Response to “Atheism Vs. Religion”

The article can be found here.

First of all, Veritas Pro Dilectio claims that the conversation he posted shows the basis for both religion and atheism, but this is misleading because the conversation merely illustrates a difference in opinion held by a number of people.

Secondly, the “common argument” Veritas Pro Dilectio posted may be common in some circles, but there are varying degrees of intelligence and education in “religious” and “non-religious” people alike, so it would bring more clarity to describe the conversation he wrote as one that he often comes across, or something else along those lines.

Third, there are a number of logical fallacies or perhaps oversights in the argument presented in Veritas Pro Dilectio’s post.

We will address all of these contentions to varying degrees.

Refutation

The basis of atheism is the belief that there is no God, simple enough, and it is doubtful that Veritas would disagree. However, the post does not describe the basis for religion, or faith. Veritas was partially correct when he posted that “believers of creationism or god is that everything which exists must have been created by someone or something else with divine power.”

He is correct in that they do believe in God, and that he created everything with divine power. But that is not the basis- or foundation, if you will- of religion. The basis of religion is 1) the belief in a higher power and 2) the attempt to please, get to know, or get in touch with that power. Any more specific of a statement and you would have to specify which religion you speak of, for religion is manifested in a variety of forms.
In this case, it appears Veritas is referencing Christians when he says “believer,” so we will look at this issue from a Christian standpoint as well.

The “common argument” that is used by believers is most definitely illogical in areas and is a slow, arcing pitch for someone arguing on the side of atheists.

In the conversation, the atheist claims that life came solely from evolution, and all matter from the big bang. There are a number of issues associated with these claims. First of all, the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy stated that matter cannot be created or destroyed, so there had to be some source of the matter, something to produce the big bang. Also, the second law of thermodynamics asserts that disorder in the universe in continually increasing, so it would go against a law of nature for molecular structures, life forms, and energy creating processes to become increasingly more orderly and complex- at least without a power guiding it. The problem here is not with evolution itself, it is with unguided evolution.

The atheist in Veritas’ conversation asserts that God’s eternal characteristics contradicted the universe’s need for a creator, which is not the case. For if there was a God who created the universe, including the laws such as the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy, that deity would not necessarily be bound by the same laws it placed upon its creation.

Veritas Pro Dilectio goes on to claim that “the atheist is basing his beliefs that there is no god on the fact that there is no proof of Him whatsoever.” This claim has a couple major flaws. It is not a fact that “there is no proof of Him whatsoever,” there is simply disputed evidence. Secondly, even if there was no “proof” of God, it doesn’t mean that God would simply not exist; it would mean that He has not been made known to us.

The last major flaw in Veritas’ reasoning is one that I have encountered often: the excessive amount of faith put in science, and a misunderstanding of what science is on a fundamental level.

Misunderstanding Science

First and foremost, science is not an entity, science is not all knowing, science does not do anything, humans do science. Science is the study of the natural world, and of trying to understand it based upon our observations of the world in its natural state and through experiments. The definition of science contains a number of limits on what science can do.

Most of the limitations of science can be boiled down to one source: us, creatures with imperfect logic, never free from bias, and incapable of seeing the entire big picture- because of the massive amount of knowledge that can be gained from the world- to see how it all really comes together. It is also impossible to observe with complete objectivity, for if an observation is to be of any use, you have to have something specific to look for, so bias is inherent in the system. Another limitation on what can be done through science also finds its source in mankind. We can only observe the natural world, we cannot observe the supernatural, unless it is revealed to us, but we would still be missing one of the big requirements of the scientific process to proving anything: repeatability.

While science has its limitations, it also has a vast array of application and is a very powerful tool. The only problem is that it is all too often misunderstood.

Conclusion

There is far more to the topic of religion vs atheism than can fit in simply one or two posts, this debate has already been going on for thousands of years, so one short post cannot possibly prove one side or the other, especially since it is impossible to prove oneself right through human logic, flawed as it is