Home news reviews articles books documentaries movies video clips
 
 

Article

The only debate on Intelligent Design that is worthy of its subject

December 31, 2008

Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des---

(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)

Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?

(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)

Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!

Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.

Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!

Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!

Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!

Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.

Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of bullshit sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!

Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bullshit; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.

 

Article

Atheism Is Not A Religion

December 30, 2008

One of the major things I find when browsing religious websites / forums is atheism being referred to as a "religion", and I object to this for some very good reasons:

  • The definition of "religion" according to Dictionary.com is

    a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

    Atheism has no set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, we simply do not believe in a God, and follow what science tells us about the world around us. One can claim that all scientific deductions break down to a core "belief", but everything in science is backed up with evidence to suggest that belief, and so it is well founded. Religious beliefs are wholly different, and the majority depend entirely on faith, not evidence.

  • Theism isn’t a religion, therefore atheism cannot be either. The definition of theism is "the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities". Granted, most religions in the world are based on the idea of theism, and their members are described as "theists", but theism itself does not dictate a set of beliefs for people to follow. Indeed, it can be said that theism is one of that very same "set" of beliefs that defines religion. To put it in simple terms, we can say that Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. are all theists, but not vice versa (unless I come across a Christian Jew Muslim, etc. hybrid to prove me wrong). Theism is an attribute of people with a belief in a God, just as atheism is an attribute of people who do not believe in a God, nothing more.
  • If we were to call atheism a religion we would have to start calling the disbelief in the Loch Ness Monster a religion as well, and the disbelief in a celestial teapot on top of that (to quote the well loved Bertrand Russell /Richard Dawkins analogy). In fact, we would have to call every single disbelief in anything a "religion", which means there would be an infinite number of the things, and the entire concept of religion would be destroyed in an instant. It is far simpler to define a religion as a concrete belief structure, i.e. a belief in something, not a disbelief in something. There are far more things that we could possibly disbelieve than we could believe.

I am sure a lot of people will argue that (in respect to the final point) atheism can be defined as the "belief that there is no God" and not the "disbelief in God", but surely the two are the same? If a person says they are an atheist, then they have come to the conclusion that God is not in any realm of existence, and so believing in "no God" and disbelieving in "a God" are the same thing.

If you think about it, the same thing could be applied to any religion. Muslims both belief in the existence of Allah, and disbelief in the non-existence of Allah. A Muslim has come to the conclusion that Allah exists, and there are two way of expressing this. However, it is far easier to say that they believe in the existence of Allah, since the other is a double negative and is harder to say in normal conversation.

Suffice to say, the phrase "belief that there is no God" is almost as bad (in a literal context) as the double negative phrase "disbelief in no God", and whichever way you are inclined to think, neither has any affect on the pure and simple truth that atheism does not break down to a set of beliefs, and therefore, like theism, is not a religion.

Finally, I should point out that just as theism is the basis for Christianity and Islam, atheism is the basis for Buddhism, which can be described as a religion (although that is a totally different topic).

 

 

&nbsb;
 
rinaa.com