The Antichristian Phenomenon

In this article I will analyse the attempts to attain knowledge or “truth” of various systems who claim it. Afterwards, I will examine these systems for their merit and their danger. When it comes to truth, there are three systems who claim to have some of it. There is science, there is philosophy, and there is religion. Because this is an analysis, I will try not to favor any of these three and stay objective.

Truth
Let us first dive into science. Science is a system that seeks truth of phenomena based on deduction, logic, statistics, et cetera. Science inspects phenomena and tries to understand what is happening, why it is happening and how it is happening. This is done by research: experimentation, simulation, reproduction, et cetera. Science is a progressive system. The knowledge it gains from phenomena accumulates and can often be used to understand other, more complex phenomena. Throughout history, the amount knowledge derived with science has only increased. In modern times, through globalisation and a revolution in information exchange in the form of the internet, science has accelerated and nowadays it progresses even faster. Science is not static; the science of today can be outdated tomorrow. Theories can be disproven and new hypotheses postulated every day. This is due to the goal of science: To describe most accurately all known phenomena. “Truth” from science is apparent in every apparatus.

Secondly, there is philosophy. The domain of science is restricted. “Abstract” truth is what is pursued in philosophy. It deals with questions that can not be answered through mathematics or other backbones of science. It is hard to define the precise boundaries of this system. Philosophy relies heavily on logical reasoning. Because philosophy can not be tested, it is subject to many interpretations. The tree of philosophy has many branches that may not be compatible with each other. Over time, various schools of philosophy have flourished. They have often done so in accordance with events that inspired a particular school of philosophy (a general accepted idea of ethics, metaphysics or epistemology) to take root. Although some schools may not agree on a certain subject, ideas are always based on consistent logic and reasonable assumptions. To choose between conflicting brances of philosophy can appear trivial for an “outsider” because of this. It will therefore usually rely on the subjective attitude of the outsider what approximation of truth he will adopt as his/her truth.

Thirdly, there is religion. Religion often makes claims to know the absolute truth about the unknowable, which is contradictory. Religion claims knowledge of events after death, of beyond the universe and the human mind, of the meaning of life. One religion is often not coherent and to take it as absolute truth would mean to abolish logic (two opposing views can not both be true in an absolute truth dogma). Religion here deviates from the path chosen by science and philosophy. Also, unlike science and philosophy, religion encompasses mythology – tellings of events which involve the supernatural to illustrate and explain important events in its mythology. For example, there are countless recordings of tellings of the creation of the universe and the creation of man. These tellings rely heavily on seemingly random assumptions (in this example, for one, that the universe or man was indeed ‘created’). Religion is dogmatic and not progressive. It does not change over time. A perfect example is the biblical mythology, which has not changed (unless by translation) over a period of more than 2000 years. Furthermore, because of its dogmatic properties, religion does not allow for discussion or critical examination of its principles. In essence, religion is a merely a wild guess to truth, but boldly claims its findings to be absolute.

Merit
The merit of science is quite apparent, so I will be short about it. Because it is such a systematical system, it provides a basis for the engineering of various apparatuses. The monitor that displays this text is based on tons of fields of science which include subjects like magnetics, electronics, nuclear physics, plastics, et cetera. The monitor works because the science that make up the blueprint for its components is true enough for the production of complex unnatural objects like it.

Philosophy can satisfy people in giving them insights, possible answers, to abstract questions that science can not answer. Ethics, for example, deals with how one might live one’s life. Philosophy provides paths to life and can be seen as a system of guidance. Epistemology deals with how true knowledge can be attained, and science uses many of its provided paths (empiricism, causality, logic, et cetera) to accumulate knowledge of phenomena.

Religion shows some overlap with philosophy, as it also provides a way to live life, or a moral standard, or some other answer. The merit of religion lies usually in “some other answers”. Science is difficult because you have to keep in mind all the other science there is out there, and all science has to be coherent for it to be accepted. Philosophy is difficult because you need to take every step with logic for an idea to be accepted as a true philosophy. Religion however, is quite simple. It provides quick and easy answers to life for those who are unable to practice science or philosophy, or are unhappy with these aforementioned systems because they feel them to be wrong. In science, there seems to be no real meaning to life, which, understandably, can be hard to accept. Being here, living, only to feed, breed and pass out like a candle does not sound very noble. Why live a productive, good life, if it doesn’t matter in the end because death is a great leveler? Religion’s merit is to provide these people with answers which may not be true, but which they may find assuring. When science and philosophy were nonexistant or young, religion was the only giver of answers.

Danger
There is a minor danger in science itself. Failed experiments in science have cost many lives in the past. Nowadays, there are strict standards for safety in scientific experiments. In effect, the risk of science itself has been lowered. The risk about science, however, is far greater. Science can be (was, and will be) misused. The typical example is the development of the atomic bomb, to which for example the scientist Einstein had always objected. In a way, however, the atomic bomb is no different than the machine gun, the sword or the spear; all tools of warfare and a product of science.

For philosophy, I have been unable to establish a danger, because it is a craft of the mind. Application of philosophical ideals to reality may lead to danger because of the human factor (for example the introduction of communism). However, it is not a danger inherent to the system.

There are many dangers of religion. As aforementioned, religion is dogmatic and because of this, it allows for no deviation. There are different kinds of religion, and it is therefore not surprising that these different religions have clashed. I need not mention “holy wars” in detail to illustrate this. However, religion has also waged war on the nonreligious systems. Science has been supressed in the middle ages because their findings disproved major parts of religious mythologies. Philosophers whose principles did not comply with the reigning religion, were prosecuted. Also, because the big religions are not based on modern society, these systems should not be allowed much political power. For example, all the abrahamic religions, who make up the majority of the religious charts, speak disprovingly of homosexuality. In power, they would (and do, as in Iran) prosecute homosexuals. There are other similar cases in religion that, if given the power, would prohibit other freedoms or rights I think everyone should have – Religion could be a potential danger to freedom. Another danger is the disbalancing of the scientifically established propositions by pseudoscience (for example in the case of creationism). Especially in the United States, schools have been forced to tell about creationism as well as to teach evolution. The popular misconception created in the minds of the attending youth is that science is at a fork in the road and is unsure about which direction to take. Science is not: science favors evolution over creationism. Of course, it should not be forbidden to tell about creationism, but it does not belong in science class. Religion therefor is a potential danger to truth. Religious people may also introduce their offspring into their system – with good intentions. However, I think it to be important to be taught to think critically – it is the catalyst of progression. A critical attitude is discouraged in these children, and that is not favourable for progression; it is not favourable for the rest of humanity. It also denies them the opportunity to discover truth. Therefore, religion is a potential danger to the easily manipulable minds of our youth, the future of humanity.

Science, philosophy and religion will always exist when people do. Abolishing any of these would violate basic human rights. The dangers of religion could be relieved if religion would change their attitude to some human rights – to leave its dogmatic character behind and realise there is a huge crowd of people out there who may think differently. They should not treat these otherminded individuals as “lost ones” who need saving from whatever mythological unpleasant place their scripture predicts they will go. Religion has its merit, but it should cast off its dusty cloths and for once take a step forward. I, for one, would have my peace.

Welcome! If you're new here, before you open your mail program to fire up a nasty email, you may want to first read our FAQ to avoid being ignored. If you like the content, we hope you will to subscribe to our RSS feed. Stay open minded!
If you don't like the content of this website on the other hand, kindly fuck off.

This entry was posted on Saturday, September 15th, 2007 at 10:52 pm and is filed under Philosophy, Religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.