Music Is Just A Theory Too

G’day and welcome to the first post of my new blog. I’m a self proclaimed New Atheist, whatever that means. It seems strange that the idea that religion has a negative effect on society, and should be opposed is considered a “new” idea, since people have been arguing against religion for hundreds of years. It’s not even like the arguments of the “New Atheists” are arguments that have only been put forward recently. I guess people always like to feel that what’s going on now is the most important or newest development in the world. Of course sometimes that’s no doubt true, but I’d like to think that today’s religious debates are really just the slow and gradual progression of the old debates. Sure the environment has changed, and the debate has adapted to meet that change. We’ve seen some faster change at times and “arms races” in the development of the debate, but we certainly haven’t seen a new debate created out of nothing in the last few years.

On the other hand, the scientific understanding of religion has been changing dramatically over the last few decades. One only needs to read Daniel Dennett (Breaking the Spell) or Lewis Wolpert (Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast) to see the advances in our understanding. Of course it’s not all clear cut. There is still a lot of debate going on about the details, but we definitely know a lot more now than we did 50 years ago.

I find it hilariously ironic that we can now generally explain why people are religious from an evolutionary perspective; given the only people who criticise evolution are religious people.

It’s often argued by religious apologists that science and religion are separate and not really in conflict at all. Science is about understanding the physical nature of the world, while religion is about our own personal spirituality and how we feel about ourselves and others. Such an argument ignores the fact that religion often makes claims about the physical nature of the world. According to a Gallup poll from this year, the majority of Americans believe that the world was created by God less than 10,000 years ago. I’m a little sceptical about that poll, but even if only 10% of Americans believe that, it’s still pretty significant, given we have so much corroborating evidence from different fields of science that demonstrate beyond doubt that the world is a great deal older than 10,000 years.

I think I’d be perfectly happy to tolerate religion if it really were separate, and had no effect on society or our knowledge at all. If religion really was internal and personal, why would anybody oppose it? It’s the expression of religion on people who do not share the same beliefs that is what people are opposing.

I should say that when I talk about my lack of “tolerance” for religion, I’m not using that word in the same context as politicians use it when they introduce “zero tolerance on drugs.” You can be rest assured that whenever you express opinions on religion, there will be some religious people that will deliberately misinterpret the meaning of words to attack you. Just as they claim that “evolution is only a theory,” (using that logic, music is “only a theory” too), so too they will not doubt claim that being “intolerant” of religion makes me a Nazi.

Actually from that perspective I’m very tolerant of religion. If I’m at a friends place for dinner and they want to say grace, I’m happy to hold hands and say amen at the end. If I’m having a discussion with evangelical preachers at the local market and they want to pray (or is that prey?) for my soul, I’m happy to join in. I’m a pacifist and I would certainly oppose the banning of religion or the burning of churches.

The only way I don’t “tolerate” religion is that I express my disgust and opposition to religion whenever the situation is appropriate. I believe, as I’m sure most new atheists believe, that the answer to religion lies in education. I’d like to believe that given enough time eventually the world’s population will turn away from religion based purely on the fact that the rational arguments of atheism are stronger than the arguments of religion.

Religious apologists love to jump on sentences like that last one, and bring up the fact that I “believe” things, and that my atheism is really just another religious belief. This is another word game. The reality is that I base my beliefs on the evidence that I’ve seen, not on any amount of “faith.” If I see more evidence then I’m always willing to change my beliefs to accommodate that new evidence. It’s important to realise that science is not the same as mathematics. We can’t empirically prove many of the claims of science. We can only look at all the evidence we have, and draw the conclusion that fits that best. If new evidence appears, we have to re-evaluate that evidence. Of course religion cannot prove anything empirically either, but the evidence supporting it is non existent. Any rational person would have to side with atheism over religion.

If looking at the evidence and then making a decision based on that evidence is a demonstration of “faith” and makes me religious, then I guess I’m religious. I tend to also believe that the point of words is communication, and that it’s easier to communicate when we’re all using the same definitions for words. Religion tends not be defined as “examining the evidence and making a conclusion consistent with that evidence.”

The reality is that it doesn’t matter if you label new atheism a religion, a hobby, a political view, or a new style of dance. The only way that calling new atheism a religion would make the arguments of new atheism any less valid is if you’re happy to admit that all the arguments of religion are also invalid; which would be to say that the new atheists are right! If that’s the case, I would be happy to start attending the New Atheist church tomorrow!