A blog posting in which I put paid to religion
All living beings are adaptable, some more than others. There is no more adaptable species than homo sapiens.
What we call superstition or magical thinking is a psychological adaptations to uncertainty. It is a projection of the order of our thoughts onto the physical world in which our thoughts have no control.
Religion is the analogy of superstition of in the realm of cultural adaptation -- a commonly held and enforced belief system based on the idea of what we now call supernatural agency.
Psychological adaptations are useful to individuals. Cultural adaptations are useful to individuals, groups, and their leaders. One of the most successful cultural adaptations of the past 2000 years is prosthelytized monotheism (ie, Christianity and Islam).
Success as a cultural adaptation, however useful or successful, does not confer legitimacy to its underpinning assertions of cosmology or agency. The idea of a single Supreme Being who created the universe and monitors all human behavior is no more defensible than the idea of tree spirits or Santa Claus. Some will point out that it cannot be disproved; my point is that it is completely unnecessary to disprove a thesis that sets itself apart from natural philosophy and what can be proved with evidence.
---
The above argument is not made with the intention to disparage people of faith, or even of superstition. I am superstitious, myself (partly the result of my training in The Theater). I don't discount the possibility that I will not, at some point, turn to faith. I am human, with the same human needs as any person. But my human capacity for reason brings me to these conclusions.
posted by VMM at 8:33 PM
8 Comments:
Quite, quite. But remember: if you don't sin, Jesus died in vain.
I'm with Gould on this. Hawking can't tell you how gravity works, but he's an expert on God? Give me a break.
While many religious claims are not falsifiable, some are easier to ignore (for me) than others. It is a bit tiring to hear various religions claim exclusivity. St. Emo tells us where that leads.
But I am equally tired of scientists who claim expertise in matters of religious belief, from BF Skinner's muddled appeals to "men of goodwill" to Hawking's claim that physics refutes religion. Incredible evils were perpetrated in the last century in the name of science, and grown men ought to be more careful.
Science has no explanation for evil, and no remedy.
I wonder if you would do me the favor of helping me understand this statement:
"While many religious claims are not falsifiable..."
Can you give some example of falsifiable claims of religion that have not already been falsified?
The physical evidence for the existence of Santa is overwhelming.
Don't make me bust out the Feyerabend. Don't make me do it!
Anyway, let's start with the Golden Rule, which appears in some form in virtually all religions, but has no scientific or rational basis. Economists - who are surely more scientific than ethicists or religious teachedrs - would tell you it's better for you (and for everyone else) to be selfish.
A philosophy professor of mine once asked "why shouldn't I torture stray cats?" There's no rational or scientific answer to that question. But it's a fairly important question.
Don't expect me to defend the words or deeds of any scientist you represent (or misrepresent, as the case may be). I'm not making a case for science or scientists being above criticism. On the other hand, you are saying that "grown men ought to be more careful" than to criticize religion.
So, without criticizing science, can you explain why religion is above criticism?
(As for Feyerabend: bring it on. He doesn't carry any water with me, but I'm sure his ideas will stand on their own merits.)
A few notes:
Sociological studies pretty clearly explain all sorts of behaviors:
Why we should be altruistic (at least among members of our tribe) has been settled for quite some time.
Why we shouldn't behave selfishly has been settled more recently (Hint: It's because humans are superbly adapted to detect and shun cheaters)
And just now they settled the issue of why some folks are such complete hypocrites (Hint: If you cheat, and you can prevent everyone else from cheating, you win the most)
To claim that religion somehow has a monopoly on "making people behave well" is pretty clearly putting the cart before the horse.
People behave the way they behave for a reason. Claiming religion is the cause is no different that believing that sin causes disasters.
I also believe I have just scientifically explained why we have the golden rule, evil and why cats shouldn't be tortured (A: Because someone might see us.)
Post a Comment
<< Home