From Wikipedia:
“Irreligion (adjective
form: nonreligious or irreligious)
is the absence of religion, an
indifference towards religion, a rejection of religion, or hostility towards
religion.[1] When characterized as the rejection of
religious belief, it includes atheism, religious dissidence and secular humanism.
When characterized as hostility towards religion, it includes antitheism, anticlericalism and antireligion. When
characterized as indifference to religion, it includes apatheism. When
characterized as the absence of religious belief, it may also include agnosticism, ignosticism, nontheism, religious skepticism and freethought. Irreligion
may even include forms of theism depending on the religious context
it is defined against, as in 18th-century Europe where the epitome of irreligion was deism.[2]
“A 2012 survey found that 36% of the world
population is not religious and that between 2005 and 2012 world religiosity decreased by 9 percentage points.[3] The Pew global report in 2010 noted
that many that are not religious have some religious beliefs and the majority
of nonreligious come from Asia and the Pacific.[4] According to one source, it has been
estimated that 40–50% of non-religious people hold belief in at least one deity, or in some higher power.[5]”
As compared to:
“Theism, in
the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[1] In
a more specific sense, theism is commonly a monotheistic doctrine concerning the
nature of a deity, and that deity's relationship to the universe.[2][3][4][5] Theism, in
this specific sense, conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the
world and the universe. As such theism describes the classical conception of
God that is found in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism and Hinduism. The
use of the word theism to indicate this classical form of monotheism began
during the scientific revolution of
the seventeenth century in order to distinguish it from the then-emerging deism which
contended that God, though transcendent and supreme, did not intervene in the natural world and
could be known rationally but not via revelation.[6]”
As a member of the Honors Society with Utah Valley
University while I was working on my Associates of Science degree a few years
back, I was exposed to a new way of thinking thanks to the philosophy-based
program, small honors classes, and wonderful (non-LDS) honors professors. I
began to discover a new, non-theistic way of thinking that I had not been
exposed to as a lifelong Latter-day Saint that grew up in Utah County. With the
current trend in today’s religious world presenting a decline in theism, I have
been interested in the practice of irreligion. I wanted to know why theists
believe in God, and why the irreligious do not. I wanted to understand the
logic and thought processes of both sides in order to more entirely understand
the world (and the people) around me, and also to help me determine and define
what I believe for myself. Here is what I have discovered.
You
Can Find Evidence To Support Any Idea. The Idea That You Have Chosen To Support
Defines Your Personal Relative Truth.
Throughout the course of my exploration, and over
the last several years, I have had the opportunity to converse with many
different people with many different beliefs. I have come to realize that,
especially during theist/irreligious confrontations, conversation tends become
personal and no longer about logic and thought process. Generally, these
arguments arise because both sides have defined truth differently; therefore,
they have found evidence to support their belief but the evidences do not
necessarily correlate because they are in different realms of thinking. The disconnect
in these conversations stems from where the evidence is being pulled from to
support one side of the argument or the other. Apples are being compared to
oranges. The irreligious believe that science provides evidence to support the
idea that God does not exist. And theists believe that their understanding of
religion provides evidence that God does exist.
When in reality, both ways to provide evidence are valid; because
evidence can be found to support any truth if it is being researched in the
corresponding places. Evidence for history is found in fossils. Evidence for
chemistry is found in a lab. Evidence for astronomy is found in the universe.
Evidence for religion is found in God’s resources (because if God existed, He
would have provided religious resources including scriptures, prophets, etc.
for the benefit of His followers). So the religious use said resources to
provide evidence of God just the same as the irreligious use the ideas of a
renowned philosopher to provide evidence for the idea that He does not.
Science
Cannot Define Absolute Truth Because Science Is Subject To Change And Absolute Truth
Is Unchanging.
Now, I
realize that the irreligious also use science as evidence in addition to
philosophy. While they do indeed utilize science as a resource, it is irrelevant
to this argument because we only understand science to the degree that we
understand the evidence. So science cannot possibly be synonymous with truth. Science
is generally accepted to be truth because of the evidence ("proof")
that it provides for a specific idea. But science changes. Ideas change. What
people once thought to be true we have come to find out are not. Things are
assumed to be true because there is more evidence for the one solution that
there is for the other. But no revolutions in science ("fact" or
"truth") would have come to pass had no one ever questioned the idea
with less evidence to support it. That is to say, evidence is perceived to
prove truth because we understand it - to the degree that we can understand
science. But as we come to understand more about science, "truths"
change because we find more evidence. If we all just kept pursuing truth the
same way, if no one was ever willing to take an idea that had significantly
less evidence on its side and pursue the idea that it could be true instead,
there would never be advancements in science. The Nash equilibrium. Gravity.
Energy equals mass times the speed of light constant. Heliocentrism. These were revolutionary ideas in science that
were rejected at first because there was not nearly as much evidence for them
as there was for the ideas that had been studied and peer reviewed for hundreds
of years. People only understand science to the degree that they understand the
evidence. But we know from the history of scientific development that if
evidence proved truth, we would still believe that the world was flat. If God
did exist, it would make sense that we, as humans, would not be able to
comprehend the evidence for his existence (e.g. our ability to understand that
divine truth could easily and potentially be far beyond the realms of our
current scientific understanding and ability to comprehend).
Now,
generally speaking, the irreligious believe that theists are closed-minded,
one-dimensional thinkers since they have yet to reason and logic their way out
of their belief in God (and, therefore, religion). But would it not be less
open-minded for someone to decide that one side of this argument was more true
than the other? Because that would mean that they are just assuming that
something is true (in this case, irreligion) simply because there is more
evidence for it (science behind it, "fact" or "truth" to
back it up). But we just established that we only understand truth to the
degree that we understand the evidence. So taking this position would therefore
inhibit one from coming to a better understanding of truth if it is available,
yet still undiscovered. And it is a very audacious
belief to think that any person has reached a state of complete and perfect
understanding based on any scientific, technological, or medical standing. Or
any understanding, for that matter.
Lack Of Evidence Cannot Be A
Supporting Argument If The Argument Is Based On Obtaining Supporting Evidence To
Define Truth.
This is an
interesting logic that took me a long time to understand: while the
irreligious’ beliefs are based on fact and evidence, the foundation of their
argument is lack of evidence to support the existence of God. When at the same
time, no supporting evidence can be made to prove the belief that God does not
exist, either. This organization of
logic conveniently sets irreligion up to never fail, because it says that truth
is only valid if it is defined one specific way: by a lack of evidence on the opposing theistic belief, while their truth
is simultaneously lacking proof as supporting evidence for the non-existence of
deity. There will always be a lack of evidence. On both sides. What it comes
down to is that the irreligious can provide evidence for their belief just the
same as theists can provide proof for theirs; the difference, and the most
significant part of this exploration, is where the evidence is coming from.
Because both sides are flawed, and both sides are sound.
Theism Is A Philosophy. Not A
Science.
Different
thought processes are used to define religion or irreligion; and while the
logical processes are sound each on their own, they cannot be crossed because
they don’t make enough sense that way. That is, a historian might approach an
astronomer and ask him to prove that the earth revolves around the sun. Because
the historian believes that the sun revolves around the earth, like the ancient
civilizations did. The astronomer would begin to give supporting evidence for
how he knows that the earth revolves around the sun, but the historian would
stop him and request that he provides evidence in fossils. Because fossils are
what the historian knows. The astronomer would of course respond that he could
not provide evidence for the earth’s rotation in the fossils. Maybe after a lot
of searching and digging he could come up with some, but none nearly
substantial enough to curb the historian’s belief that the earth is the center
of the universe.
Such is the disconnect between theist cognition and
irreligious cognition. Now, this example remains true whether I chose to
compare astronomy to history, math to literature, or philosophy to chemistry. I
chose to compare two of the sciences in this example because this idea is
supported further by the fact that scientific evidence is even specific within
its own practice. The fact that I can make this point by comparing apples to
apples validates the idea that evidence is specific to its own relative
practice. Sure, I could have compared apples to oranges in this example since
that is the overall suggestion that I’m proposing, but I would receive the same
result had I asked a chemist to provide evidence for history. Sure, he may be
able to provide a little evidence with carbon dating or similar practices, but
in no way could a chemist use chemistry to prove that the abolition of slavery was
the catalyst for the civil war in American history.
The point
is: God is not a science. He’s a person. Religion is not a science. It’s a
philosophy. And philosophy cannot be proven by science (that’s why it is
philosophy). So the argument that God and cannot possibly be real because there
is no evidence to support it is a logical fallacy. Because in no instance in
today’s world do we try to use scientific evidence to prove the truthfulness of
philosophy. Evidences do not cross the bounds of their personal realms because
if they did, even if they could provide some evidence to support one thing or
another, the evidence is not sound enough to prove ideas outside of their realm. The world does not look to a
mathematician’s evidence to prove that a country’s history was accurately
recorded. So why are we looking for scientific (or mathematical, or historical)
evidence to prove the truthfulness of religion? Religion did not put itself in
a science box (that is to say, religion did not claim to have the answers to physical
science), the irreligious put religion in a science box in an attempt to make
an argument against it. These evidences support their own understanding; not
each other’s, and not religion’s. Religion supports religion, just the same as
scientific evidence might support physical truths. Because religion isn't about
science, or math, or history; it’s about individuals. So why are we trying to
use scientific evidence to prove something that’s not a science? Of course
that’s illogical. Evidence for religion is found in religion.
If Absolute Truth Does Exist, We
Will Never Know.
Rather, We Have All Personally Defined
Our Own Relative Truths.
A wise BYU
professor who had been greatly involved in research once told me that
“every study fails at some point” (Dr. Anthony Sweat). He was making the point
that every study is flawed, and researchers are not allowed to use the word
“prove” in their findings because the evidence is just never sound enough to
say one thing really does prove another. And every study can be torn down by a
researcher studying the opposite theory. There are flaws in every study, and
therefore in science (science is based on studies). So maybe there is absolute truth in science. We just wouldn’t ever
be able to prove it due to the flaws in science. Just the same as there may be
absolute truth in religion, but we may never be able to prove it due to the
flaws in people.
This
evidence brings me to the conclusion that if there is really, capital T absolute Truth, we will never know it. We can
never know it. Research, facts, and statistics can be arranged in any way that
is suitable for the argument being made. If a person’s definition of truth is
based off of the current understanding of organized research, then their truth
lies in relative physical evidences. But I’m coming to understand that we all
do this. We all organize logic in a way that suits our argument. That provides
evidence for the relative truths that we’ve decided to live by. Whether or not
absolute truths exists, no one will ever know for sure; so it is left to each
of us to define what truth means to us at an individual and personal level. For
the irreligious, truth is defined by science and research (which is based on imperfect
data). For the religious, truth is defined by testimony and confirmation of the
spirit (which is experienced by imperfect people). But neither of them can be
proved or disproved, which makes them both equally true in different dimensions
and through different thought patterns. But different is okay.
Ironically, This Search For Absolute
Truth Is What Divides People And Is The Reason That We Will Never See World
Peace.
But the
world doesn't seem to think that different is okay. The world tends to believe
that there can be only one truth. And if we do not all participate in the same
truth, then someone is wrong and someone is right. Especially in the argument
of theism versus irreligion; which logic is consistent with the argument
because either God exists or He does not. The conclusion that I’ve come to
throughout my research and study on the subject is that it really doesn't matter. It makes no difference whether or not God actually exists. Because
people are going to behave the way they want to behave. The search for God or
Truth, this argument that the world is not willing to put aside, is simply an
abstract idea that we as people feel the need to incessantly chase. But to what
end? I am convinced that if we ever did come to a point where we could observe
absolute Truth, it would make little difference in the lives of the majority of
individuals in the world. Because just because something is true does not mean
that it is the most important to every person.
At the
same time, however, there is one truth that we all have in common; one truth
that we all agree upon. And that is humanity. The only universal relative truth
that I have been able to observe is the fact that we are all individuals. Every
human life is as significant as the next. We are to look out for each other.
Help strengthen and support each other. Try to be the best person that we can
be, on an individual level, to help support and sustain our real, tangible,
true, proven, existing humanity. If religion helps an individual be the best
person they can be, which is the situation that I find myself in, I don’t see
any reason for someone to pursue that relative truth as their foundational
belief. Regardless of what religion it is. If someone feels that religion holds
them back, and they would prefer to pursue science with the intent to improve
humanity and the world that we live in, I see no problem with pursuing that
relative truth. As long as we pursue the relative truth that betters us as a
person, and make less of an effort to change the way someone else believes, I
am convinced that it makes no difference whether or not absolute Truth exists. Because
if the search for truth is diving people and distracting them from helping and
serving each other, it is not worth finding anyway.
