As a skeptical, irreligious person I must admit that in many ways I am defined by my uncertainty with respect to the consequential and contentious issues. Does God exist? I don’t think so, but I’m not certain. Is there absolute morality? I’d like to think so, but I’m not certain. What are the exact processes of evolution? I understand a great deal about the evolutionary processes that take place, but I’m not certain. How did the universe come into being? Perhaps the physical universe had no beginning and will have no end, but I’m not certain. Is there good and evil? I’m inclined to think this is a humanly contrived dichotomy, but I’m not certain. Does life have meaning? I hope so, but I’m not certain. Can I trust my own thoughts? I believe so, but I’m not certain. By examining the evidence and attempting to evaluate it objectively I have come to a number of conclusions with respect to these consequential and contentious issues, but these are founded on probability, not certainty.
Throughout history religion has served as a means to posit certainty. Psychologically humans are pattern seekers, we observe the world and attempt to construct a framework with which we can assign meaning to what we see and experience within it. When we see the shape of a rabbit on the surface of the Moon it is not because there is actually a rabbit on the Moon it is because of pareidolia, the perception of significance in randomness. Religion is utilized in much the same way, as a framework with which humans can project significance on a universe that appears random. Similarly science serves as a framework for us to try and understand the universe, however religion and science differ on the matter of certainty. Within science even well-documented, widely observed, extensively researched scientific theories, such as gravitation or evolution, that are considered facts are not considered to be absolutely certain. Science is about probability, not certainty.
Within religion humans can find the certainty that science is not willing to offer them. All major religions offer absolute truth primarily through prophetic revelations and sacred texts. When you wonder why you are here, how you got here, and what you should do religion extends an invitation, an invitation to partake in the truth only it can provide. This is an aspect of religion that I find to be both disquieting and objectionable. Religious truths are always questionable, either on historical, scientific, or philosophical grounds, and claims of absolute certainty are a farce to support fideism. Faith is the antithesis of the scientific method and religious certainty can only be maintained through faith. Atheism is not based on the certainty of God’s nonexistence, that would be fideism, but on the improbability of God’s existence based on the evidence. Although I understand why so many need to find solace in religious truths, faith, and a belief in God I myself cannot on evidential and objective grounds. I’m just not certain.
Great post, Sam. I think you are justified in criticizing the “absolutist” mentality of many of the world’s religions. It is because of this (though perhaps not only because of this) that many atrocities in human history have taken place (e.g. the Crusades, some acts of Terrorism). I would point out that most Christian scholars would find your claims here to be quite obvious. In fact, I would wager that any Christian who is an intellectual would agree that the claims of the bible must always be questioned. I think the population you refer to is the mainstream evangelical movement, which I positively detest. Don’t get me wrong, I am a person of faith. But I am also a person who thinks. The historicity and “truth” of many biblical stories can and should be questioned. But I would argue that they still have meaning and still teach people something about the world, humans and God.
I want to push back on one statement. You said, “Faith is the antithesis of the Scientific Method.” I am assuming by this that you mean adherence to a specific religious doctrine. The term “faith” used in a secular, non-religious sense could be applied to science. As you said, you are not certain. I think it is a cliche definition to view “faith” simply as “believing what you can’t see or prove.” That could be ONE definition – and one that has been worn out by evangelical movements. But if we take it back to it’s semantic roots, “pistis” or “credo” or “fides” refer to a general understanding based on good argument for a case. No doubt they have taken on a religious sense, as so many of our words have (e.g. save, glory, awesome). I guess I would not go so far as to say it is the antithesis of scientific method. Though, I see your point. Absolutism should have no place in either science or religion.
I think fideism, the notion that faith is independent of and potentially hostile to reason, in religion would be what I was opposing, or perhaps the intellectual absolutism that you spoke of. If faith is defined as a general understanding based on good arguments for a case then I will readily admit that I have a great deal of faith in science and the scientific method. Blind acceptance without reason or rationale, that is fideism, is the antithesis of the scientific method. You’re right that a number of words like faith have taken on a strong religious sense, and no wonder I used it in that sense. After all I’m still a minister’s boy.
Honestly I fail to comprehend how anyone who took the time to seriously analyze the Bible and other sacred texts couldn’t at least somewhat question their historicity. But of course if your belief depends on the Bible being philosophically, theologically, and historically inerrant why would you be intellectually honest and examine it? With regards to the majority of American Evangelicals I believe you and I share very similar sentiments.
I completely agree with this statement and I believe there are many modern day philosophers who would agree too. If you haven’t already, I would suggest the book “At War With Time” by Craig Eisendrath. He explores the permanency provided by religion and its baggage.
Thanks for the support and the suggestion, I’ll look into it.
Re. Faith is the antithesis of the scientific method. Samuel, even David Hume would disagree with that statement. Regardless of the mathmatical probability that the sun will rise tomorrow, it still requires faith to believe it will (Hume would call it confidence in natural law based on probability). You also say that based on the evidence you believe the probability of Gods existence to be low. You must remember that the way in which you are using the word “probability” is the inductive form of the word. Inductive probability is not solid like mathematic probabilities. It is subjective and is only based on what you know, or think you know, at a specific moment in time. You may learn something tomorrow that could change your opinion of the probability of Gods existence.
I don’t disagree that some new evidence could potentially sway my opinion on the probability of God’s existence, not being open to new and convincing evidences would be in direct contradiction with the very method that led me to my conclusions in the first place.
I really didn’t address what I was getting at. Inductive probability is not a means to posit certainty either.
Out of curiosity, what is the empirical scientific evidence that leads you to believe there can only be a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life.
I don’t believe that there can ONLY be a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. What I do believe is that a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life is the most reasonable considering the current evidence from paleontology, genetics, biology, geology, etc. There’s a multiplicity of evidence that leads me to conclude what is the best explanation, but none of it could entirely rule out the possibility of an untestable, supernatural explanation (the alternative you would posit) just render it highly unlikely.