Religion versus science has always been a long withstanding debate within the public sphere and in our own personal lives. It dominates so much of human behaviour and how we relate to each other in our similarities and differences. Undeniably, these ideological conflicts have also resulted in violence, hatred of the other and deep ignorance and bigotry. With the increased popularity of figures such as Richard Dawkins in the media, the unspoken questions surrounding religion and its validity have come into stark relief against the rise of new scientific discoveries and a deeper understanding of the world we live in.
In 2015, a video clip of Stephen Fry in an interview with Gay Byrne went viral. In this clip, Stephen Fry discussed quite candidly and without shame his deep disgust for the Christian God portrayed in the bible. ‘If the universe was created by a God, he is quite clearly a maniac’, Fry states. He goes on to condemn the absurdity of an all seeing, all knowing benevolent being that requires self-sacrifice and a lifetime of praying on our knees thanking him.
For others, what may be even more disturbing about the teachings of organised religion is the stifling grip of authority it has over much of the population. The result of this in the education system can be quite devastating. Children may be taught to abandon reason and logic if what they are learning does not coincide with their existing beliefs. In children, this can be relatively harmless, even if it is cruel. Yet come adulthood, these beliefs can manifest as intolerance and hatred towards others who do not share the same unwavering ideals.
Comedian and actor Russell Brand made a YouTube video, in response to Fry, proclaiming and defending his own belief in God. Although a rather flamboyant character with a colourful past, he has become an increasingly recognised ‘social justice warrior’ kind of guy. Fry himself made it clear while speaking at the Oxford union that Brand had some interesting points of view. Brand’s main argument centred around the fact that much of reality on which we base scientific understanding can be brought into question. Brand argues that reality is ‘subjective to the filters of the senses’ and that ‘religion is a way to explain the unknowable, as science tries to explain the unknowable’.
The media were quick to pit Brand against Fry in a religion versus science scenario. You were with one or the other. You are an atheist or a believer. There is no in between apparently.
Except that many people are in between. There are the agnostics, who are to put it plainly, unsure. Maybe these group of thinkers noticed something similar to me. I didn’t see a debate or an argument presented between these two strands of thought. In fact, I would go as far as to say that Brand and Fry were essentially talking about relatively different things. Brand points out that Fry’s interpretation of God subscribes to the rigid Christian version given by the bible. In that sense, Fry equates God to the man-made version presented by organised religion. Brand is quick to assert that he doesn’t believe in that God either. In contrast, Brands’ idea of God seems to be based on the metaphysical and on evidence concerning the creation of the universe that still leaves reasonable doubt, interconnected with his own feelings of spirituality (a rather loose term he waves around too often). Watching both of these men speak about God, it seemed to me that language was getting in the way.
When somebody expresses their belief in God, our own connotations of that word can obstruct how we connect to ideas. ‘God’ conjures up a whole range of images in the individuals’ mind depending on what religion they follow. For some, God is presented as the man at the pearly gates sporting a luxuriously long white beard. For others, God is an abstract entity that we can’t humanly hope to understand. Either way, the word ‘God’ has to be removed from the conversation.
When discussing the idea of ‘God’ I choose to replace the term with ‘higher intelligence’. This way, all those preconceived religious connotations are removed. We are no longer talking about God, we are talking about a possible higher intelligence in the universe that might possibly (I don’t use that word lightly) have dealt a helping hand in our existence. How far you want to take that theory is up to you. This ‘intelligent designer’ may have been only responsible for the big bang and then let us get on with it, or it may have ultimate control and power in every aspect of our individual and collective lives (the latter seems distinctly unlikely in my opinion). I think anyone with an ounce of logic and the ability to reason can agree that if it exists, if it has control, and whatever it is, it is not all benevolent. Also, this isn’t really a question of belief, but rather an intellectual pondering of a philosophical nature. And philosophy is important. It strengthens our ability for divergent thinking without straying from the rules of logic. With philosophy, when engaging with these discussions, we don’t need to have the answers right now or to pick sides, but we need to feel free to ponder the questions and possible outcomes. Ultimately, by discussing these ideas, we are moving out of the realm of religion and blind faith and towards effective debate using our own capacity for finding truth, rather than having a farcical truth told for us.
Perhaps there needs to be a new definition of God. That way, everybody is on the same page academically speaking. Spirituality is another term that is often sneered at. It can be very misleading in conversation when used in an off handed manner. If it is used at all, the person should specify how exactly they are spiritual. For example, I have a very difficult time relating intellectually to anyone who believes using salt crystals will ward of illness for some inexplicable reason. It’s nonsensical. However, some people’s notion of spiritually merely extends to spending time in nature or being kind and compassionate to others, which is something we should all aspire to. The problem really lies in the fact there is a distinct, automatic distaste for the term by anyone who prides themselves on using their brain for a living. This aversion can then potentially extend to the other person’s ideas, regardless of whether they are valid or not.
In terms of what is useful to society and what we can do without, it is my opinion that science is essential, philosophy is important and that organised religion renders the whole of humanity downright degenerative. Telling people what to think and how to think, even if it goes against the evidence, has no place in the 21st century. Philosophy can take all the questions that religion has and supply discussion in a more constructive way that is cohesive with science and a modern society. Unfortunately, there are too many people in the world motivated by fear rather than the discovery of truth and this will continue to hold us back. It’s harsh but I don’t really care about what comforts you, I care about the truth. Telling children there are angels because it helps you sleep at night has no place in the classroom.
In a recent interview for ‘The Unbelievers’ documentary, Ricky Gervais explains that he holds a low regard for agnostics. ‘If you are agnostic about God, you have to be the same about Santa’. Again I would argue that Ricky, like Fry, is holding in his mind the idea of God portrayed in the bible. When dealing with organised religion, if somebody asked me if I believe in the Christian God, or any God that came from an old book, I would without reservation say that I am as close to being an atheist as it is possible to be. If you asked me whether I believe in a higher intelligence however, I would have to concede that I am agnostic.
Anybody taking the time to read this type of article knows that science is irrefutable and extremely valuable to our society. Yet it is equally valid to philosophise the very nature of the reality that science is founded upon. There are questions beyond science that deserve to be explored. Descartes was on to something with ‘I think therefore I am’.
But what this really comes down to is the understanding that we simply don’t know. We can try to speak with as much authority as we can on the subject but at some point, we need to be more comfortable saying ‘I don’t know’. I can understand the hesitation. Confessing ignorance can create a knowledge power vacuum. People will want to shout from the rooftops that you are without conviction in what you say. Therefore, the argument mostly falls into the either/or variety. In the end, maybe we will come to acknowledge that admitting to not having all the answers may mean we are closer to knowing more than most.
Comments