Five Things Science Can’t Explain
Science has contributed innumerable benefits to human life on planet Earth. We should be deeply grateful for the hard work of scientists who dedicate their lives to loyal study of this discipline and the advantages scientific advances grant us.
Due to its success, there is often a tendency to think that science can explain everything. However there are actually many things that science cannot prove. Here are five categories of truth that cannot be proven using the scientific method:
1) Existential Truth: Science cannot prove that you aren’t merely a brain in a jar being manipulated to think this is all actually happening. (Think of something like in “The Matrix”.) It also cannot prove that the world wasn’t created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age (and with fake memories in your head, and half-digested food in your stomach, etc). However it’s still rational to believe that our memories are true and that the world is real.
Love For a Lifetime: How I got past the parental rejection of my childhood
Feeling stressed out? Try this interactive study
2) Moral Truth: Science cannot prove that rape is evil. While it is possible to demonstrate, for example, that there are negative physical or psychological effects of rape, there is no scientific test that can prove it is evil. Science can describe how the natural world is, but moral truth carries an “oughtness” (how things should be) about it that goes beyond what merely is.
3) Logical Truth: Consider the statement “Science is the only way to really know truth.” How could you prove that statement by science? It is actually self-refuting because there is no scientific test you could use to prove that it is true! Science cannot prove logic to be true because it assumes and requires logic in order for it to work.
4) Historical Truth: Science cannot prove that Barack Obama won the 2008 United States presidential election. There is no scientific test we could perform to prove it. We could have an investigation if we wanted to confirm that he did actually win, but the method for proving historical truths is different from testing scientific truths since historical truths are by nature non-repeatable.
5) Experiential Truth: Science cannot prove that your spouse loves you. When asked why so-and-so loves you, you may cite precedent (times when their behavior demonstrates their love for you) but this is a particular type of historical truth. There is no scientific test that can confirm a lifetime of experience of knowing a person.
None of this is meant to criticize science! There’s nothing wrong with the scientific method for testing the kinds of things it was meant to test. However, it would be a mistake to expect it to be able to test everything. There are more intellectual tools available to us than just science, and as the old saying goes, when all you’ve got is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail!
For the kinds of truth listed above, science is not deficient in any way; it’s just not the right way to find those particular kinds of truth. To try to do so would be like trying to ascertain whether a banana is tasty by sticking it in your ear and listening to it; it’s simply the wrong method!
There is one other kind of truth that cannot be proven or disproven by science. That’s because it is comprised of all of the other kinds of truth mentioned above mixed together: Religious truth. It does have a certain amount of overlap with science, when religion makes explicit claims about scientific fact, and when science makes explicit claims about religion. But the overlap tends to be rather small; in any case, true science and true religion, because they both aim to describe reality, can never be in conflict. (Read “Science & Religion: Conflict or Coherence?” for more on this topic.)
Why then does science often seem so straightforward and uncontroversial, whereas religion can be so difficult and contentious?
It may have something to do with a fact hinted at earlier: Religious truth is multifaceted. It is comprised of science, logic, philosophy, history, ethics, and experience, all mixed together. It is, in a sense, a different kind of knowing, not ignorant the other kinds of truths, but requiring that they be studied together carefully.
Rigidly applying the same methodology used for studying mundane things would be deficient when considering divine things. This shouldn’t be too surprising, considering that if God truly does exist, God is in a different category from every created thing that we can grasp and study under a microscope: God, unlike every created thing, is in the “uncreated things” category. Science, and each of the other kinds of truths, will have something to say about God. But none of these individually can tell us everything. All are necessary, but no single approach by itself is sufficient.
If that is the case, where should a person start a serious investigation into religion amidst all the complexity? Where should a person begin?
In his suspenseful novel Five Sacred Crossings author and religious scholar Craig Hazen presents through his narrative five “sacred crossings,” or compelling reasons to consider Christianity first. This is merely an exceedingly short summary of what Hazen explains (and argues for) in much more detail in his book:
1) It is testable. Christianity does not make merely esoteric claims; it makes claims about logic, science, history, philosophy, and ultimately reality itself.
2) It paints a picture of the world that matches reality. It does not force a person to deny that our world is real. Rather it cohesively explains why things are the way they are.
3) It makes a non-compartmentalized life possible. The Christian faith does not require a person to live one way when thinking about “religious” things and a totally different way at all other times.
4) It presents salvation as a free gift. Every other religion in the world presents some sort of works-based way to re-connect with God. But at the heart of the Christian message is grace, not more demands to somehow work our way to God.
5) It has Jesus at the center. Jesus is the most compelling (and controversial) figure in history. Many other religions claim to respect him, but Christianity is founded upon his life, teaching, and identity. Why not begin by getting to know him?
One man who took on such a challenge was Dr Alister McGrath, who earned two doctorates at Oxford University, one in molecular biophysics, the other in theology. He described his spiritual and intellectual journey to the Christian faith in this way:
“At Oxford – to my surprise – I discovered Christianity. It was the intellectually most exhilarating and spiritually stimulating thing I could ever hope to describe – better than chemistry, a wonderful subject that I had thought to be the love of my life and my future career. I went on to gain a doctorate for research in molecular biophysics from Oxford, and found that immensely exciting and satisfying. But I knew I had found something better – like the pearl of great price that Jesus talks about in the Gospel, which is so beautiful and precious that it overshadows everything. It was intellectually satisfying, imaginatively engaging, and aesthetically exciting.” 1
If you’re interested in starting a faith adventure today, here are some suggested next steps:
A Scientist’s Search for Truth – Astrophysicist Hugh Ross describes his journey to faith.
The Uniqueness of Jesus – What made Jesus so special anyways?
What Does your Soul Crave? – Destiny? Intimacy? Meaning?
Contact us with Questions – Talk with someone confidentially via email.
1 Alister McGrath, The Future of Atheism: Alister McGrath & Daniel Dennett in Dialogue (London, England: Fortress Press, 2008), 27.
So Dara, if science can’t explain these 5 things (I guess 6 things if you also include religious truth) what helps you answer the important questions that arise out of these areas of your life? How do you determine the meaning for your life? Or what is morally right and wrong? How do you logically make decisions in your life? How does the past influence your present/future? And how do you know if you are loved or not?
How do you know that the way you have answered those questions is a fairy tale?
“It’s true that science can’t explain everything, because if it did it would stop, but that doesn’t mean you can fill in the blanks with whatever [expletive removed] fairy story you like.” -Dara O
Jan, I agree that everyone has different experiences in life and there are different ways that they come to Jesus but if they are to know God their path must go through Jesus Christ. That is not a dogmatic religious delusion but it is the assertion of Jesus Christ Himself. He is the Good Shepherd who leads us into relationship with God.
I also agree that many people have taken the label “Christian” but could not be called “a follower of Jesus”. Jesus said the evidence would be in the “fruit” of their life, “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit… Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.” (Matthew 7:15-20) If someone claims to be a Christian but they do not love others the same way Jesus did but instead they persecute others and act cruelly, then you can know that they are not a follower of Jesus because of the fruit they produce.
You say there are those that have followed dogmatic religious beliefs have shed much blood, but there are far more who have followed dogmatic religious beliefs and have spent their lives in service to others. Many of those are well known but even more have gone about their life in a quiet humility and never received any accolades except from the people they served. So it is not the dogmatic religious beliefs that identify those who are followers of Jesus and those who are not but rather it is the fruit of their lives.
I appreciate your reference to the house built on the rock and the house built on the sand. Those words of Jesus are powerful statement of the need to hear what He says and to follow Him. His Word is trustworthy and you can know that if you follow Him He will help you to build a good life. But if you build your life on any other worldview, religious belief or moral standards you will be building on something that has no substance or staying power. Your life will collapse because it lacks a solid foundation. Jesus is the only sure rock.
Jamie…
You stated, “I understand that you see those quotations as true”.
I will combine the first two, i.e., “Why are they true?” and “And how do you know that they are true?”
Answer: “Cogito ergo sum”
Have you walked all the paths and know that they all lead to God?
Answer: No, I have not. I have only walked my path.
Have you received confirmation from everyone else that their paths have led them to God?
Answer: No, I have not. I prefer to take “the road less traveled”. (Roads that are heavily traveled are full of potholes.) Even a cursory assessment of the overall deplorable state of humanity would suggest that the vast majority of those who are in positions of power and authority are on the wrong path. And most of the sheep are following the wrong shepherd. Sheep follow what they want to hear, not what they need to hear.
On what basis can you affirm that no matter what path people walk that they will end up knowing God?
Answer: Your question defies logic. However, history clearly demonstrates that those who have followed dogmatic religious beliefs have shed more blood that they can ever hope to atone for. Another example of the sheep following the wrong shepherd.
“I looked for God. I went to a temple, and I didn’t find him there. Then I went to a church, and I didn’t find him there. And then I went to a mosque, and I didn’t find him there. And then finally I looked in my heart, and there he was.”
Answer: If God does not reside in the hearts of men, then why would he reside in a house of worship? There are many “good” people who never go to church and many “evil” who attend on a regular basis.
“Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool”, “What house will ye build me?”, “What is the place of my rest?”
“Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car”.
“How many paths are there to God? There are as many paths to God as there are souls on the Earth”.
Answer: The path to God is a personal journey, and it must be freely followed. Too many are driven down the wrong path out of fear.
Jamie, you need to take a journey of self-discovery, and break free from the chains of dogma. If nothing else, listen to what the bible tells you, and what it really means to you. One does not need a religious institution to interpret its meaning. Institutions are devices of man, and are often corrupted by self-interest, i.e., the “truth” is the first casualty.
Consider the following:
“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.”
Why do you keep on saying that I am your Lord, when you refuse to do what I say?
Anyone who hears my words and obeys them is like a man building a house that digs deep and lays his foundation on the rock. When the flood rises, the stream will beat vehemently against that house, but will not shake it, for the house is founded on the rock.
But anyone who hears my words and does not obey them is like a man building a house that does not dig deep, but lays his foundation on the sand. When the flood rises, the stream will beat vehemently against that house, but the house will fall, for it is founded on the sand. And the ruin of the house will be great.
Sheep that follow the wrong shepherd are being not coming to dinner; they are the dinner.
Only 5 things? So nice, because rating with the things well proved…
Hi Jan,
I understand that you see those quotations as true. Why are they true? And how do you know that they are true? Have you walked all the paths and know that they all lead to God? Have you received confirmation from everyone else that their paths have led them to God? On what basis can you affirm that no matter what path people walk that they will end up knowing God?
Darren…
Where did you find your definition of pluralism? You stated:
“The pluralist view by definition excludes all views that differ from it (ex, it excludes the “exclusivitsts” like Christians, Muslims, atheists, etc).”
Here are some other definitions…
A condition or system in which two or more states, groups, principles, sources of authority, etc., coexist.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/pluralism
Religious pluralism is an attitude or policy regarding the diversity of religious belief systems co-existing in society. It can indicate one or more of the following:
As the name of the worldview according to which one’s religion is not the sole and exclusive source of truth, and thus the acknowledgement that at least some truths and true values exist in other religions.
As acceptance of the concept that two or more religions with mutually exclusive truth claims are equally valid. This may be considered a form of either toleration (a concept that arose as a result of the European wars of religion) or moral relativism.
The understanding that the exclusive claims of different religions turn out, upon closer examination, to be variations of universal truths that have been taught since time immemorial. This is called Perennialism (based on the concept of philosophia perrenis) or Traditionalism.
Sometimes as a synonym for ecumenism, i.e., the promotion of some level of unity, co-operation, and improved understanding between different religions or different denominations within a single religion.
As term for the condition of harmonious co-existence between adherents of different religions or religious denominations.
As a social norm and not merely a synonym for religious diversity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_pluralism#Inter-religious_pluralism
Religious pluralism holds that no single religion can claim absolute authority to teach absolute truth. Religious pluralists point out that nearly all religious texts are a combination of an assortment of human observations documented, for example, as historical narratives, poetry, lections, and morality plays. Religious texts are, therefore, open to interpretation and no religion is able to comprehensively capture and communicate all truth. Although all religions attempt to capture reality, their attempts occur within particular cultural and historical contexts that affect the writer’s viewpoint.
Many religious pluralists claim that members of other faiths are searching for the same truths in different ways, and that all religious knowledge is limited by human fallibility. Pluralism does not preclude holding one’s own ideas or participating in the rituals or spiritual life of one particular religion or community, while recognizing the validity of a host of other practices or interpretations.
Many people hold that it is both permissible and imperative for people of all faiths to develop some form of religious pluralism.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Pluralism#Religious_pluralism
Darren and/or Jamie: Do you agree or disagree with the following quotations?
“I looked for God. I went to a temple, and I didn’t find him there. Then I went to a church, and I didn’t find him there. And then I went to a mosque, and I didn’t find him there. And then finally I looked in my heart, and there he was.”
“How many paths are there to God? There are as many paths to God as there are souls on the Earth”.
Jan
When you say you struggle with faith are you saying that you struggle with trusting someone outside of yourself or are you referring to faith as a belief in God? How do you describe the ‘something’ that we connect to when we are willing? How have you felt a connection like that?
I primarily write short stories, and mostly fiction. I will write virtually anything, though I find myself most comfortable writing in a more darker vein. Ultimately my two dreams are to simply be with someone who really loves me, and to manage to support myself as a writer. I have many others, but I feel that if I can find the support I need and manage to achieve recognition for my passion, then other things should be easy enough to achieve.
Dreams are pretty important aren’t they, Jeremiah!? What kind of dreams do you have for your life?
So what kind of writing do you do? Fiction? Journalism?
To be perfectly honest, much of my motivation stems from a desire to be true to myself. I am a writer, and I can tell you, as you likely understand, that choosing to be one comes with a host of difficulties. I keep at it though because it is what I love, and what I feel I am truly talented at. I am motivated by the love I have for my family and for other people. Do not get me wrong. I actually do pray and though I struggle greatly with faith, I do believe there is something that we connect to when we are willing. I am motivated partially through my experiences, which have shaped who I am. I have experienced a lot of pain in my life, but by not giving in I have managed to achieve many things I didn’t think possible. More then anything I am motivated by a hope in humanity, and desire to have the sort of life that I only thought possible in my dreams.
Sorry Jeremiah, I can tell you have kind of had your fill of Christian ‘propaganda’ :) Let me just say that it comes from people who have had a little “Experiential Truth” from being touched by a relationship with Jesus Christ. You can be sure all of it comes from a genuine desire to share with other people something that has dramatically impacted our lives so that they too can experience what it means to know and be known by God.
But I would be really interested to hear from you what “Existential Truth” you have discovered. Where do you find meaning and purpose to your life? How do you know that you exist and that your life counts for something? What “Experiential Truth” has significantly impacted you so that you are motivated to live life well?
Sigh. Ok. I didn’t directly go into what could be proven by science and has been since it was gone over in previous discussions. My main issue comes from the use of these examples as a reason for becoming a christian. Now if you want to call me exclusive then feel free. I think by doing so you are simply missing what I am saying. To infer that we cannot prove that rape is evil (I would use the word wrong, and will disagree that it cannot be proven, though I will leave that argument alone) does not assume that we require religion to come to these conclusions. Ethics, philosophy, and even history in its own way can help us come to moral and ethical conclusions. My major issue is the use of the conclusions of the article as a reason for being a christian. If the conclusion was to encourage the use of alternative methods of thinking, I would have no issue. But pushing the idea of Christianity as a solution, though protected under free speech, severely undermines what could be a very insightful and complex journey for the reader. Instead of allowing the individual to find a answer, you hand them a very specific one. This does not encourage complex thought, and does not allow for personal examination on the part of the individual. The issues the author raises are complex and interesting to discuss, so you may be able to see my displeasure to see such conversations in large part avoided by offering a metaphysical argument, which is hard to discuss in the first place.
Jeremiah Jaster, as the author of this article, I’d just like to clarify a few things.
You state that “the author was wrong in his ideas.” I don’t think that it’s been demonstrated that science can prove any of the five categories of truth that I noted in the article. When you say that they are “things science cannot explain yet” this is mistaken. The problem is not that we just haven’t done enough scientific research into these areas. The problem is that science cannot by its very nature and limitations prove any of these kinds of truth. For example, how could science prove the laws of logic? Science requires and presupposes the laws of logic to be able to function. We can state emphatically that there is absolutely, positively no possible scientific test (even in theory) which could prove the laws of logic.
As stated in the article, this is NOT meant as a criticism of science in any way. As I tried to make clear, scientific inquiry is wonderful in many ways, and should continue and be applauded for all of the benefits and new knowledge it brings us. There is no intrinsic conflict between science and Christianity. But to hold up science as being the only way of knowing is false (since there are other legitimate ways of knowing) and is thus quite non-inclusive and unaccepting (if I may say so) of other valid and rational ways of knowing truth … such as religious truth. (This veneration of science beyond its limits strikes me as being a form of idolatry, in fact.)
You may think the Christian view is less accepting than other beliefs, including your own religious belif. But the truth is, your religious view (which I’m not sure has been stated explicitly here, but seems to be a generally pluralistic approach) is no more accepting than the Christian view. The pluralist view by definition excludes all views that differ from it (ex, it excludes the “exclusivitsts” like Christians, Muslims, atheists, etc). When you disagree with Christians, you are “unaccepting” them. All beliefs by definition are exclusive of contrary beliefs. BUT that’s okay! It’s totally fine to disagree. Disagreement, and polite discussion like on this website, can help understand each other better and hopefully lead us to thinking deeper about the big metaphysical issues of life.
If you haven’t had a chance to check out Hazen’s book Five Sacred Crossings I encourage you to do so, it’s an entertaining novel which thoughtfully and artfully communicates deep spiritual truth.
I think people may have started missing the criticism of the article. Criticism comes from a belief that the author was wrong in his ideas. Christianity has just as much a right to exist as any other religion. However, the points that he brings up are used as reasons to accept a life of faith. The problem with this is that 1) as has been pointed out, he has been incorrect in his assertions, 2) just because there are things science cannot explain yet (I know of very few, and none which are on this list) does not mean that the explanation is God, and 3) if the conclusion is that somehow this is explainable by faith, then Christianity should not be pushed as the only good option, which I believe is the reason why many Christians end up taking fire from other, often more accepting beliefs. Of course I am speaking in the general. I am sure there are Christians who do not believe that their way is the only way to true happiness.
Eziama, I do understand your heart for those who do not know Jesus, and you are right in saying that the best thing for you and all of us who believe to do is to pray and ask the Lord of our salvation to soften the hearts of unbelievers. It is painful to acknowledge that those who do not believe and receive Jesus into their hearts do not and will not know the tremendous rewards of doing so – especially the beauty of having an intimate personal relationship with our Lord and Saviour and the peace of knowing we will spend eternal life with Him. There are many others too numerous to expand on in this post!
Shelley, you are absolutely right. Without God, we would not have anything! The point of the article was not to criticize science, but to explain that it is not capable of proving ALL things, as Darren pointed out by saying, “None of this is meant to criticize science! There’s nothing wrong with the scientific method for testing the kinds of things it was meant to test. However, it would be a mistake to expect it to be able to test everything.”
Thanks to all who are submitting comments on this article!
Jamie, you are doing a wonderful job here. Without Jesus Christ, there is no true ‘goodness’, because all our efforts are not good enough for God’s standards. What irks my heart about some of the comments I read here is that these people that are denying Jesus are finally going to regret this when this life is over, and I don’t have any quick way to make them KNOW the truth. I can only just pray and talk. Lord Jesus may all these people on this thread finally get to know and accept You. Reveal Yourself to them, so we don’t have to keep talking talk only.
Nice job Jan once more. In a short while many more will come to know the sweetness of having a relationship with God through Jesus Christ.
I think it is so cool that you have done so much thinking through this stuff Jan. A lot of people I know don’t put much time into thinking about these issues or spend much effort in researching what they believe or don’t believe. So when I meet people like you who have obviously done a lot of thinking about it I get very interested in knowing what conclusions they have come up with.
Like when you wrote, “I am philosophically a Christian.” That is a very interesting title you have for your beliefs. What does it mean to be philosophically a Christian?
Without God you would not have science!
Jamie… Get a grip on reality… please…
Of course Jesus is central to Christianity…
However, why do you think that you, or any other individual or institution has the “authority” to dictate that a person has to believe that “Jesus was God who had come to Earth”?
Jesus was not God, he was the “Son of God”; add the Holy Ghost and we have the Trinity. If Jesus was God, then there is no Trinity, only a duo, pair or couple.
Jesus was the “Son of Man”, and throughout history, there have been numerous “Sons of Man”.
Jamie; are you familiar with Zoroaster? He lived approximately 600 years before Jesus.
“Turn yourself not away from three best things: Good Thought, Good Word, and Good Deed.”
“Taking the first footstep with a good thought the second with a good word and the third with a good deed I entered Paradise”
“Be good, be kind, be humane, and charitable love your fellows console the afflicted pardon those who have done you wrong.”
His Miracles
Obeying all the commands of Ahura Mazda and the archangels, Zoroaster performed various impossible tasks. He protected the fires and cattle, healed the sick and even restored the sight of a blind man. He established many fire temples and spread the new faith all over the country. Zoroaster censored the worship of demons, witchcraft and sorcery. It is said that the Prophet removed all the deadly diseases, national calamities and disasters. Zoroaster cured people suffering from various incurable diseases, thwarted the harmful, toxic creatures and brought plentiful rain on earth.
Principles of Zoroastrianism
One of the first monotheistic religions in the world, Zoroastrianism influenced other religions, like Judaism, Christianity and Islam, as well. The principle of Zoroastrianism stresses on the fact that good and evil are separate entities, at war with each other, both send by the Wise Lord, Ahura Mazda. While the good is represented by Ormuzd, the God of good, creation and truth; Ahriman, the God of evil destruction and lies, plays the role of the evil. It is up to a man to choose between good and evil. The end of the world would be when the good would win over the evil. Followers of Zoroastrianism follow the Holy Book, Avesta, which includes the hymns of Zoroaster, liturgical texts and prayers.
Jamie; a closed mind is self-inflicted imprisonment from the thoughts or ideas of others. The “Church” has an extensive history of being wrong, but intolerant of any dissent, e.g., The Inquisition, Galileo, and the unholy rape of the New World.
I am philosophically a Christian, and as a “Christian”, I refuse to belong to any of the institutions created by the “true believers”. They have far too much blood on their hands.
Only God has the compassion to forgive them; I do not.
And Amy, that is why Jesus is such a central part of Christianity: if a person does not recognize that the man Jesus was God who had come to Earth to show humanity who He really is and to sacrifice Himself to receive our penalty for rebellion against God, then it doesn’t matter what ‘rules’ one follows, you still are missing out on the transforming power of relationship with Jesus. All other religions have useful morals, life styles and wisdom, but they only divert the attention away from the central need of all humans which is to have God save us from the penalty of our rebellion against Him.
I am sorry for taking so long to respond to your Dec 4th question Jeremiah. I can understand your confusion about my earlier post; I was trying to point out that while there are individuals and nations who assume the title “Christian”, they a really not followers of Jesus. A follower of Jesus is a person who has discovered the power of having a relationship with Jesus Christ and has had allowed Jesus to change them from the inside out. Everything about them is impacted by that relationship: their priorities, their relationships, their view of other people, their attitudes and thoughts which all combine to change their behaviours. But just because my parents were followers of Jesus does not mean that I am. If I have not discovered that transforming relationship for myself I can act in similar ways to my parents but it is a shallow legalistic lifestyle because I am trying to follow traditions and rules rather than live out of the abundance of Jesus love for me.
Similarly, if a nation is called Christian because they at some point in their history had a strong part of the society who were living out the reality of their personal relationship with Jesus, it does not mean that subsequent generations will continue in that relationship. That is why “Christian” countries do not always emulate the example left by Jesus.
It is true that some atheist countries do some very good things and make some very positive choices. The same is true at an individual level as well. But as history has proved out time and again, those positive elements will not last unless the heart of the nation is transformed by the love of Jesus.
Why can’t you take something positive from Any religion? My biggest problem is one of the main pillars of christianity to have to believe that Jesus is God or risk never getting to “Heaven”.
Science can definitely not explain the root causes for continued irrational thinking, even when faced with the facts. Is it denial, because dogma trumps the truth? Alternatively, is it because de Nile is such a long river? (Slow communications…)
Jeremiah; Europe is not a country; it is a continent. You state, “Unfortunately for the argument, there is no correlation between the amount of religious people and the prosperity of a country”.
This is simply not true. The Scandinavian countries are close to the least religious countries in the world, but have very high levels of prosperity.
How do you define prosperity? Is the USA (or Canada) more prosperous than the Scandinavian countries?
The USA is close to bankruptcy, and has very high levels of incarceration, violence, poverty, crime. Post secondary education has become very expensive, health care may bankrupt you, and justice depends on how much you can afford to pay your legal team.
The Scandinavian countries have much lower levels of incarceration, violence, poverty or crime. Post secondary education is either free or very low-cost, universal health care is a reality, as is universal day care and kindergarten.
You should really do some more research before making some of you statements or observations. Denmark did not turn its Jews over to the Nazis, unlike some of the more ‘religious’ countries. They were evacuated to Sweden.
And I’ve never heard of Gypsies living in Scandinavia.
Wow. For an article that claims to be critiquing a mode of reasoning, there sure are a lot of fallacies in it.
I took time out to look at your sources, and if I may I would like to comment. You are correct to point out that there are some issues in Europe, but they vary greatly from country to country. Spain has been doing especially poorly, while places like Germany and the Netherlands are growing. Unfortunately for the argument, there is no correlation between the amount of religious people and the prosperity of a country. The rise of poverty in Europe is to be expected in a recession, as we would expect it here.
The issue of Gypsies has been a ongoing issue for much of European history and is not isolated to one country or another. I could go into every one of the articles that I read, but none of the evidence you have presented shows in any way that the fall of religious doctrines have had a negative impact in Europe. If anything, we can point out that it is poor economic decisions that are causing much of the grief. I understand the desire to uphold the value of your faith, but in this case there simply isn’t a connection. Europe is still improving in most ways, and it was only in recent times that America has gotten on board and kicked out the bigot-ism against other beliefs that has crippled the country for so long. The classical values of Christianity talk about individuals versus each other. Economics is more complex then that. It requires more then just religion to build a economy.
Finally I wish to comment on your pointing out of antisemitism in Europe. Though not a dead issue, we can also say that racism in this country is not a dead issue. Countries strive for excellence, and there are people who choose to hold it back. Classical Christian values endorse the subservience of a woman to a man, the act of genocide against those who do not believe in your faith, and that people are at birth born with sin. That is of course if your look old testament. New testament is full of good ideas, all of which were derived from Jesus. All of these ideas are capable of being reached outside of a religious setting.
In the end the belief that the christian religion is important to the growth of a country is just false. Most of the founding fathers either didn’t comment on religion or were strictly against it. There have been countless civilizations that have succeeded and will continue to succeed without a christian influence. Look at the big picture, and you will see that.
Jeremiah Jaster – Social justice is on the rise in Europe? Really? Let me share a few articles relevant to the topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Europe
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/11168220 – talking about violent attacks against Gypsies
http://www.worlddialogue.org/content.php?id=412 – quest for social justice for Muslims in Europe
http://youropa.org/growing-youth-unemployment-in-europe-time-to-move/ – youth unemployment in Europe
http://www.eu-seniorunion.info/en/activities/againstviolence/default.htm – violence against seniors in Europe
http://www.businessinsider.com/one-of-europes-biggest-companies-is-marketing-toward-increasing-poverty-in-the-eurozone-2012-8 – rising poverty in Europe
Surely health care is a social justice issue. Yet here also, Europe is in trouble. See the following article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704893604576200724221948728.html
There is a financial cost to social justice. But the whole trend in Europe is toward decline, resulting in no money for social justice issues. It would be worthwhile to set up a study to compare the declining interest in Christianity with the general European decline overall, including social justice. For more info on Europe’s general decline, see –
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2012/05/30/whats-really-behind-europes-decline-its-the-birth-rates-stupid/2/
I would suggest Jeremiah that you have another look at comparing state-run social justice to the social justice expressed in practical ways by Christian individuals and Christian charitable organizations.
Historical Truth: Science cannot prove that Barack Obama won the 2008 United States presidential election. There is no scientific test we could perform to prove it. We could have an investigation if we wanted to confirm that he did actually win, but the method for proving historical truths is different from testing scientific truths since historical truths are by nature non-repeatable.
I’m confused by your comment Jamie. Are you suggesting that non christian countries somehow lose their way? If you look at Europe, you can see a very real decline in religious practices, and yet in social justice is on the rise. Is this somehow a misinterpretation? All numbers show that atheism is on the rise, along with people who simply to refer to themselves as humanists. Yet the social landscape continues to improve for homosexuals, minorities and the poor. In fact, simply looking at my sisters generation coming up, most of them that I have met are not christian. Very much so the opposite. Yet their morality is greater then most of the “old generation” that you are referring to. To them homosexuality and race are not a issue. To me it is not a connection to Jesus that makes someone morally strong, but a strong connection to each other, and a mutual interest in the needs of the disadvantaged. Europe seems to be a indication of this.
That is an interesting pattern Jan. It sounds like you have studied this a bit. Do you think it is because the Scandinavian countries are ‘irreligious’ that they have such an extensive social network?
One of the biggest problems with the Christian faith is that it is continually one generation away from extinction. What I mean by that is while it is possible to pass on the principles, morals, teachings and traditions to the next generation none of that stuff will actually make a difference in their life. Being a follower of Jesus is much more than just trying to live out the things He taught. It is actually having a personal relationship with Him and allowing Him to bring an inner-transformation.
History is full of examples of this reality: one generation is radically impacted by Jesus in their life and it not only changes them as people but also dramatically changes the society in which they live. The morality of the culture is purified and a generosity grows to those who are in need. But as the next generation grows up in that setting they adopt the morality and programs for the marginalized but miss the relationship with Jesus. So their efforts lose the power that comes from a life changed by knowing Jesus personally.
I see that happening in many “Christian” countries. They started off strong because of their relationship with Jesus and the transformation that He brought to their lives. But as time has gone on their “Christianity” became something cultural rather than personal. As generations pass the morality and passion for caring for the less fortunate is degraded and replaced with a pursuit of the individual. While the culture is full of people who call themselves Christian and even participate in traditions like church attendance, if they haven’t discovered what personal relationship with Jesus actually is all about their culture becomes increasingly selfish.
Have you ever noticed that?
Jamie…
I suspect that Jeremiah may have misapplied the term ‘utilitarianism’, as he described the benefits, but not the downfalls, e.g., tyranny of the minorities.
If you want some examples of countries where the benefits Jeremiah described, look no further than the Nordic countries, i.e., Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden.
These are ‘countries where such things are assured, productivity and overall social happiness is considered common place’.
Can you explain why some of the ‘least religious’ countries on the planet have close to the lowest disparity between rich and poor, progressive taxation, state paid post-secondary education, and social programs, e.g., health care, seniors care, income assistance, etc., that would make Canadians realize how far behind Canada is in these areas. (Canada is better than the USA, but the USA is at the bottom of the barrel…)
The Nordic experience clearly demonstrates that when governments provide ‘the services… to flourish’, the outcome is a fundamentally healthier and happier society. Denmark provides access to ‘the medicine, housing, work and education’ that result in ‘happy and healthy, productive members of society.’
I became a Canadian citizen because I believed all the propaganda about Canada’s health, education and other social programs.
If I had known the truth, I might not have stayed in Canada.
I would point out that many religiously based nations are plagued by elitism, even those supposedly most enraptured by their religious tenants. When I speak of utilitarianism, it is important to note that it is understood that making everyone happy all the time is simply impossible. But, it is possible to provide people with the services they need to flourish. Access the medicine, housing, work and education all provide happy and healthy, productive members of society. In such countries where such things are assured, productivity and overall social happiness is considered common place. While in America, where many of these things are considered privileges, you have a incredible disparity between the rich and poor, along with rampant racism and sexism, in much of Europe it is not uncommon to see a African being simply viewed as a human being, and it is acceptable for homosexuals to be open in their identity in public. These are not things that are ensured by religion. They are ensured by a social conscience. It is well known that religion in the world is fighting a losing battle, and yet when one considers the evidence it is clear that there is really no better time in history to be alive.
Utilitarianism is a pursuit of happiness, but more then that it is the pursuit of eudaimonia. This is a Greek term, which refers to the ability to grow and flourish as a human being. So saying, it is impossible to make everyone happy all the time, but it is not impossible to provide them with the resources they need to do so. And time and time again it has been shown that the more restrictive a society, the harder it is for it to continue. Rome for example lasted as long as it did because it did not establish a national religion. This encouraged other groups to join Rome, since by paying taxes and accepting their position as roman citizens they were provided access to roads, fresh water, as well as protection in the form of the military. Once Rome ceased this tolerance, its downfall fallowed soon after.
In terms of reason, this was very much based on the ideas of thinkers before, as well as thinkers of the present who continued to provide new ideas. Today this sort of practice is even more likely to succeed, and the only reason that needs to be followed is that of tolerance, and a desire to provide for your fellow man. You do not need to be overly intelligent to see that by providing people opportunities, you in the end curb crime, social injustice, ext.
The founding fathers new this, and so when the country started it was made clear that religious tolerance was of utmost importance, something we have lost as a country.
Though I know I have said a lot, to summarize I can simply say that these ideas can be come about through critical thinking and reason. To suggest that intolerance breeds social welfare is simply illogical. In the end, it is my belief and the belief of many others that the pursuit of science, reason, and logic provide all the constructs we need to be successful as a species. Free thinking and the exploration of new ideas promote this, and beliefs that suggest singular, or ultimate answers have almost universally gotten in the way.
Do you have any examples of where utilitarianism has worked well? It seems to me that a society based on that system is brutally hard on minorities and on those who think differently than everyone else. It may work well in a smaller setting where everyone has a voice but as the group gets larger and efficiencies require representation suddenly the system is susceptible to elites who manipulate for their own benefit what is the ‘greatest good’.
When I speak of reason I refer to a system of which we can agree on. Developing a sense of reason, logic, and ethics have been questions that have been on the minds of theologians for centuries. Ultimately developing a true sense of reason, one cohesive to all groups, is not easy. However I believe in time that can be achieved, but only if we devote ourselves to the pursuit of a system which we can all live by.
The difficulty with this is of course the fact that everyone has different rules they have to live by. To ask a person in the middle east to not carry a gun, for example, would be a death sentence. I believe that reason is flexible in so much as every rule has a contingency. However, I think the simple answer, is that reason needs to be based on all the information available, and a large amount of forethought. That is not possible in just understanding just one belief, and it is not just understanding the needs of just one person.
So in the end, if I were to pick a ethical construct, I would suggest utilitarianism and the ultimate pursuit of the good for all. I think that is something we can all agree on, no matter what our beliefs, and I think it is something Jesus, Siddhartha, and even Nietzsche would all agree on.
Hi Jeremiah, you do have a lot to say. You have really thought a lot about this stuff. I really appreciate that. You said that ethics should be based on reason. Whose reason? There are different ways to reason through many issues of life so whose should we follow?
I get it Darren Hewer and I agree with you 100%