Perhaps motivated by a desire for a good argument, or more likely I have some time to fill while others are watching the Super Bowl, but I wanted to jot down some ideas on the whole theism/agnosticism or God vs. science debacle. I plan on reconciling the two sides perfectly and conclusively proving the existence of God and the immutability of the scientific method, so I hope you're all prepared to accept Jesus into your heart and read a book on quasars when I'm finished. But I digress, let me lay out some problems with both sides, why I think the debate is ultimately fruitless, and perhaps finally offer some tentative solutions. Religious people feel free to pick and choose what you read, and scientists feel free to discard everything I've said because I'm open to the existence of God.
The Problem with Religion, God, and Mythology
I won't be the first to point out any of this, but let me start with saying you cannot prove God's existence to anyone. (I lied earlier) Whether your religious beliefs are intuitive, based in a holy book and historical figure, or a gang bang of superstitions and traditions, they are not exactly a scientifc enterprise. You can scream till your blue in the face that God literally created the world in seven days, but the Bible never claimed to be a scientific manual, so stop treating it that way in the modern world. As far as I'm considered, the first 2 chapters of Genesis have as much scientific merit as the Egyptian myth where the god Atum masturbates the world into existence. The multiple centuries of trying to make the Christian Bible scientific are increasingly ridiculous, perhaps epitomized by the folks at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, KY. And as much as I would've liked to take a bumpy ride on a triceratops, the lack of real science in these endeavors is comical at best and likely damaging in the long run. The point of mythology, religious or otherwise, is not to tell us the "What" of the universe but the Why and in some cases the Who. Using the Christian account (because I'm most familiar with it), the creation story tells us the following: (1. God created for no other reason than that's what God does - create stuff, (2. women and men were created equal and they're responsible for taking care of the earth, and most importantly in my estimation 3. humans were created in God's image, to be like God in the world. Now regardless of the likely mythic status of this story (sorry), the methodical outline of the story is not meant to imply the method of origins. We see organization (e.g. 7 days) and we read back in a scientific journal process. Just stop doing this. Seriously, it's a waste everyone's time.
Perhaps more pertinent to a modern existence where at least the educated don't need their holy books to be biology textbooks, enters the question of the purpose of religions. Religion does not exactly have a consistent track record for promoting human life, allowing critical thinking, or being okay with those who are different. Agnostics, scientists, and much of the educated world sees religions and gods as systems and symbols of control, devoid of any real benefit. Inquisitions and crusades, biblically sanctioned racism, sexism, colonialism and a multitude of other-isms are still very much in the cultural imaginations of human societies. And all of this happens while many hold a false perception that they are enduring persecution for their beliefs. Please, for every Mother Teresa, there are 5 religious nut-jobs who blow up a building, hold up a "God Hates Fags" sign at a funeral, or actively work to crush the spirit of someone who doesn't fit within their community. For my part, I agree with the sentiment of many atheists that most religions need to shut their mouths for a while and prove their worth to their communities with their actions.
The Problem with Science and Technology
Science, or in its most practical form - Technology - gets a pass too often. And since I railed on the faults of religions for a while, it seems they're next up to bat. First, let us not fool ourselves into thinking science is pure objective reality. Science, in both the academy and the popular imagination, is a mythic ordering of reality. Whether it's the "Epic of Scientific Progress" proclaimed throughout the Enlightenment and Industrial Age, or the "Technology as Pinnacle of Human Evolution" purported in our post-modern milieu, both are prescriptive stories often devoid of internal consistency and objectivity. In their attempts to sway the minds of the "archaic and naive religious folk," the scientific machine had to narrate their supposedly cumulative progression into modern cultures. Their dependence on either the military industrial complex for financing, or increasingly within the tech. world their dual-loyalty to both corporation as meaning makers and community as product testers, betrays an insidious reality - pure science doesn't really exist... it is usually the indentured servant to a feudal lord with financial and less-than-benign intentions. For every Galileo who relishes the discovery, there is an Edison who relishes the power brought by the discovery (no pun intended).
Don't take me as being anti-science, I just think that not seeing the underlying religious imagery within the story of Science and Technology allows it power over us that we were supposedly using science to dispel. While we blame religion for its tendency to relegate difference to the sidelines (or at worst to damnation), scientific development was a cooperative (if not at times driving) force in colonialization, war, and vast environmental destruction. Under the auspices of progress, we have become adept at killing each other, altering our bodies in damaging ways, and trying to solve the problems of the past while creating worse problems for future generations. We embrace technology as the epitome of achievement, yet lack the ability to communicate gooder and with kindness and humanity across new social networks. We envision our bodies as future repositories for new tech, augmenting reality to dispel the reality that soul, flavor, and deep concentration are being sacrificed for multi-tasking, efficiency, and consistency. Perhaps science has been telling stories for too long.
More Questions, Fewer Answers
I have been considering the problem of joining together my oft-dormant theism and an entirely naturalistic worldview for quite a while, a wedding that started when reading a book by Christian physicist Hugh Ross back in high school. Now I'm not exactly a big fan of religious folk who want to empirically prove God's existence, because it's often quasi-science and bad theology in a distorted melange of half-truths, but the book certainly kick-started something within me. Most attempts at reconciliation are like losing your virginity, it lasts much shorter than you would like, and usually only one side is happy with the results. An atheist friend-of-a-friend recently said, "If you're telling people you can fly, it's not I who has to prove my disbelief, it's you who has to show that you can actually fly." He was both right and wrong in my estimation. Right in the fact that debates over God's existence cannot be solved by some divine equation, and wrong that religious beliefs have to be justified rationally. The concept of a god or gods is non-rational - it cannot be obtained through reason or observational methodology; this is not irrational though, or opposed to reason, it is just reached at through other means. It seems to me, most scientists make bad theologians and vice-versa, because they're dealing with entirely different realms. The problem is, both want to be dominant over our whole lives, and neither deserves that place. Now I'm starting to pontificate, time for me to be quiet for a bit. Any thoughts?
The Problem with Religion, God, and Mythology
I won't be the first to point out any of this, but let me start with saying you cannot prove God's existence to anyone. (I lied earlier) Whether your religious beliefs are intuitive, based in a holy book and historical figure, or a gang bang of superstitions and traditions, they are not exactly a scientifc enterprise. You can scream till your blue in the face that God literally created the world in seven days, but the Bible never claimed to be a scientific manual, so stop treating it that way in the modern world. As far as I'm considered, the first 2 chapters of Genesis have as much scientific merit as the Egyptian myth where the god Atum masturbates the world into existence. The multiple centuries of trying to make the Christian Bible scientific are increasingly ridiculous, perhaps epitomized by the folks at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, KY. And as much as I would've liked to take a bumpy ride on a triceratops, the lack of real science in these endeavors is comical at best and likely damaging in the long run. The point of mythology, religious or otherwise, is not to tell us the "What" of the universe but the Why and in some cases the Who. Using the Christian account (because I'm most familiar with it), the creation story tells us the following: (1. God created for no other reason than that's what God does - create stuff, (2. women and men were created equal and they're responsible for taking care of the earth, and most importantly in my estimation 3. humans were created in God's image, to be like God in the world. Now regardless of the likely mythic status of this story (sorry), the methodical outline of the story is not meant to imply the method of origins. We see organization (e.g. 7 days) and we read back in a scientific journal process. Just stop doing this. Seriously, it's a waste everyone's time.
Perhaps more pertinent to a modern existence where at least the educated don't need their holy books to be biology textbooks, enters the question of the purpose of religions. Religion does not exactly have a consistent track record for promoting human life, allowing critical thinking, or being okay with those who are different. Agnostics, scientists, and much of the educated world sees religions and gods as systems and symbols of control, devoid of any real benefit. Inquisitions and crusades, biblically sanctioned racism, sexism, colonialism and a multitude of other-isms are still very much in the cultural imaginations of human societies. And all of this happens while many hold a false perception that they are enduring persecution for their beliefs. Please, for every Mother Teresa, there are 5 religious nut-jobs who blow up a building, hold up a "God Hates Fags" sign at a funeral, or actively work to crush the spirit of someone who doesn't fit within their community. For my part, I agree with the sentiment of many atheists that most religions need to shut their mouths for a while and prove their worth to their communities with their actions.
The Problem with Science and Technology
Science, or in its most practical form - Technology - gets a pass too often. And since I railed on the faults of religions for a while, it seems they're next up to bat. First, let us not fool ourselves into thinking science is pure objective reality. Science, in both the academy and the popular imagination, is a mythic ordering of reality. Whether it's the "Epic of Scientific Progress" proclaimed throughout the Enlightenment and Industrial Age, or the "Technology as Pinnacle of Human Evolution" purported in our post-modern milieu, both are prescriptive stories often devoid of internal consistency and objectivity. In their attempts to sway the minds of the "archaic and naive religious folk," the scientific machine had to narrate their supposedly cumulative progression into modern cultures. Their dependence on either the military industrial complex for financing, or increasingly within the tech. world their dual-loyalty to both corporation as meaning makers and community as product testers, betrays an insidious reality - pure science doesn't really exist... it is usually the indentured servant to a feudal lord with financial and less-than-benign intentions. For every Galileo who relishes the discovery, there is an Edison who relishes the power brought by the discovery (no pun intended).
More Questions, Fewer Answers
I have been considering the problem of joining together my oft-dormant theism and an entirely naturalistic worldview for quite a while, a wedding that started when reading a book by Christian physicist Hugh Ross back in high school. Now I'm not exactly a big fan of religious folk who want to empirically prove God's existence, because it's often quasi-science and bad theology in a distorted melange of half-truths, but the book certainly kick-started something within me. Most attempts at reconciliation are like losing your virginity, it lasts much shorter than you would like, and usually only one side is happy with the results. An atheist friend-of-a-friend recently said, "If you're telling people you can fly, it's not I who has to prove my disbelief, it's you who has to show that you can actually fly." He was both right and wrong in my estimation. Right in the fact that debates over God's existence cannot be solved by some divine equation, and wrong that religious beliefs have to be justified rationally. The concept of a god or gods is non-rational - it cannot be obtained through reason or observational methodology; this is not irrational though, or opposed to reason, it is just reached at through other means. It seems to me, most scientists make bad theologians and vice-versa, because they're dealing with entirely different realms. The problem is, both want to be dominant over our whole lives, and neither deserves that place. Now I'm starting to pontificate, time for me to be quiet for a bit. Any thoughts?
No comments:
Post a Comment