Critique
of religious belief
Barlas
F. Esin - Unsystematic
Ideas
This week’s topic is not intended to be
a defense of atheism against religious belief.
Many people tend to think that if someone
criticizes religions, they, therefore, must
not believe in God. This is not a justified
assumption because many people whole-heartedly
believe in God while rejecting religious
belief. I personally belong in this category.
Many aspects of religion are open to criticism,
but today I’d like to argue against religious
doctrines concerning the nature of reality.
Before scientific explanations brought forth
solid theories about the nature of reality,
theology was considered the only means to
shed light on the questions raised by human
curiosity. However, as science progressed,
its findings brought contradictions to religious
teachings.
For instance, we now believe that homo sapiens
evolved from the great apes. Scientific
observations have demonstrated the validity
of natural selection via mutation. However,
the very idea that one species could give
rise to other species was offensive to many
practicing Jews, Christians and Muslims
because it contradicted the doctrine of
special creation depicted in major religious
books. To this day, fundamentalists and
devout religious people still take offense
to this theory.
People in the past were horrified — and
some still are — at the notion that humans
might be biologically related to other animals.
To even make such a claim was degrading
because it denied humanity its unique and
glorious place in the universe. In the minds
of many, it denied the very existence of
God. According to the religious doctrine,
the genealogy of humans began with Adam
and Eve.
The debate still continues today. The so-called
“creation science,” or Creationism, holds
that the beginning of the universe was the
result of a sudden creation by God, rather
than a gradual process. The problem is that
creation science, by definition, is not
science at all, because fundamentalists
assert their claim as absolute and flawless.
In this sense, religious claims are closed
to any form of empirical testing. And, since
such testing is the basis of science, Creationism
cannot be considered science.
The truth behind the conflict is clear:
The nature of evolution is complicated and
does not lend itself to religious explanations.
To understand the actual process of evolution
requires one to pick up some books on biology
and genetics — instead of ones that are
religiously based. Religious doctrines concerning
the nature of reality, unlike in the past,
should not be taken literally anymore. They
should be conceived as an anthology of myths.
However, some people, regardless of their
culture, grow up in belief systems that
neither emphasize biological relationships
between species nor offer scientific explanations
for natural phenomenon. This appeal of egocentric
beliefs is the reason why religious doctrines
are still widely accepted.
Both religion and science serve, in their
own respects, to explain events. But, while
scientific theories are based on data analysis
and experimentation, religion is a system
of beliefs not open to scientific testing
and falsification; it is solely based on
faith.
Faith can motivate people in various ways,
but it can also run into problems when confronted
by scientific explanations. For example,
should a Catholic student studying biology
in hopes of becoming a doctor maintain faith
in the pseudo-theory of Creationism or rationally
accept the realistic theory of natural selection?
If the student believes in the Creationist
theory out of devotion, he/she, in turn,
will not be a true scientist, but a dogmatist.
On the other hand, if the student accepts
the authority of natural selection, he/she
may have to deny the fixed foundational
doctrines of his/her religion.
Religions serve a very discrete purpose
by providing people with certain ethical
principles. However, the idea that religions
perpetuate absolute truth cannot be justified
as legitimate. If religion is not a product
of humans, but instead accounted for by
a perfect God, then religious doctrines
concerning the nature of reality should
have been supported by scientific findings.
However, we find just the opposite.
I believe that the existence of God can
be discovered through self-contemplation
instead of obeying religious doctrines.
If we believe God to be a perfect entity
who makes no mistakes, because there are
countless mistakes in religious doctrines,
religions cannot be products of God.
Therefore, the only necessary conclusion
left to draw is that religions are manmade,
social traditions rather than supernatural
manifestations.
Barlas F. Esin is a senior philosophy and
journalism double major at Cal State Long
Beach.
|
