These days scientific inquiry tends to stay away from religious belief. They are decoupled at least at the top level. There may be efforts (as slim as they may be) by a select few to ensure this stance trickles down to the general public. A few science communicators have always been at the helm of these arguments and have tried to inculcate a scientific temper amongst the common public. They take pains to drill the point that science and religion are not connected and can run parallel without interference. Each in its own domain. But there is still a fundamental flaw in this parallel path. Religious belief is said to be a personal matter and is supposed to be viewed under a lens of tolerance.
Why?
When science on one side harps on rationality and logic, why should we not apply the same premises to our religious beliefs? Why do we test every scientific discovery but accept every religious notion? Why the indifference. Why not put religion through the same test of rationality and logic? Will religion survive this test? If I am an atheist and choose a religion as well can I call myself a religious atheist?
There is a contradiction in that term. To explain it we need to pull one more branch into this discussion. Adding to religious belief and scientific inquiry comes along philosophy. This is required since science rose from the foundations of philosophy and these two must not be decoupled. In fact a scientist might struggle to prove the absence of god but in philosophy (the right kind) it can be demonstrated that god does not and indeed cannot exist. For a more elaborate account of this refer to my page, The 'Eternal' Atheist on Lost Reality. I have made an attempt to demonstrate the need of philosophy in accepting pure atheism.
And since atheism would be the default position if you follow the simple values of Reason, Purpose, and Self-esteem, with the corresponding virtues of Rationality, Productiveness, and Pride there is no scope for a religious atheist and neither is there place for religion. That the scientist haven't embarked on this path yet may be due to a lot of reasons including the way the present society works. But when values are neither intrinsic nor subjective but objective, religion simply cannot survive.
Why?
When science on one side harps on rationality and logic, why should we not apply the same premises to our religious beliefs? Why do we test every scientific discovery but accept every religious notion? Why the indifference. Why not put religion through the same test of rationality and logic? Will religion survive this test? If I am an atheist and choose a religion as well can I call myself a religious atheist?
There is a contradiction in that term. To explain it we need to pull one more branch into this discussion. Adding to religious belief and scientific inquiry comes along philosophy. This is required since science rose from the foundations of philosophy and these two must not be decoupled. In fact a scientist might struggle to prove the absence of god but in philosophy (the right kind) it can be demonstrated that god does not and indeed cannot exist. For a more elaborate account of this refer to my page, The 'Eternal' Atheist on Lost Reality. I have made an attempt to demonstrate the need of philosophy in accepting pure atheism.
And since atheism would be the default position if you follow the simple values of Reason, Purpose, and Self-esteem, with the corresponding virtues of Rationality, Productiveness, and Pride there is no scope for a religious atheist and neither is there place for religion. That the scientist haven't embarked on this path yet may be due to a lot of reasons including the way the present society works. But when values are neither intrinsic nor subjective but objective, religion simply cannot survive.
1 comment:
i think humans are inherently both 'objective' and 'subjective' for they do have intellect and emotions.. and they simply cannot survive / exist without either of them.. and as humans are a species on this planet, the properties of a social structure for a species are applicable.. as everybody knows, humans have complex social needs and are more socially dependent than they are sometimes ready to acknowledge it..
am referring to all of these because we are talking about atheism Vs religion..
to analyze it further, atheism according to the definition is belief of non-existence of god..
now it would sound shallow to say 'religion is belief in god'. i think religion has a lot more to offer than existence of god.. no doubt, religion is based on the premise of existence of god.. but it also has a lot to offer in terms of metaphorical explanations of the unexplainable and the unknown.. these can prove to be advantageous to a group of people because it solves their 'fear of the unknown and unexplainable'.. in this way it brings in 'order' in place where there is a catastrophic potential for 'chaos'.. also in a way it addresses the social need of 'belongingness' to a certain community. now, talking about all these advantages, it also has a lot of disadvantages.. for there is no natural system in this world that does not have a defense mechanism.. :)
religion, like any other system, is defensive of threats and sometimes shows behavior that is harmful to elements which prove to be threats..
i am not trying to be either For or Against atheism or religion.. my only objective is to say that if atheism exists, it has a purpose and likewise if religion exists, it has a purpose.. and the purposes in both cases are "humans"..
Post a Comment