MODERN TIMES
Art Hobson
ahobson@uark.edu
NWA Times 13 October 2007
Let's talk about religion
I
was delighted to see six letters to the editor in response to my September 1,
2007, article "Concerning Our Gods," which you can read at http://physics.uark.edu/hobson/. Unsurprisingly, five of them strongly
disagreed with me. That's
fine. Our country dearly needs a
frank discussion of religion, and I thank all six.
Some
letters charge that science is, itself, a religion to which scientists are
blindly devoted. But this misses
the difference between science and religion, a difference that is the central
point of the discussion. Science
bases its conclusions on publicly verifiable experiments and observations, plus
reason. Scientists cannot be
blindly devoted to these conclusions because the conclusions always rest on the
slender thread of experiment, and can be modified or overthrown by tomorrow's
data. In fact, scientists are born
skeptics who love to disprove previously accepted conclusions. Religious belief is based on personal
experiences, inspiring leaders, and revered books. Although religious belief can be good psychology for the
believer, the danger is that it tends to be absolute, leading to rigid certainty
and fanaticism even about conclusions that are absurd and deadly.
Monsters
such as Stalin and Hitler are frequently introduced to bolster the belief that
atheism leads to immorality.
Stalin was an atheist, but Hitler never renounced Catholicism and
probably remained religious all his life.
More to the point, some atheists do evil things but they don't do them
in the name of atheism, while suicide bombers kill in the name of their
gods. Wars are not fought in the
name of non-belief, but are fought in the name of God. In fact, because powerful personalities
such as Stalin and Hitler establish cults of "true believers" who bow
to their leaders' spoken and written words, Stalinism and Nazism operate much
like fundamentalist religions. Nonbelievers
follow a rational, evidence-based, non-authoritarian approach to life that is
precisely the opposite of any of these rigid belief systems.
Most
letter-writers tried to prove the Bible by quoting the Bible--a circular
process to say the least. But the
point of the rationalist protest against religion is: How do we know that the Bible or any religious book is
true? Belief in the Bible
generally comes from upbringing, authority, and emotions caused by powerful
experiences. But this is not
publicly verifiable knowledge of the sort provided by science. If religious
belief stems from upbringing, authority, or emotion, why should I or anybody
else believe it? What's the
evidence?
Contrary
to some of the letters, most non-believers are not certain that there is no
God. Most would claim that, as Richard
Dawkins puts it, "there almost certainly is no God." For one thing, the question is too
ill-defined to have a definite answer.
A God of virgin births, "raptures" and other miraculous
ascensions, resurrections, or life after death, seems highly unlikely to
me. But if "God" means
that life is a wondrous and joyous gift, that Earth is a unique treasure worth
preserving for all future generations, and that the universe is beautiful and
mysterious beyond our understanding, then God's existence seems plausible to
me.
Most
letter writers focused entirely on my criticisms of Christianity. But I, in company with other critics of
religion, charge that fundamentalist Islam is an even greater threat today than
fundamentalist Christianity.
Furthermore, the threat is not any individual religion, but rather
irrational belief itself. Whether
you're talking about suicide bombers seeking a heavenly reward, creationists
seeking to replace biology with the Bible, psychics who claim to communicate
with the dead, or followers of the hair-brained Falun Gong cult, the problem is
humankind's preference for irrational emotionally-driven beliefs over knowledge
based on evidence and reason.
Some
writers dwelled on the supposed evils of evolution. There's not space to develop this big topic here (see
previous columns at my web page), but suffice it to say that overwhelming
evidence, and a firm scientific consensus that includes many scientists who are
Christians, supports the fact and the theory of evolution. Far from being evil, evolution is an
important and beautiful truth about the universe. Those Christians who try to obscure this truth demean
Chistianity, humankind, and the universe.
To do this consciously is a highly immoral form of intellectual
dishonesty.
Then
there's the argument that non-believers have no restraint and might become
their own god, making them monsters.
It's an argument that seems especially lame today, when all the real
monsters seem to be fundamentalist fanatics. This argument asks:
why be good if there is no God?
But do you care for your brother only out of fear of God? Would you really rob, rape, or murder
without God to guide you? If God
is all that restrains you from murder, then I hope that others will stay out of
your way. As Einstein put it,
"If people are good only because they fear punishment and hope for reward,
then we are a sorry lot indeed."
The
basis for morals is the sensible observation that if individuals are not moral,
we're all going to be unhappy. The
foundation of morals, as well as our legal system, is not God but rather the
greatest happiness for the greatest number. An admirable book by the Dalai Lama, "Ethics for the
New Millenium," propounds this practical view of morals quite nicely. Evolution has probably built this basis
for morals into our genes; our cousins the monkeys will go to extraordinary
lengths to avoid harming another monkey.
We do need to drop our reluctance to discuss religion in public. Please send your thoughts to this newspaper.