 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
(A response to Raihan)
(Part-III) [To read Part I, click HERE. For Part II, click HERE ]
"Even people who believe to their core that they do not have prejudices may
still have negative associations that are not conscious."
To prove his preposterous assumption �belief in single God� is a much better and logical option than �no belief in God�, Raihan told his friend a pseudoscientific story. Many of us are used to reading the history of science, scientists and their discoveries in the form of a tale and we appreciate it. I remember having read myself scientific discoveries in Bangla story format such as those written by Dr. Abdullah Al Muti, Devi Prasad Chattrapadhay. They were inspiring and artistic. But Raihan designed his pseudoscientific story such a way that after listening to it, even his �skeptic� friend calls it a �granda tale� (I have serious doubt about the intelligence of both the story teller and the listener in this case). Raihan is as poor in science as he is in weaving a factual tale. Let me point out some of the serious factual errors about science in Raihan�s arguement. Contrary to what Raihan mentioned, the first form of life in earth is NOT amoeba, which is an eukaryotic cell and much developed than the prokaryotic bacteria, thought to the most ancient and much simpler form of life in earth. And the proof is based on fossils research as summarized in a book*13 published by the US National Academy of Science (NAS), one of the most revered science body in the world.
Raihan comments �after learning about the complex structure of DNA and other information about living organisms, many people are not accepting random and blind evolution theory�.Every person�s DNA is unique. No two person�s DNA is same. What a wonder! If so, it must be a deterministic process.� My comments: What a na�ve way to draw conclusion about science! Raihan believes, Molecular Biology disproves the theory of evolution through �natural selection� [Let�s not forget- contrary to most people�s belief, the term �evolution� is a generic one and was in use long before Darwin�s birth. What, however, is unique with Darwin�s theory- he proposed and proved �natural section� as the most plausible means of evolution. To learn more, readers may visit the informative website mentioned under reference 12, especially the chapter �What is Evolution?�*14 ] Indeed, Molecular Biology�s latest research involving DNA, RNA and Protein reinforces the core part of Darwin�s original theory i.e. �The origin of species by means of natural selection,� although at the time of Darwin, scientists knew almost nothing about modern Molecular Biology. Again, the proof is from the book*13 published by the US National Academy of Science (NAS). �Studies in genetics and molecular biology--fields unknown in Darwin's time--have explained the occurrence of the hereditary variations that are essential to natural selection. Genetic variations result from changes, or mutations, in the nucleotide sequence of DNA, the molecule that genes are made from. Such changes in DNA now can be detected and described with great precision. Genetic mutations arise by chance. They may or may not equip the organism with better means for surviving in its environment. But if a gene variant improves adaptation to the environment (for example, by allowing an organism to make better use of an available nutrient, or to escape predators more effectively--such as through stronger legs or disguising coloration), the organisms carrying that gene are more likely to survive and reproduce than those without it. Over time, their descendants will tend to increase, changing the average characteristics of the population. Although the genetic variation on which natural selection works is based on random or chance elements, natural selection itself produces "adaptive" change--the very opposite of chance.�
My comments: Let me ask Raihan: did the proponents of Big Bang theory ever claim, there was nothing before Big Bang occurred? What most biologists and physicists instead say is �still we don�t know answer to the question of what the condition of earth was before Big-Bang occurred, or what really triggered Big-Bang.� Why then misquote scientists? Just to prove yourself an �intelligent debater?� We should be honest and take care not to deteriorate established facts in a debate. In his desperate attempts to create a �science-compatible� God Raihan said: �Some cite Big-Bang and think God is lazy since it took billions of years before first organism evolved after Big-Bang. They may have forgotten the �theory of relativity.� if God is independent of time-space dimension, then time factor is a needless issue. What may seem to a human millions of years may be a transient instance for the God.� My response: Imagine no Big-Bang/Theory of Relativity/Theory of Evolution was discovered. Would most people have stopped believing in God? No. Some people always believed in stupid things such as God/Goddess with the difference now- they try to resort to modern science while defending their belief while forgetting- science doesn�t abide by sentiments of majority or minority, or judgment of what is good and what is bad. That most people believe in something because they find comfort in such belief is absolutely of zero value to a scientist whose sole objective is to discover and unravel the mystery behind the universe through critical observation, replicable experiments and objective analysis. Whether someone is hurt by the truth that the earth revolves around sun should not be of any concern to a scientist. People everywhere will answer �yes� if they are asked, �do two and two make four?� except for a few mentally challenged individuals. (Of course, one may also make four in other combination of numerals, but that is not a �no� answer to the main question.) Does it hold true when it comes to religious belief? Nope. Is Mohammed the last Prophet? If we ask, not everyone in the world will agree. Same goes true with the question: do you believe in a creator? Thus science and religious beliefs are incompatible to each other. Raihan asks: �What if science fails? What if one day science discovers God? But atheists are leaving the world for ever with an irrational belief.� (Occam �s Razor theory) My response: What if, I say, science will discover a God who will dislike creatures who are submissive, coward and don�t know- how to think critically. Instead, such God will love creatures who are intellectually honest, think rationally. What will happen to the theists? Besides, as I said already, of the millions, how do I know belief in which particular God is the most rational choice? Indeed, (going by Raihan�s logic) belief in one particular God is more risky than living with no belief but with a sense of appreciation for the nature and majestic universe. Raihan thinks �If we accept, having being created spontaneously men using nature created deterministic processors like computer, robots; why is not possible, God also came into being spontaneously and created billions of deterministic processors including humans?. If first organism could evolve w/o any parents, why not God?� My response: That�s too simplistic conclusion. I won�t use the term �spontaneously� since it is confusing. At least we know about Big Bang and the later developments. Although we have yet to learn about the conditions prior to Big Bang, there is no reason to assume God evolved just like the way living organisms did because we have solid proofs of fossils to support the evolution of living organism and interestingly, to the best of my knowledge, so far it didn�t happen that of all the fossils scientists have discovered so far, two different class of organisms were found representing the same time period in biology. We didn�t find any human fossils that are as old as a dinosaur fossil is. That shows, all organisms didn�t come into existence simultaneously. Please read below*12: The fossil record thus provides consistent evidence of systematic change through time--of descent with modification. From this huge body of evidence, it can be predicted that no reversals will be found in future paleontological studies. That is, amphibians will not appear before fishes, nor mammals before reptiles, and no complex life will occur in the geological record before the oldest eucaryotic cells. This prediction has been upheld by the evidence that has accumulated until now: no reversals have been found. If ever we find a fossil supporting of any God�s existence, we�ll think about it. Till then please spare us of the nonsense! Raihan assumes anything and everything just blindly like when he says: �A man is born as a believer!� My response would be the following*15: No one is born with belief in the existence of gods any more than they are born believing that rabbits or streets exist. They lack the experiences necessary to arrive at such ideas. It may be fair to say that they are born with the capacity to develop such beliefs, just as they are born with the capacity to learn a language. Just how significant is that, though? Some theists seem to go a bit further and think that we are all born with an innate desire to seek out God, but that�s quite different from being a believer in the existence of some god. Infants are not theists and thus must be a-theists. For some reason, though, calling them a-theists is treated as much worse than calling them a-moral. Why do you suppose that is? Do religious theists really believe that not believing in any gods is worse than not having any conception of right & wrong? This is an indication, I think, of just how extreme people�s dislike and distrust of atheists can go. Concluding remarks: We know observation of a phenomenon doesn�t always lead to the same conclusion in the minds of two different persons as it depends on each person�s knowledge, background and understanding. A small example: As a child I used to believe (or was made to believe) in the existence of what is known in Bangla, the �Bhuter Alo� (�Ghost�s fire�), sometimes seen in graveyards in the dark at night. Like many others, later I learned the �mystery� was nothing but a simple chemical reaction involving air and a chemical called Phosphorus (usually abundant wherever animal body decomposition occurs). While recalling the incident, I was thinking, what if the mystery behind �ghost�s fire� remained unsolved even today? Would believers like Raihan cite that also as a proof that �God exists�? Probably, yes; since many people can see it even today. Some believers probably would have even called it a �divine light.� Under such circumstances, if a rational atheist were to defend human reasoning saying �one day science would demystify it,� how would have believers reacted? May be, they would have said what they say often in a theism vs. atheism debate: �Science cannot prove everything?� By virtue of the pattern of his argument, Raihan actually represents a category of millions of helpless believers who live in a fanciful world of God. They jump into a conclusion before understanding a premise (ref. so called logic by which Raihan claims to have proved Einstein a �donkey.�). Before understanding how science works, they call something �the most scientific,� �the most rational.� Yet I shall not call Raihan a �mullah� or �stupid believer.� I understand the difficulty a human mind experiences to encounter for the first time, a creator we may have imagined all along our life is either non-existent or may not even exist. Anyone with some basic knowledge of psychology knows- how childhood experience influences our personal views of society, religion, etc in later life. No one, not even we, the agnostics/atheists/humanists can deny this. However, that is not enough as a reason to lose interest in the beauty of life, nature and the universe. May be one day, science will unravel all mysteries surrounding God, universe; or may be, not. Yet we all, whether theists or atheists, are entitled to enjoy and live a decent, fulfilled and dignified life as it is beautifully expressed by the eminent secular humanist philosopher Paurl Kurtz in his book �Affirmations: Joyful and Creative Exuberance�*16 : The so-called secret of life is an open scenario that can be deciphered by everyone. It is found in the experiences of living: in the delights of a fine banquet, the strenuous exertion of hard work, the poignant melodies of a symphony, the appreciation of an altruistic deed, the excitement of an embrace of someone you love, the elegance of a mathematical proof, the invigorating adventure of a mountain climb, the satisfaction of quite relaxation, the lusty singing of an anthem, the vigorous cheering in a sports contest, the reading of a delicate sonnet, the joys of parenthood, the pleasure of friendship, the quiet gratification of serving our fellow human beings�in all of these activities and more. _____ New York November 25, 2006
References:
12. The cited comment is from Lieberman�s research work published in Nature Neuroscience, May, 2005 issue. For a Guardian version, visit http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1517186,00.html 13. Steering Committee on Science and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences.1999. Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 14. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html 15. http://atheism.about.com/od/attacksonatheism/a/InfantsAtheists.htm 16. Paul Kurtz. 2004. Affirmations: Joyful and Creative Exuberance. New York: Prometheus Books.
About the author: Jahed Ahmed is the co-moderator of www.mukto-mona.com, an online network of humanists from South Asian and other countries. He holds a Master's degree in Biotechnology from the Mysore University, India.
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
