Since its inception, religion has been on collision course with reality. Religion was born in the infancy of our species to explain the then unexplainable. How does the sun rise? A sun god! How does the rain fall? A rain god!
But with every scientific discovery, religious explanations have become less impressive and god a little less relevant.
Many religious beliefs are indeed outside the scope of science. The metaphysical beliefs and moral convictions of religion in particular are immune. However, when religion makes claims about reality (as it often does), it treads on science’s turf.
Take, for instance, the LDS Church’s audacious claim that the Lamanites, the surviving Israelite people of the BoM, are the “principle ancestors of the American Indians.” Because science was able to disprove this theory, the LDS Church quietly changed the introduction to the Book of Mormon last week to read that the Lamanites are only “among the principal ancestors.”
For the church’s original claim to have been valid, DNA evidence would have detected Hebraic origins for Native Americans. Instead, after thousands of DNA tests, researchers have concluded that the continent’s earliest inhabitants came from Asia across the Bering Strait.
With this single word change, the LDS Church is “conceding that mainstream scientific theories about the colonization of the Americas have significant elements of truth in them,” Simon Southerton, a molecular biologist and former LDS bishop, told the Salt Lake Tribune. LDS anthropologist Thomas Murphy agrees, lamenting, “So far, DNA research has lent no support to the traditional Mormon beliefs about the origins of Native Americans.”
I shouldn’t single out the LDS Church, however. None of the Abrahamic faiths fare much better, as they are all committed to the nonsense that is the Bible.
When you read the Bible, it becomes apparent why the Catholic Church arrested Copernicus and Galileo—the Bible really does suggest that our universe is geocentric (Psa 93:1, 1 Sam 2:8, Josh 10:12-13) and the earth flat (Prov 8:26-27, Dan 4:10-11, Mat 4:8, Deu 13:7, and others).
On nearly every page, there are scientific absurdities like these. To name but a few: a literal 6-day creation, a global flood, zombies, a virgin birth, talking animals and a man who lived in a whale. If written today, the Bible would be read as fiction, not revered as scripture.
“Anyone who takes the modern, scientific view of the world simply has to disown a lot of the primitive mythologies found in traditional religion,” said Dr. Huenemann, head of USU’s philosophy department. These “primitive mythologies” have not survived scientific scrutiny.
The fundamental conflict between science and religion, though, is not in their conclusions about reality. More important is the process by which they arrive at those conclusions.
A scientific approach to understanding the world starts with a question. Different hypotheses are explored and weighed against the available evidence. Science is also a humble enterprise, as it does not profess to have absolute truths. Scientific conclusions often change to better conform to the evidence. This fact is not science’s failing; it is, instead, science’s greatest strength.
In stark contrast, religion starts with a conclusion, like god exists. This conclusion is decided by authority—a holy book, religious leader, tradition—as opposed to observations and reason. Evidence, then, is distorted to fit the fixed conclusion. And any contrary evidence is ignored via religion’s convenient cop-out, faith. Not only is this allowed, it’s celebrated. The more faith you exercise, the more virtuous you are.
This is a dangerous dogma and an impediment to societal progress. We can already see how faith has perverted our public policies and political discourse.
Embryonic stem cell research, which holds the promise of saving millions of lives, has been stymied by faith-based moral concerns. The teaching of evolution, too, has been challenged. The radical right wants to sneak creationism into public schools under the cheap guise of intelligent design. And it is by faith that people can excuse their anti-gay prejudices. Despite findings that homosexuality is largely biological, many churches still decry homosexuality as a choice.
Moreover, we have twice elected a man who has said that Jesus is his favorite political philosopher and believes that god elected him president and told him to invade Iraq. This should be a national embarrassment.
In the coming years, the conflict between science and religion will only grow more intractable. It’s important that we’re on the right side of that conflict: not just against faith, but for reason. Because it is a reasonable world we so desperately need right now.
Well written. I attempt to make these arguments all the time. Your style is very direct and concise. Again, well done.
I only just found your blog. I have a few Mormon friends, tho I am non-religious myself. I try to respect their point of view, but your blog is is eye-opening. I especially like this post, because it illustrates what happens when you turn on the lights and see revered texts for what they truly are: explanations from a time when we had no better ways of seeing.
Thanks for the supportive feedback, everyone!
First, nice job with the new site. I have had several students ask how to get in touch with SHAFT, and I am glad to now have a place to send them. I’ll try to stop by every once in a while – often enough to keep you SHAFTers honest but not so often that I am a constant hurdle to a useful discussion among atheists looking for a supportive arena to explore their own ideas.
Warning to Jon – my reply here is pretty predictable! And, I should add, I have too many disagreements with your post to explore them all, so I will just pick one:
Jon says, “However, when religion makes claims about reality (as it often does), it treads on science’s turf.”
Are you suggesting that science is the ONLY way of disclosing (knowing) reality? If it is not, what other modes of thinking might disclose reality? If one answer is something like “the poetic”, might some (all?) religious texts participate (perhaps in varying degrees) in this “poetic disclosure”?
Here is another way of framing the question: If science is or becomes the only mode of disclosure, does it end up covering over more than it discloses? (I am, in all of my remarks here, obviously trading heavily on Heidegger). Can the scientific method really get to the depths of the human experience in the way that, say, phenomenological methods can? (I am thinking of personhood, love, duty, gifts, beauty, etc).