(the first piece on the matter: "What is the difference between science and religion?")
When people invoke God that only means people have reached the limit of their knowledge.
When people invoke God that only means people have reached the limit of their knowledge.
Phrases like “God knows why”, or “That's God's
will”, or “That’s in the God’s hands” simply mean “I don't know”, “I have no
idea why this is happening”, “I don't know what to do”, “I don’t know why did I
do that?”.
The idea of God represents the awareness of
people about the limits of their own knowledge. And the following frustration
they feel and want to escape.
This awareness is as old as humans are.
At first people created an idea of spirits
(demons, angels, trolls, …). Spirits lived around people: in a forest and in a
lake, in trees and in caves, etc. Spirits were the governors of the forces of
nature, they were responsible for a rain, for fire, for thunder, for the Sun,
for fish and animals, and everything else what people could not control.
Spirits were molded based on people who lived in a tribe, but stronger, more
powerful, and always hungry (exactly like people who created them) – hence, for
everything they were asked to do they always demanded some sacrifice.
The next after the next after the next …
generation of spirits eventually has been replaced by gods who usually did not
live around people any more (for example, they lived at the top of mountains,
or in the ocean). Gods were stronger than spirits (do not confuse them with
wizards, or sorcerers, …, who were also powerful, but came from people,
following the line of shamans). In time Gods had “created” an internal
hierarchy. Gods did what spirits did not do – they were competing with each
other for power, deceiving each other, fighting with each other – exactly like
people who created them.
But eventually someone very smart and wise asked
- why having so many gods when one God can do exactly the same? That would make
the whole story much easier. But more importantly, that would make the rituals
simpler and more unified, hence better suited to a wider audience. And the
first monotheistic religion was born. And then the second, and the third.
Because people wanted to believe in the existence of a Superior Being.
Why do people want to believe in God?
Because people feel the need for an explanation
for things happening around them and with them, and because people feel the
need for guidance for their actions.
This need is genetically built into the human
code.
Why?
Because that helps human species to survive, be
fruitful and multiply. Because it brings some structure into human life which
helps fighting chaos brought by the natural forces.
"God" fills up the gap
between a reality
and the knowledge about
that reality.
"God" is the need for filling up gaps in our everyday life
between our knowledge and things we cannot explain.
The more science people do, the more knowledge
people have, the less they have the need to have a God. Science erases the
control over human minds which religions have been enjoying for thousands of
years. Science is the worst enemy of religion.
This is the main reason for every religion is to
be inherently anti-knowledge, anti-science.
A scientist, or a scientifically raised person,
does not need to invoke God. He or she just bluntly accepts the fact that he or
she does not know the reason for … – whatever they cannot explain.
He or she just simply says: “I don’t know”.
For example, when asked “Why does the Universe
exist?” a religious person says “Because the God created it”, and a scientist
says “I don’t’ know, it just does”.
Both answers are absolutely equally informative
(i.e. both give 0 actual information).
However, the former answer may bring some
feeling of a closer (“Someone stronger and smarter than I told me so, so I
don’t have to think about it”), and the latter answer may leave the one in
frustration (and we don’t like that feeling).
But ask a religious person “Why does the God
exists? Who created the God?” and he or she will become as frustrated as a
scientist who said “I don’t know”.
Well, maybe at first, the religious person would
say something like “The God has always existed, he/she does not need to be
created”. But when then asked “How is it different from saying that the
Universe has always existed, and does not need to be created, hence there is no
need for appealing to a Superior Being?”, then the religious person starts feeling
frustrated (BTW: frustration is a common sign for us for reaching the limit of
our knowledge).
Believing in God is a timeless tradition.
Exactly like believing in a Tooth Fairy, or the
Santa Claus – until you are 8.
Infants, toddlers simply cannot know the
difference between the reality and fantasies, or between the truth and a lie. Everything what
little children feel using their receptors, everything they perceive via their
human senses is equally real
for them. Cartoons characters on TV are equally real as people in
a room. Until a certain age, children simply don’t differentiate the truth from
a lie (including fairy tales).
Of course, eventually they learn the difference.
The key word is “learn”.
A grown-up person is as
knowledgeable as good was his or her learning.
And the quality of learning is directly
proportional to the quality of teaching, to the quality of the education that
person has had while growing up (for some, including self-education).
A low-quality education leads to grown-ups who
are biologically adults, but mentally are still children who still believe in
“fairy tales for adults”, like God.
Naturally, religion has played and still plays a
very important social role.
It brings people together. It offers moral
guidance and ethical rules.
But nowadays, in order to manage the same social
functions people just do not need an idea of God anymore. More and more
people are capable of doing “the right thing” because doing it is the right
thing to do, and not because of the fear of “eternal damnation” (by trying the best they can to follow the Golden Rule).
But simple trivial
atheism denies any beliefs.
Simple trivial atheism makes any rule relative,
hence equal for all people in their importance or not importance.
Simple trivial atheism equates religion and
beliefs,
and by denying the need for religion it also denies the need for some universal
(absolute) beliefs.
And that makes simple trivial atheism
absolutely wrong.
There are absolute beliefs. There is the
absolute truth. That truth and those beliefs just do not include the
existence of any Supreme Being because they do not need it anymore.
Instead of starting from “God exists”, we can
start from “World exists” because it does. It is just a fact.
Instead of saying “God created rules which
govern the world”, we can say “World is govern by rules” (we call them “laws”,
though).
Instead of saying “God gave us rules to follow
and will punish us if we will not”, we can say “Our World, including our social
world, will only exist and reward us for our actions if we follow the laws
governing the World”.
Etc.
When we reach the limit of our knowledge and
cannot explain why something happens, we just say “We don’t know why that
happens” (and sigh in frustration).
The difference between a scientific view on the
world and a religious view is not the
absence or existence of beliefs. It is (a) the beliefs, and (b) what do we do
when some of our beliefs begin contradicting our own experience (more on this
in “What Is The
Difference Between Science and Religion? Really.”; at http://www.cognisity.how/2017/12/religion.html).
In conclusion: “anti-atheism” does not mean
religion. It means replacing simple trivial atheism with a smarter, deeper,
scientific version of it.
And “Thank you, World, for our existence!”
P.S. I am perfectly aware of the fact that
religions take a large and important place in human cultures and are not going
anywhere any soon. I am also perfectly aware of the fact that my piece
represents an extreme simplification of the matter. But I have no goal
converting anyone or convincing someone that I am correct. My goal is merely to
offer some food for thoughts to people who may still have no strong opinion on
the matter. Also, to people who do have a strong opinion but could say to me: "I
disagree, but I see your point."
We may disagree on many things, but let's agree on one, let's not force each other into our way of thinking. You have you beliefs and go into your church, and I have mine. I call my church "The Church of a Common Sense".
We may disagree on many things, but let's agree on one, let's not force each other into our way of thinking. You have you beliefs and go into your church, and I have mine. I call my church "The Church of a Common Sense".
N.B. I am sorry for my rough English, I learned
it myself, mostly from radio and TV shows, so it reflects the language of mass
media.
To learn more about my
professional experience:
No comments:
Post a Comment