by cameron | Feb 19, 2007 | Christianity, Podcast, science, science vs religion
An interesting post on Andrew Sullivan’s blog recently from one of his readers who says:
I am an atheist (who was once a Christian) and wanted to comment on your latest missive to Sam Harris. I would describe my own embrace of science and secular humanism as being motivated by a form of faith that is deeper than Christian faith. I believe that if Jesus lived today, he would be a secular humanist and would reject Christianity, just as he “rejected” Judaism and inspired Christianity. Christianity was once the vehicle for the boldest and most honest thinking about reality, the brotherhood of man, and the human condition. I think in light of the advances in science and our exposure to other religious traditions, it is time again to humanize further our understanding of “God” (or the source of all truth, goodness, and beauty) and come to a more universal understanding of religion.
I’m not sure I agree with the author’s claim that Christianity was ever “the vehicle for the boldest and most honest thinking about reality” – bolder than vedanta? However, he makes a good point that, from what we know about the man called Jesus (which as we saw from my podcast with John Dickson, is very little), he doesn’t seem to have been overly concerned about tradition or authority.
Would he have been like Father Bob Maguire, who I had another of my regular skirmishes with last week?
by cameron | Feb 5, 2007 | Christianity, science vs religion
Andrew Sullivan recently linked to this 2005 article about now-defunct American Pastor Ted Haggard.
This quote from him lends weight to my recent arguments that Christianity is incredibly violent at its very core:
“I teach a strong ideology of the use of power,†he says, “of military might, as a public service.†He is for preemptive war, because he believes the Bible’s exhortations against sin set for us a preemptive paradigm, and he is for ferocious war, because “the Bible’s bloody. There’s a lot about blood.â€
If you buy the bible as the word of god, then you have to buy its view that everyone who disagrees with you should be killed, maimed or tortured. So I don’t buy this excuse that “oh it isn’t Christianity that’s violent, it’s just a few bad apples”.
I also love this bit about how Ted built his church early on:
He staked out gay bars, inviting men to come to his church; his whole congregation pitched itself into invisible battles with demonic forces, sometimes in front of public buildings.
It puts his forced admission late last year of ice-fueled illicit gay sex into some perspective.
by cameron | Feb 1, 2007 | science, science vs religion
Over the last few weeks I’ve had a number of people, in the comments section and in emails, suggest that science also involves an element of faith and, therefore, isn’t very different from religion.
Of course, nothing could be further from the truth, but it seems to be one of those memes which has made its way like a virus into the faith apologist camp and I want to give you (the rational thinkers in the audience) the tools to defend yourself against this argument should you meet it in a dark alley some night.
Science, or more accurately, the scientific process, is about the search for knowledge. Those of us who want the human race to survive and prosper know that the key to survival is knowledge. We are incredibly fortunate that evolution has provided us with large brains and, if we fail to use them, we may never understand enough about the universe or ourselves to avoid the vast number of pitfalls that could wipe out life as we know it on this very frail, fragile little planet.
The scientific process, developed over thousands of generations of human struggle, is bringing us closer every year to understanding our true nature, our place in the universe, and the way our universe works at the most fundamental levels.
And part of the scientific process is to speculate.
“Hmmmm, I wonder if….?”
Now, this is where religion apologists will try to tell you that “faith” enters science. They seem to think that the act of speculation involves faith. That’s a mistake of gigantic proportions and demonstrates a failure to truly grasp the scientific method.
Here’s the difference.
It’s important to remember that the dictionary definition of ‘faith’ is “Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.” So when a person has ‘faith’, they believe something to be true regardless of whether or not there is any evidence to support that idea, and, worse still, when there is overwhelming evidence to refute the idea.
When a scientist speculates and develops a hypothesis, they aren’t investing that idea with “truthiness” (as Colbert might say). They speculate merely in order to then prove or disprove. That is the entire process of science. Speculate – investigate – prove/disprove – publish – repeat. The scientist doesn’t need the hypothesis to be true in order to have done their job. If it is refuted, then we now know one more fact. And, again, that’s what science is about – discovering the facts about how the universe works.
So the next time someone tries to suggest to you that science is just like religion, don’t let them get away with it.
Remember:
Faith = believing something is true despite the facts.
Science = searching for the facts.
by cameron | Jan 31, 2007 | science vs religion
I caught up with my favourite Catholic, Father Bob Maguire, for a chat on Monday and attempted to engage him on some of the subjects I’ve been discussing here lately. As I should have known, he didn’t want to know about it and just told me off. Listen to the fireworks.
by cameron | Jan 29, 2007 | Podcast, science, science vs religion
I was listening today to an episode of The Infidel Guy’s show and he was interviewing a bloke by the name of Dan Garvin. Dan Garvin was a Scientologist for 27 years and a Sea Org member (their senior ranks, so-called because all the secret stuff happens on an ocean liner) for 25 years. He worked for ten years in their intelligence, PR, and Legal branch, the Office of Special Affairs (OSA). Dan got out two and a half years ago because a series of realizations that lead him to atheism and skepticism. All this got me thinking about how ludicrous the claims of the Scientologists are. But are they any more ridiculous than the claims of other religions?
Links from the show:
Infidel Guy interview with Dan Garvin
Wikipedia “Scientology“.
If you haven’t already, make sure you fill out my SCIENCE v FAITH poll.
If you enjoyed this podcast, make sure you don’t miss future episodes by subscribing to our feed.
The G’Day World Theme Song is “Save Me†by The Napoleon Blown Aparts.
by cameron | Jan 28, 2007 | science, science vs religion
I’ve set up a new forum for the ongoing discussion of science versus faith. As the first post, I’ve thrown up a poll based on Dawkins’ probability scale to see where we all sit in terms of believing in god. TAKE THE POLL.
