The Falsity of Religion: Twelve Indisputable Arguments

[Japanese Samurai]

The following is from http://www.thebirdman.org/

The Falsity of Religion:
Twelve Indisputable Arguments


By John "Birdman" Bryant


Religion today hangs on the horns of a dilemma: On the one hand, it is false in the scientific sense, as we shall demonstrate below; but on the other hand, because religion in one form or another has been around as long as recorded history -- and in fact has played a central role in man's social and personal life -- it is almost certain that religion is useful in the sense that it has helped men to survive. The real dilemma of religion, however, is that it must be believed in order to be useful, yet this is impossible when people know that it is false.

The obvious solution to this dilemma -- if indeed there is a solution -- is to discover what is useful about religion, and to try to make use of this knowledge. This I have attempted to do in my book The Most Powerful Idea Ever Discovered. But we will be stymied in our attempt to accomplish this task -- or at least to bring it to fruition in the sense of teaching others -- if we do not first and finally sweep away the foolishness of religious belief by making a plain and clear statement as to religion's literal falsity. Accordingly, we cite below what we view as twelve compelling reasons why a rational person must regard religion as false.

http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Relig/Relig-Atheist.html

Edited to comply with Forum rules regarding copyrighted material. Mr. Bryant's material is copyrighted, and may not be posted here in its entirety without his express permission, as explained here:
http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Intro/Intro-Disclaimer.html

-- Pyrrho

[T'ai Chi]

I have problems with people saying blanket statements like 'religion is false' or 'science is true'. They are so vague as to mean nothing, since parts of religion are false, especially when interpreted as literal as possible, and parts of religion are true. Also, parts of science are false, for example positions that are seen to be false when more evidence comes in, and models ('all models are false; some are useful'), and obviously much of science is true.


In particular, people become converts to science because they see that it works:


Well, religion works in a sense. The author already mentioned that it probably has helped people to survive. It has given others a sense of oneness, spirituality, comfort, morals, intuitive ways of understanding, philosophical outlook, and more.


Science builds buildings and bombs and sends rockets to the moon -- something no religion seriously pretends to do.


Yeah, science can have the honors of building bombs.


"knew" the earth was flat,


Since that is how we experience it, it seems like a reasonable descriptor for primative peoples.


"knew" that there were witches,


There are witches; people who claim to practice witchcraft and cast spells.


"knew" that the earth was the center of the universe, and so on.


There is no center, or everywhere can be the center.


Since that time the things that religion "knows" has been shrinking at the speed of light


The same could be said about science (at least it has been deflated somewhat). Is the universe entirely mechanical as we thought it was? Is mathematics entirely consistent and complete and can it all be explained by logic as we thought it could? Why is most of the matter in the universe 'dark'? What came before the big bang?


Reason 5: Religion's immoral leaders: Religion has always claimed to offer a code of "absolute morality", yet the behavior of its holiest men have often been far less than moral by any standard, religious or otherwise.


So have secular peoples, who have claimed to be moral. There has been atrocious behavior by both sides (and of course good stuff by both sides).


Reason 8: Religion's appeal to the human ego: Because we now know that the earth is but a tiny speck of dust in an ufathomably large universe, the notion that human beings are "special creations of God", and in particular are so important that God "gave his only begotten Son" for their "salvation" now seems like such palpable nonsense that anyone who believes it would have to be demented.


Of course it doesn't prove any god exists, but it would be interesting if we were the only life around in the entire universe. It stands to reason that someone (god) or something (chance) "favors" us.


particular, 'explaining' the existence of the world as an act of God requires the believer to explain how God was created


That is incorrect. The believer no more has to explain that than a science person has to explain what started the big bang. But anyway, say that God1 was created by God2, and so on. Following this line of reasoning, there might be a lot of gods. But, also following this reasoning, there is a "closest" god at least.


Reason 11: The argument from the multiplicity of religions: There are dozens, and perhaps even hundreds or thousands of religions, all of which claim to be 'absolutely true',


"All" do not claim to be absolutely true. Some do of course, but some don't, and some don't care.


book The Mortal Words of J.B.R. Yant: It is the simplest of simple things to prove that God does not exist. Just look toward the sky, raise your middle finger, and say, "Hey, you son- of-a-bitch mother-fu**er up there, if you're so God-da**ed all-powerful, then let's see if you can strike down little old me, you big over-praised, over-blown a**-hole." When nothing happens, the proposition is proved, Q.E.D.



If there is a god, since that god created you, he already knew you'd raise your middle finger to the sky, and what you'd say. I'd say that god already had his QED moment. As for striking down.. that happens to all of us, whether unaturally or by a natural death, so another QED for god.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Japanese Samurai
The following is from http://www.thebirdman.org/
Reason 1: The nature of scientific vs religious belief: As I pointed out in my book Systems Theory and Scientific Philosophy, science is actually a religion: Its faith involves such beliefs as that the future will be like the past in certain ways, that explanations should be based on objectively- verifiable evidence, and that the best explanation is the simplest one which fits all the facts ("the Law of Parsimony").
I'd say that one is disputable...

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27287&highlight=science+AND+is+AND+a+AND+religion

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21285&highlight=science+AND+is+AND+a+AND+religion

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Yeah, science can have the honors of building bombs.


And religion can deliver them...;)

[Keneke]

Nice sentiment, though I sense some anti-Christian bias, as I think most of us came from. Try not to paint a villanous picture of religion, lest we become hate mongers.

Tai Chi said: The same could be said about science (at least it has been deflated somewhat).

Nah, not really. we learn more and more, but we learn questions faster, so, perhaps the percentage of what is known decreases, but scientific knowledge always increases as of late. Religion, on the other hand, does shrink its volume of knowledge, and therefore influence.

2. "religious hermits who beat themselves bloody"??? Aren't we being a bit extreme here?

5. "Beating people bloody at the whipping post"???

Tell me, did you have a bad church experience when you were young?

[Upchurch]

While some of those arguments deal with the actual nature of religion as a whole, most deal with generic complaints that are only applicable to specific religions.

For instance, Reason 5: Religions immoral leaders. While it is true that nearly all religions have some corrupt leaders, is that a failing of religion or of the fallability of being human? There are scientists who are really bad at science, does that mean science as a whole is bad?

I don't see this as an argument against the principle of religion as a Martin Luthor-style argument against religious organizations of the time.

[ebola]

Tai Chi wrote:

Also, parts of science are false, for example positions that are seen to be false when more evidence comes in


Science, unlike religion, is not a rigid, uncompromising dictum of what is and what is not. Science is a method for describing the world around using trial and error. If we accept a theory as truth, and it does not work, then we look for a better way to model the world around us. While it is certain that current, accepted theories are incorrect, they model the world closely enough to be useful. When more accurate theories are uncovered, the obsolete theories will be discarded. Science is therefore not false, it is simply incomplete, and never claimed to be otherwise. This too is in contrast to religion.




Yeah, science can have the honors of building bombs.


Gratefully accepted. Superior firepower is an unquestionable advantage.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"knew" the earth was flat,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tai Chi responded:

Since that is how we experience it, it seems like a reasonable descriptor for primative peoples.



It was a reasonable descriptor, and still, in many cases, is a good approximation. It is, however, quite wrong, and Science has supplanted the flat Earth theory with the correct one.



Tai Chi Wrote:

There are witches; people who claim to practice witchcraft and cast spells.



There are people who think or claim they are witches. If you cannot cast working spells or, for that matter, reap any other supernatural benefit, you are not a witch, you are a delusional homo sapiens.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since that time the things that religion "knows" has been shrinking at the speed of light

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tai Chi responded:

The same could be said about science (at least it has been deflated somewhat). Is the universe entirely mechanical as we thought it was? Is mathematics entirely consistent and complete and can it all be explained by logic as we thought it could? Why is most of the matter in the universe 'dark'? What came before the big bang?



What could be said of science is that the more we learn by it, the more we understand the depths of our own ignorance. As I noted above, science is incomplete. Of course there are questions we haven't answered yet. We will probably never answer them all, as each answer raises new questions. Science is still far more effective than all of the other alternatives combined.



Tai Chi wrote:

Of course it doesn't prove any god exists, but it would be interesting if we were the only life around in the entire universe. It stands to reason that someone (god) or something (chance) "favors" us.


It stands to reason that you are going to have to prove that last sentence.

Eric

[c4ts]

Science and religion philosophies, but science is definitely not a religion. The two approaches to knowledge are completely different.

[NullPointerException]

It's a failing for a religion for a priest to be immoral because they base their position in the concept there being some sort of diety intermediary to spout the good word. It is not a failing for scientists because the idea that the world is flat isn't based on ethos or pathos, it's based on the fact that no matter how hard Israel pushes it can't seem to get Palestine off the map.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by NullPointerException
It's a failing for a religion for a priest to be immoral because... Well, my point is that the behavior of a few practicioners of a philosophy (be it science or religion) shouldn't be used as an example for the whole. It's a failing for a scientist to dogmatically hold on to beliefs that there is evidence against, but it still happens. Does that mean that science as a whole is no good?

[Rationalist]

Originally posted by Japanese Samurai
The following is from http://www.thebirdman.org/

The Falsity of Religion:
Twelve Indisputable Arguments


By John "Birdman" Bryant


Religion today hangs on the horns of a dilemma: On the one hand, it is false in the scientific sense, as we shall demonstrate below; but on the other hand, because religion in one form or another has been around as long as recorded history -- and in fact has played a central role in man's social and personal life -- it is almost certain that religion is useful in the sense that it has helped men to survive. The real dilemma of religion, however, is that it must be believed in order to be useful, yet this is impossible when people know that it is false.

The obvious solution to this dilemma -- if indeed there is a solution -- is to discover what is useful about religion, and to try to make use of this knowledge. This I have attempted to do in my book The Most Powerful Idea Ever Discovered. But we will be stymied in our attempt to accomplish this task -- or at least to bring it to fruition in the sense of teaching others -- if we do not first and finally sweep away the foolishness of religious belief by making a plain and clear statement as to religion's literal falsity. Accordingly, we cite below what we view as twelve compelling reasons why a rational person must regard religion as false.

http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Relig/Relig-Atheist.html

Edited to comply with Forum rules regarding copyrighted material. Mr. Bryant's material is copyrighted, and may not be posted here in its entirety without his express permission, as explained here:
http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Intro/Intro-Disclaimer.html

-- Pyrrho


Well, that was the best summary I have ever read debunking religion.

[jimmygun]

Originally from Upchurch...

"Well, my point is that the behavior of a few practicioners of a philosophy (be it science or religion) shouldn't be used as an example for the whole. It's a failing for a scientist to dogmatically hold on to beliefs that there is evidence against, but it still happens. Does that mean that science as a whole is no good?"

A question, Upchurch. At what point would you blame religion for the faults of its practioners? When 10% of them go bad? 20%? 30? 40? All?

It seems to me that there are enough rotten apples in the religious barrel that the whole thing should be thrown out and replaced with a logical, accountable and skeptical alternative.

[PotatoStew]

From the link, emphasis added:


On the other hand, people become converts to religion because they think they see that it works, but are mistaken: For example, people become converts to religion because of such things as (a) their parents shape their beliefs at an impressionable age (ie, brainwash them); (b) they have a psychic or psychic-like experience which makes them think that God is responsible, whereas in reality they may only have had a pinched spinal nerve, or perhaps a genuine psychic experience, the latter of which does not prove the existence of God, but only that there are things that science still doesn't understand; or (c) they survive some traumatic experience which makes them think that God is the only thing that could have gotten them thru it, eg, military combat ("There are no atheists in foxholes") or taking a subway ride in New Yawk.


Isn't this totally begging the question? People believe religion because they *think* it works, but they're wrong? It sounds like he's trying to show that religion doesn't work by asserting that it doesn't work.

I've only read the first two points or so, but it seems to me not that he's proving religion to be false, but rather that he's showing that science is better than religion at accomplishing the things that science is designed to accomplish. Not exactly the same thing. Upchurch and others have made some good points too. This essay doesn't seem to do what the author wants it to.

[hammegk]

I suspect our materialists/atheists think he'd be even more correct if he hadn't noted that science is also a religion (albeit one with lots of documented proofs of its predictions).

And he certainly shredded mans' attempts to codify religion.


Kewl, but So what?

[Peskanov]

T'ai Chi,


If there is a god, since that god created you, he already knew you'd raise your middle finger to the sky, and what you'd say.


It seems you have some exclusive information about the origin of the universe...So a creator has to know the destiny of his creation, right?
You discredit your advocating with this kind of sentences. If you are going to play eternally the role of "skeptic of everything including your skepticism" you should hide your bias better.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by hammegk
I suspect our materialists/atheists think he'd be even more correct if he hadn't noted that science is also a religion (albeit one with lots of documented proofs of its predictions).

And he certainly shredded mans' attempts to codify religion.


Kewl, but So what?
Is science a relgion? I'll kindly disagree.

1) Science is not the belief that God does not exist, it does not claim God does exist. Science is just a description of how the Universe works. Study of the mechanics of natural world does not make that study a religion (it would be interesting to see how Theology majors would react to call their study of religion a religion).

2) Nothing about science rings any earmark of religion. There are no moral codes attached to science (that is to say science is moral-neutral). No science mythology.

3) Science is not a belief system, nor is it is the lack of one.

4) Religions have a social structure built around their beliefs. There is no social structure in science (i.e. science could care less how special humans think they are)

5) Adherents? When asked their religion, many, perhaps most, people scientists will call themselves members of mainstream religions such as Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc (or simply non-relgious). None identify their religion as Science. If Science is a religion, it is the only religion that is rejected by all its members.

6) Some religions are theistic, some are atheistic, some are neither. Some philosophies are theistic, some are atheistic, some are neither. Some world-views are theistic, some are atheistic, some are neither. Not all Scientists have the same religious beliefs. Not all Scientists are non-religious. Not all theists are religious.

7) Some folk like to use metaphorical definitions of religions such as "pursued with veal and devotion". While there may be some folk who are zealous in their pursuit of science, that definition simply inappropriate to define religions. Otherwise, it would be easy to argue that folk who enjoy petting kitties and programming computers are religious, and Christians who dont go to church or "care that much" about their Christianity are not adherents to religion.

8) Science is not founded on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

Science is not a religion, although some folk might treat it as such.


Feel free to enlighten me if you feel otherwise.

[Yahweh]

Minor booboo :D :p

[PotatoStew]

Originally posted by Yahweh

7) Some folk like to use metaphorical definitions of religions such as "pursued with veal and devotion".

Now that's getting to the meat of the issue. Of course, some would indeed steak their life on their beliefs. Others are too chicken I suspect.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by ebola


Science, unlike religion, is not a rigid, uncompromising dictum of what is and what is not. Science is a method for describing the world around using trial and error. If we accept a theory as truth, and it does not work, then we look for a better way to model the world around us. While it is certain that current, accepted theories are incorrect, they model the world closely enough to be useful. When more accurate theories are uncovered, the obsolete theories will be discarded. Science is therefore not false, it is simply incomplete, and never claimed to be otherwise. This too is in contrast to religion.

Religions are not necessarily rigid either...and some religions continually compromise over time...

I wholeheartedly agree that science is (or SHOULD BE) a method and not a belief system, yet the method is guided by beliefs.

My religion claims to be incomplete by the way (Roman Catholicism). I can't speak for all religions. Which religions claim to be complete by the way?

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by NullPointerException
It's a failing for a religion for a priest to be immoral because they base their position in the concept there being some sort of diety intermediary to spout the good word. It is not a failing for scientists because the idea that the world is flat isn't based on ethos or pathos, it's based on the fact that no matter how hard Israel pushes it can't seem to get Palestine off the map.

Except I don't know of a single religion whose priests claim to be 100% moral. The Pope goes to confession practically every day, just as an example. Rather, the immorality of priests only further demonstrates the claim that all humans commit sin.

If the priests of a religion were incapable of immorality the religion would be humanistic, or, the possibility of a human achieving completely ethical behavior. Religions tend to not be humanistic, and therefore it's priests also must be fallible.

The "deity intermediary"...I'm not sure what you mean by that phrase. Do you mean a Jesus-type being? Or, is the priest the deity-intermediary? The priest is more of a conduit who can channel supernatural grace to the adherents, and that is NOT necessarily related to the ethical behavior of the priest. Well sort of. It gets complicated from there, and differs from religion to religion. But in general, within the rituals the priest is in fact more like a stand-in than him/herself, and thus disconnected from his worldly behavior. Sort of.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Is science a relgion? I'll kindly disagree.

1) Science is not the belief that God does not exist, it does not claim God does exist. Science is just a description of how the Universe works. Study of the mechanics of natural world does not make that study a religion (it would be interesting to see how Theology majors would react to call their study of religion a religion).

Is science a description? I think the descriptions are results of science. Religion is a combination of rituals and beliefs; science is analagous to a religion, but science is a methodology.

Throughout human existence humans have observed the natural world and those observations were creatively translated into what we would call religious theories or beliefs. I don't think anybody, including the most religious and anti-science, can or does escape observing the natural world; of course observations do not automatically result in irrefutable dogma.

2) Nothing about science rings any earmark of religion. There are no moral codes attached to science (that is to say science is moral-neutral). No science mythology.

No, because a method is not dogmatic. The pronouncements that come after the method, or as a result/part of the method, can ring or have an earmark of religion. I don't know about this moral code stuff, but science organizations have expelled or repudiated other individuals; you could say that is not based on morality I guess but I'm not all that interested in semantic word quarrelling, so use the words that make you happy.

3) Science is not a belief system, nor is it is the lack of one.

Right. The belief systems come before and later, and can and do influence the methodology of science.

4) Religions have a social structure built around their beliefs. There is no social structure in science (i.e. science could care less how special humans think they are)

Well scientists do science together, have seminars and peer review and all that. Of course that isn't science. If it isn't obvious by now, the people who compare science to religion aren't just talking about the methodology of science, but everything that goes with it. Personally, when I make associations between science and religion I am quite clear that science is a methodology, and indicate that I am referring to the personal affectations and mannerisms and what not that go with science. After all, humans have to interact with science, that's the point of everything isn't it?

5) Adherents? When asked their religion, many, perhaps most, people scientists will call themselves members of mainstream religions such as Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc (or simply non-relgious). None identify their religion as Science. If Science is a religion, it is the only religion that is rejected by all its members.

You make an excellent point here. I would make an exception for anyone who considers him/herself a Bright...

Also what about scientific humanism? Of course that isn't science, but that does blur the line, and I sure as hell didn't come up with that idea.

6) Some religions are theistic, some are atheistic, some are neither. Some philosophies are theistic, some are atheistic, some are neither. Some world-views are theistic, some are atheistic, some are neither. Not all Scientists have the same religious beliefs. Not all Scientists are non-religious. Not all theists are religious.

Good point...but this doesn't mean much on it's own. Some Christians are theistic, some are atheistic. Some Buddhists are theistic, some are atheistic.

7) Some folk like to use metaphorical definitions of religions such as "pursued with veal and devotion". While there may be some folk who are zealous in their pursuit of science, that definition simply inappropriate to define religions. Otherwise, it would be easy to argue that folk who enjoy petting kitties and programming computers are religious, and Christians who dont go to church or "care that much" about their Christianity are not adherents to religion.

Herman Melville had a sort of similar situation problem. He wasn't religious, and didn't consider himself religious, but in his writings and his life and his correspondence he embraced religious language because religious language conveys power and meaning that would not exist absent those words.

A word like devotion does not have to be associated with religion, but it is associated with religion and will always be associated with religion. This shouldn't necessarily bother a non-religious science-type. Unless it does. I don't want anyone to lose sleep over this. People are very interested in defining themselves as they would be defined, and I respect that.

8) Science is not founded on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

Founded on? Founded by? Hmmmmm.....

Who founded science? Or did no one found science? Is science like gravity, a force or an ideal that exists independent of humanity? It might be interesting to throw some names out there and talk this one through.

Science is not a religion, although some folk might treat it as such.

Exactly. That is practically, if not, precisely, how I would put it.

-Elliot

[hammegk]

From the article:


As I pointed out in my book Systems Theory and Scientific Philosophy, science is actually a religion: Its faith involves such beliefs as that the future will be like the past in certain ways, that explanations should be based on objectively- verifiable evidence, and that the best explanation is the simplest one which fits all the facts ("the Law of Parsimony").


Feel free to argue your points with Birdman. ;)

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Peskanov
T'ai Chi,

It seems you have some exclusive information about the origin of the universe...


It seems you do too, if you are stating there is no god(s).