The Falsity of Religion: Twelve Indisputable Arguments

All the same, evolution does have theological implications. Think about it: living organisms creating themselves instead of being created by an intelligence. Is this not atheism or pantheism? I wouldn’t be a pagan if it weren’t for evolution.

Is evolution a proven theory, as required by science?

My understanding is that much of evolutionary explanations is still at the hypothesis level, since the scientific method can't be applied to all the purported evolutionary explantions.

For example, we can't recreate the original "promordial soup" to create the first amino acid or what have you.

All the same, evolution does have theological implications. Think about it: living organisms creating themselves instead of being created by an intelligence.

We agree that evolution is in direct conflict with Christianity, however you are promoting the common misconception that evolution is science. The question of origins is a question of history not science. WHATEVER happened only happened once. Science can only make guesses based on a priori assumptions. Evolution is atheist mythology with scienctific jargon tacked on. Evolution is only relevant if God is irrelevant. You have assumed God is irrelevant to prove God is irrelevant.

John "Birdman" Bryant, in my opinion, is one of a small percentage of humans that produce very useful information.

Is evolution a proven theory, as required by science? My understanding is that much of evolutionary explanations is still at the hypothesis level, since the scientific method can't be applied to all the purported evolutionary explantions. For example, we can't recreate the original "promordial soup" to create the first amino acid or what have you. I am no expert of course nor am I a scientist.

But, I would argue that the science is more on the side of evolution than Christianity.

Psychologists argue that some humans are just genetically predisposed to non-scientific beliefs, such as religion. Some how, religion was reproductively advantageous, religeous genes proliferated. And if you look at who is having the most offspring today, it's Christians, while atheists usually have no kids or one at the most. In other words, atheists will soon go extinct, while Christians will completely dominate the West. A lot of this is discussed at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionary-psychology/

We agree that evolution is in direct conflict with Christianity, however you are promoting the common misconception that evolution is science. The question of origins is a question of history not science. WHATEVER happened only happened once. Science can only make guesses based on a priori assumptions. Evolution is atheist mythology with scienctific jargon tacked on. Evolution is only relevant if God is irrelevant. You have assumed God is irrelevant to prove God is irrelevant.

Reason 1: The nature of scientific vs religious belief: As I pointed out in my book Systems Theory and Scientific Philosophy, science is actually a religion: Its faith involves such beliefs as that the future will be like the past in certain ways, that explanations should be based on objectively- verifiable evidence, and that the best explanation is the simplest one which fits all the facts ("the Law of Parsimony"). However, science is different from most religions in the way it makes 'converts', and, more generally, in how it gets people to believe in its assertions. In particular, people become converts to science because they see that it works: Science builds buildings and bombs and sends rockets to the moon -- something no religion seriously pretends to do. On the other hand, people become converts to religion because they think they see that it works, but are mistaken: For example, people become converts to religion because of such things as (a) their parents shape their beliefs at an impressionable age (ie, brainwash them); (b) they have a psychic or psychic-like experience which makes them think that God is responsible, whereas in reality they may only have had a pinched spinal nerve, or perhaps a genuine psychic experience, the latter of which does not prove the existence of God, but only that there are things that science still doesn't understand; or (c) they survive some traumatic experience which makes them think that God is the only thing that could have gotten them thru it, eg, military combat ("There are no atheists in foxholes") or taking a subway ride in New Yawk.

Reason 3: Religion's logical contradictions: Religion contains many contradictions. For example, the Bible tells us to "love thine enemy", yet all the smiting of their enemies by God's Chosen in the Old Testament makes it plain that the roots of Christianity were far closer to hatred than love. Again, the Bible tells us that God "loves" each and every one, yet those who violate God's laws or don't believe in religious dogma are supposedly going to be sent to eternal Hellfire -- hardly an act of a loving God. One can fill a book with such contradictions.

Reason 4: Religion's incredible shrinking knowledge: About 400 years ago, the Christian religion "knew" everything. It "knew" the earth was flat, "knew" that there were witches, "knew" that animals could be tried for crimes, "knew" that the Bible was the literal word of God, "knew" the difference between right and wrong, "knew" that the difference between man and beast was that only men have "souls", "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe, and so on. Since that time the things that religion "knows" has been shrinking at the speed of light -- or at least the speed of thought. Copernicus showed that the sun was the center of our "universe"; Galileo discovered new worlds; Newton showed that it was physical laws, and not a Godhead, that determined the movement of the planets; and so on. Today, what religion "knows" can be contained in a pinhead, and generally is.

Reason 5: Religion's immoral leaders: Religion has always claimed to offer a code of "absolute morality", yet the behavior of its holiest men have often been far less than moral by any standard, religious or otherwise. For example, numerous Popes have been guilty of all sorts of crimes -- bribery, theft, fornication, murder, torture, warmaking -- you name it. Again, the Inquisition was responsible for treating many people with the most extreme barbarity -- so much so that a strong stomach is required simply to read about it. It is true, of course, that Christianity has cleaned up its act in recent years, but this has much less to do with the character of its leaders than its failing power in a world dominated by science. Accordingly, since Christians are no longer able to express their love of God thru such media as boring tongues with hot pokers, beating people till bloody at the whipping post, dipping and re-dipping them in boiling oil or ripping off their genitals, these gentle and loving people now have to content themselves with beating the bare buttocks of their children, and even this divertissement has been under attack in recent years.

Reason 6: Religion's questionable moral codes: Even with immoral leadership, religion might still claim the moral high ground on the basis of its behavioral codes. As it happens, however, these codes are usually deficient and often highly ambiguous. For example, there is no consensus on many controversial moral issues, including abortion, homosexuality, pornography, serving in the armed forces, and numerous others, tho all sects claim to know that their position on these issues -- whatever it may be -- is endorsed by The Big Guy In The Sky.

Reason 9: Religion's 'explanatory' appeal: The importance of religion for many people is that it explains how the world came into existence ("Because God created it") and the purpose of their life ("To worship God and do his bidding"). However, these explanations make no sense upon close examination. In particular, 'explaining' the existence of the world as an act of God requires the believer to explain how God was created -- surely he did not create himself -- and this means that the 'explanation' leaves more unexplained about the world than before the 'explanation' was developed. Likewise, 'explaining' one's purpose in life by saying it is to 'serve God' implies that God's purposes are known, whereas in reality we know nothing about "God's purposes" except what is told to us by the babbling of religious fruitcakes.

Reason 11: The argument from the multiplicity of religions: There are dozens, and perhaps even hundreds or thousands of religions, all of which claim to be 'absolutely true', and all of which contradict one another in fundamental ways. The only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from this is that all of them are absolutely false. In recognizing the above facts, those of an ecuminist bent have argued that, while all religions are probably false in some ways, the fact that all (or at least most) have the same core beliefs about God and morality imply that the true religion is constituted of these core beliefs. While this argument has a superficial appeal, it does not in fact prove the truth of the core beliefs, but only -- at most -- their usefulness: It proves that human beings are similar in the basic moral rules and mental props (god-belief) needed for a stable society.