There are a few fundamental reasons why I am (adamantly) not religious. At its most basic, I do not see anything about the universe which requires a supernatural explanation, force, or ever-present father figure. Beyond this, I fundamentally disagree with religious forms of knowledge like revelation and divine dictation, and disagree that religion is a prime player in the origin of morality of any kind.
To these ends, I have found two simple challenges that I have never heard answers to. The first deals with the inadequacy of religious knowledge in the face of science, and the second contests that morality can of course be achieved without being a religious person.
I then defer to two of the “Four Horsemen” (or “New Atheists”), Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens:
For example, I can imagine that religion will never come up with a better explanation for atomic interactions than the standard model for particle physics, a better explanation for the diversity of life than evolution, a better explanation for the intricacies of a waterfall than fluid dynamics, etc. To me, the offered religious explanation to a scientific question always makes less sense. For instance, while the last few popes have accepted the theory of evolution, they still claim that Adam and Eve were real (which we know is impossible) and that the human mind could never be crafted by evolution (the conclusion which all the evidence we have contradicts). These caveats only point out the continued falterings of religious knowledge in the face of testable science.
This challenge reminds me of a similar one offered by the late great Christopher Hitchens, who questioned the moral privilege of religion:
In short,
Name one moral or ethical action or behavior committed or carried out by a believer that could not have been committed or carried out by an atheist.
As one of the common rails against atheists is that we have no absolute moral foundation and are therefore an outburst away from a raping and killing spree, this challenge is all the more important. In my view, if you cannot separate out how morality is different for the religious and the non-religious, or at least how one is inaccessible to the other, I do not see where the argument for morality’s religious exclusivity lies.
Answering these simple challenges would go a long way in establishing a foothold for religious ideas in either morality or knowledge. As of yet, I have not heard any and remain unconvinced that religion deserves any province in either realm.
If you indeed have an answer to either challenge, let me know in the comments.
Science-Based Life 
Great post, I am happy to read articles and know of people who challenge the status quo and more importantly who challenge and debunk religious claims WITH scientific evidence. Let’s see religion do that! I believe the world would be a much better place without religion.
So, at a certain point, one becomes more ‘religious’ by becoming less religious.
First, let me say thanks a lot for your tireless hard work on various topics. Always trying to make the world a better place. Truly it is efforts like these that are, in fact, creating one; thus, please fight on… Sometimes it is hard for one in the thick-of-battle to see this. (I quite enjoy the occasional Hitchslap, a longtime fan.) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/21/neil-gaiman-commencement-speech_n_1534005.html
Not to get too elaborate here: The first hangup it seems–at present you see 0 design in creation. As you know, Sam Harris :) and ‘his’ :) ideas on free will present a nice case for there being zero control over thought–in terms of–thoughts come from an unconscious nowhere and ‘you’ or ‘self’ have Zero control of them (their contents) before, during, or after ‘you have’ them..experience them like a gust of wind from an invisible.. Quite relevant, but lets focus.
Now we can agree that most religions were inspired/founded by some very unusual humans. People that easily fit the description of Fowler Stage 6 (link below). People worshiped by those that do not fit that make. Why so? Because they know how to help people “experience” their source.. And often by instructing the masses in a meditative practice known to us as blind-faith; though variable–often similar. It was their only hope in many of the ancient-cases, the only hope of being granted a personal experience–the softening touch of the source. Whatever depth, especially back then, it all counted for extra…
The source? First off, If there were nothing except thought, one would not even have an ability (the option, that few ever ‘choose to’ exercise) to know that one is, in fact, constantly thinking. It’s an almost endless internal dialog. (It’s negative more often than positive, overall.) ‘Some few’ can still the mind with various techniques, and when they do, ‘some’ level of bliss spontaneously occurs–but only if!
So yeah sure, it’s true that religious books have been deeply butchered. And whatevers ‘left’ that is ‘actually their’ original words and works, well that can be too some degree unpacked by “some.” But what could they, those known then as prophets..just what were they HINTING AT ( Subsistence to Being: See line below. But what relevance? You need all of the stages (Life Conditions) to occur in nature for evolution to have a home on the higher scales. True science arrives at 5/6 SD, tends to end up in a nihilism trap if far enough..(see fowler 4). True ‘religion’ THE real complex expereinces, they start at and above 6 SD. That’s where hummingbirds are deeply appreciated when landing on your finger, rather than shewed away, “Move it bird, busy, writing a paper, wastin’ MY time.”
Below (the trap 6 gap 7) might be dogmatic. But a representation of the problem. I think it is likely correct and that it exists. Transcend but include! From authority (out) to authority (in) with all its alternations / shiftiness along the way and maybe even vary on a day to day + always relevant (conditional considerations). And if one moves beyond a certain point at speed earlier than normal, that is what the world needs to be sure.
Internal Orientations: 1 me / 2 us / 3 me / 4 us / 5 me / 6 us / 7 Me all-ish / 8 us all 9? I-ME ALL
11?
10?
9?
8
7
__________________Being level life conditions / alignments above this line.
6
5
4
3
2
1
Science and Religion
As should now be clear, they are two different fields; fields that I am here to unify, personally (with help). One studies the seemingly real world of the senses, matter (which is a brain projection that ultimately does not actually exist out there as it seems–layers, internal). The other–‘ventures’ to study the reality behind the curtain aware of thought as phantom–BLISS while simultaneously realizing the paradox and using this understanding to further evolve the landscape. In seeing its un-reality, feeling that, experiencing that, ultimately the motivation to help comes from a far nobler part.. Fractionalization, neurotic in nature, the ego norm. Therefore one is far less effective overall & not actualized to their much higher pure-potentiality. : ) ) Too much fear. However, the scientists, indeed tries to better the world by their tireless work. And also, the true mystic, ditto + suffering a plenty. One group can’t sit still–(fear of death of SELF, which is unknown (hidden) to them–they = ego–so they ‘think’). So they look and look and look & (it’s) never to be found. But other ‘things’ are. And thankfully. But meanwhile “it” is right under their noses all along. And true, high awareness does not write papers and give speeches until it comes back down to the ego state enough. (1-100?) Their goal is to bring that awareness experience to the problems–a timeless non-thing felt subjectivly 24 / 7. This is for the benefit of all; quite very complex (super brain -s and “software running”) then..(pray for a miracle)..a super scientist ‘could’ thus be put in charge. Again, one of the two is very busy, the other ecstatic and “made” (Plato talks of this problem) to be busy and so very effective: if with solid support. One should end up looking very much like Plato, Socrates or Aristotle + modern knowledge added in terms of output vs the rest in the competitive sense–especially regarding religion, the engine of life–the internal fuel of men & women. The desire to know; however manifest. (Plato was clearly a 9. So were some others. Ancient names we know…)
In time, science will determine in the future that all of this, this massive issue (you have no idea how truly massive I mean), boils down to a reception limitation in individuals. Near infinitely varied antenna… But closer to say that the ‘radio signal’ comes from the inside, the same source as thought, the source of all: the source is (…..) You have some reading to do friend?
+ These might help.
Tyson Cavalieri
@KundaliniKid1
I have awakened the Kundalini-energy fully. http://www.kundaliniawakeningsystems1.com/downloads/kundalini-the-evolutionary-energy-in-man_gopi-krishna_(89pg).pdf
USA ·
http://www.spiraldynamics.com/book/SDreview_Dinan.htm
***** http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/fowler.htm*****
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loevinger's_stages_of_ego_development
http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/fowler.htm
It cut me off. The middle is gone. Can you delete them all Kyle. Without the rest its no good. I’ll send the rest somehow. Two parts?. Comment below if that does not work, please.
Well I don’t know about organized religion, but I think there are many mysteries in the world today that cannot be explained by science. Take near death experiences (NDEs), which have been traced to the secretion of the chemical DMT, yes, but when studied further, really grow to be perplexing. One study interviewed many different kinds of people who had NDEs, including failed suicide-attempts. Virtually everyone reports feeling, and in this order, peace, body separation, entering darkness, seeing the light, and entering the light. So this is something like their soul crossing over into another realm, and everyone sees the same light which they report to be an overwhelming force of love – everyone except those who have attempted suicide, who are instead terrified during their NDE. Many have reported feeling as though there is a horrible punishment for suicide, as is in many organized religions (eternal damnation). Those who experience these kinds of NDEs (and survive!) always report it changing their lives for the better – they suddenly have faith and are imprinted with a love for life and people. I’m not saying any religion has got it right, but that there may be a kernel of truth to them – they’ve since been corrupted and altered grotesquely.
See this related article for a rebuttal of NDE symptoms: https://sciencebasedlife.wordpress.com/2011/09/13/near-death-experiences-science-after-all/
Kyle, I feel like Scientific American (SA) offers many different explanations for each and every symptom of an NDE that it is very unlikely they all are derived from the body near death, and SA is just seeking any potential peer-reviewed answer to print – I wouldn’t discount other explanations. I’d love to hear what kind of explanation Scientific American would put forth to explain the NDEs of those who commit suicide.
Every symptom of an NDE might have a neuropsychological correlate – the real question is why the system is in place and works the way it does. I don’t believe it’d naturally evolve this way based on natural selection – how does a chemical release prior to death in any way support the survival of the fittest? To be clear, I believe in evolution – I just don’t believe it’s an answer. Spirituality and evolution are not mutually exclusive, in my opinion.
My point is that though the spiritual explanation is tempting, we have to go with the explanation which is most plausible and has the best support. Being that many, if not all, NDE symptoms can be explained by brain function (indeed, we can intentionally cause them in certain cases), this becomes infinitely more likely than inserting a supernatural explanation. No supernatural event has ever been reliably recorded, let alone replicated, and by the dictum of parsimony we go with the answer which requires the least amount of assumptions and explains the most. The spiritual explanation for NDEs requires an overturning of many of the universe’s physical laws to even become plausible, the alternative, that NDEs are a product of our brains, remains the most plausible and has the most evidence going for it.
Furthermore, I consider the fact that many people have very similar NDEs to be a support of the natural, and not the supernatural, explanation. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that a similar human, with a similar brain, with similar brain chemistry, with similar conceptions of the afterlife, in similar circumstances (a potentially life threatening event) would experience the same thing. This speaks to the similarity of our brains, not anything supernatural. This natural explanation too assumes the least, explains the most, and has evidence to back it up.
The first question posed to an “intellectual audience” is quite humorous, when taken in full context. It is dressed in sheep’s clothing as an honest question, but take a closer look and dissect it. Sam Harris only accepts scientific answers — things testable, repeatable, etc. So he is essentially asking “is there a better explanation or answer than science can offer for a question, other than non-scientific answers?” You’ve essentially stated this bias yourself:
The fundamental problem with this the same as a painter asking at a Painting conference the audience:
The obvious answer is “no”. Though inferred, that doesn’t mean painting is the best or only way to create art. Paint is not THE answer, though it may be AN answer, to creating art.
Lets play a little game, since we’re already at it thanks to Sam. If I ask this question
See how fun this is to infer that science is built using incorrect facts, and is therefore probably incorrect by simple deduction, not to mention plain admission?? Let’s not play these games, it’s silly and a waste of time.
In short, I believe that other disciplines do provide better answers for science in a vast myriad of aspects and situations. Religion is one of those disciplines, having studied it carefully myself.
As for the second question, in short: I do not believe that religion (in general) GIVES people their morality. I know lots of nice, friendly, compassionate atheists, for example. However, I do believe that religion (in general) can and often does help people MAINTAIN morality, although not always the case.
We expect religions to have answers about the natural world because they offer them constantly. For example, creationism is a (mostly) testable claim about the natural world. Once religion tip toes into the realm of science, it can of course be judged on the criteria of offering a better, more parsimonious explanation. To say that it cannot is a valid critique on how religion can answer questions about the world.
Religion and science do frequently ask different questions, but there are many places where they intersect, this is where the challenge is laid bare.
How do religion and science not conflict when the seek the same ends? For example, a researcher in developmental biology who is seeking the exact gene which introduces the “soul” into the embryo is going about science the wrong way. Religion shoehorns obtuse ways of thinking about the natural world into our investigations.
I agree that when investigating wholly separable notions that religion cannot be judged scientifically. However, we see religious thinking bleed into every sphere of scientific inquiry, and it should be judged for how it performs. Keep in mind that if religion did have a better model for quantum mechanics, based on supernatural musings, that religion would shout this from every mountain. The simple fact is that it cannot successfully explain the natural world, and that is not from lack of trying.
Let me try to put this succinctly, though no offense or “greater-than-thou” is intended.
Christianity teaches to “love thy neighbour as thyself, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc.” What does Nature teach us? “Survival of the fittest.” See how these are fundamentally at odds? Sure, sometimes it’s in your Natural interest to love someone when there’s benefit for you; but what about when it isn’t —- when you gain nothing from being humane and everything from being barbaric? Christianity teaches to “be humane ANYWAYS, even when you lose from it”. Without religious based beliefs in the worth of a soul, society **at large** would see itself as just a bunch of wet robots, no different than inanimate objects. Think about dictator regimes, for example, stomping on its “subjects” just looking for personal gain and wealth. With religion, society sees itself as a group of precious, divine, invaluable souls with inalienable rights given from their Creator.
That document and its core views were derived from very religious principles, which inspired the founding basis of a great nation. In short, religion is at minimum a social glue to prosperity and happiness IMO.
Nature doesn’t “teach” us anything. It doesn’t seek to ascribe a certain list of morals to a certain group of people like religion does. Nature implies that things are simply are the way they are. Furthermore, there is much evidence on the evolution of human morality, and much of this extends down through chimpanzees and other primates. Your basic premise is that without a basis for absolute morals, i.e. a god, that people wouldn’t be moral. This is objectively untrue. The majority of the human species does not share your religion Steve, yet I would argue are on average as moral as your are; I have no religion and I am not a murder/rapist viewing people as inanimate objects. Nature does not offer us morals, but it did naturally select the mutations of our ancestors that led to human altruism, kindness, happiness, laughter, etc. Nature doesn’t offer an existential point to life; the point of your life is just to live it.
Your example of the dictator is incorrect. Are you saying that with religion these atrocities would not happen? Because, contrary to this example, I am positive that nearly all dictators have been religious people, as well as their subjects.
It does not take religion to come up with the principles of human rights. You could put children in a room and ask them to make a list of rules of behavior and they would most likely hit the same points as most ancient religions. Our morality is an internal compass crafted by millions of years worth of selection. It didn’t just happen and you don’t need a religion to keep it there.
You make a valid point in your article that morality is not the exclusive domain of religion – it is a quality inherent in human beings. Being a moral human being has nothing to do with being religious. Even atheists are moral people.
However, before we dismiss religion altogether, we must remember that the religious instincts in man have the SAME origin as the scientific instincts – in other words the questions that science is currently grappling with, were previously attempted to be answered by religion. Questions such as: Who am I, where did I come from, what is the goal of life?
In other words in the ancient past religion incorporated the scientific pursuits of man. Religion was the first attempt by man to explain the natural world in which he found himself. And while religion may have got many things wrong, it did get many things right.
It was religion (and NOT modern science) that FIRST discovered the higher ideals of human beings namely: “love, justice, compassion, truth, brotherhood etc.” All our modern ideals of democracy, equality and justice have their genesis in religion and NOT science.
The world did not just stumble upon these ideas – these values were first preached by Krishna, Buddha, Jesus and the other prophets – In fact they did not just preach it, rather they were the living embodiments of these values, which is why they continue to inspire millions of people, thousands of years after their death.
So in modern times, while some people may feel that they have outgrown the need for a traditional religious set up as a means for discovering themselves and their world, and have adopted a new religion (that of science) for this pursuit; religions immense contributions to making us who we are cannot be forgotten.
I cordially invite you to read my blog post on the real aim of religion at:
http://www.spiritualbee.com/posts/which-religion-is-the-best/
You make some very good point here Bee. I think it is valuable for us to recognize where many of our socially constructed values originate from. But conversely, I think it is just as important, by acknowledging those crude beginnings, to be willing to let them go if new information presents itself, or if society as a whole moves forward (e.g., circumcision and slavery, respectively).
Might as well begin with the big one; creation itself.
“ … tiny quantum fluctuations in the very early universe became the seeds from which galaxies, stars, and ultimately human life emerged” Stephen Hawking
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth” Genisis1:1
Now let me paraphrase Dr. Hawking:
“In the beginning tiny quantum fluctuations created the seeds from which galaxies, stars, (i.e. the heavens and the earth) and ultimately human life emerged.”
In literary form, two very similar creation accounts, both religious in nature but with a huge distinction: in one we have tiny quantum fluctuations given the credit for the creation of the heavens and the earth, while in the other we have the God of the religious Bible given the credit.
Score: Religion 1 (Biblical religion) … Hawking’s brand of science 0
Then there’s life itself, human life in particular: This from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Institutes of Health (emphasis mine):
Bethesda, Md., Wed., Sept. 5, 2012 — The Human Genome Project produced an almost complete order of the 3 billion pairs of chemical letters in the DNA that embodies the human genetic code — but little about the way this blueprint works. Now, after a multi-year concerted effort by more than 440 researchers in 32 labs around the world, a more dynamic picture gives the first holistic view of how the human genome actually does its job.
“… became the seeds… and ultimately human life emerge.” Stephen Hawking
I will give thanks unto thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: Wonderful are thy works; And that my soul knoweth right well. Psalm 139:14
Score: Religion 2 (Biblical religion) … Hawking’s brand of science 0
I suppose there’s more but this should suffice to satisfy the first of your questions.
• dictionary.reference.com/browse/adamantly
adjective 1. utterly unyielding in attitude or opinion in spite of all appeals, urgings, etc