What It Should Take
It is often asked of atheists what it would take to make them believe in God. Well, obviously I can't answer for all atheists, and although I might even believe given less than this, let me give you my opinion of what it SHOULD take to make someone believe: A Teleporter. That operates entirely on prayer, and is demonstrable on request.
Seriously.
See, the thing is, if a worldview is correct, it should... well... explain the world as we view it. And if I want to know how why the sky appears blue, or why electrons appear to act as a wave sometimes, a worldview that could answer this would be doing better than one that couldn't. Or if I want to create a system to broadcast information, or a vehicle to travel to the moon, a worldview that can explain how to do this would be doing better than one that couldn't.
And last time I checked, it was scientists, not priests, that gave us Rayleigh scattering, Quantum Mechanics, the Internet, the Space Shuttle, and every other viable explanation of nature or working device that I've cared to look into. In other words, until you can make your prayer reliably do something, nobody should be interested in your alleged explanation.
Also, this political tidbit is brilliant.
Seriously.
See, the thing is, if a worldview is correct, it should... well... explain the world as we view it. And if I want to know how why the sky appears blue, or why electrons appear to act as a wave sometimes, a worldview that could answer this would be doing better than one that couldn't. Or if I want to create a system to broadcast information, or a vehicle to travel to the moon, a worldview that can explain how to do this would be doing better than one that couldn't.
And last time I checked, it was scientists, not priests, that gave us Rayleigh scattering, Quantum Mechanics, the Internet, the Space Shuttle, and every other viable explanation of nature or working device that I've cared to look into. In other words, until you can make your prayer reliably do something, nobody should be interested in your alleged explanation.
Also, this political tidbit is brilliant.
posted by Gideon Humphrey at 2:55 PM
5 Comments:
Well I saw on Connections that it was a monk that gave us the alarm clock, so that he could know exactly when to start his morning prayers. Did prayer build that clock? No, but then it was at least not science that motivated it.
Anyway, it's a whole different mentality. Priests aren't interested in finding out that electrons spin or why. Their goals are very different. It seems a little unfair to place the burden of science on priests and yet not have the burden of religious concepts put on scientists in turn. Science discusses the material realm and religion the spiritual. Sometimes science tries to invade that religious space, for example theorizing that the causes for religious experiences are electrochemical, and sometimes religion invades science, like with Young Earth theory. But these conflicts are on the fringes of interest for their respective fields since they begin to stray from their core objectives.
That doesn't mean that it's a bad idea to be somewhat informed about science or religion or that you must totally turn your back to either. One just shouldn't let the other derail his or her career, priest or scientist.
Motivations aren't the point when you're trying to explain how the world works. As you say, it wasn't prayer that built the clock; I'm sure the monk had to learn some basic mechanical ideas to make it work. The religious can do science.
I am not placing a burden on one and not another. I am applying an objective standard (whether it describes reality) to both.
It is perhaps worth mentioning that science continues to advance on territory once thought impossible, for example the video game that can be played by thought.
The point is: science can give us working stuff. Can religion give us anything? If so, let's see it.
How about community and charity and religious war? Would science give us religious war? I doubt it! You small penised men have so much to prove.
Is there a God is a stupid question. What is God is a real question and the question I always ask when asked is there a God. Cause if God is pizza and a bj I just have to phone your Mom then Dominos.
Well, "is there a God" often ceases to be a stupid question after yours is answered, I would think. But yeah, what is a God is an excellent thing to define ahead of time to make sure everyone's on the same page.
OK, try this instead. In the past, it was common for religious ideas to invade what is now the territory of science (observable reality), because the scientific method didn't really exist.
Even though the world religions move at a glacial pace, they do eventually adapt. As science collected successes, religious thinkers generally dropped the old unworkable ideas about the world. What's left is the personal relationship with the divine, something that escapes any objective standard.
Except for some holdovers, religions have abandoned a realm they can't compete in and focus on the truly spiritual. Objective standards don't apply here any more than spiritual standards apply to the material world.
Obviously, if you judge the value of something on whether it can give material results, then religion will definitely lose, no question about it. Or maybe you can make a comment about emotional or lifestyle value, such as the sense of community that forms around some churches or temples.
And, yep. Science has gone farther than anyone thought. Maybe I should eat all my words one day.
Post a Comment
<< Home