religions

The folly of faith
by Victor John Stenger

The incompatibility between religion and science, in a lecture at the University of Bergamo..

 

Religion and science are at war for a long time. Given the dominant role that religion plays in society, most scientists and many national scientific organizations have compromised their principles in order to remain on good terms with religious groups, trying to leave the territory, leaving the task to science to study what "it is" religion and talk about what "should be". However, today's religious leaders and their political supporters are looking more and more and more vehemently to define the real world according to their models, undermining the scientific consensus on matters of great importance for all human beings.
It also happens to hear it said that science should not deal with the "why" the world is as it is limited to the facts once again just what it is, leaving the task of religion to tell us why. But, once again, religion intrudes into the undisputed territory of science, claiming to find empirical evidence of a divine purpose in the universe. In this lecture I will examine evidence from the perspective of a scientist and I shall ask what the observations tell us the world through our senses and made with the most advanced scientific instruments, on what, why and what it should be.

Following the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century, science and philosophy were distinct from theology. Atheism and deism became intellectually respectable. Theism returned with the notion of natural theology, in which scientific observations and theories were seen as a way to learn more about the majesty of the Creator. However, when geologists demonstrated that the Earth is much older than claimed in the Bible and Darwin showed how life evolved without God, the foundations of religious faith began to crumble.
Some authors argue that, historically, religion and science have contributed constructively to each other. Nevertheless, over the millennia, religion has been more a hindrance than a help to the development of science. Certainly it is no coincidence that the scientific revolution has taken place only after the revolt against the official Church authorities in the Renaissance and the Reformation had opened new avenues for thought.
The religion is based on faith, not science: it is based on observation of the objective world, and what makes them fundamentally incompatible. Science asks the question "What do you believe, dreams and fantasies of ancient mystics or our eyes, ears, telescopes, clocks, scales, cameras, recorders and reason?"
The battle between creationists and theists evolutionary biologists is well known. Less known are the ways in which theists and spiritualists used improperly physics and cosmology, and misrepresent to provide scientific support for their belief in a supernatural creation. They falsely claim that cosmology confirms the hypothesis of a universe created. Falsely claim that the parameters of physics have been developed for human life. Falsely claim that modern physics provides a means for God to act in the world without being detected. Falsely claim that quantum mechanics indicates that humans can create their own reality simply by thinking we can do.

At the present stage of scientific development, we can say with confidence that there is no need to invoke supernatural forces in order to understand the universe. Let me share a few of the reasons why I believe that science and religion are totally incompatible. And then I'll show you why it matters.
All religions, even Buddhism, teach that there is a reality that goes beyond - transcends - the material world that presents itself to our senses and scientific instruments. Many believers claim that science has nothing to say about the supernatural. But if they do not concede that the supernatural exists and has effects on the material world, those effects should be studied scientifically observable.
Science is prepared to consider any data that is present, but so far not imposed on anyone who appeared to add an immaterial entity models that describe our observations of the world around us. Eminent cosmologists have disclosed a purely natural scenarios of our universe. These scenarios are fully consistent with all existing knowledge. Biologists have not found any special "vital force" in living organisms. Neuroscientists have found no sign of intangible elements in the human mind.
In many religions, is essential to the idea of divine creation. The first question that arose was the people: "From where came the mass of the universe?". Before the twentieth century, in fact, there were good reasons for thinking that the universe could have had natural origins, and that was needed miraculous creation that he had violated the fundamental laws of physics.
Then, in 1905, Einstein showed that mass and energy are equivalent, so mass can be derived from energy. This led to a second question: "Where does the energy of the universe come from?". for the creation of the universe, seemed to require a violation of the fundamental law of conservation of energy, known as the first law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics, which says that the whole universe must grow in an increasingly cluttered over time, seemed to have been violated. The universe now has small regions of origin, like the Earth, so it must be more ordered in the past. Believers have asked "Where did that order if it is derived from the Creator?"
Up to a certain point, then, seemed to doubt that two of the most important principles of physics, the first and the second law of thermodynamics, had been miraculously violated to give birth to the universe. Well, it proved to refute these arguments: a natural origin of the universe is possible without violating the principles of thermodynamics or any other law of physics.
In the late twentieth century, astronomical studies showed that the energy of the universe is perfectly balanced between the positive energy of matter and motion, and negative energy of gravity. So the universe did not need to generate energy. The first principle was not violated.
Earlier in the century, the astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe is expanding. As it expands, there is always more room to form an order. Consequently, the second law of thermodynamics is not violated, since they were formed ordered structures such as stars and planets.
Cosmologists have shown that our universe was born 13.7 billion years ago, with a gigantic explosion called the big bang. The Christians consider the success of the big bang model confirms the biblical story of creation. At least, it seems to prove that the universe had a beginning and, in their opinion, the cause of that beginning can not be other than a Creator God.
However, recent developments have greatly reduced this wishful thinking. Now it seems that the big bang has emerged from a state of total chaos and we have no way of knowing for sure what happened first. One theory consistent with everything we know, our universe is derived from a previous universe through a process known as tunneling. We have no reason to believe that ours is the only one universe, indeed, modern cosmology suggests that ours is only one of an unlimited number of other universes in what is called the "multiverse".
A question is often asked is "How can something come from nothing?". The simple answer is that the multiverse has always existed and is not derived from anything.

As in all scientific debates, these conclusions are tentative. Although do not conflict necessarily with the existence of a creator, science does not see the need there might be, while religion can not help it.
Turning to more recent assertions that the science would support the creation of God, theologians argue that the parameters of physics are so precisely balanced that the slightest change in their values would not have made life possible. So a creator must have set up these parameters in order to allow us and other life forms to evolve.
This statement can be refuted on several fronts. Clearly, if there is a multiverse of many universes, the universe we live just suits us. But even if there were only our universe, within the existing knowledge can be found a satisfactory answer to the fundamental values of the parameters. For example, it can be shown that other parameters have the range that makes it likely some form of life.
For centuries, thinkers have argued that the order we see around us is proof of divine design in the universe. We have already seen how the existence of the cosmic order does not violate any principle of physics. Today's intelligent design creationist movement believes that complex biological structures in need of an architect and builder, and that natural processes can not by itself generate new information. This, however, is false. The generation of complex systems from simpler systems can be found in many physical situations, such as natural and spontaneous transitions from gas to liquid to solid in the absence of external energy. The condensation of water vapor into a liquid and liquid water to ice is the main example.
Life on Earth, after all, is the prime example of how complexity arises naturally from simpler systems. Darwin showed that in the billions of years of Earth history, all existing species have evolved from simpler forms through a process of random mutation - natural selection.

Despite the overwhelming evidence, only a third of Americans accept evolution. I am pleased to say that, however, two thirds of Italians agree that humans evolved from simpler life forms. While the Protestant fundamentalists in America have refused to accept evolution because of its conflict with the Bible, Catholics and Protestants accept the more moderate evolution and argue that it is in harmony with their faith. Nevertheless, many surveys indicate that almost no Christians accept the theory of evolution as understood by modern biology. Christians, in fact, they insist that evolution is guided by God, and God has no formal role in the Darwinian theory. In practice, the majority of Christians believe in the so-called "Intelligent design".

Let's look at some of the other religious beliefs that are incompatible with science. The fundamental belief in the soul is incorporeal in almost all religious faiths. The core is usually associated with mind and thought to be the source of our thoughts and our emotions. The proof of the existence of some intangible item in humans is established on the basis of religious experiences. However, where these have been studied scientifically, it was found that for all natural explanations are plausible.
For nearly two centuries have been studied scientifically alleged paranormal or "psychic" that may indicate special powers of the mind that go beyond the material, but has never had a single confirmation of their existence. Now, we can safely conclude that the "psychic phenomena" do not exist. Neuroscience has shown that much of what is considered the product of an intangible component of the mind has a material basis in the brain, despite high-profile elicited by some assumptions in this sense, even quantum mechanics has some special role in the brain. Of course, a material explanation of consciousness has not yet obtained consent, but promising models have been proposed which are currently being tested.
Whoever believes in God assumes no doubt that it is the source of moral and that people would be evil, depraved, corrupt, debauched if there was no god to ensure their fairness. This is in total disagreement with the fact that the vast majority of non-believers is not evil, depraved, corrupt, debauched, and the fact that many believers are evil, depraved, corrupt and debauched. Some politicians, preachers and priests are good examples.
The natural origins of morality are now an important object of study and there is already a considerable literature on the subject. Many authors propose models for the moral evolution, and we have good reasons to believe that humans are now in a developmental stage where they can use their intellect to develop codes of behavior that maximize the welfare of all rather than wait for the slow process of biological evolution .
Religious extremists argue that atheism and secularism will destroy the foundations of society. What we are trying to say is that a society that fails to live "under God" will be a society fall prey to "anarchy and crime" in which "the offenders are allowed to act in an uncontrolled way." Note that ignoring the evidence and invent facts to suit their own prejudices. This is how faith works - and why it should not be tolerated. Today in Europe you can find many societies where the majority of people have freely given up religion and god. Far from the dens of iniquity, these societies are the most happy, safe and successful in the world. The atheistic societies of Scandinavia are placed near the top ranking in every social and personal health.

The incompatibility of religion and science is more than just an intellectual debate among scholars. Faith is folly. It implies belief in a world beyond the senses without any basis in evidence and no reason to believe such a thing than to hope that there is something else out there. If a false belief can be comforting and even temporarily useful, it can not be a guide to life or the foundation of a successful society.
The war between religion and science would not have much importance if it were merely an academic dispute. Unfortunately, religion prevents serious science to be used for the benefit of humanity. Darwinian evolution is the foundation of modern biology, yet, as I mentioned earlier, virtually all Christians and Muslims insist they should be guided by God. As we have seen, at least for America and all Islamic countries, the result is that our knowledge in biology are not taught in school. This neglect is bound to have a negative impact on the health sciences as well as on biological research.
In America, religious groups are used to the interests of corporate groups, against the fundamental interests of people, such as health and economic well-being, to question established scientific findings on important issues such as overpopulation, pollution and global warming . This does not happen if it were not for the diametrically opposed world views of religion and science. Religion plays a central role in America today, as it is used to stifle political science from the conservatives, many of whom have said that global warming does not exist because God would never allow such a thing.
When the belief in ancient myths joins other negative forces in our society, what prevents the world to advance scientifically, economically and socially in a time of rapid progress in these areas is absolutely essential for the survival of humanity. Probably we are about one or two generations away from the problems anticipated by the catastrophic global warming, pollution and overpopulation. We can expect flooded coastal areas, drastic climate changes, epidemics caused by overpopulation and rampant hunger for most of humanity. On the other hand, Europe may become hotter but not falling into another ice age, with the melting of Arctic ice that moves the Gulf Stream.
It is likely that such disasters can unleash a world war which will exceed in intensity the great wars of the twentieth century, perhaps with nuclear weapons in the hands of unstable nations and terrorist groups. So it is time that scientists and other rational people to unite to stop those who claim to have a sacred right to decide in which society must live the rest of us: for our rights, for humanity and for the future of our planet. I have great hope that, perhaps in another generation, America will be united with Europe and the rest of the developed world to break free from the rusty chains of superstition that remain an impediment to science and progress. I hope it's not too late.