Tuesday, December 27, 2011

From PZ's Place: m h, unknown country, on Why I Am An Atheist:

What keeps me an atheist is the fact that science explains the world so well and still allows me to question the world without having any boundaries. Even if there is a concept in science that is universally accepted as a truth, no one will threaten my life and my family would not distance themselves from me because I don’t accept it. What made me an atheist, however, is something completely different. I grew up in a war-torn country where questioning religion was a death sentence. As I was growing up, I was taught that religiosity is a virtue and, in the dangerous world that I was living in, religion will help me survive. I accepted it. Despite this, my parents had enough foresight to encourage me to study math and science despite it being essentially useless where I was growing up. The conflict between science and religion didn’t really hit me as a child, because every scientific fact I parroted to my parents was somehow in agreement with what God said.

What did bother me, though, was what I was seeing around me. It was a war. People were taking advantage of each other. I met terrible people who, through their exploitation of the religious beliefs of others, managed to steal and kill their way to the top. But, they weren’t seen as criminals. They were extolled for their knowledge of the holy books and their piety. They built places of worship. They promised eternal life in God’s kingdom. And, despite what everyone knew about them, that was enough to make them “good” people. The community would absorb their every word. People would volunteer to send themselves to their deaths for them. People would kiss their hands. This dissonance was hard to ignore for me. I had a hard time labeling a nice, giving neighbor who doesn’t pray as a “bad person” while war profiteers and murderers were labeled as “good people.” I stopped praying. I tuned out the sermons. I lost myself in science.

I learned about the birth of the Universe, the wonder of development, the amazing degree to which evolution explained differences in animals and the creation of mountains through plate tectonics. It made so much sense. It made my world a more beautiful place. The mountains that I grew up around were so much more of a wonder to me when I realize that there is a more amazing process in creating them than “God did it.” One day, looking at a photo of those mountains, I realized that I had stopped believing in God. It completely freed me. A rush of thoughts came to me. I suddenly realized that the best people are those who care for others, not because of a command of God, but because they just plain want the world to be a better place. I realized that so many people have wasted their lives and destroyed their environment for themselves and their children because they believed that “this world” doesn’t matter. So many lives lost, so much effort wasted, all because people wanted to be with God, rather than make the world the live in a better place. The wonder of the world around them was and continues to be completely lost to them.

m h
unknown

m h makes these points:

1. Science keeps him/her an Atheist.

2. Science explains the world better than “God did it”.

3. Science has no boundaries.

4. “Religion” (branch undefined) has boundaries.

5. Over-reaching the limits of that religion can result in serious repercussions including death.

6. Evil people (war profiteers and murderers) use religious power to reach positions of political power; can convince people toward religious suicide.

7. “Religion” makes people not care about the earth, and destroy their environment.

8. The “best people” want to make the world a better place.

Summary: No age given; Religious background: severe religious domination (possibly Islam) and war; science has better explanations for the earth than “God did it”; rejection of religion results in freedom and the ability to see that religion destroys and the best people want to make the world better.

6 comments:

  1. "3. Science has no boundaries."

    I don't think that's a fair assessment of what he said. What is without boundaries in his sentence is the ability to question.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I read it that the "no boundary" conditions placed on him are due to science.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Specifically, this writer contrasts science having no limits on questioning science, with execution or ostracism for questioning religion:

    “What keeps me an atheist is the fact that science explains the world so well and still allows me to question the world without having any boundaries. Even if there is a concept in science that is universally accepted as a truth, no one will threaten my life and my family would not distance themselves from me because I don’t accept it... I grew up in a war-torn country where questioning religion was a death sentence.”

    Their point isn’t “science has no boundaries”, it’s “science has no dogma”.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Their point isn’t “science has no boundaries”, it’s “science has no dogma”.

    Try applying for a grant to study Intelligent Design or disprove Anthropogenic Global Warming. I believe you'll find that science has some very strong dogmas.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Matteo,

    We have been doing studies and tests of anthropogenic global warming, presumably funded by grants.

    If you came up with a legitimate way to test intelligent design, you could get it funded. But intelligent design advocates do not perform scientific experiments, nor follow the scientific method. Michael Behe himself admits, “You can’t prove intelligent design by experiment.”

    That’s not because ID violates some unquestionable dogma, that’s just science funding not going to people who don’t do science.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Robin,

    Behe's admission is at least an honest assessment, whereas evolution is encumbered by the same limitations, but its proponents do not and will not admit to not having the ability to adhere to empirical procedures, neither experimentally, replicably, nor falsifiably when it comes to ancient developmental issues. The enemies of ID can no more concretely prove ID false, than Atheists - the enemies of Theism - can concretely prove Theism false. Yet they deny both as if they knew for a fact that they could not possibly be true.

    In fact, the deductions of each are both plausible and more probable logically than the arguments against, which are ideology, not material fact or rational logic.

    I don't subscribe to ID because Theism doesn't depend on it, and evolution has its own logical problems for it to stumble over. So there seems to be no need to fight the ID issue. Atheists however, fear ID, as they should, so they trump up all sorts of false charges against it. So if you choose to fight it while championing your ideology, make sure you have your logic straight.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS comments and comments by banned parties will be deleted without being read.