Religion and Rationality
Excerpt from Book: “How Life Really Works” -Gregory Spohr
The conflict between rationality and emotionality is at the base of the conflict between science and religion. These two concepts are mutually exclusive and contradictory. It is impossible to reconcile faith-based religious belief systems with the fact-based system of science. In analyzing data input, a religious person is satisfied with a low level of coincidence or probability between events, whereas a scientist uses a system tscienhat seeks to correlate events with a high degree of probability and predictability.
Physiologically, man is a mammal and genetically almost indistinguishable from many other mammals such as apes. The only distinguishing factor that sets man aside from the rest of the animal world is his superior ability to use his mental facilities, particularly his intelligence and rationality.
Even a primitive form of life, such as an amoeba, must have the ability to distinguish between life enhancing and life threatening environmental influences. An amoeba must be able to perceive a life-threatening event as an unpleasant emotion, as pain. All survival mechanisms revolve around the emotion of pain. In order to survive we must perceive a threat to our survival as pain. Subsequently we must perceive the elimination of pain as a pleasurable emotion.
The Atheism Tapes
Sometimes America say :”So you don’t believe in God?” and I say “That’s right , I don’t believe in God?”
And they say: “So do you believe in anything?” and I say: “ I believe in many things” and I don’t make a jokes like “ I believe in tables and chairs”
I say “I believe in various ethical causes and political ideas and other aesthetics values, intellectual values , lot of things that I believe in.”
And they say: “That’s all you believe in?” “That’s all I believe in!”
Why, if god was the creator of all things, were we supposed to "praise" him so incessantly for doing what came to him naturally?
As for consolation, since religious people so often insist that faith answers this supposed need, I shall simply say that those who offer false consolation are false friends. In any case, the critics of religion do not simply deny that it has a painkilling effect. Instead, they warn against the placebo and the bottle of colored water. Probably the most popular misquotation of modern times—certainly the most popular in this argument—is the assertion that Marx dismissed religion as "the opium of the people."
Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.
Thus the mildest criticism of religion is also the most radical and the most devastating one. Religion is man-made. Even the men who made it cannot agree on what their prophets or redeemers or gurus actually said or did