Skip to main content
Report this ad

See also:

State and church to meet soon

The intersection of religion and politics has always been troublesome, sometimes more, sometimes less.
Phrases like the "separation of church and state" and "legislating morality," not precisely included in major official government documents, are often the topic of vigorous discussion if not heated debate.
Various established religions have made rules and various governments have made rules throughout history.
The sets of rules made by governments have generally been more immediately compulsory and therefore a much smaller set of rules than those made by religions.
What has changed in recent times is that religions are making far fewer rules, especially of the "external trappings" type, and governments are making far more, especially of the sort that would be considered less significant were it not government making them.
The result of these changes is that religion and government are largely focused on the same things and the need for "separation" or qualitative differences is no longer clear. Thus the claim that morality can't be legislated is countered with the claim that nothing else but morality should be legislated.
Whoever makes rules by whatever process there is the tendency to attempt to invest the process and rules with as much credibility as can be mustered.
Although any human endeavor is likely to require some measure of reason and faith, people prefer to avoid acknowledging the faith involved in their particular process of rule making. Even the most profoundly religious people with the deepest and most abiding faith in a god will use reason as far as it appears possible to them to use it.
False science
Exhibiting faith, at least in any rule making process, has become an embarrassment. To avoid that embarrassment, things are often presented as factual when they are not. The result is that widely accepted lists of "scientific facts," especially on the internet, are much longer than intelligent and honorable scientists can corroborate.
Among the imposters at the table of science is the notion that homosexuality is genetically determined. There are a few "scientific" claims it might be. Not only does it fall quite short of a fact, but the power of various cultures around the wide world to influence choices is evident and strong.
Another imposter is the notion that "abiogenesis" has found new scientific support. The term abiogenesis is used to disguise what is the same as "spontaneous generation," a once resoundingly defeated notion with only bizarre new hope from amateur scientists.
The most pernicious imposter is the notion that science has proved there is no god. So convinced are the amateur scientists of the idea that they urge changing the definition of atheism. Atheism has by longstanding English vocabulary and grammar been defined as the belief that there is no god.
Various sources of more and less credibility have urged calling it a "lack" of belief. That is of course part of the phenomenon already discussed whereby people claim to use more reason than they actually do.
Belief anxiety disorder
To the mind of many people the calling of atheism a "lack" of belief makes it seem more reasonable, something almost everyone strives to seem.
While it is theoretically possible to lack beliefs, people usually don't engage in much discussion, or certainly don't engage in much debate, without either facts or beliefs. Atheists joining any debate reveal, wittingly or otherwise, theirs is as much a belief as anyone else's.
When they deny theirs is a belief they are exhibiting belief anxiety disorder.
One trick they use is to claim they have no "burden of proof," that we must assume there is no god until one is proved.
While it is true in courts that a person is innocent until proved guilty, other assumptions are not so automatic. The assumption there is no god is by no means automatic. There is plenty of evidence for one, amateur science not withstanding, pedestrian notions of god notwithstanding.
Atheists have the same burden of proof as anyone they engage in a discussion. To avoid having any burden of proof they need to leave the discussion without making any claim at all for, against or wavering. No, there is no new science to absolve them of their burden of proof.
A more intellectually honest and more sound approach is that of the agnostic who admits he does not know and does not engage in discussion or debate except with what he admits are his beliefs.
Atheists prefer not to be called simply agnostic since they want to join the discussion with more force than their belief or the agnostics "lack" of belief would make possible.
Examples of belief anxiety disorder can be found widely on the internet as many people fiddle and fudge with terms trying to make their belief that there is no god seem less the matter of faith than it obviously is. One sufferer of severe belief anxiety disorder wrote over 500 words in defense of a "lack" of belief. At what point does it reach phobic levels? Part of the problem is that inexpensive and easy access to the internet has given amateur science more ground than it would otherwise have.
As uncomfortable as it will certainly be for many people of all walks, much of the "science" that has been the supposed bulwark of state policy will soon face a very serious review of its mixture of reason and faith.

Report this ad