, surly not on that alone.
+ The bible just plagiarizes from even more ancient texts(Sumerian tablets) so it is clear that the bible creation story is just a way to have an answer for whoever asks the question.
There is no real inquiry and research in that area by the Jews themselves.
"it can be concluded that at least one of the major reasons for the creation of religion is to explain the world around us."
I argue that it is not a reason but a means to an end. Control.
You can control more people if you actually have an answer for their question, preferably a god of the gaps answer.
"And I repeat myself, the concept of religion whether today or a few thousand years ago is the exact same and it remains stupid." The only thing that has changed are the intelligent USERS or AGENTS."
You are basing that claim on a mountain for assumptions you have not really supported at all.
What makes you think that control wasn't the main reason from the beginning?
"The only thing that has changed are the intelligent USERS or AGENTS."
Also "intelligent USERS or AGENTS" today did not write the bible, the psychological attack is well written in the bible 2000 years ago, users did not change that.
Basically showing that your claim is contradicting itself.
If you are seriously arguing for the claim that all religions were created with the goal of psychological and social control in mind, let's agree to disagree.
Not all but surly theistic religions and most pagan religions show clear signs of control in their text.
The control that the dogmatic belief system brings with it.
We can agree to disagree though do not use this line of argument as evidence since it is debatable.
And if you bring it up with the assumptions like you did originally, you must back it up with evidence since you would be the one making the claim.
ok.
"The "success" of religion in keeping people under control in no way contributes to the intelligence of the concept"
Lol never heard something more stupid then that.
It is clear evidence that the concept is intelligent enough to survive the ages(like a virus). Wars, Change, etc.. do not effect it that much.
Unfortunately science and reason are not so intelligent(not like a virus), wars and change can seriously damage them.
EG:
The Romans invented the first primitive computer, because of a war, the creator got killed and his creation went in the sea.
Thus we got our first home computer 2000 years late.
On the other hand, the adaptability of the virus we call religion, has prevailed and evolved to survive in an age where reason should be dominant.
eg: An unreasonable claim like "god killing and torture his only son so he can forgive people" is considered a moral thing by most.
Also what do you mean by "religion in itself is stupid in the intellectual sense."?
Do you mean that you do not learn anything by religion?
Or
Do you mean that its theology is stupid? If so which theology of which religion?
Religion is stupid in the intellectual sense:- this means that those who developed religion did so due to lack of a better explanation. So the explanation that both religion or theology provides to natural phenomenon or the origin of morality etc. is intellectually lacking, It is creative yes, but not smart. You seem to be confusing religion with the users of religion.
I edited my post so u can re read it now please.
Also who told you that "those who developed religion did so due to lack of a better explanation."?
Religion was created mainly to preserve knowledge by controlling the people to protect it. It was done in a period where more knowledge = better chances to survive.
It does not matter if the knowledge was correct or not, the method of protecting it is fascination and intelligent in itself. Like a virus.
It evolved to control people to do the will of those who created the religion and it is like that to this day.
The "success" of religion in keeping people under control in no way contributes to the intelligence of the concept"
I don't understand why you think this statement is stupid. The success you refer to has nothing to do with the nuance of the religion, it has to do with the agents who manipulated and utilized it to their benefit. These agents are the intelligent ones. not the religion. I have read your edits to your comments, I still think we are not on the same page. Also, religion and theology are indeed explanations because better explanations did not exist for many natural phenomena, that is fact.
""The "success" of religion in keeping people under control in no way contributes to the intelligence of the concept"
I don't understand why you think this statement is stupid."
Well "success" of anything is usually derived from some intelligent method.
EG:
religion was a success because it had a good method to preserve itself. So the preservation is indeed an intelligent concept.
You are assuming that religion is a misunderstanding thus you cannot see reason on this subject.
Stop making biased assumptions and try to consider religion as it stands today.
Today is not only what you sell, but how you sell it.
Religion is a well sold product with nice packaging and all.
The concept is intelligent because it is a well psychological attack, where it makes people feel guilty of not being perfect and thus guilty people do not rebel/question their god.
It is a very good, very intelligent concept for preservation and control.
The concept is intelligent but not productive for science and reason. Mostly not moral either.
The success you are referring to is almost Darwinian in nature, adaptive and survival of the fittest, cockroaches can survive, that is biological "success", that does not make them intelligent. I am not making any biased assumptions, the selling of religion and the psychological attack of religion and the control asserted by religion is all a result of the AGENTS. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the nuances of religion.
"The success you are referring to is almost Darwinian in nature"
NO the success is intrusive, it is actually achieved by brainwashing and indoctrination of innocent kids.
It is an intelligent way of making people believe incredibly unbelievable things.
"nuances of religion."
What is that?
The nuances of religion refer to the underlying reasons for the existence of religion and it's principles. I think that that reason is to explain phenomena and you think it is because the foresight of control was established. Once again, let's agree to disagree.
You really believe that religion today tries to explain phenomena?
I more see that they run away from explanations and come up with excuses instead.
We can agree to disagree again on this but I would like you to watch this video about the creation of Christianity so you may understand better my position and maybe learn more about Christianity.
This will help you when debating Christians.
(Very hard to find a working link for it)
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/174117/Caesars_Messiah__The_Roma...
Thanks for the suggestion, but I think the discussion has gone well off topic and now seems like a good stopping point.
Science and religion both seek to answer the same questions but Science has gotten us closer to the answers in 200 years than Religion could in 4000. I think that speaks for itself. I think the Scientific theories like Big Bang - Scientific Scepticism and Logic and rationale - Rational scepticism, are two sides of the same coin indeed. To denounce and criticize creationism, we had Darwin's theory of evolution, to condemn religion as a farcical method of propaganda (examples aplenty), we had Reason.
From a strictly rational point of view, the whole objectivist method of atheism is one that is rooted in rationale and skepticism. To refute that aspect and make 'Science' a fundamental weapon would be mirroring a sense of neo-rudimentary ideology that most forms of propaganda employ. I'm not saying Dawkins does so but our intellectual crusades play on a sense of aggression with aggression that makes people hold up arms against Science per se. But lets not be mistaken, Science IS logic, rationale, scepticism and finding the answers with an open mind. To collectively bifurcate logic and rationale and the use of science as two different fundamentals is wrong because Science too operates on fact and the synergy of various forms of finding the answers in different ways , be it biology, chemistry or physics. But I'm not sure as to how the 'right way' is, or if there is a right way in denouncing irrationality, be it through logic or Science. As long as facts are bespoken, irrational customs and superstitions denounced and the point of Truth and Rationality ascribed with an open mind, we should engage in any forum against theists with whatever it is that matches Objectivist truth with the realities of the world. So let's meet halfway and not think about the How, But lets focus on the What and with liberty to engage
the oldest known counting machine is Greek, not Roman. And lots of people over the last 2000 years have made them. The idea that we went 2000 years between one person making a counting machine, and the next person making one is looney toons.