Scientific Facts vs. Religious Beliefs

A video in two parts by the Richard Dawkins Foundation, entitled The Four Horsemen; this is a discussion of the intolerance, the antagonism and total lack of capacity for rational debate shown by members of religions towards atheism, evolution, science and scientists. The Four Horsemen of the title, who appear in the video, have all written and published books relating to the topics of the discussion. They are Richard Dawkins (seated center-right), author of "The God Delusion"; Daniel C. Dennet (center-left), who wrote "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon"; Sam Harris (on the right) of "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason"; and Christopher Hichens, author of "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything".

Part 1


Part 2


A stranglehold on Western thought and philosophy throughout the major part of the last two milennia originated when, in the year 313, Christianity was decreed by the emperor Constantine I in his "Edict of Milan" to be the official religion of the Roman empire and thus it became embedded in political power structures. When the Roman empire broke up, the subsequent national or state governments continued to follow to some extent the late Roman model, retaining Christianity's role of dictating what should and should not be believed. Philip Schaf, a 19th. century theologian, in Chapter 1 of his "History of the Christian Church" puts it thus:

" Constantine, the first Christian Caesar, the founder of Constantinople and the Byzantine empire, and one of the most gifted, energetic, and successful of the Roman emperors, was the first representative of the imposing idea of a Christian theocracy, or of that system of policy which assumes all subjects to be Christians, connects civil and religious rights, and regards church and state as the two arms of one and the same divine government on earth. This idea was more fully developed by his successors, it animated the whole middle age, and is yet working under various forms in these latest times; though it has never been fully realized, whether in the Byzantine, the German, or the Russian empire, the Roman church-state, the Calvinistic republic of Geneva, or the early Puritanic colonies of New England. At the same time, however, Constantine stands also as the type of an undiscriminating and harmful conjunction of Christianity with politics, of the holy symbol of peace with the horrors of war, of the spiritual interests of the kingdom of heaven with the earthly interests of the state."

From such a position of dominance Christianity has been able to dictate its "truth", to manipulate peoples into whatever forms of belief the religion required and to enforce compliance with all rigor. During the following seventeen hundred years or so, despite the occasional hiatuses of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton, among others, and although split into variations of belief (each of which claiming to be the owners of the real "truth"), the pervasive observance of Christian beliefs, mores and ethos embedded in the different political power structures, has served as a useful tool for the political establishments of each succeeding age for manipulating and molding the beliefs and behavior of the general population.

The place of Christianity within political power was brought to the North American colonies by different Christian extremist groups seeking a place to establish their particular version of the "truth" without conflict with other similar claimants of the "real truth". When the United Sates was founded, the problem of which version of the Christian "truth" should prevail was solved by proclaiming a nominal separation between "church" and the state, thus neither version was officially recognized.

However, the omnipresent religious influence is evident even at the present time. A deity is officially acknowledged by law in the United States - some examples of this are: the oath of allegiance proclaiming "one Nation, under God"; "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency (occurred in the '50s); and in the U.S. judicial system all evidence is given under the oath "..So Help Me God". And, as an extreme example of such religious influence, even in supposedly "godless" Nazi Germany the oath of obedience to Adolf Hitler began with "I swear by God this sacred oath.....etc."

In trying to bring about recognition and acceptance by society in general of the validity of the evidence of scientific discoveries as opposed to irrational creationist belief, science is up against the all-pervading influence of Christianity that is present at all levels of human society in the Western world from the cradle to the grave.

Accumulated over so many centuries, that influence is woven into Western languages, customs, laws, dress, social organization, systems and content of education, etc. etc. Therefore when science questions the validity of Christianity it is no surprise that it causes unthinking, irrational reactions, even from people who have only a nominal, non-practicing religious belief. Others that have their own brand of deity, such as the Jewish and Islamic religions, are perhaps even more vehement in their irrationality and enmity towards scientific evidence and atheistic argument.

In my view, the discussion featured in the video - although useful as an exposure of the problems and attitudes that the participants as scientists and atheists have come up against in their efforts to counter religious beliefs with scientific facts - underlines the reality that efforts to convince believers in religions of the validity of the evidence from scientific discovery are quixotic, an unfruitful "tilting at windmills" to no avail. As the poet said "....East is East and West is West and ne'er the twain shall meet". Reason and irrational "belief" are irreconcilable.

It is probable that in the Western world only after several generations into the future will its several forms of religion have become as unimportant, disreputable and irrelevant, for example, as astrology is today. However, such a sea-change could only come about through a qualitative transformation of the teaching of science within all education systems. I think that if such changes in education occur and meanwhile the atheists "let sleeping dogs lie", the widening scope and accumulative weight of scientific discovery and evidence will overwhelm and convince, in the long run, the nominal believers in religion who at present are the majority of the population.

Another ray of hope is the possibility that the growing realization, at present trickling down to most levels of society, of the perils of global warming will open up for science a breach in the walls of creationism and blind religious faith that could lead to a greater realization of the validity of scientific facts regarding planet Earth and all life contained in it.

"The Root Of All Evil?"

The Root of All Evil? is a television documentary, written and presented by Richard Dawkins, in which he argues that the world would be ... all » better off without religion.

The documentary was first broadcast in January 2006, in the form of two 45-minute episodes (excluding advertisement breaks), on Channel 4 in the UK.

Dawkins has said that the title "The Root of All Evil?" was not his preferred choice, but that Channel 4 had insisted on it to create controversy.[1] His sole concession from the producers on the title was the addition of the question mark. Dawkins has stated that the notion of anything being the root of all evil is ridiculous.[2] Dawkins's book The God Delusion, released in September 2006, goes on to examine the topics raised in the documentary in greater detail.

The God Delusion explores the unproven beliefs that are treated as factual by many religions and the extremes to which some followers have taken them. Dawkins opens the programme by describing the "would-be murderers . . . who want to kill you and me, and themselves, because they're motivated by what they think is the highest ideal." Dawkins argues that "the process of non-thinking called faith" is not a way of understanding the world, but instead stands in fundamental opposition to modern science and the scientific method, and is divisive and dangerous. «

A Religious Sense Of The Natural vs. Supernatural Religion

This is a mind-expanding talk that probes the limits of human understanding: Why can't we see atoms? Why can't we hear color? How can we understand randomness? Dawkins suggests that the true nature of the universe eludes us because the human mind has evolved mainly to understand other humans -- and to look for human motives even in natural processes. Thus, we create a humanlike God to explain phenomena we can't otherwise comprehend; right or wrong, we're simply wired for it.
Richard Dawkins is Oxford's Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, and the author of the landmark 1976 book The Selfish Gene and the 2006 bestseller The God Delusion. (The talk was recorded July 2005 in Oxford, UK)



In his book The God Delusion, Dawkins examines the religious sense of the natural world of scientists in apposition to the supernatural religions:

“………Human thoughts and emotions emerge from exceedingly complex interconnections of physical entities within the brain. An atheist in this sense of philosophical naturalist is somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe, no soul that outlasts the body and no miracles – except in the sense of natural phenomena that we don’t yet understand. If there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural. As ever when we unweave a rainbow, it will not become less wonderful.

Great scientists of our time who sound religious usually turn out not to be so when you examine their beliefs more deeply. This is certainly true of Einstein and Hawking……

….One of Einstein’s most eagerly quoted remarks is ‘Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind’. But Einstein also said

'It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.'

Does it seem that Einstein contradicted himself? That his words can be cherry-picked for quotes to support both sides of an argument? No. By religion Einstein meant something entirely different from what is conventionally meant. As I continue to clarify the distinction between supernatural religion on the one hand and Einsteinian religion on the other, bear in mind that I am calling only supernatural gods delusional.

Here are some more quotes from Einstein to give a flavor of Einsteinian religion.

'I am a deeply religious non-believer. This is somewhat a new kind of religion.

I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.

The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve'.............."

(The God Delusion, Chapter I, pp.35-36)

See also: http://www.amazon.com/gp/mpd/permalink/m5G704L3D2SCM