The other day I was discussing the idea that atheism in some people can be considered a religion. I noted that People like atheists Richard Dawkins and Ellen Johnson, the president of American Atheists. Are proof of this. Why fight religion so vehemently unless you find it a threat? A threat to what? Your beliefs I suppose, and if a belief is held so firmly can it not be considered a religion?
Another Christian Friend of mine suggested I watch The Trouble with Atheism, a UK documentary presented by Rod Liddle The documentary focuses on criticizing atheism for its perceived similarities to religion, as well as arrogance and intolerance. Now while this sounds like a good idea I read the Wikipedia summary of it and unfortunately Liddle takes on Atheists at the logical level as the summary states “Liddle argues against a perceived over reliance on “cold logic” and the amoral scientific method.” If you read my posting on “high Heels on Children” you know my position on the Scientific method. I believe it to be the basis of all real scientific learning. Yes it is amoral that is why it works for science. Does it work for religion no. Why because you can’t systematically observe, measure, experiment, on and create a hypotheses on a concept like God.
Now if anyone has actually seen this documentary correct me if I am wrong but once you start making a soup out of food and rocks you get something inedible. Pardon the Metaphor but I have always tried to avoid mixing science and religion as proof or disproof of either. Why? Because science is not far enough advanced to disprove God, and Religion is not advanced enough to explain life in the way science does. Also science is a tool to better our knowledge and religion is a tool to tell us how to live better lives as humans. Both have been doing this primary job for long enough to be relatively good at it but when one tries to do the other they fail. While I think that a psychiatrist can help me with my day to day problems I tend to lean towards my faith for how I should treat others.
Would I want pure science using the scientific method to tell me how to treat others, definitely not especially when you have people like Richard Dawkins that believe that selfishness is an underlying scientific principle in his work the Selfish Gene he argues that genes that get passed on are the ones whose consequences serve their own implicit interests. While he is not advocating selfish behaviour he is advocating that selfishness is natural. (See my previous posting for my position on Selfish v selflessness.) While he may not be arguing that we should be selfish in this way he is trying to point out how The Christian religion is wrong in advocating selfishness on a global scale Dawkins would only see it as within similar genetic groups. If you follow the logic involved competition pre-programmed by our genes (not by will) is what drives evolution not randomness. On the other side religion tends to try to mix science and religious texts to prove their scriptures. The worst example of this is in some of the teachings on intelligent design like what you see at the Big Valley Creation Museum in Alberta where you can see some of the planets worst science as they attempt to “refute any unguided, ‘natural’ processes such as evolution” and claim to have a genealogy chart that traces the British royal family to Adam and Eve, Mixing science and religion as far as I can see it creates both bad science and bad religion.
Thus I have scrubbed The trouble with Atheism off my viewing list.