Religion Breeds Ignorance — Part III

Because the Nook's posts cross publish on my Facebook page, I get a lot of feedback and comments that do not show up here, on my actual website. Yesterday's post started off an interesting exchange on my Facebook cross-post between me and a local acquaintance, who shall henceforth be referred to as such. Enjoy.

Acquaintance's reply to the original post:

From what I read from you, it could just as easily be said: "He has atheism. Nothing will change his mind." For example, if you (or any of the Ditchkens crew) ever had any sort of miracle/supernatural event happen to you or around you... The explanation COULD never be anything other than material... There IS NO god, so we're going to interpret this... Read more or that some other way... It's no less dogmatic. Many would say it's "logical", but no less dogmatic.

I'm using this as an example that someone's dogmatic views (particularly worldview) interprets all experiences and information in light of it.

I agree with you that this (how one views the world) is important. But lets not be so proud as to say there is no possibility of you and your worldview being wrong... I think that's unintelligent in the light of where we are in terms of information, science, and human understanding. Most of the information we spout is rather recent (last 100 years) and (like Newton's theories on physics) is subject to change.

My reply:

No, you are mistaken, you can't just as easily substitute atheism in there. I am more than willing to accept any new evidence that comes along that may prove to me the existence of a deity. Science is the exact opposite of dogmatic, it is self-correcting, inviting all criticism, begging for it. One piece of evidence that is out of line with any one... Read more path of thought in a scientific discipline would require that path be rethought and re-blazed, even abandoned. Goddidit has no such ability. It's either he did it, or nothing. There is no self-correction. That's dogma.

I never said my 'worldview' has all the answers or is infallible. Derek always has the answer: goddidit. This is an argument from ignorance — if I can't currently explain it, if I can't comprehend it, if science can't explain it, then goddidit. Subject to change and refinement science is, because it is a bottom-up approach to understanding our world. Religion is top-down: your premise is that god exists, and everything else MUST follow. This in turn breeds the ignorance that inspires comments such as the ones above made by Derek.

Acquaintance's reply:

I am all for science. I don't view science as an enemy to my worldview... But I will say that the worldview that says that science has the answers to all the existential questions we have... is a belief I like to call Scientism. And I'm not sold on it.

And one thing I am certain on, is that our existence is equally absurd to the theist and the ... Read moreatheist... Why are we even here?! Why is there anything at all?! Our existence... you reading this, this very moment is absurd! Whether you want to assert that some "all-mighty being" made our reality OR if you want to assert that it always was (or exploded from nothing - i.e. big bang) - all the laws, energy, matter, elements, and even the complexities of living things... Both are absurd, beyond belief. That we would come to a place of consciousness in a unconscious universe... So many mysteries/questions. And to say that you (or more particularly - the New Atheists, the prophets of a new age, the bearers of all knowledge) have answered, have unquestionably discovered all that people have wondered about and grappled with for thousands of years... I find that to be a little naive. I find it odd that you don't think the materialistic/atheistic/nihilistic worldview a tad bit absurd though? At least Camus (like most of the hardcore oldschool atheists) was willing to admit it (unlike the softcore New Atheists).

Have you read any other secular views on this discussion? Maybe try out Eagleton's 'Reason, Faith, and Revolution".

My reply:

I am quoting myself directly from above: "I never said my 'worldview' has all the answers or is infallible." Why is this idea of simply not knowing something so difficult for the theist to comprehend? Your 'existential questions' lie outside the realm of science because they are intangible and untestable ideas. Science asserts nothing. It is in no ... Read moreway dogmatic. I am going in circles here, repeating my statements from my previous reply. Where did you ever get the idea that science has "unquestionably discovered all that people have wondered about and grappled with for thousands of years"? That's a ludicrous statement from the scientific perspective. Can you not see that everything you just wrote is not in the least a description of science and a perfect description of religion, deism etc.? Camus does nothing for your argument here. I see nothing absurd with the idea that there is no inherent meaning in the universe. My desire to seek meaning is not quenched by the search for an ultimate truth, like the theist, but instead the creation of my own meaning.

Acquaintance's reply:

Sorry if I was unclear. I wasn't speaking of science... I was speaking of the belief Scientism and the absolute statements of the New Atheists (or atheism in general). If you desire to plead agnosticism, I respect that. And it isn't absurd to you that we exist at all? That anything exists?

My reply:

Where do you see 'New Atheists' make absolute statements of any sort. None of the leaders of the new atheist movement ever make any assertions of any kind. They, like me, are perfectly comfortable with admitting that they don't know. No actual atheist denies the existence of god outright. On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is certitude that God exists ... Read moreand 7 is certitude that God does not exist, even Dawkins rates himself a 6: "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there." One can never be a 7, because this would be against the central ideas of skepticism and science in that one cannot attain a certain proof of a negative.

I would find it absurd if we didn't exist. Probability is in favour of life, given the unimaginable quantity of planets, stars and galaxies (http://bit.ly/qKQYn). Just because I can't explain it, does not mean it is absurd. Why should I be so apathetic as to throw my hands in the air and give up, asserting that a supernatural being must have done it all? Before seeking a supernatural explanation in the form of a fable, why not exhaust all natural ones? I prefer the hard route. However, I am perfectly comfortable with the idea that myself, my generation, my species, will never know everything.

I got the last word in for now, but I am interested to see where this goes (if anywhere). So far, the argument is entirely circular.