I just got to listen to some radio interview which got me interested in talking about some issues. I’ll explain the “trigger” in a latter post, but suffice to say I’ll probably write a series of posts sensitive topics we usually encounter.

I’ll call it The Political Incorrect Series, In which I plan to give my 2 cents worth on gender, the handicapped, and race. But first off, my favorite: RELIGION.

Religion

Now before I start my rant on religion, for the record, I do believe in God; probably not just the way any Religion peddles His image as. I won’t even bother explaining how I see or feel His presence in my life, but suffice to say, it keeps me “very reasonable.”

The Fact of the Matter

I seriously doubt anyone can even argue with this statement I’m about to quote. Because if they can, then that’s what I expect… ANSWERS… answers I’m sure they cannot give.

Religion tries to kill the questions more than it tries to provide the answers.

Whatever “answer” Religion tends to offer is only in the form of hope; hoping that there is some unknown purpose, hoping that there is some good end out of everything. Hope that there is meaning in anything. And this hope turns into a need for it to be true, else life as we know it would be absurd.

The Sacred and the Absurd

But if you think about it, why can’t life be absurd? Why can’t it be possible that our lives now are the one and only chance we have for existence in the universe? Who’s to say that the whole “meaning” in (not of) life is exactly that… that we have to make the most out of this single shot we have at this so called “life” of ours.

If you can’t grasp what I’m trying to say, try to recall what [greek] mythological character Achilles said about the gods; how they envy the human race:

The gods envy us. They envy us because we’re mortal, because any moment might be our last. Everything is more beautiful because we’re doomed. You will never be lovelier than you are now. We will never be here again.

If you would extend that same sentiment into your everyday perspective of life, suddenly life isn’t absurd – even if we get one shot at it. It is also true however, that promise of life after death offered by religions gives us a more appealing take on life. Unsubstantiated, but appealing nonetheless.

What’s “true” to us

I will say right now that there’s nothing wrong with “believing.” In fact, if it makes you a better person, then you can believe in anything. I’ve met Athesists that are better people than Christians, which just goes to show that being a better person need not be rooted in any particular belief system, but if having one [belief system] is the catalyst needed for one’s [positive] formation, then I’m all for it.

I must say though that the fact that I’m “all for it” does not mean I accept it as unequivocally true. As Richard Dawkins’ suggested, the fact that a belief is comforting doesn’t make it true. I can even prove that myself; and I can even use you, the reader, as an example.

• Try to recall any failed relationship you’ve had. Now recall any time in that relationship where you had hoped that it would turn out for the better; particularly the times when you’ve convinced yourself that the even the littlest of things were “signs” of hope.

Recall how much better you felt when you thought that way. Instead of the simple truth that you were holding on to nothing to begin with… you clung on to a belief that comforted you, that made you sleep soundly at night, that made you face everyday with a positive note.

Now remind yourself of the status of that relationship. Did all that “believing” you had before work out like it should have? Of course not! However you can’t deny that it made you a better person to keep a positive outlook until the very end – instead of being a grouchy, irritable, cynic.

This is the crux of my argument. This is why I’m all for belief systems regardless if they’re true or not; for as long as they have a positive impact on a person.

To Question and to Challenge

So now you may be thinking “If you ultimately have no problems against it, then why are you slamming on religion?”

One word: Moderation.

There are cases that, depending on the person, being too immersed (for lack of a better term) in any belief system can be detrimental to their formation without them knowing it.

Someone once demonstrated to me a stunning case of ignorance and naivety… the worst part is that they used religion as a basis for their argument. They basically played the this-is-God’s-will-this-is-what-I-am-meant-to-do card.

Now what’s an example of how far that sort of [non] logic could skew reality? That’s right: terrorist suicide bombings, among other horrendous acts of inhumanity.

Religion shouldn’t be allowed to be an excuse (or substitute) for ignorance. While we are all encouraged to incorporate them into our lives, I also think we owe it to ourselves to be responsible enough to question, and even challenge any part of it when needed. It’s that same questioning and challenging that has brought about change in fundamental religious beliefs. That’s why we aren’t burning people at the stake, why the homosexual movement is even allowed to exist, why the feminist movement is striving ¹ Trust me, if you see how other Christian sects interpret the Bible, you’ll really feel sorry for the women. Trust me, questioning is a good thing.

How Science Plays Its Part

Let’s face it: we, whether we admit it or not, only invoke faith as a last resort. Dawkins said:

Well, faith as I understand it – you wouldn’t bother to use the word faith unless it was being contrasted with some other means of knowing something. So faith to me means knowing something just because you know it’s true, rather than because you have seen any evidence that it’s true.

Sad to say, but this is true. Faith can be a wonderful thing, but the fact of the matter is it’s only used once all other testable methods have been exhausted. This is why any self-respecting Christian (or whatever religion you might be into) still could categorically despise some fundamental variations of the same belief system.

Why is it that we Catholics, being so immersed in the Christian doctrine, reject creationism? After all, we do believe in the Bible right? And we’ve got the Genesis account written right there… isn’t that enough proof? Of course it isn’t! Now why is that?

Because Science has proven it wrong… and no matter how faithful we are, one cannot deny how compelling science is simply because it deals with testable phenomena.

The fact is, once something (e.g. science) can explain something outside of faith; we will automatically use it as future reference… unless we are just plain stubborn. If we don’t then we run the risk of being seen the same way how we see creationists nowadays.

Science’s “Faith”

What I find funny about people who debate faith vs science is that they always claim that the two are naturally different and cannot be contrasted. Science deals with testable phenomena, while religion is metaphysical – and cannot be possibly tested by any of the senses.

One phrase: Cop-out.

While there is some truth to that argument, I think dismissing it entirely based on that claim is naive.

Mathematics is part of science. But its concepts can only be tested in theory. By definition, I guess you could even put it in the metaphysical category. You cannot see, smell, hear, nor feel a “number.” Absolute values, square roots, negative integers, etc. These are all things that can only be processed in our head – yet they are as real to us as anything else.

It’s the existence of “Math” which I think is the reason why mathematicians tend to be religious people… because they can grasp the concept of something existing… but not (kinda like Religion). It’s this same concept that allows calculations in astronomy, how we can speculate the existence of black holes, dark matter, etc. All these things are not “testable” [yet] outside the realm of mathematics. And yet we believe in them (until proven otherwise)

So it begs the question; Science and Religion apparently both are capable of generating “theories” that cannot proven by any obvious means, but why is it that Science should to hold more sway in “proving” anything?

Simple: Unlike Religion, Science actively, and constantly tries to answer questions. Even if a black hole cannot be shown to you physically, you can certainly have science drill down, to mathematical detail, the process in trying to solve question of such a phenomenon’s existence.

Again, it all goes back to the first statement, the fundamental difference between the two is that Science, regardless of being right or wrong tries its darnedest to get to the bottom of things using whatever methods and means it has at its disposal Religion on the other hand simply cops-out.

Sure, we’ve got “philosophy” as a “tool” for “proving” Religion, but that same approach to Philosophy can disprove it as well – which is fine, for as long as it ultimately comes to an answer (which it doesn’t). You can have two categorically different Philosophical points of view and both of them will be valid.

Like Philosophy, Science too, can have different takes on the same subject; people could come up with different theories that challenge previously “proven” ones. But with Science, you will always have a single winner truth… it may or may not be a permanent one, but it certainly is less confusing.

This is possible because Science has only one condition, and that is proof. If one has proved something, it will be accepted. If another person comes along and offers an explanation and proves it’s better than the former, or even disproves the former, then it will replace the former. It’s either one or the other, nothing in between – which really is how it should be for stuff like this.

Wrapping Up

Lastly, one major thing that makes me favor Science more is that Science not as arrogant to assume anything. Science is always open to theories being proven as well as being disproved.

I’ve always had a saying in Filipino that I live by “Wag magsasalita ng tapos.” I don’t think there’s a direct translation in english that articulates the phrase, but it basically says that you really shouldn’t declare anything absolutely and in finality. Because if the day comes that you’re proven wrong… you’d end up looking like an idiot.

The last thing I would share on this topic is what I got from the Skepticality podcast. They were interviewing an atheist and telling him how he deals with Religious people who accuse him of being so “closed-minded” to the idea of a God.

I’m not closed-minded… in fact, I’m the most open-minded person you will probably know. Just show me proof and I’ll be the first to switch sides.

I really think that hit the nail right on the head. It’s really the religious nuts that are “closed-minded” to the possibility of there not being a God.

While I don’t know exactly what the atheists are thinking, the way I see it, atheists reject the existence of a God not because they are averse to the idea, but simply because they haven’t seen any convincing evidence otherwise. To them, believing in our God is the same as believing in a Flying Spaghetti Monster, which makes no sense whatsoever.

But if they were given the evidence, I don’t think they’d be atheists for long.

How about the other side of the coin? What if religious people see the same proof of God’s non-existence? It’ll be a cold day in Hell before they switch sides 🙂

Do I believe in God? YES Do I feel like becoming an atheist? No. Am I a skeptic? OF COURSE.

Just like with healthy eating and healthy living… everything should be in moderation 🙂