Difference between revisions of "Essay:Why religion is bullshit"

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (links, edit on morals)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{essay|User:Rational Thinker}}
+
{{essay|[[User:Rational Thinker]] and [[User:Bob M]]}}
 
__NOTOC__
 
__NOTOC__
  
Line 5: Line 5:
  
 
== Anti-intellectual ==
 
== Anti-intellectual ==
All religions have in common that they are faith based. People are taught to believe every silly claim from some ancient text or self-proclaimed spiritual leader, instead of relying on their own senses and critical thinking.
+
All [[religion]]s have in common that they are [[faith]] based. People are taught to believe every silly claim from some ancient text or self-proclaimed spiritual leader, instead of relying on their own senses and critical thinking.
  
 
== Anti-scientific ==
 
== Anti-scientific ==
Line 11: Line 11:
  
 
== Cosmic nonsense ==
 
== Cosmic nonsense ==
The "cosmic argument" is an ill-conceived attempt at "proving" the existence of god (whatever the definition). It is obvious however that this argument is based on a Newtonian model of the universe, which we now know to be false. Causality is clearly time related, but time does not exist independently of the universe. Rather, spacetime ''is'' the universe. So asking what was before the beginning of the universe is asking what was before time, which makes no sense. As Hawking famously put it, it's like asking what's north of the north pole. It's an ill-posed question.
+
The "[[First cause|cosmic argument]]" is an ill-conceived attempt at "proving" the existence of god (whatever the definition). It is obvious however that this argument is based on a Newtonian model of the universe, which we now know to be false. Causality is clearly time related, but time does not exist independently of the universe. Rather, spacetime ''is'' the universe. So asking what was before the beginning of the universe is asking what was before time, which makes no sense. As Hawking famously put it, it's like asking what's north of the north pole. It's an ill-posed question.
  
 
== Creation ==
 
== Creation ==
Line 17: Line 17:
  
 
== God vs. religion ==
 
== God vs. religion ==
Obviously it cannot be excluded that some kind of "god" (whatever that is supposed to be) exists outside of our universe. But even if this was the case, it follows from basic scientific principles like the conservation of energy, that such a "god" cannot interact with the physical world in any way. In particular, he cannot write books, nor can he put thoughts (which consist of electric currents in the brain) into people's heads. This shows that, whether or not god exists, religion is wrong.
+
Obviously it cannot be excluded that some kind of "[[god]]" (whatever that is supposed to be) exists outside of our universe. But even if this was the case, it follows from basic scientific principles like the conservation of energy, that such a "god" cannot interact with the physical world in any way. In particular, he cannot write books, nor can he put thoughts (which consist of electric currents in the brain) into people's heads. This shows that, whether or not god exists, religion is wrong.
  
 
== Soul ==
 
== Soul ==
is some type of music, but some people believe it to be some kind of spiritual thingie that every (?) human is supposed to have, and which is supposed to survive when his physical body dies. But since this thing is non-physical, it again cannot interact with the physical world without violation basic science. So we have the same situation as with "god": a "soul" could hypothetically exists, but it can have no connection with the physical world.
+
is some type of music, but some people believe it to be some kind of spiritual thingie that every (?) human is supposed to have, and which is supposed to survive when his physical body dies. But since this thing is non-physical, it again cannot interact with the physical world without violation basic science. So we have the same situation as with "god": a "[[soul]]" could hypothetically exists, but it can have no connection with the physical world.
  
 
== Moral ==
 
== Moral ==
There are some attempts to "justify" religion by saying that it makes no assumptions on science. This is called [[NOMA]] and is wrong on so many levels. First of all, as we have seen above, any assumptions that "god" or the "soul" has a bearing on the physical world, would be clearly in the scope of science and violates its very principles. Moreover, all the evil consequences of religion like all the religious wars raging from early history to these days, prove beyound a doubt that religion is no basis for moral decisions. Moral decisions are best made by rational thinking. For example, no rational person would begin a war, because it is obvious that it is deleterious for society and economy.
+
There are some attempts to "justify" religion by saying that it makes no assumptions on science. This is called [[NOMA]] and is wrong on so many levels. First of all, as we have seen above, any assumptions that "god" or the "soul" has a bearing on the physical world, would be clearly in the scope of science and violates its very principles.
 +
 
 +
Furthermore the supporters of NOMA seem quite coy about where the NOMA line should be drawn.  Religious beliefs are the basis of [[creationism]], [[intelligent design]] and [[theistic evolution]].  While many NOMA advocates would happily attack creationism they sometimes hold the NOMA shield up to defend other (their own) religious beliefs - a position which seems a little ingenious.
 +
 
 +
Finally, all the evil consequences of religion like all the religious wars raging from early history to these days, prove beyond a doubt that religion is no basis for moral decisions. Wherever moral decisions come from it is pretty clear that thye are not based on religion as religious interpretations of what is moral typically change with the generations and and are not the fixed absolutes which religions claim.

Revision as of 18:07, 27 January 2008

Essay.svg This essay is an original work by User:Rational Thinker and User:Bob M.
It does not necessarily reflect the views expressed in RationalWiki's Mission Statement, but we welcome discussion of a broad range of ideas.
Unless otherwise stated, this is original content, released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 or any later version. See RationalWiki:Copyrights.
Feel free to make comments on the talk page, which will probably be far more interesting, and might reflect a broader range of RationalWiki editors' thoughts.


Why religion is bullshit.

Anti-intellectual

All religions have in common that they are faith based. People are taught to believe every silly claim from some ancient text or self-proclaimed spiritual leader, instead of relying on their own senses and critical thinking.

Anti-scientific

Some religions try to appear "science-friendly" by avoiding statements that clash too obviously with modern science. This however only obscures the fact that the very concept of "faith" is inherently anti-scientific.

Cosmic nonsense

The "cosmic argument" is an ill-conceived attempt at "proving" the existence of god (whatever the definition). It is obvious however that this argument is based on a Newtonian model of the universe, which we now know to be false. Causality is clearly time related, but time does not exist independently of the universe. Rather, spacetime is the universe. So asking what was before the beginning of the universe is asking what was before time, which makes no sense. As Hawking famously put it, it's like asking what's north of the north pole. It's an ill-posed question.

Creation

The very concept of creation depends on time. Something that did not exist before a given point in time comes to existence through the act of creation and exists from that time on. The universe clearly cannot have been created in this sense, because the universe is spacetime and thus there is no time outside of the universe itself.

God vs. religion

Obviously it cannot be excluded that some kind of "god" (whatever that is supposed to be) exists outside of our universe. But even if this was the case, it follows from basic scientific principles like the conservation of energy, that such a "god" cannot interact with the physical world in any way. In particular, he cannot write books, nor can he put thoughts (which consist of electric currents in the brain) into people's heads. This shows that, whether or not god exists, religion is wrong.

Soul

is some type of music, but some people believe it to be some kind of spiritual thingie that every (?) human is supposed to have, and which is supposed to survive when his physical body dies. But since this thing is non-physical, it again cannot interact with the physical world without violation basic science. So we have the same situation as with "god": a "soul" could hypothetically exists, but it can have no connection with the physical world.

Moral

There are some attempts to "justify" religion by saying that it makes no assumptions on science. This is called NOMA and is wrong on so many levels. First of all, as we have seen above, any assumptions that "god" or the "soul" has a bearing on the physical world, would be clearly in the scope of science and violates its very principles.

Furthermore the supporters of NOMA seem quite coy about where the NOMA line should be drawn. Religious beliefs are the basis of creationism, intelligent design and theistic evolution. While many NOMA advocates would happily attack creationism they sometimes hold the NOMA shield up to defend other (their own) religious beliefs - a position which seems a little ingenious.

Finally, all the evil consequences of religion like all the religious wars raging from early history to these days, prove beyond a doubt that religion is no basis for moral decisions. Wherever moral decisions come from it is pretty clear that thye are not based on religion as religious interpretations of what is moral typically change with the generations and and are not the fixed absolutes which religions claim.