science, god, and religion

god cannot be a scientific explanation of the world

we scientific people have always admitted that we don't know everything.  this is where theists jump with glee and go, "aha!  see this part of the picture that scientists can't figure out?  that's god."

the argument usually goes something like, "the universe is so complex and since we don't really understand how it came into being, then the only explanation is that god created it."  that is supposedly philosophical proof that god exists.  that can be compared to the reasoning of the ancient peoples who said, "lightning is so majestic, and since we don't know what causes it, it must be zeus (or fill in that name with your favorite deity of thunder)."  but bringing god into the equation isn't an explanation; it's a form of mythology.  and what kind of explanation is "god" anyway?  it is not a good enough explanation.  see the following:

some theists make fun of scientists because science can't fully explain the creation of the universe.  oh there are theories, but... well, they're not quiet complete.  so the score is: science's explanation = zero.  theists claim that god is the explanation, but when asked questions about god, theists can at most come up with contradictory mind-boggling things.  "god is a mystery."  "how can you know the mind of god?"  so we still don't know anything.  the total is still zero.  that's intellectual dishonety!  philosophers and theologians claim to seek the truth, but then they call god an "explanation," and then they go all vague and uncertain about the nature of this god and how this god is a "mystery" never to be fathomed by the human mind.  the philosopher should rather stake himself or herself on science.  he or she should rather lean towards an argument based on experience, observation, and expirementation than one based on speculation in a revelation to a supposedly credible prophet.

and even if one wanted to believe the prophets, religions have made a mess of things.  it's gotten so that one almost doesn't know which prophet to listen to since whenever a person turns to one prophet, millions of other theists belonging to other religious perspectives will say that their prophet is the true prophet.  so bringing god into the equation is not a matter of intellectual necessity but an appeal to the revelation of a prophet.  the person chooses which prophet to believe in.  so it is a matter of choice and faith, not a matter of reason.

belief in god

again, remember maximilian is not trying to disprove god's existence (and for the most part, he does believe in god).  it is nigh impossible to disprove something that is always explained as being beyond the comprehension of human reason and therefore beyond the scope of human argument.  he is just saying that we should be a little bit more rational, and what he is really after is for theists to use their brains a bit and not be so spooked by science.

belief in god is ok.  it can be a beautiful and meaningful thing, just as believing in the love of one's spouse or believing in the love of one's children.  but to become mythological and superstitious, and to make fun of scientists when religion is even more irrational than science is just plain intellectual hypocrisy. 

god does not want us to be stupid

if god exists, then there must be more joy in god to be worshipped by people who use their god-given intellect to question and probe the world he created.  he would want us to take pleasure in discovering the laws of nature and physics.  he probably would not be too thrilled to be worshipped by people who do it out of blind "fear of god" or unthinking "habit of obedience."  the hague doesn't buy it when a soldier says, "i was just following orders."  courts of law don't buy it when someone on trial says, "that's what my mother has always told me to do."  we expect people to use their own brains and be accountable for their own actions.  god would want us to use the brains he gave us.

so, if there is a ton of evidence for the existence of atoms, believe in atoms (and through research, come to know atoms).  if there is a ton of evidence for the existence of velociraptor, for setting the age of planet earth at about 5 billion years old, for the evolution of australopithecus, etc...

well, gosh, if god exists, just because the bible says "seven days" of genesis probably doesn't mean god expects a person alive today to actually still believe in that.  despite all the evidence to the contrary?  yet some fundamentalists still believe that the planet is only tens of thousands of years old, and that dinosaur bones are just the bones of elephants because god would not allow a species to go extinct.  it would be nice if fundamentalist theists use their scriptures for religious and ethical purposes only and not as science or history books.  to misuse scripture in this way is insulting both to modern science and probably to the deities.  to have to reduce scripture, a treatise on the human soul, into a scientific paper?  god did not intend to a report on the origins of dna and the age of the planet!

kudos to the pope, all along stereotyped to be a symbol of catholic close-mindedness, for accepting evolution, considering evolution as a tool of god in the plan of creation.

fides et ratio.  faith and reason.  that's the life worth living, the examined life.  hey, even scientists use faith.  they make that leap of belief, believing in their data and expiremental evidence.  it's just a shame that some fundamental theists refuse to take the steps of reason leading up to making the leap of faith.