Who needs religion, any way?

In the second part of Dawkins’ argument, he claims that in disputes, religion always trumps other ideas, because it assumes a sort of sacredness. I find it odd that he treats religion as just another opinion, such as a man thinking “‘his wife is beautiful and his children smart.’” Dawkins seems to disregard the importance religion plays in developing a complete view of the world around us. Near the end of his argument he finally asks:

What is so special about religion that we grant it such uniquely privileged respect?

Hmm… Perhaps it is because religions have an inconceivable tendency of instruction in morals and ethics. Or maybe it is because religion offers answers to the most important questions about things such as life and death. Or maybe—and I know this is stretching the imagination—it is because religion offers meaning and a purpose to life. I don’t know really… I guess it is rather silly that we give religion any importance, after all.

All sarcasm aside, I truly find it disturbing that Dawkins and others put so little value on religion, and think it can be so easily replaced with other things, such as science. I started thinking about this while I was watching Expelled and the interviews with all of the scientists, but particularly Dawkins. The argument was centered on the seeming conflict between science and religion. However, I’m not so sure this is how the issue should be argued, because religion and science are two completely different things. Science can offer answers about the natural world around us and even about our bodies and ourselves, but it cannot tell us why we are here, if there is good and evil, or tell us what “the meaning of life” is. These are questions that every human being struggles with, and needs answers to. While science can, of course, validate religious beliefs, it cannot be a replacement for them.

Alarmingly, however, many of the scientists interviewed on Expelled, including Dawkins, seem to think that religion is unnecessary and science can tell us all we need to know. If I’m not mistaken, one of the scientists in the movie literally says that science will eventually replace religion. This simply cannot be true—this way of thinking is logically fallacious and does not follow. Lets say, for example, that a vibrant art program is enacted in schools throughout the country and suddenly everyone thinks that art is now vitally important, while mathematics is worthless (an idea I almost agree with :P). Now, they want to replace math and teach only art instead. This is pure silliness—math and art are two completely different things, and one cannot be replaced by the other. But this is exactly what would be happening if religion was replaced by science. Although science is important, it cannot ever take the place of religion. Only religion offers answers to the deepest questions faced in life, and it will remain important always.

Delusional?

As I was reading the excerpt from Dawkins’ The God Delusion, I had a few different thoughts. At first, he talks about “religiousness” in a nonsupernatural sense, which, although I understood what he meant, still seemed weird to me.

Let me sum up Einsteinian religion in one more quotation from Einstein himself: 'To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious.' In this sense I too am religious, with the reservation that 'cannot grasp' does not have to mean 'forever ungraspable'. But I prefer not to call myself religious because it is misleading. It is destructively misleading because, for the vast majority of people, 'religion' implies 'supernatural'. Carl Sagan put it well: '. . . if by â€�“God” one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying...it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.'

If I am understanding his argument correctly, Dawkins basically says that there is some kind of desire in us when we study science and the beauty of the earth, but this is only a sort of admiration of the unfathomably vast Universe we live in, and has nothing to do with religion. However, some people mistakenly believe this desire/admiration is a feeling of the supernatural, and that is why they are “religious.” I am, quite honestly, a bit perplexed by this. If there is no God, as Dawkins believes, then why would we have any desires or feelings like this about nature? To my knowledge, humans are the only creatures on earth that experience this phenomenon. I think the awe and wonder experienced when studying nature is actually an indication that God does exist. I do not know any other reason why evolved homo sapiens, such as ourselves, would have to experience these “feelings,” if it is not from a desire that has been placed in us by a Creator. And by the way, that is exactly what Paul writes in Romans 1 and 2.

Rhetorical Strategies in Expelled

One thing I really liked in the movie was all of the old movie clips, and I think they served as very effective rhetorical strategies. First of all, they provided visual interest and kept the viewer engaged in a serious topic that might have otherwise become uninteresting after a while. They also very effectively reinforced the ideas presented in the movie. At times, I think they even served as a way to send strong messages to the viewers—too strong to be put into words without attracting a lot of criticism. (I am thinking of several of the Nazi sequences, as well as the scene with the bully beating up the little boy. These are essentially saying that the people suppressing the Intelligent Design theory are not acting intellectually, but rather, are on the same level as big bullies—intellectual Nazis.) The repeated “Wall” imagery throughout the movie was also very effective. It really created the feeling that scientists and scientific research is being painfully suppressed, and gave Intelligent Design a sense of “forbiddenness.” It played up the “freedom in science” aspect of the movie, which was really the main focus. The movie wasn’t really saying that Intelligent Design is true, it only argued that it should at least be given the chance to be discussed, and I think the movie clips were very effective in reinforcing this.

Teenagers and Homeschooling

I have to say, I really did enjoy doing my research paper. It was really interesting, and I learned some things I was not expecting. As I was doing all of my reading, homeschooling kept popping into my head. Although I did mention school in the paper, I didn't talk about homeschooling because the argument was just about teenagers in general, and I didn't want it to turn out as a "Public School Vs. Homeschool" thing. But even though homeschooling wasn't the focus of my paper, as I was reading more about the way teens develop and learn, and the problems they sometimes have, I found myself thinking "This wouldn't be a problem if they were homeschooled," or "Homeschooling would probably improve that a lot, too."

For example, as it turns out, teenagers are much more sensitive to the influence of their peers than adults are. Teens are very capable and while they may be able to make good decisions by themselves, when they're with their friends they tend to make much poorer choices. So this of course made me think of traditional schools, where students spend almost all of their time with people their own age. In a homeschool setting, students don't spend as much time with peers, and so I would guess that they would be better able to make good decisions.

Also, it seems, not surprisingly, that teenagers who are given more responsibilities tend to be more responsible. One thing that I've heard from homeschool teens quite frquently is that they have to do a lot of their work on their own. I've also heard other people, such as college professors, say that their formerly homeschool students tend to be much more independant workers. I have experienced this, too, because I have three younger siblings who need my mom's help and so most of the time I am left to do my school work on my own. This seems to be characteristic of homeschooling, and I think it is something that does help students become more independant and responsible.

I just thought this was interesting, because I did not think about homeschooling at all when I first started the research for my paper.

Spread the Words

Yesterday my sister showed me a website called www.savethewords.org. It has obscure words up for adoption, meaning that you "adopt" the word into your speech and use it as much as possible. I'm not sure if the site was created in seriousness or in jest, but when I saw it I laughed very hard. It is such a funny idea! I just thought you might like to see it, especially because we are supposed to be building our vocabularies. Maybe you can find some good words to incorperate into your essays and such. If not, at least you will learn some cool new words to impress your friends with. ;-)