Religion is useless, thanks for reminding me
Saturday, February 2nd, 2008There’s been a few items popping up this week to fan the flames of my rational indignation… For one thing we have Pope Ratzo (aka Palpatine) whining about the "seductive" power of science wooing people away from the dignified human values instilled by religion, like worshipping an invisible sky fairy, pretending to eat his flesh and drink his blood, and inserting penises into no orifices other than vaginas— apparently God only likes to watch his children have vanilla sex (missionary style one would also presume).
"When human beings in the weakest and most defenseless state of their existence are selected, abandoned, killed or used as pure ‘biological material,’ how can one deny that they are being treated not as ’someone’ but as ’something,"’ he said.
Yes, you probably weren’t aware of this but at this moment hordes of scientists stalk the land snatching defenseless babies from the womb in the course of research directed to the eternal preservation of the body of Richard Dawkins.
"In an age when scientific developments attract and seduce with the possibilities they offer, it’s more important than ever to educate our contemporaries’ consciences so that science does not become the criteria for goodness," he told scientists.
Actually, science makes no claim to "goodness", and religious dipshits often construct this straw-man argument: if science observes that strong organisms tend to perpetuate their lineage more effectively than weak ones, therefore people like the handicapped and infertile should be killed because they are "weak" from an evolutionary perspective. Funny, science also tells us that microorganisms can kill us, but rather than saying that is a good thing, science helps us come up with ways to stop microorganisms killing us. Unlike religion, which in its various guises has suggested that sickness was caused by demons, witches and God’s displeasure with us, science is a tool we can use to measurably improve the lives of billions.
The Catholic church especially is not equipped to "educate our contemporaries’ consciences" — they can’t even educate their own priests well enough to discourage them from sexually interfering with children. Oh, was that a cheap shot? Sure, not all priests are child-molesters, but if the church really holds this magical moral highground, why are any of them child-molesters? If God is the font of all the love and justice in the world, then surely being so close to him should displace such foul proclivities? If you were to pick a random priest and a random person off the street, I seriously wonder who is more likely to have abused children…
While science is essentially amoral, I think its adherence to the principal of seeking objective truth has a lot more good to it than the insidious sophistry of religion, which promises everything and delivers nothing. Which makes absurd claims which are untestable, then lauds the fact that these claims are somehow beyond scrutiny.
The other thing I was going to bitch about here was that an Athiest & Agnostic group on Myspace— 35,000 members strong— was deleted with no explanation or consultation, but that has since been restored, taking the hot air out of my sails somewhat, so if you want to know more you can just go read about it here and form your own opinion. God, I hate MySpace.
February 2nd, 2008 at 5:35 pm
It would be good if scientists “adhered to the principal of seeking objective truth”, as you suggest. But there are powerful counter-influences - funding, peer-pressure and group-think.
And saying religion is useless, is a very large brushstroke. It is like saying toxic chemicals are useless. Some are, some aren’t - and it depends how they are used and why. Do you want antibiotics for your next case of bacterial pneumonia?
February 2nd, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Religious leaders are political leaders, they don’t give a toss about objective reality, and by my reckoning that makes any organized religion WORSE than useless.
The scientific method and evidence based reasoning are as close as we can expect to come to knowing the true nature of anything, and these approaches are designed to compensate for human tendencies to be affected by less objective influences.
I’m always amazed that scientists aren’t more outspoken about the way they are constantly painted as people who are easily biased by political or religious influences. When a scientific theory is proposed it is tested MERCILESSLY by peers long before it becomes “accepted wisdom” it’s not as though these things are decided at some bullshit grand council of scientists who light a stupid fire to show when they’ve decided what the next great truth will be.
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:27 pm
hmmm.. sorry I jumped on you so fast there Ross.. I’m in a ranty mood today.
On the usefulness question, what is the primary “usefulness” of religion in your opinion?
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:11 pm
No need to apologise for ranting - there’s a lot of that on the net. One gets used to it.
By the way, I agree with you regarding many aspects of “organised religion”. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that “power corrupts”. Jesus himself had some pretty harsh things to say about the religious leaders of his day.
The primary usefulness of religion? Hard to generalise… maybe something like “provides a framework for one to understand ‘existence’ and provides a foundation on which to base laws and morals”.
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:32 pm
A better moral foundation than can be provided otherwise? And is that foundation universal, applying to men and women of all races? Which parts of the great holy books do we obey and which heinous disgusting parts do we choose to ignore? And whose interpretation of these holy texts written, translated and passed down by men should we choose to follow?
February 3rd, 2008 at 1:37 pm
I’d like to know what percentage of creationists refuse to accept that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a major factor in our current changing climate.
February 3rd, 2008 at 1:59 pm
The only universal moral foundation is the “conscience”, which is why murder (for example) is so widely frowned on. How would that evolve? It would make more sense to get rid of one’s competitors and grab their goods.
Which holy books to use?
Which ones give a satisfactory explanation of the human condition? Which ones appear to contain accurately recorded details? Which ones have our heroes of the past claimed to have been inspired by to achieve great things, like hospitals, schools, abolition of slavery, social wefare?
February 3rd, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Shaun, I don’t know the percentage. I do know that creationists tend to be more conservative and right-wing, and therefore less likely to be swayed by ideas which are largely driven by those with more socialistic leanings. Leftists tend to run more on ideology and feelings than cold hard science.
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Whereas conservatives and right-wingers are well known for embracing input from the scientific community, rather than having a religion-fuelled distrust of anything science brings to light?
I think I’ll just add +1 to my survey sample.
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Well, I enjoy keeping up with science - for medical and technological advances. No blanket distrust of science here! Here’s an article on how ideology corrupts good science - tinyurl.com/2lkfc5
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:13 pm
ugh
http://tinyurl.com/22ah6e
i’ve got only a half life left!
February 3rd, 2008 at 6:15 pm
“It would make more sense to get rid of one’s competitors and grab their goods.”
I honestly expected better than that. Even the simplest models of evolution show how competition and cooperation can be balanced. If you kill someone and take their stuff no one will trust you, and eventually an angry mob will murder you and your family.
It makes perfect sense to evolve a conscience when you are a social mammal, and even other mammals show really obvious concern for each other and sometimes even other species. It’s built in. It helps a species survive. Every time you suggest otherwise you insult me and everyone else who chooses a non-religious path.
Seriously I didn’t think anyone bothered trying to argue that the existence of morals somehow didn’t fit in to evolution.
The overwhelming majority of scientists are atheists. Don’t for a second think you can get away with suggesting that you are on the side of “cold hard science” there.
Pot, Kettle etc.
February 3rd, 2008 at 7:11 pm
That article you linked to Ross indeed serves as a good example of how ideology attempts to corrupt science — the ideology in question being the religious ideology of the author of the piece.
I mean, he doesn’t even build a case. All he really says is “Boo hoo! People keep saying that those who refuse to acknowledge anthropogenic emissions as a major factor in our changing climate are in the minority. They only say that cos they’re ideologically driven!”
Can he provide any evidence to suggest that these climate change sceptics are not in the minority?
And I’m sure glad to see you don’t have a blanket distrust of science. It’s so much better to simply choose to distrust the bits that don’t appeal to you.
February 10th, 2008 at 4:06 am
Just a note on what shimmered through some of your article. Bear in mind that I’m not a native English speaker, so it might be that some things aren’t expressed as I mean them.
Independently of the religious implications, the use of stem cells *is* problematic as are many other experiments with apes or other animals.
Advance in science is important, we though have always to watch out not to reduce organisms to a thing. An individual simply has no right to misuse another individual to achieve his goals. Especially not if this hurt or kills. The greater goal achievement is not a valid argument. Many fascists use exactly the same reasoning and did the same experiments with humans. I don’t try to score with the fascist argument, I really think it is dangerous.
Never forget that fascists aren’t bad from birth on, this is a slow development!!
Science itself has no more right to advance than an individual has a right to live.
We really have to be careful not to mix up religious fallacies with treating everything as an object, not just because religion is often wrong means that some of it doesn’t contain a grain of truth.
February 10th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Someone -
Stem cells are taken from embryos which are otherwise discarded. The ONLY reason the use of this material is an issue is because of religious implications.
I’m sorry, did I use the words “greater good”? I don’t think so. Introducing the fascist/Nazi strawman with sincerity does not make it any more appropriate. If you must bring this up then I must point out that fascism, theocracy and racial purity are supported strongly by the bible, whereas science and evolution illustrate that it is likely harmful to the long term survival of a species to seek such goals (there is no “pure” ideal in evoutionary terms; purity of a race would mean stagnation of the gene pool)
Science is not a person, nor a movement. It does not have rights, nor does anyone claim them. It is an incredibly useful tool for teasing out reality from the the observation of our limited and flawed human senses and intellect.
We really have to be careful not to mix up religious dogma with ethics, a wholly human concept which helps us work out complex issues relating to life, law, rights etc.
Hooray for science!
Hooray for ethics!
Hooray for morals!
When we have these things why would any sane person think that we need an injection of SUPERSTITION to somehow inform our decision making?
And BTW if anyone continues to argue this slippery slope nonsense then I am just going to start responding with all the vile bible verses about committing genocide for the Lord and raping the daughters of your enemies etc.
February 12th, 2008 at 5:46 am
Just a note: I am an Atheist or at least don’t believe in any specific religion. I am no defender of Christians, I just pointed out that if people are wrong in many points means not that they are always wrong. You can cite whatever you want, I myself criticize often and a lot religion so I don’t mind.
I’m sorry how the fascist argument sounded, my only intent was to point out this can easily happen, not that you are one. And an important addition: fascists aren’t born as “bad guys” and aren’t always aware that what they do is questionable.
“Stem cells are taken from embryos which are otherwise discarded. ”
Well, note the language: “discarded” shows already how embryos are treated. It is a problem that these “superfluous” embryos are “produced” at all.
You could say the same from people who are not “worth”/capable to live, they’ll be discarded anyway, so why not do research with them?
I fully agree that we have to be careful not to argument based on religious dogma, but if we have the right to experiment or research on a living being really is all about ethics and an important question.
Sometimes we have to have the guts to admit that things which are good for science are not good for the individual.
I think we all agree that we have no right to harm others except if this is the only possible way to defend (from his/her attacks). This is not a religious argument but part of the “human rights”.
Again, I’m no native speaker so I cannot express myself as sensitive as I want. It is not my intent to attack you personally.
February 12th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Someone —
I would never claim that Christians are wrong on all points… only that they are wrong on the rather major point of the divine provenance of the bible.
If you don’t believe in a specific religion you are Agnostic at best. An atheist by definition does not believe in any religion.
It requires no guts at all to agree that things that are good for science are not necessarily good for the individual. Just as things that are good for society are not necessarily good for the individual. Just as things that are good for me are not necessarily good for you. There are often trade-offs in life, and science occupies no privileged position there.
How many people are being hurt or killed in the pursuit of science, as opposed to, say, religion, politics, capital, etc? It’s absurd to paint science as a bogeyman threatening the “dignity of human life” when so much poverty and suffering is tolerated on a daily basis.
Do I think we should cripple confessed murderers so that we can do spinal cord research on them? No. Some people might disagree. Some people, even Christians, might say they should be simply put to death.
It is a problem that these “superfluous” embryos are “produced” at all.
Is it? Many superfluous embryos are produced in attempts to bring children to otherwise infertile couples. Is this bad? Fine I agree that this is the sort of question that should be asked, but it sounds like you are starting from a rather religious perspective for an Agnostic.
As implied in my post, I question the logic of privileging one blob of living tissue over another on the grounds that it carries human DNA. I eat meat, and am therefore responsible for the unnecessary deaths of hundreds if not thousands of living breathing feeling creatures in my lifetime. I often wonder if we will still eat animals in 100 years, because maybe the idea of killing any living thing will become offensive to us.
I am not so foolish as to assume that our morals and values are somehow immutable, and unless they are into stoning adulterers I think most Christians, Jews and Muslims would be forced to agree.
Religious texts provide no justification (beyond the imaginary) for the seemingly arbitrary and frequently contradictory depictions of right and wrong. We don’t need them. We do need law, and in some cases ethics committees, and we have them.