As a precursor to this essay, I just want to say I believe in freedom of thought, religion, sexuality, and whatever else before I am an atheist. With that said, here are my thoughts on why religious people should be held accountable for their bogus claims about the universe. Also, I want to say that I do not think its the duty of all atheists to convert theists, and anyone who thinks that is a crazy person. The following points are meant to be applied within the context of having an intellectual conversation.
People who make outrageous claims about the universe have to be held intellectually responsible for their beliefs.
On a personal level, I respect the beliefs of religious people, because I believe in the freedom of religion. However, on an academic level, people who make bogus assertions about the universe deserve to be ridiculed.
"God Exists" is a purely scientific claim. To say it, and to not have any evidence outside of stories and second hand experiences, without any empirical evidence leads you down the path towards absolute knowledge, and ultimately dogmatism. Dogmatism is a true enemy of humanity.
It is the burden of the one making outrageous claims to provide evidence to support such claims. It is NOT the burden of the non-believer.
I agree that not everything is a scientific claim. Ideas that cannot be tested in reality are not contained within the realm of science. However, in no way should these claims be held in the same regard as science, because science is a rigorous process that begs to be proven wrong. Science is a system of obtaining knowledge, while faith is just that... faith. Faith is NOT a virtue, faith is blind or willful ignorance, faith is anti-reason. A true scientist strives for humility in that he wants to be proved wrong, because in that way, he will be closer to the truth.
Religion, philosophy. and other institutions of thought make claims about the universe that have no test in reality. As soon as these claims become testable, they become scientific questions. Science is not an old professor in a lab coat mixing chemicals in a lab. Science is forming a hypothesis, testing that hypothesis, and forming conclusions based on empirical evidence. We all use this process in every day life, not to the same extent as peer reviewed papers have to go through, but we still use it.
Lets apply the religious method of obtaining knowledge to an every day situation. Lets take on faith that putting your hand on a stove will not burn you. If one has faith that their hand won't be burnt on a stove, and they keep the hand on the stove until all the skin melts off, and then when there is no hand left, and then they put their other hand on the stove, and then their face, and then they sit on the stove, all because they have faith that the stove will not burn them. That is not learning, that is not obtaining knowledge, that is exactly what faith does. Faith ends the conversation, and halts the progress of knowledge.
It is the responsibility of intellectually capable people to hold people who make irrational claims responsible - and to expose them for what they are: delusional, and completely irrational. It is our responsibility to shout out, "Take your hand off of the stove, it is burning you!"
When I debate, I want to be proved wrong. I present my argument in the best way possible, but I hope that the counter-argument is better than mine so that I can learn. For that is the ultimate goal of intellectual conversation - to learn from each other. Religious claims based on faith end this conversation, and therefore halt the learning process. Absolute knowledge ends the conversation.
Within the realm of intellectual conversation, especially about religion, an irrational debater will often present irrational claims to supports their argument. An example of this is: When the question "If God exists, then who made God" is asked, a common counter argument is that God exists outside of time - time is a human concept. If this were to be true, this would satisfactorily answer the question. But this claim is completely unprovable, and is blindly asserted. It is therefore intellectually irresponsible. On a personal level, one can believe that God exists outside of time, it is after all a free country, but it is ultimately a cop-out from an intellectual conversation. And no progress towards the truth is obtained.
Science deals in the realm of rational, and intellectually responsible claims. Religion and philosophy deal with the untestable, and intellectually irresponsible.
This was written during my psych 100 lecture today...
No comments:
Post a Comment