Mortal Arrogance

Time just ran an article about the raging debate between atheism and religion. The most extreme proponents of each seem to believe that neither can co-exist, that the truth can only be found in one. Richard Dawkins, an Oxford professor and author of The God Delusion was interviewed and categorically stated that “The question of whether there exists a supernatural creater, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific questions. My answer is no.” But for anyone to claim that a single system of thought may fully explain the unknown is sheer arrogance.

I think that atheism itself is really a religion pretending to be an objective and infallible observer. Using natural laws to comprehend the existence of everything can only take you so far. Even if you were to claim that the starting pistol sounded during the Big Bang, you just end up in a never ending string of questions. What caused the Big Bang? And what caused that? To repeat that science will eventually shed light is fallacious because the new answer will just give birth to moree questions. Atheists too have to take a leap of faith, and suddenly their declarations that science will soon hold the answers to everything begin to sound very much like the religious dogma that they condemn.

Then there are the pious who believe that everything from the creation of the universe to why they’re toast was burnt that morning can be found in their religion’s scriptures. What annoys me most then is relying heavily on passages in the Bible, or Koran, or something that a religious leader said to justify or understand events. Granted, these writings are sacred and are one of the foundations of the faith. But to say that the mysteries of the universe are encompasses between the covers of a single book is something that is impossible to swallow. It is factually undeniable that these texts were written by man, and hence also vulnerable to our weaknesses. This does not mean that the religion itself is not credible, it just means that dogma created by man cannot always be held as absolute truth.

The worse thing is that each tries to deny the knowlege that the other provides. Surely scientists can accept that there will be some things that they will never fully be able to explain. And any devout follower cannot deny that science has allowed us to somewhat trace the natural history of our planet, and that however we were created, we revolve around the sun. Proving that human beings evolved from apes (not actually proved yet) does not demolish the idea that a God, or gods can exist, unless the belief is so weak as to be based upon the idea that if the divine didn’t create us straight away, then the divine is not. Neither does the existence of the divine mean that physical laws are nonsense and that things in our world follow certain natural rules. It’s time that we recognise that most people need both.