First name, Last name Philosophy 240 12/8/11

Science vs Religion
Over the past week or so while thinking about this paper, Ive struggled mightily with how to get it started. Probably much like my struggles with religion in the past. To put it very simply, and very quickly, I used to be a staunch Catholic Christian. Until the days when I had a true cognitive outlook and a mere understanding of logic, that is when the doubts began. I assume this was around the age of thirteen or so. A few years later, when I turned eighteen and went to college, I started to read about evolution and dinosaurs specifically. Then big doubts came. Fast forward to now, and with the help of Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, and others, Im now fully atheist. That word carries an infinitely deadly tone in our society; especially with Christians. Ive been compared to a Satanist, however I dont even believe in Satan. Im evil because I dont believe in their God, how tolerant of them! So to dispel myths Ill simply begin by defining key terms. Theist: in the broadest sense of the word, is someone who believes at least one deity exists. More specifically, theism refers to a doctrine concerned with a belief in a monotheistic God and the relationship between that god and the universe. Another idea that is held by theists is that their god holds an active presence with governing the universe. What is interesting is when you get to the term atheism or atheist. Formerly a Christian, I was essentially led to believe that atheists are evil, devil-worshipping people. This is clearly false. An atheist is merely the opposite of a theist. We dont believe in any deities. The simplest way to show this is the difference between symmetry and

asymmetry. Everyone conceivable knows what symmetry is, and asymmetry is just the opposite. Every now and then you get the claim that it would be better to just be agnostic, as nobody can know for sure. Agnosticism and atheism, however, are not orthogonal; i.e. not mutually exclusive. Agnostic literally means (from Greek) a (without) gnosis (knowledge). I, and many atheists, find it intellectually dishonest to claim Gnostic atheism. Most of us define ourselves as agnostic atheists [6]. Even Carl Sagan said, "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid. [3] He is simply confusing strong atheists and weak atheists. The overwhelming majority of atheists admit they while they cannot know for sure, they believe that a god does not exist. Generally this is attributed to lack of evidence and disbelief in magic or supernatural beings [6]. Finally, we get to deism. Its similar to theism except without belief in organized religion. Deists believe that natural observation and reason, without organized religion, can lead to the conclusion of an all-powerful creator. With definitions in place, first topic at hand is the word faith. I personally shudder at this word. Faith is defined as complete confidence or trust in something or someone and strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof [1]. This scares me immensely. Richard Dawkins points this out as well, that this is basically utter non-sense. This faith, especially in Christianity, is not only belief without any evidence whatsoever; to them it feels like a virtue [8]. They are better for believing without any evidence than anyone who does require evidence. Faith is fear dressed up as virtue. None of them will freely admit this, as it is clearly against Christianity, but there is the definite implication that one, who has faith without any

evidence whatsoever, is better or more pure than someone who requires evidence. Dawkins makes my case very easily for me. He states that everyone can come to the conclusion of faith being a virus of the mind when you just look to all the tragedy it has caused. So many deaths, from the crusades to suicide bombers, all completely attributed to and caused by differences in religious faith [8]. The only real arguments Ive ever gotten from a Christian is something along the lines of that being an improper version or example of someones faith as well as faith can be good too. The other one Ive heard, specifically from Bill OReilly, is that there is much tragedy attributed to atheism in modern history. He points out Hitler and Stalin as two of them. Ironically enough, Hitler was brought up a Roman Catholic, just as OReilly. Stalin was a confirmed atheist. However, there is no logical pathway from atheism to violence or oppression. With religion, this pathway exists in the way of religious scripture. Even the Bible shows one should kill non-believers (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB). Thus it is clearly logical that a reasonable pathway can be concluded from religion to violence, and such a pathway is impossible to derive from atheism to violence, as OReilly suggests. This argument is similar to saying both Stalin and Hitler bore mustaches and that is the reason for their violence against the human race. The way believers claim that faith can be good is substantiated generally by the donations of churches and all the good they do for poor and the homeless. It can also provide one with comfort. The first statement is simply destroyed by the fact that these can be caused by people who have no faith, people who are good without god. It makes the implication that faith is the direct cause of good deeds, and nobody would be helping these less fortunate individuals if it werent for faith. While faith may trigger this good-

doing nature, it can and is caused by peoples own inherent want to help others in need without any faith at all. Faith also feels very cheap to me. It seems that whenever a Christian or theist is left with a question that cannot be answered at present, or there isnt any evidence for it yet, that their answer is god did it. Why is that the first conclusion? Why is that the conclusion instead of searching for evidential proof? Furthermore if that evidential proof is found, that still doesnt entirely remove god from the equation. The mechanism and why it exists can still be attributed to god, just as with evolution for some Christians. This is a big reason why faith scares me, and a reason I can truly never have a logical argument with somebody of full faith. Anytime I get down to what they believe, I cant ask why they believe it because it becomes circular. They believe, because they believe, and they can retreat behind their all-encompassing umbrella of faith where my scientific raindrops will never get them wet. Even when I look back to when I was very Catholic, I cant answer the question as to why I actually believed. I dont remember ever having a reason other than that I believe. Faith can provide one with a feeling of comfort. This is true. Very true in fact, that faith does give someone a reason for being alive, a reason for doing good to others, and a reason to not be so scared of their impending death. It is a false hope, however. Dawkins points out here that science can take over on the comfort issue as well in the way of pain-killing drugs. David Silverman, who is the current president of American Atheists, points this out as well [8]. In a television interview when posed with that question, he said, Just do drugs. His point has a humorous tone to it, though the idea still remains logical aside from the jest. Drugs can provide just as much mental comfort, as well as the added benefit of physical comfort that faith can produce.

One last idea with faith that I have is that when you die there is an afterlife. I struggled with this idea for a while, asking myself why is it so crazy to believe when you die, you just die? I thought about this for quite some time, and could not, for the life of me, come to a conclusion. It seemed so simple, that without any hard repeatable evidence of an afterlife, when you die you just arent in existence any longer. I was talking to my brother about this one evening, and he answered it very quickly. He said that its not crazy, its scary. This was a moment of realization for me. It all made sense now. Dying is scary, and that is a reason to believe in an afterlife, it can bring someone comfort in that way. However, by the rule of Ockhams razor the best explanation to choose is that there is no afterlife. Not only that, but again science can weigh in here through the use of pain-killing drugs. One of my favorite excerpts from Carl Sagan is also one that had made myself think as well as others that I know. It deals a lot with burden of proof much like Bertrand Russells teapot assertion. Sagan says what if a claim were made that a fire-breathing dragon were in fact in my garage. He points out that instantly the skeptic would want proof. The skeptic would want to see this dragon, and know that it isnt an illusion. So, Sagan takes the skeptic to his garage but there is nothing to see that is out of the ordinary. The skeptic is confused, and Sagan mentions that this is an invisible dragon. Then tests are proposed to prove the dragons existence, and to each Sagan simply gives a physical reason why the proposed test will not work. For example, its invisible; its fiery breath is heatless, etc [7]. This excerpt does a wonderful job of making someone think about assertions for which there is no physical data. This is extremely analogous to the god hypothesis. Christians have faith that god exists without any physical proof.

Christians might try to rebut with the idea that the dragon is extremely far-fetched and has nothing to do with god. I myself had this feeling at one point as well. Though logically I knew that it was exactly the same on an evidential level, the dragon existing seemed less plausible than a god existing. However, it is no different from a claim made that invisible unicorns climb trees at night and they are the ones who give me life, and will grant me eternal life after death. This brings me to a point of wondering why does god seem more plausible than an invisible dragon, or unicorns? Very simply put, people. Droves of people believe in this invisible sky wizard and it is readily apparent in our society day after day. This does its job of making god seem more plausible, and less crazy, than my invisible unicorns that climb trees at night. However, while this is the reason it makes god seem more plausible, it doesnt change the science or evidence of the situation. For all, unicorns, god, and dragons, the evidence is not there. It is maddeningly elusive as Sagan puts it. So we wonder, why do so many people believe such a claim? The only retort Ive ever encountered to this, when posed to many different Christians, is that god acts upon a level that we dont understand, even Carl Sagan is not intelligent enough to understand at the god level. This is weak though, as it still provides no proof and doesnt actually address the reality in which we live. It is as logical and worthy as the argument that god exists because the bible says so, and the bible is right because god wrote it. Interestingly enough the burden of proof is, so far, the only thing that Ive been able to use to get a Christian wondering, or at least to stop making logically worthless claims. I asked a Christian, my mother in fact, what exactly is the difference between your god, for which there is zero physical data, and my invisible unicorns that climb trees

at night, gave me my life, and will grant me eternal life in the hereafter? The response was that she had faith in god. Instantly, and outraged I should add, I retorted But you dont understand! I have undying faith in my unicorns! The reaction was priceless, there was no retort, she finally thought outside of her Christian indoctrination. After this, I pose people with the next logical step concerning the god hypothesis what if I had millions of people believing in my invisible tree-climbing unicorns? Does that make my ridiculous claim, based on zero evidence, any more true than before? Of course it does not make it any more true, so why would that work for a god that lacks just as much evidence? It shouldnt, but there is no other leg left for the Christian to stand on at this point. There is just as much proof that my unicorns exist as there is for gods existence. Very simply, my unicorns are equally as logical as god but Christians find it absolutely crazy. The next topic is very widely known as the accepted form of creation in many Christian religions today: Intelligent Design. Intelligent design is the idea that certain physical things in our universe are simply best left up to an intelligent cause or designer, and not natural selection [4]. The claim is that some organisms and non-organic formations are simply to complex to have been created by nature, there had to be a designer. The idea is based on two of the most prominent arguments, which are irreducible complexity and specified complexity. Irreducible complexity is the argument that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler or less complete ancestors through natural selection. This argument is rejected by the scientific community and causes intelligent design to be regarded most frequently as pseudoscience [4]. Specified complexity is the argument proposed by William Dembski and used by him and others to promote intelligent design. According to Dembski, the concept is intended

to formalize a property that singles out patterns that are both specified and complex. Dembski states that specified complexity is a reliable marker of design by an intelligent agent, a central tenet to intelligent design, which Dembski argues for in opposition to modern evolutionary theory. The concept of specified complexity is widely regarded as mathematically unsound and has not been the basis for further independent work in information theory, the theory of complex systems, or biology [4]. The first argument, irreducible complexity, is dealt with very quickly. How does one decide what parameters are to be used when deciding that an organism is too complex to have evolved? Where do these standards come from, and how can you verify such a claim? Even if one does propose parameters and standards for what makes an organism too complex to have evolved or occurred naturally, what evidence or natural observation, is that based off of? Anyone can simply propose a parameter; such as a central nervous system is what demarcates naturally viable and too complex. The next logical step is to show what evidence or natural observations were used to create or discover such parameters. Potentially viable evolutionary pathways have been proposed for allegedly irreducibly complex systems such as blood clotting, the immune system and the flagellum, which were the three examples Michael Behe used. Also his example of a mousetrap was shown to be reducible by John H. McDonald. If irreducible complexity is an impossible obstacle to evolution disproving it, it should not be possible to realize such pathways of irreducibility [4]. This idea is mathematically unsound, and it is broken down quite easily if it is used as a way to disprove evolution. In regards to intelligent design, a Christian I know brought to my attention that it is more likely to disassemble a watch, take the disassembled watch and place it in a box,

shake the box for three minutes and open it to find an assembled watch than for our idea of evolutionary theory to have happened. This was instantly a straw man, however. I was asked for evidence of human evolution from apes. I started to tell them how it is represented and it is believed that humans evolved from Nakalipithecus and Ouranopithecus and could have happened as many as eight to ten million years ago, as they had asked for evidence. Then he throws out the watch rhetoric, which may be and probably is completely true. The universe is so full of chaos, that for this to turn out the way it has, it is probably more unlikely than the watch argument. However, that does nothing to say that it didnt happen, because we are clearly here and have physical evidence linking backwards. Christians, in my experience, often forget we are reverse engineering our species. We arent the ones designing; we are in sense undesigning our species based on physical factual evidence and data, not only in the form of fossils but in DNA and genetics, to find our own origin. There are two thoughts I have on this. Like I stated, it probably is more like to disassemble a watch, put it in a box, shake it and have an assembled watch than our evolution from a single celled organism. While that is likely true, it doesnt discredit the evidence evolutionists have. If you had a universe simulator and started with the singlecelled organism with the same initial conditions and ran it one trillion times you probably would never have the exact outcome we find today. There is simply too much chaos for our evolution to have been a likely one, it happened by chance. The second thought I have is that just because something is statistically unlikely doesnt mean it didnt or cannot happen. People win the lottery all the time, even though I have essentially the same statistical probability of winning whether I play it or not. Its essentially statistically

impossible to win the lottery, but people do win it. This speaks to my assertion that just because something is statistically unlikely, or even statistically impossible, doesnt mean that it didnt or cannot occur. I want to touch on Christian hypocrisy Ive observed about the Bible, specifically in regards to the Old Testament. The Old Testament is riddled with text that directly relates to a violent and evil god. In one of the books of the Pentateuch it states that if a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night, not only is that marriage not valid but, she shall be killed by being stoned to death (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB). This, among other violent verses, makes it abundantly clear that this god is not a gentle or kind evergraceful god, but a mean spirited and violent god. This is not, however, necessarily the problem that I have here. The problem I have encountered is with hypocrisy among Christians about verses. They will constantly quote the Old Testament as long as it supports their beliefs, such as opposing gay marriage (Leviticus 20:13 NAB). However, when faced with a verse that is worthless in todays society, as well as resulting in the death of countless Christian women (in regards to the death of a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night), they renounce it as the old law, which shall not be followed today. If youre going to make assertions that the Old Testament is law based on one verse, the rest of them should be hard laws as well. This is massive inconsistence and does not bode well for Christian arguments. None of the verses they spout from the Old Testament, which they claim to be law, were tested and verified on natural observations with high repeatability, science wins this battle yet again. Finally I want to address one last question Ive received many times. What if youre wrong? Well, then I burn in hell dont I? This is utter nonsense and can be

revealed very easily. The only irreconcilable sin, according to Christians, is when you deny gods existence when presented with physical proof. That is to say, after I die, I approach the pearly gates and god stands before me, asks me if I accept him and then deny his existence and not be sorry for my wrongdoings. Only then am I sent to hell. This idea of being wrong and right is nonsensical as well because the question can be bounced right back at a believer of any other religion. We know that there is more than one religion in the world; we also know that there is more than one religion in the world that claims non-believers go to hell. Furthermore, we know no one can belong to two religions, and by that count everyone goes to hell. This is called the Argument from Inconsistent Revelations. This has also been dispelled in terms of Pascals Wager. This is where if the existence of god cannot be logically concluded, then one should act as though god exists because it would be inane not to. The biggest problem with the wager is that if god is in fact omnipotent, as many religions say god is, then that god would know you werent being sincere in your statement of belief. If youre not being sincere, it can only be logically concluded that you dont actually believe, but are merely saying you believe out of fear of the possibility of going to hell. This question appears in another form as who is right? Victor Stenger makes the assertion that the universe was in fact created out of shear chance. Stenger states, Physicists are now claiming that the hundreds of billions of stars and galaxies, including the earth and humanity, are not conscious creations but an accident. There is no Creator, because there was no creation. [9] This in no way disproves god, because the possibility still remains that an invisible sky wizard could in fact exist, however what this does is to show that there is no evidence of the creation story, thus it is logical not to take the claim

as true. He later states it is fair to say that there is not a single shred of evidence that demands we hypothesize that the universe was created, and we can now at least provisionally understand how all we are and all we know could have come about by chance. [9] This is brought up by Sagan as well, as he states that with no physical evidence it is only fair to put the dragon hypothesis to the side for the time being and be open to new data if it were to emerge [7]. The same logic should be put to use for the existence of god. Since there is no physical evidence or data at present, it is only reasonable to reject the god hypothesis and be open-minded to future evidence if it presents itself. Jastrow disagrees with Stenger. Jastrow says that if the Universe did in fact have a moment in which it began, that it had a beginning, this makes it seem impossible to fathom or realize what force or forces brought the Universe into existence at that point. He claims that no scientist can answer this question. He also goes on to say, At the present time, the Big Bang theory has no competitors. Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the Universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. [9] Interestingly enough he also goes on to claim that scientists are puzzled and upset that there could have been a natural phenomenon that caused the beginning without cause for the natural cause (an uncaused cause). While this is patently false, it may have been subjectively true to some individuals at one point in history. As a whole, science isnt upset with a natural phenomenon that cannot be explained, because we dont believe that the natural phenomenon cannot be explained. We simply believe that we dont know how to explain it just yet, and we are trying to gather evidence and observations to help provide a mathematical or physical model that explains it fully.

Jastrow also asks the question, what if were right? Right in the sense of theologians had it right along and are atop a mountain that science finally scaled. Asimov comes along and answers that question thoroughly and succinctly. His response, essentially, is so what? What kind of value does a guess such as this hold? None really. He basically says, congratulations you guessed right. He also goes on to point out that in this case it isnt really a mountain being scaled at all, rather a flat plane and the theologians just happened to guess correctly. He is basically pointing out, good for you, that means nothing. [9] As a former Catholic, now atheist, all of this thinking and philosophizing about religion and existence is extremely stimulating. Though now I notice it is utterly ridiculous to put faith into something for which you have no evidence or physical data. That is entirely absurd. I have been, am now, and will always be open to the idea of a god existing. It would be as, I said before, intellectually dishonest to be a Gnostic atheist. There is no way to know that god doesnt exist, but it seems at this point the most logical stance. If evidence were to come along, my thoughts would be re-evaluated, something that many Christians and faith-bearing individuals have never and will never do, no matter how compelling the evidence may be. That is why Im a firm advocate of science. The goal of science is to not only try to explain natural observations with physical and mathematical models, but to also try and disprove them after the theory is developed. Once it is shown that over and over the same conclusion is observed, only then is it considered a fact or a law. The same cannot be said for faith-based religions. Their beliefs are firmly held in the mud regardless of the lack of evidence, based on nothing but tradition, authority, or revelation. [8 - pg 322] That is something I can never support.