| August Burns Red – Rationalist Lyrics | 14 years ago |
|
Thanks for your comment! I'd like to again offer the idea that atheism does not in fact require faith... the reason being that it does not deal in absolute truths. The Christian faith in Christ traditionally requires that ideas such as intelligent design are taken as absolute truths, meaning that they are regarded as sacred and not open to discussion or editing. This is what requires 'faith', because the views often have to be held in the face of entirely contradictory evidence. The fact that religion is supposed to provide a moral compass for life, and indeed claims to have the answers to the mysteries of the universe, should mean that it is open to criticism and debate. However all to often it is not! I hope it would not seem to unfair to bring up the old example of Italian astronomer Galileo, who was condemned for heresy in the 1600's for his (correct) conjecture that it was in fact the sun at the center of the solar system! Given that the Catholic Church did not make a formal apology for this until 1992, I believe this would not only be fair to point out, but would also serve as a good example of just how stubbornly faith can make people reject true observations due to out-dated, pre-existing beliefs. On the other hand, atheists (and I try not to generalise here, because as I see it atheists are not so much their own group with a formal set of beliefs as they are just non-participants) do tend to take the scientific, rationalist approach. The difference is that atheists do not (or at least should not) hold their beliefs as absolute truths. More often theories are based on evidence, and the more evidence there is for something, the more it can believed to be true. Take for example our friend Galileo, who's observations told him that the earth was not actually the center of the universe. Or indeed the opposing argument to intelligent design, which would be evolution. Science works on the principles of approximation, prediction, experiment and observation. If something agrees with experiment then it is taken to be true, or at least the best approximation for something that there is. However these are not absolute truths! It is pretty certain that the sun is the center of the solar system. But IF a better explanation were to come along, that agreed more completely with observation and experiment, or explained as yet undiscovered astronomy data, there would be nothing stopping us (if not frustration) from altering our beliefs. There are no sacred truths or prophets in science. Of course there is a degree of 'faith' in one sense of the word in beliefs such as evolution, because they can be relied upon to produce accurate predictions about our world. But it is not the faith that I am trying to describe, the true religious use of the word. That would be holding a belief without or even in spite of genuine evidence. Only religion requires this, and hence it is is the only option that requires 'faith'! For all I know, Christianity may in fact be correct. But I don't claim to know, and that is why I shouldn't have to justify my belief, or have any sort of faith in it. My own experience however, learns me to think that such an answer for the origin of the universe is at best unlikely, as there is no empirical evidence. This is why I choose not to believe. But only the believers have the onus on them to justify their belief with faith, as they are the only ones claiming absolute truth. And again, atheists do not specifically 'believe in nothing' as you suggest. It is merely the refusal to have a belief at all, at least without the support of evidence. Lastly, I would like to adress your final question. I realise I have written a lot, I hope it does not seem like I'm just trying to write the most! Incidentally I should also note that my aim here is not to try and convince you not to have faith or to change your opinion. I am very away that no-one worth of calling themselves a Christian would drop their beliefs immediately because of a few paragraphs! I don't wish to be that obnoxious. My aim is only to defend atheism from the accusations of hypocrisy that seem to be flying around, and try to explain why I am doing so, thought it has proven difficult to do briefly. The scientific method is a noble endeavour which has given us all of the technologies, medicines and knowledge that we have today. And my atheism has given me the joys of wondering at the origin of the universe, and the humility that the overwhelming feeling of 'not knowing' brings. It leaves you room to decide your own purpose in life, rather than being given one. It allows you to set your own moral compass, one that is specifically based on what YOU think is right rather than what your often questionable God thinks. Your question is a troubling one for me as I have been asked it several times and every time I feel like I have misunderstood. If it is as simple as it seems, you seem to be asking why, given the choice, one would choose to believe in 'eternal death' as opposed to eternal life. The answer is that because for me, I draw a distinction between what I would prefer to believe, and what I actually think is more likely. We are at a crossroads because your faith leads you to the belief in eternal life, while my beliefs mean that I do not see the necessity for or the logic behind such a thing. But if you were simple given the choice of which to believe, why be so arrogant as to assume that the entire nature of the universe conforms to what you wish it to be, when there is no evidence to suggest that it should? To be honest with you though, perhaps I am just as guilty of just choosing the outcome I prefer. While I am not entirely confortable with the concept of death, I am unsettled much more at the prospect of eternal life, for reasons that I very much can't explain. I just find the concept of 'eternity' and having to live through that amount of time to be a scarier prospect than simply dying and no longer being conscious. In comparison, that would almost seem like a relief. However, I can not BELIEVE how much I have written! I guess this has been on my mind a lot. Thank you so much if you have read this far! I would love to hear some responses. |
|
| August Burns Red – Rationalist Lyrics | 15 years ago |
|
This song is awesome, and while I personally disagree with the message behind the lyrics they are strong and thought-provoking. I would like to further some of the points already made here by referring to thommcnealy's comment. He says: "claiming to be a "rationalist", and looking down on the silly mortals for "believing in fairy tales" is hypocrisy when all you have is a different belief. christianity cannot be absolutely proven, but it cannot be idisproven. so ya to demonize a group of people for not meeting a ridiculous standard you yourself cannot meet would indeed make you a hypocrite." As mentioned before, just because an individual does not believe in (for example) Christianity does not necessarily mean that they hold another belief, or more specifically the belief that Christianity is explicitly false. In my opinion, the 'all or nothing' idea that you must either have the belief that something is right or the belief that something is wrong stems from the teachings of Christianity and therefore provides a warped or biased view. In essence, the non-belief in Christianity is not in itself a belief that something is false. It is purely not believing, which I do not think is hypocritical as it is entirely what non-believers set out to do. The idea that non-belief extends further into a belief of falsehood or alternate reasoning is an unfortunate side-effect of the term 'atheist', which furthers the portrayal given by Christians that non-believers are opposites or 'the opposing team', the 'A'-theist counterpart to the theist. In my opinion the reality is much more complex than this, there is not simply a left and right hand side. For example this song describes the 'rationalist' as the hypocrite, however there are many other religions with equal measures of evidence for their belief as Christianity. Subscribing to one religion while discarding another ventures in the direction of hypocrisy, yet other faiths have so far been left out of this argument. I hope this makes sense to someone as this is a difficult subject to summarize. On a different note, this song is awesome! ABR RULES! |
|
* This information can be up to 15 minutes delayed.