Jesus thinks you’re a jerk
Sorry, couldn’t resist. I left a comment on Cody’s site regarding an entry on “faith”, which led to a few back-and-forths, culminating in the need for me to highlight a few things regarding what I believe (or don’t believe, as the case may be), and clarify a few misconceptions regarding science, atheism and agnosticism. I did so with no bigotry or spite; I love analysing my own outlook on the universe with skepticism, it helps keep me honest. Don’t ever let it be said that I arrived at my conclusions half-cocked. Whatever. No-one will read this, and even fewer will reply, so it seems to mainly be self-indulgence.
By proselytizing, I mean to say that you have a particular belief system which you feel is superior to the belief systems of others and you feel somewhat compelled to tell them about it. My point is that everyone has a “religion” – a belief system that defines the context for their existence. Atheism, agnosticism, and other forms of “free thought” are such in my book as at some level they must take some unprovable conclusions as fact for the sake of further consideration. Axioms if you will. Even science has axioms.
Axioms are self-evident statements upon which theorems are based and utilised to prevent infinite rational regression, existing mainly in pure mathematics and logic. If religious and theistic statements were self-evident, belief would not be required, as proof eliminates the need for faith. Implying that religion is based upon axioms is therefore a contradiction in terms. Furthermore, atheists and agnostics do not make claims regarding the existence or non-existence of God (besides strong atheists, who state that God does not exist, a position I find rationally untenable), but merely remain unconvinced of theistic claims on the grounds that there is no need to believe in that for which there is no evidence. That said, I give as much of a fuck about the existence or non-existence of God as I do about the existence or non-existence of unicorns. But I’d be fascinated in hearing about these “unprovable conclusions” I’ve apparently been positing.
So you have your religion and I have mine. You define life and love in reductionist, observable scientific terms. Fine. I know many fine people who are science worshipers. I happen to believe differently.
Science exists through skeptical and thorough analysis of verifiable evidence. It is a system of knowledge, not belief. Religion exists through presupposed conviction based on faith, often in spite of verifiable evidence. It’s always been amusing to me how people openly express their opinions regarding their suspicions of science via publication on the internet using their computers. Do you see the irony? If you define science as a “belief system” which is “worshipped” by scientists, rather than practised rigorously and systematically, and therefore deny that it has a solid foundation in reality, feel free to act on your conviction and put an axe through your computer monitor, throw your television and DVD player out the window, firebomb your car, cut off your electricity supply, and dispose of all your clothing. In fact, you should probably go and live in a cave for the rest of your life, since the construction of your house or apartment was completed and approved according to scientifically verified engineering principles, as well as the materials of which it is comprised. And don’t bother turning to medicine if you ever get sick.
For the record, I do not “worship” science. Worship implies a blind and unquestionable dogmatic altruism channelled towards an object, real or imaginary. Perhaps some people do practise this, that’s their concern, I can only speak for myself. One of the great strengths of science is that it is not only skeptical of the universe it observes, but also of itself. The greatest critics of science aren’t the evangelists or the theologians, but the scientists themselves. Science isn’t perfect (how can it be since we mere homo Sapiens are imperfect organisms?) but it’s the best system we currently have due to its rigorous self-regulating skepticism, and it continues to evolve and be refined in order to compliment new advances in technology, philosophy and knowledge. How the hell you can compare that to the translated words of some nobodies written when the earth was still believed to be flat, about some people who may or may not have even existed, and who were megalomaniacal enough to think that they were writing according to the wishes of some God entity is beyond me.
I am very utilitarian about belief systems – if it works for you, great. And any belief system is bad for you if you cling to it too tightly.
Couldn’t agree more. Except utilitarianism denotes practicality, and theistic religion has none, apart from lending comfort to organisms who have evolved intellectually into consciousness with the happy pill of belief that they are a unique, special and beloved creation of an immutable, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient entity who is, coincidentally enough, generally considered to be a human male with a long white beard, and who is childish and insecure enough to demand belief in It’s existence under threat of eternal punishment. Oh, and don’t you dare listen to anyone who points out what ludicrous horseshit this all is because they’re merely subversive agents of the Devil who are trying to lure you along to Hell with them. Let’s assume for a second, purely for the sake of argument, that God/s does/did exist and did indeed create the universe for a laugh. How can you possibly be misguided and egotistical enough to assume that the hollow ceremonies and actions of a relatively dumb, loud and rather hairy species of mammal who has evolved on a nondescript blue and green planet orbiting a fairly boring star along with several hundred million others in a pretty unspectacular galaxy in a cluster of dozens which you probably wouldn’t look twice at within a supercluster of tens of thousands distributed along with the estimated 130+ billion other galaxies in a universe that has been uniformly expanding for some 10-20 billion years has anything REMOTELY to do with It/Him/Her/Them? Christ, talk about delusions of fucking grandeur!
Ultimately, I can understand a person’s fundamental need to anthropomorphise the arbitrary chaos of the universe in order to feel like they are part of something beyond their comprehension, and that their loved ones are awaiting them after death, the same as I understand how some people can find reality too harsh to deal with through sobriety. Religion and other supernatural superstitions are attractive because they provide a believer with a false sense of immortality, morality and spiritual belonging which, by its own nature, cannot be disproven during a person’s existence. But any structure based upon a living organism’s inherent fear of death and the unknown, and which decries any criticism upon threat of infinite punishment, and which, throughout history, has resisted humanity’s rudimentary objective observations of their world through torture and execution, and which continues to oppose and subvert scientific, technological and social societal advances, is superfluous and anachronistic as far as I’m concerned. I find myself constantly in awe of the fundamental machinations of the universe, its beauty, its simplicity, and its unimaginable expanse, and I find it infinitely more satisfying to view and analyse an object for what it is in itself, rather than what I’d like it to be, as the rose-coloured glasses of cognitively lazy and convenient theism inevitably espouses.
