What would it take for the world to understand that everything they have been taught about the existence of religion and one or more supreme being(s) since childhood is a lie? I'm referring to the imaginary entity as supreme being(s) because this article is supposed to be an attack on each and every entity of such kind. So if you are a religious fanatic, you can stop reading here. But if you have an open mind to try and understand the reality of this world, you certainly should go ahead and read the entire article.
Science and religion, if they were beings, would not stand the sight of one another. They can never coexist. Science is based on proposal of a hypothesis and a set of experiments that would prove or disprove it, following its acceptance or rejection. Religion on the other hand is based on having faith in the power of supreme being(s) who created the world we see around and would ultimately pass judgment according to all our actions in our lives. Let us try to bring science and religion a little close to each other and try to prove the existence of supreme being(s). The idea stabs itself at heart. If you don't believe me, think about this: Science dictates that an entity can only be created by another entity who is more sophisticated in design than the entity being created. I believe both the theists and the atheists will agree to that point. Supreme being(s), if they exist, are of an extremely complex design as they are creator(s) of this universe which itself is very complex natured. Without even going into the argument of the source of supreme being(s), we have a very important fact to realize. The tasks that a complex being of that nature would perform would be of a level beyond our scope of imagination, and not petty like listen to prayers, bless marriages, punishing the sins, sending famines for lack of faith, favour our side in the war, disapprove of our sex lives, etc., in an extremely minute fraction of his creation. Please understand that I provide this argument on a purely logical basis and not faith oriented or imaginative basis.
That being said, I would like to point out a couple of baseless point that theists put forward when someone tells them that the supreme being(s) they worship don't exist. They say that we cannot disprove their existence; hence they are not wrong in following them. Some of them question that if the supreme being(s) do not exist, who created us and the world around us?
For the theists falling under the first category, it would be better if they know that there are a lot of things we cannot disprove. You cannot disprove the existence of an invisible pink unicorn that follows me wherever I go. Neither can you disprove the existence of a miniature tea kettle revolving in an orbit around planet Saturn. If I claim existence of an alien aircraft with protruding tentacles like that of an octopus, it will be my job to prove that I am right, and not the your job to prove that I am wrong. I hope you get my point now.
For the second point, i.e. the people who say that the world around us is very complex to be created by accident and thus, there must be supreme being(s) who created everything, I would like to mention that we go back to the point mentioned in the second paragraph. Whenever I ask them about the origin of this supreme being(s), the reply that I often hear is that they are absolute and need not be created. Hence, being(s) of more complex nature than the universe itself can exist without them questioning the creator of that supreme being(s), but universe, a much less complex structure cannot exist without someone creating it. In language of science, you cannot solve a complex problem by postulating an agent that is even more complex in nature and thereby compounding the problem instead of solving it. Please correct me if I am wrong there. Religion is a creation of human mind alone. We never see a plant or an animal worship someone. If someday we come in contact with a race alien to planet Earth, would they be following one of the Earth's religions? I seriously doubt it.
I believe that science is corrosive to religion as it threatens its very existence by proving theories which are not acceptable by the religion. But that is not the end of the story. Religion itself is corrosive to science as it teaches people to be satisfied by the trivial supernatural wrong explanations and blinds them to the wonderful real explanations that we have within our grasp. But people choose to live in denial and have faith in their religion or supreme being(s). They believe they will be rewarded ultimately for this faith and all the good deeds they do when the time for judgment comes. I believe that if you do good deeds only because you fear the judgment of your supreme being(s), and not out of goodness of your heart, then something is seriously wrong with you.
In words of late Carl Sagan, "How is it that hardly and major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant.'? Instead they say, 'No, no, no. My god is a little god and I want him to stay that way.' A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed my modern science might be able to draw reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths."
Religions are the biggest lie in the history of humanity. Let us stop the hypocrisy and quit being so damn respectful towards them.
Inspired from Richard Dawkin’s idea of Militant Atheism
Wise words dear brother. There is not a single point where one could argue with the article. You've beautifully put down all your logical deductions. I write not to disprove what you say, but to take the discussion to another level.
ReplyDeleteScience in its crudest form is purely enlightening. But unfortunately man has unchallenged monopoly over the gift of science. Intertwine science and human nature, and the outcome isn't a pretty sight. Religion on the other hand is a subject I prefer not to comment on. Not because of fear of hurting the sentiments of the religious lot, but I myself am unbiased when it comes to the debate of 'Whether God exists or not?'. And I like to keep it that way.
Rather than stating science or religion as a boon or a curse, I would like to treat them as subjects and how man has handled both over time. The very existence of Supreme Soul(s) is put to question because of the existence of multiple religions all over the world. This has made God(s) regional and His nature is the fancy of the people who worship him. But all religions and their Gods do teach humanity things that are of value to them. They teach mankind to live in peace and harmony, perform duties and good deeds. Some people do good out of fear of being sent to rot in hell, some do good out of greed of being granted heaven. Some are simply good at heart and keep doing good selflessly (such people are really rare). But isn't the overall good that is being done making the society and the world a better place to live in? Won't such analytic (sometimes cynical) perception of the motive of the people doing good keep them from doing good? Isn't doing good out of fear or greed better than cutting down trees and burning down fuel in the name of science and development? People cut down trees to make paper and write 'Save trees' slogans on them! How ironical!
Science has always been treated as man's b**ch! Scientific discoveries
were condemned for centuries because science was looked upon as a threat to religion rather than a source of knowledge. And even today, science is a looked upon as a source of copyrights and patents and hence, a source of fame and wealth! So, science was never actually perceived in the right spirit. Science has either been subdued (past tense) or exploited (present tense).
Religion has always kept away from logic and reasoning which is the reason people today raise questions on whether a religion is needed afterall. Keeping away from logic and reasoning doesn't necessarily mean being illogical and stupid. The teachings of religions are often overlooked keeping the fact in mind that religion today has become more of a reason of conflict rather than a source of spiritual knowledge and guidance. And this is of course because of religious fanatics and extremists who eventually are a disgrace to their religion.
So, is science better or religion? I say none. The two subjects can't be compared on the same scale. Both in their truest form are nothing but beneficial to mankind. They should be taken in the right spirit. Where is science to blame if humans abuse it for the sake of their greed? Or where is religion to blame where fanatics choose to ignore the teachings of their religion and set out to prove that their 'God' and their 'religion' is the greatest resorting to violence and bloodshed? It all depends on the spirit in which they are taken. Don't you think? And as far as the question of the existence of God or the supreme soul is concerned, I think of it as a pointless question to ask because the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved according to me. How you ask? Let's leave that discussion for some other time.
P.S. - The negatives of religion does not pose a threat to existence of life on earth but the negatives of science does.