UyiIredia:


https://www.nairaland.com/2353987/three-arguments-gods-existence

Try and rebut my arguments there.

joseph1013:


Interesting points. What I found more interesting though is the fact that johnydon22 already made very valid points in the third comment to counter your points. I would not bet on it that I would have done a better job.

Dude, get better arguments. These ones are old.

UyiIredia:


Very poor coming from you, especially since I made nonsense of johnnydon22's comment.

johnydon22:
Oh really then you need the luck....Goodluck with
that.
oh yea the universe needs an explanation and this
can only be achieved through study, observation
and experiment, no matter how long it takes to
solve this not with assumptions (a god did it).
Throwing in a god did it when you lack knowledge
of how it happened;
This does not solve this problem because u are
trying to explain something that is unexplained with
an unexplained answer if this should hold sway then
we can also say the universe doesn't need to be
explained.

An infinite regress of causes is illogical since by
definition it can't reach its effect. So, its either the
universe has always existed in some form or it was
created.

johnydon22:
This "god did it" does not answer the question it
only postpones it, u have to assume a god don't
need a creator, don't this show the universe too
don't need a creator since u just showed something
can exist without a creator

God is the First Cause, by definition He can't have a
creator especially given the fact that we an infinite
regress of causes is impossible. I think the order in the
universe despite a tendency for chaos suggests a
Creator. Why do you think the universe wasn't
created ?

johnydon22:
You mention the order in the PHYSICAL universe and
NATURAL laws then u assumed up a SPIRITUAL
answer to something u agree is PHYSICAL this itself
is a flaw to itself. (Self refuting)

Why is it self-refuting ?

johnydon22:
the bolded alone kills this argument. You distance
the human genetic code from nature and claim it
doesn't follow natural laws. How can genetic code/
hereditary not be natural when it is still within the
confine of nature and are found in natural
organisms.
This is a big intellectually epileptic assertion and I
have no advice than you need more studies.

Consider computers. They follow natural laws but the
programming codes that computers run on don't
follow natural laws, human minds determine them. The
same is applicable to the genetic code.

johnydon22:
Man's consciousness cannot be explained materially
when man's consciousness is still material....lol...

Funny.
Consciousness is not material. Your awareness of your
thoughts and environment is not a physical thing.

johnydon22:
For this to hold sway you have to then explain to us
god's consciousness and bear in mind this
explanation should not be spiritual since you argue
that man (material entity) does not have material
origin then god(spiritual entity) cannot have
spiritual origin, it must be something else...
Material must have material origin cus that which is
not material cannot give what it doesnt have

If you say I shouldn't give a spiritual explanation I can't
give any explanation. Besides there's no third option
man either 'spiritually originated' or 'materially
originated'.

johnydon22:
If you assume god is self existent this is another
failing in your argument because you have showed
something can be self existent why then would you
assume up a creator for the universe since following
your argument we can rightly say it is self existent.
Again good luck smiley

The arguments I've given here are also reasons as to
why I don't think the universe is self-existent. I don't
think a self-existing universe would be orderly, have
life and more outrageously, have intelligent and
conscious beings.

https://www.nairaland.com/2353987/three-arguments-gods-existence/2

johnydon22 ran away from my response. Will you ?

LOL. If he fails to respond to your rebuttal, it's most likely because he sees that they are too juvenile for response. I can see that from the statements you have copied and pasted here.

I will be back to give you as simple an explanation as I am able to. Gotta enjoy some Friday night rhythms, you know what I mean.

joseph1013:
LOL. If he fails to respond to your rebuttal, it's most likely because he sees that they are too juvenile for response. I can see that from the statements you have copied and pasted here.

I will be back to give you as simple an explanation as I am able to. Gotta enjoy some Friday night rhythms, you know what I mean.

UyiIredia:


https://www.nairaland.com/2353987/three-arguments-gods-existence

Try and rebut my arguments there.

taurus25:


Well ive read through your thread and let me tell you this

1) Alot of very good answers were given to your questions

2) You would definetly feel that whatever they said was wrong, ignorant, delusional etc etc. Because that is not what you believe to be true

3) I bet that whatever answer joseph1013 gives to you would lead to another cyclic argument

johnydon22:
[b]Its really really frustrating how i am expected to engage Childish assertions based on emotions and intellectual epilepsy and dishonesty

He thinks genetics is not natural, introduce such mind to Quantum physics he will shut down completely since something as basic as human gene seems out of the world to him that means Quantum spookiness that is drastically different from every law of physics in this macro state would spin his mind off.

They simply cannot understand that Nature has NO ONE WAY of manifestation, it manifests in distinct random ways at different yet all in all they remain NATURE..

I simply ignore any post that i find too childish to engage, after all there was no more point going in Circles.. he made his point, i made mine. let the readers decide. no but am expected to dabble into a childish endless circle of meaningless squabble with any dick and harry..

Johnydon22 is well above that, i am selective on what deserves my attention.

Live discussions is what i clamor for now seriously typing doesn't make the point that well.

well bro i love your work in this thread, you are really wonderful and i have learnt a lot.

where are you at?[/b]

johnydon22:
[b]Its really really frustrating how i am expected to engage Childish assertions based on emotions and intellectual epilepsy and dishonesty

He thinks genetics is not natural, introduce such mind to Quantum physics he will shut down completely since something as basic as human gene seems out of the world to him that means Quantum spookiness that is drastically different from every law of physics in this macro state would spin his mind off.

They simply cannot understand that Nature has NO ONE WAY of manifestation, it manifests in distinct random ways at different yet all in all they remain NATURE..

I simply ignore any post that i find too childish to engage, after all there was no more point going in Circles.. he made his point, i made mine. let the readers decide. no but am expected to dabble into a childish endless circle of meaningless squabble with any dick and harry..

Johnydon22 is well above that, i am selective on what deserves my attention.

Live discussions is what i clamor for now seriously typing doesn't make the point that well.

well bro i love your work in this thread, you are really wonderful and i have learnt a lot.

where are you at?[/b]

UyiIredia

"The existence of the universe demands an explanation. The order of the physical universe which ensures it adheres to laws which can be inferred suggests an intelligence behind the universe."

"The genetic code in living organisms precludes the possibility they arose naturally. Natural processes CAN'T give rise to codes which don't follow natural laws. As humans, we know that codes are always made by conscious effort so the presence of codes in living things is grounds to infer that God exists."

"Consciousness in man is not explainable by materialistic means. Emergence can't explain consciousness since typically it deals with new physical properties that arise due to complex interactions. But the consciousness isn't physical and so can't be explained by purely material means moreso since physical things lack consciousness. This is good grounds to believe that a God that effects consciousness exists."

joseph1013:


[b]I must be a Prophet. LOL The moment he posted the replies and said you didn't reply, I concluded it must be because it betrays the ignorance of how nature works. It's quite frustrating. I will admit that it is one of my motivations for sticking to this thread. The average person who wants to be free from the shackles of these illogical myths has no need for the inner workings of the gene codes, consciousness or quantum physics. Simple logic like, how do we have identical emotional experiences yet we all invoke different causes and are adamant that the one each of us has chosen is the authentic one. It's either one of us is right and the others false, or none of us is right. We all cannot be right. They identify with the sequence of that kind of argument better.

People like Iredia attempt to muddle the pool with big words without having a grasp of the concepts they attempt to curry to their sides. It is frustrating and irritating at the same time because their stance is not to learn, but to drag issues in a cyclic manner.

Good to hear you love my work. Appreciated. You also offer one of the most comprehensive rebuttals to religious myths here. At no point do I see your stuff, especially when religious topics are pushed to the FP that I don't nod in satisfaction and admit that you know exactly what you are talking about. Kudos.

I'm in Lagos. I travel around alot too though.

NB: A couple of my friends are thinking of organising Live debates. A group of atheists in Ghana and Kenya are already doing great work in that respect. It is our intention to tow that line, logistics and ingrained intolerance permitting. I could make a case for you to be part of it if arrangements are concluded.[/b]

joseph1013:
Like taurus25 said, I am not holding my breath that this will not turn to a cyclic argument. I will take my chances, though.

joseph1013:

The first sentence is true, IF what you mean by that is that we owe ourselves the duty to continue to inquire about the process by which the natural world we are in came to being. We have investigated, searched and found alot of answers in the world we live in. It only makes sense that we be curious about the world itself. I agree with that.

joseph1013:

Your second statement is faulty though. The order of the universe does not necessarily suggest an intelligence. You went further in the response to John to say that the intelligence is the First Cause and the First Cause is God. What you just did is called an Argument from Ignorance fallacy. Dude, a first cause is a first cause. Continuing the sentence by renaming the first cause and calling it God, then give that God all kinds of attributes, tell others what he commands them to do, what to eat, how to pray, to hate LGBT people (or to love them), that is bit far fetched don't you think? It is not logic, it is a cheap trick to lure people into believing that your God is real while you have no evidence.

joseph1013:

Calling anything god is just a semantic game in order to muddle the issue. If you ask: "If god is hydrogen, would you accept that god exists?", the answer is "yes, but that is no god, it's just hydrogen". Right now, there is no proof of a first cause. Even if there is you cant call him God. Even if you call him God, you can't call him your own kind of hell-weilding God who is always interested in whom you have sex with.

joseph1013:

Here is a better approach, buddy: Admitting there is no evidence and no answer is much more honest than just trying to make something up. Cosmological evidence supports the Big Bang and with the validation of Einstein's gravitational waves, we retain hopes of getting what led to the Big Bang. Till then, zip up. The physical universe does not necessarily suggest an intelligence, and if it did, it is not sufficient enough proof to say it is God.

It's a worse position to be in because such a dogmatic claim extinguishes further questioning. You're left weilding a whimsical, unsubstantiated guess, rather than an honest, unending and self-critical pursuit of knowledge.

joseph1013:

What is this? Define a Gene Code. I know a guy on nairaland who would devote his life to exterminating you from this site if he hears you mutter this gibberish.

Do you know the meaning of natural laws? If gene codes don't follow natural laws, how come Genetic algorithms are inspired in evolution? And what is Evolution without Natural Selection? Can you see the 'Natural' in Natural selection? Clear?

joseph1013:
I agree that Consciousness is not FULLY explainable via material means. It's true that neither naturalism nor materialism can give an adequate explanation of mental events like consciousness. However as always, you say divine and supernatural explanations are needed to explain why we are conscious and how our brains work. This is craziness!

joseph1013:

Oga, here is what you are saying: Since we don't know how it works, we'll never know how it works — and thus, there is no natural explanation. The mere fact that we do not know how something works does not mean that we never will and it certainly does not mean that there is no natural explanation.

joseph1013:

This argument is also open to easy parody. One could just as effectively argue that it is not possible to reduce digestive events or properties to physical events or properties — and thus concfailthat digestion has no natural explanation. But that fallbsurds,— digestion does not occur in one place and with one event. Digestion is a process involving many different body parts. It is not localizable in one place or in one natural law.

joseph1013:

Similarly, consciousness is a process. It happens all over and is simply expression of what is going on. The This that we cannot reduce it to a single place or a single event is no more a problem here than it is with digestion!

joseph1013:

I must confess, I am irritated about the way you smuggled that last statement in. No explanation. No warning. No precursory tale to introduce us to the twaddle. You simply dumped the statement on us in an attempt to shove it down our throats. In all honesty, is that fair?

UyiIredia:

I'm not arguing for the Christian God. Let's pay I'm arguing for a deistic God then since I'm just arguing for a Creator God, nothing more.

That said, the universe tends to entropy, natural laws tell us that things tend to chaos especially with the increase of energy into the system and yet we find order in it. Natural laws can't explain it since those laws tell us that things tend to disorder over time this is evidenced by how chemicals degrade in quality over time.

Here is why the approach fails. Even scientists themselves admit that the narrowness of the constants that allow for the existence of the universe give the impression of fine tuning by a designer. If it quacks like a duck lets call it for what it is instead of allowing materialistic bias blind you as it has scientists, which is why they postulate an eternal multiverse.

See an atheist scientist admit that the universe is fine tuned here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cT4zZIHR3s

LOL. No Scientist worth his salt in the 21st century would invoke a designer without backing up his claim.

Chairman, the video you sent is not helping your cause? Susskind clearly says the theory evolved towards the multiverse (which obviously explains why our universe is life-tuned without the need of a creator) rather than a single, unique, special, life-tuned universe (which would likely require a creator). Susskind clearly says science goes with the multiverse theory i.e. the most probable explanation is not god! Check Minutes 4:40 - 4:50, 11:18 - 11:34, and 12:25 - 12:45 for quick reverences to this point.

So tell me, why are you so excited?

The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded in genetic material (DNA or RNA sequences) is
translated into proteins (amino acid sequences) by living cells.

Instead of hiding your ignorance with endless questions and insults you should have kept shut. Given the definition above, one must ask this crucial question: do non-living processes have the ability to create a system based on a set of rules (ie code)? The honest answer is NO. They lack the foresight required to achieve such. In principle you won't expect nature to make a software, yet that is what all living things possess in their genes.

I'm not saying that. Neuroscience is doing a good job of explaining how consciousness relates to the brain. But neuroscience will never explain why laws of chemistry are violated in the brain where chemical reactions result in a sense of self.

Digestion doesn't effect a mind, it's just chemical reactions all the way down.

joseph1013:


[b]Bros, learn some Physics. That the Universe tends to chaos does not mean that there won't be localized order. Consider a refrigerator. This mechanism decreases the entropy on its cool inside while it increases its entropy on its hot outside, and it does this by tapping into energy being brought to it from outside the system. Consequently, the refrigerator actually makes a net increase in the entropy of the universe.

The universe started out with low entropy, in a highly ordered state. There are pockets of order, but those are created by chaos. And that's why Galaxies collide. We can see some distant ones colliding "as we speak" though technically, it's sometime in the past, but you get my point? It is said that ours will collide with Andromeda in a few billion years.

In simple English, yes there is order in the world, but they are all tending towards chaos. Splash milk on the floor, look well and you will likely see a good pattern which suggests order, but it is in a chaotic state.[/b]

joseph1013:

LOL. No Scientist worth his salt in the 21st century would invoke a designer without backing up his claim.

Chairman, the video you sent is not helping your cause? Susskind clearly says the theory evolved towards the multiverse (which obviously explains why our universe is life-tuned without the need of a creator) rather than a single, unique, special, life-tuned universe (which would likely require a creator). Susskind clearly says science goes with the multiverse theory i.e. the most probable explanation is not god! Check Minutes 4:40 - 4:50, 11:18 - 11:34, and 12:25 - 12:45 for quick reverences to this point.

So tell me, why are you so excited?

joseph1013:

[b]Very good. So how did that process you describe defy natural processes? Seems to me that I will have to spoonfeed you on this one.

Here is the definition of a Natural process: A process existing in or produced by nature (rather than by the intent of human beings).

We know for sure that DNA came after protein and RNA.

Here is a good theory: the first bioactive and self replicating molecule was RNA. Proteins and RNA most probably evolved separately. The building blocks of protein, amino acids were fairly simple and were abundant. Later, the RNA enzymes catalysed the polymerisation of these amino acids to form the first proteins. Proteins and RNA came together to form the very first inklings of life. However, RNA is highly unstable and could not act as a robust molecule for information inheritance from one generation to the next. Hence two molecules of RNA fused with the help of hydrogen bonds to form a most stable and inert structure, DNA. This caused RNA to lose all of its catalytic activity. Now, the catalytic activity is mostly handled by proteins and DNA acts solely for transfer of genetic information.

Now, look at the definition I gave you of a Natural Process, and explain to me how the genetic code in living organisms precludes the possibility they arose naturally.[/b]

joseph1013:

If you confess that Neuroscience is already doing some good job of explaining Consciousness via material means, why are you dismissing the possibility that Neuroscience will be able to come up with the solution for the rest of the puzzle?

What's funny though is that you don't offer an explanation via supernatural means. All you did is arrogate to yourself solutions. That's silly. Science can explain some parts. According to you, they have done nothing. You can not explain any part. According to you, you have done everything. How silly can religion get!

joseph1013:


You don't know what a Parody is. Check your dictionary.

UyiIredia:


Sure there can be pockets of order within a chaotic system but there is a limit to the level of order which by the way tends to be temporary and not self-sustaining as is the case with our universe. The question still remains.

And there is no evidence for the multiverse theory. Susskind clearly states the options as two. Either God made the universe fine-tuned or some material thing did it. There is no option 3. The multiverse explanation is an unverified hypothesis as of yet. Why postulate eternal multiverses that can never be observed ?

This is nonsense. You just assume proteins and RNA into being without detailing how ABIOTIC NATURAL PROCESSES made them. Still be asking questions about how it is not natural when I've explained that natural processes IN PRINCIPLE cannot make a code.

How can neuroscience explain that which is not material in nature ? Neuroscience only studies the structure related to consciousness. BTW before I can take you seriously on this one you need to answer the question atheists lke avoiding: how do chemical reactions which are constrained to chemical products and a use/or release of energy effect a non-material consciousness ? Please attempt the question or lets be done here.

joseph1013:


You are confused! Are you saying that the order in our universe is permanent? How self-sustaining is a system that is tending to chaos by the minute?

My turn? What is your Supernatural theory for Order in the Universe?



[b]Nonsense! It is a better theory than what you propose. Obviously you didn't pay attention to the video you sent. Susskind clearly mentioned THREE options and then gave four options while merging two and four together. Wait, why will you send me a video you probably didn't watch to support your point?

In the video, he totally dismissed the God option. In other words, you beat your chest that he mentioned God at all. Funny!

True, there is no empirical evidence for the Multiverse theory yet. However it's the closest we have got for now. The universe has a relatively low entropy (low enough that you can live in it). In times past, it had an even lower entropy: the time near the Big Bang is a very low-entropy state. The multiverse theory comes along and explains the key datum (the low-entropy state) in terms of an even larger ensemble of universes. It also explains a few other even more abstruse data, such as the almost-but-not-quite-perfect smoothness of the universe on the very largest scales.

So forgive me if I take this theory over "God did it". With this theory, we can keep working on a more acceptable solution instead of raising our hands up in despair and simply concede that it came from a Supernatural hand.[/b]

joseph1013:

What are you saying?

I explained to you a theory through which DNA came about. Listen, any process that happens in Nature is by definition a NATURAL PROCESS. It's simple enough.

joseph1013:

You are not listening? What I told you is that Science has not FULLY explained it via material means. (Read it again and note the word FULLY).

Human consciousness both observed from within and without is something we can observe and theorise about. Our observations of human consciousness, lead us to the conclusion that it is the product of information processing activity in the brain. With purpose-built information handling cells all collaborating to contribute to the activity. That's why I told you that it's a PROCESS. That's a big discovery. With that, we have a firm foundation to move ahead.

In case you don't know, that's the manner all scientfic discovery is done. We build upon knowledge. Nothing is fully known at first. So Consciousness is not an outlier.

How do chemical reactions which are constrained to chemical products and a use/or release of energy effect a non-material consciousness? We don't know now and Science is working on it. What is your theory?

UyiIredia:


In which case you choose an unverified hypothesis over a good inference. If I recall well the other options Susskind mentioned where materialistic in nature which is why I said God and other options. It's been a while since I watched the video. The Big Bang doesn't liminate the need for a Creator who kickstaryed the initial conditions. How can you ask for a supernatural theory when I've said God caused it ?

No. There are artificial processes in Nature and living systems exhibit a code that in principle nature cannot make. Your explanation was null and void since you willed key elements into being with no explanation as to which abiotic natural process made them and how so.

Science is not working on the question at all. If you are secure in your ignorance but can only hand out promissory notes feel free. I think it best we end things here. We've already started going in circles.

joseph1013:
[b]ENCOUNTER WITH SOMEONE IN THE 99%

Proposition I

Islam is a religion of peace. So what about ISIS & Boko Haram? Well, they're only a minority. They contribute only 1% of Muslims globally.
Conclusion: Islam is a religion of peace.

Proposition II
And by the way, Islam is not responsible for terrorism. It's poverty, illiteracy & sociopolitical oppression that turn people to terrorists.
Conclusion: Islam in itself can not turn people to terrorists.

******************
Yesterday, I was at the ATM. There were two Muslim ladies in full covering. They wore gloves & socks. The only part of their bodies left uncovered were the eyes. Their noses & foreheads were covered. The fingers were in gloves & the long, flowing garments reached to the wrists & had strings that suspended the sleeves on the fingers in case they slipped upwards & exposed a part of the wrist. And the whole clothing was pitch-black! Weather was hot & most people were sweating like Christmas goats as we were observing these ladies.

Immediately they left, folks on the queue started talking about them. But on the same queue was a guy. From his voluminous beards & the length of his trouser, you know that he must be a devoted Muslim, if not a cleric. All of a sudden, he just burst out angrily & started attacking us verbally. He was told that he wasn't the one the conversation was about. People were talking about the girls and he didn't need to insult. He just burst into anger & started name-calling using expletives.

Next thing, he got violent, wanted to pick stones from the ground but the security folks at the bank premises rescued the situation. I was afraid at the rage I just witnessed. My heart was panting hard. For the first time in my life, I witnessed the rage of a Muslim stranger & the result was scary.

This guy is NOT part of the 1% we quote. He's part of the 99% of the 'peaceful' Muslims. I saw in it in his face: he's a Boko Haram soldier without the guns & bombs. This guy would join Boko Haram if he lived close enough to where they're. Unfortunately, he's living down south. Not every Muslim is like him but a large percentage will be like him. 30%? 40%? 50%? I don't know but obviously far more than the 1% we quote. Proposition I may not be correct afterall.

I learnt he's an MSc student. He's surely not an illiterate & he's not more socially exposed than everybody else around here. So what could've made him an occult terrorist? You know the answer.

Proposition II may not be correct afterall.[/b]

Rilwayne001:

[b]
It is rather pitiable seeing those who claimed to me Muslim act contrary to what the Quran teaches. I am very sure if he had a gun at that point in time, he would shoot you guys.. Lol.
However, the Qur'an prescribes restraint, and distancing from situations such as this. First, you are expected to educate them but if they remain defiant and wouldn't stop the slandering, we are expected to restraint from them, A study of the following verses should bear this out:

Qur'an 4:140 ".... When ye hear the signs of Allah held in defiance and ridicule, ye are not to sit with them unless they turn to a different theme. "

Qur'an 7:199 " Hold to forgiveness, command what is right; but turn away from the ignorant. "

Qur'an 25:63 " And the servants of Allah . . . are those who walked on the earth in humility, and when the ignorant address them, they say 'Peace'"

Furthermore, that he is an Msc student only shows that there are indeed educated illiterate in the society.

joseph1013:
If my memory still serves me well, I think we have had this discussion before. Well, having a go at it once more time won't hurt.

color=#550000]The Qur'an teaches both violence and peace just like most other ancient religious texts.

This is not the point of our discussion. Our discussion is based on the story you narrated, why are you shifting away from it?

example,
1. "Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." Qur'an 9:29, MUHSIN KHAN

What we cannot deny is that both peaceful and violent verses exist in the Quran, just like they exist in the Bible. The only difference is that Christianity has undergone reformation and a great deal of denominations in Christendom denounce the evil verses. That's not the case in Islam.[/b][/color]

He is indeed an educated illiterate. How about other professor of Islamic studies that don't believe So? Would you judge 99% with the action of 1%?

The Quran teaches that: Allah forbids you not, With regard to those who Fight you not for (your) Faith Nor drive you out Of your homes, From dealing kindly and justly With them: For Allah loveth Those who are just. "

****Would've expressed myself better than this, but I am finding it hard typing my my phone..

Rilwayne001:


Here https://www.nairaland.com/2045070/thoughts-questions-religion/25#39055340 . I made myself clear on that page, but sadly, you ignored it.

This is not the point of our discussion. Our discussion is based on the story you narrated, why are you shifting away from it?

Perhaps we should go back to page 25 and continue our discussion..

This is not true. Reasonable Muslim will understand that certain verses of the Quran have their historical context and are not meant for them. He is indeed an educated illiterate. How about other professor of Islamic studies that don't believe So? Would you judge 99% with the action of 1%?

The Quran teaches that: Allah forbids you not, With regard to those who Fight you not for (your) Faith Nor drive you out Of your homes, From dealing kindly and justly With them: For Allah loveth Those who are just. "

wirinet:
Joseph, i am really impressed by the amount of effort you are putting into trying to educate the youth and free them from mental captivity. They are just being groomed for financial milking for life by pastors and religious leaders. It is like grooming a cow to be milked for life. So the strategy of these religious leaders is to keep these youth in perpetual ignorance by discouraging the acquisition of scientific knowledge. Most TV programs and films tailored for kids and youths in developed countries are geared towards teaching kids basic sciences, but in Nigeria most programs made for kids discourage sciences and instead teaches faith - Christian or Muslim. Our youth are increasingly unable to compete with the rest of the world in the information and knowledge age. One wonders why we are not developing

I use to be like you tying to get the youth to focus on science and technology instead of faith, now i am very busy and only come here occasionally. Please keep the faith, do not relent in educating ignorant youth on basic science. Because of a few people like you, many people here have started questioning life long dogmas and some have even abandoned blind faith to embraced scientific knowledge and ideals to improve their lives and of those around them.

All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists
BY LAWRENCE M. KRAUSS

As a physicist, I do a lot of writing and public speaking about the remarkable nature of our cosmos, primarily because I think science is a key part of our cultural heritage and needs to be shared more broadly. Sometimes, I refer to the fact that religion and science are often in conflict; from time to time, I ridicule religious dogma. When I do, I sometimes get accused in public of being a “militant atheist.” Even a surprising number of my colleagues politely ask if it wouldn’t be better to avoid alienating religious people. Shouldn’t we respect religious sensibilities, masking potential conflicts and building common ground with religious groups so as to create a better, more equitable world?

I found myself thinking about those questions this week as I followed the story of Kim Davis, the county clerk in Kentucky who directly disobeyed a federal judge’s order to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, and, as a result, was jailed for contempt of court. (She was released earlier today.) Davis’s supporters, including the Kentucky senator and Presidential candidate Rand Paul, are protesting what they believe to be an affront to her religious freedom. It is “absurd to put someone in jail for exercising their religious liberties,” Paul said, on CNN.


The Kim Davis story raises a basic question: To what extent should we allow people to break the law if their religious views are in conflict with it? It’s possible to take that question to an extreme that even Senator Paul might find absurd: imagine, for example, a jihadist whose interpretation of the Koran suggested that he should be allowed to behead infidels and apostates. Should he be allowed to break the law? Or—to consider a less extreme case—imagine an Islamic-fundamentalist county clerk who would not let unmarried men and women enter the courthouse together, or grant marriage licenses to unveiled women. For Rand Paul, what separates these cases from Kim Davis’s? The biggest difference, I suspect, is that Senator Paul agrees with Kim Davis’s religious views but disagrees with those of the hypothetical Islamic fundamentalist.

The problem, obviously, is that what is sacred to one person can be meaningless (or repugnant) to another. That’s one of the reasons why a modern secular society generally legislates against actions, not ideas. No idea or belief should be illegal; conversely, no idea should be so sacred that it legally justifies actions that would otherwise be illegal. Davis is free to believe whatever she wants, just as the jihadist is free to believe whatever he wants; in both cases, the law constrains not what they believe but what they do.

In recent years, this territory has grown murkier. Under the banner of religious freedom, individuals, states, and even—in the case of Hobby Lobby—corporations have been arguing that they should be exempt from the law on religious grounds. (The laws from which they wish to claim exemption do not focus on religion; instead, they have to do with social issues, such as abortion and gay marriage.) The government has a compelling interest in insuring that all citizens are treated equally. But “religious freedom” advocates argue that religious ideals should be elevated above all others as a rationale for action. In a secular society, this is inappropriate.

The Kim Davis controversy exists because, as a culture, we have elevated respect for religious sensibilities to an inappropriate level that makes society less free, not more. Religious liberty should mean that no set of religious ideals are treated differently from other ideals. Laws should not be enacted whose sole purpose is to denigrate them, but, by the same token, the law shouldn’t elevate them, either.

In science, of course, the very word “sacred” is profane. No ideas, religious or otherwise, get a free pass. The notion that some idea or concept is beyond question or attack is anathema to the entire scientific undertaking. This commitment to open questioning is deeply tied to the fact that science is an atheistic enterprise. “My practice as a scientist is atheistic,” the biologist J.B.S. Haldane wrote, in 1934. “That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career.” It’s ironic, really, that so many people are fixated on the relationship between science and religion: basically, there isn’t one. In my more than thirty years as a practicing physicist, I have never heard the word “God” mentioned in a scientific meeting. Belief or nonbelief in God is irrelevant to our understanding of the workings of nature—just as it’s irrelevant to the question of whether or not citizens are obligated to follow the law.


Because science holds that no idea is sacred, it’s inevitable that it draws people away from religion. The more we learn about the workings of the universe, the more purposeless it seems. Scientists have an obligation not to lie about the natural world. Even so, to avoid offense, they sometimes misleadingly imply that today’s discoveries exist in easy harmony with preëxisting religious doctrines, or remain silent rather than pointing out contradictions between science and religious doctrine. It’s a strange inconsistency, since scientists often happily disagree with other kinds of beliefs. Astronomers have no problem ridiculing the claims of astrologists, even though a significant fraction of the public believes these claims. Doctors have no problem condemning the actions of anti-vaccine activists who endanger children. And yet, for reasons of decorum, many scientists worry that ridiculing certain religious claims alienates the public from science. When they do so, they are being condescending at best and hypocritical at worst.

This reticence can have significant consequences. Consider the example of Planned Parenthood. Lawmakers are calling for a government shutdown unless federal funds for Planned Parenthood are stripped from spending bills for the fiscal year starting October 1st. Why? Because Planned Parenthood provides fetal tissue samples from abortions to scientific researchers hoping to cure diseases, from Alzheimer’s to cancer. (Storing and safeguarding that tissue requires resources, and Planned Parenthood charges researchers for the costs.) It’s clear that many of the people protesting Planned Parenthood are opposed to abortion on religious grounds and are, to varying degrees, anti-science. Should this cause scientists to clam up at the risk of further offending or alienating them? Or should we speak out loudly to point out that, independent of one’s beliefs about what is sacred, this tissue would otherwise be thrown away, even though it could help improve and save lives?

Ultimately, when we hesitate to openly question beliefs because we don’t want to risk offense, questioning itself becomes taboo. It is here that the imperative for scientists to speak out seems to me to be most urgent. As a result of speaking out on issues of science and religion, I have heard from many young people about the shame and ostracism they experience after merely questioning their family’s faith. Sometimes, they find themselves denied rights and privileges because their actions confront the faith of others. Scientists need to be prepared to demonstrate by example that questioning perceived truth, especially “sacred truth,” is an essential part of living in a free country.

I see a direct link, in short, between the ethics that guide science and those that guide civic life. Cosmology, my specialty, may appear to be far removed from Kim Davis’s refusal to grant marriage licenses to gay couples, but in fact the same values apply in both realms. Whenever scientific claims are presented as unquestionable, they undermine science. Similarly, when religious actions or claims about sanctity can be made with impunity in our society, we undermine the very basis of modern secular democracy. We owe it to ourselves and to our children not to give a free pass to governments—totalitarian, theocratic, or democratic—that endorse, encourage, enforce, or otherwise legitimize the suppression of open questioning in order to protect ideas that are considered “sacred.” Five hundred years of science have liberated humanity from the shackles of enforced ignorance. We should celebrate this openly and enthusiastically, regardless of whom it may offend.

If that is what causes someone to be called a militant atheist, then no scientist should be ashamed of the label.

Source: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/all-scientists-should-be-militant-atheists