Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
VandenAkker
Moral
Incompatibility:
Faith
and
Reason
Is
religious
moderation
compatible
with
reason?
Lets
give
Christian
moderates
the
benefit
of
doubt.
Lets
assume
that
these
devout
and
ethical
believers
are
correct
in
what
they
believe.
Many
of
them
state
that
it
was
confused
religious
dogma
that
corrupted
so
many
believers
before
us.
The
atrocities
of
the
Inquisition
and
Witch
trials
were
done
against
Gods
desire.
The
teachings
of
the
Old
Testament
can
be
subject
to
the
same
rationality
that
Political
Scientists
give
to
the
reasons
our
founding
fathers
didnt
reject
slavery.
At
the
time
they
were
aware
of
the
immorality
of
owning
a
fellow
person
but
in
the
name
of
pragmatism
this
unjust
must
lie
down
to
a
political
system
that
will
allow
its
wrongs
to
be
corrected
in
the
future.
In
other
words,
the
God
of
the
Old
Testament
knew
the
immorality
in
many
of
his
laws
in
Leviticus
and
Deuteronomy
but
the
zeitgeist
was
incompatible
in
supporting
divine
truths.
Why
the
creator
of
the
universe
doesnt
have
the
power
to
correct
these
wrongs
upfront
is
beyond
me,
but
again
lets
assume
believers
are
correct
when
they
say
we
cannot
understand
the
mind
of
God.
There
is
no
question
that
on
the
surface
most
believers
of
the
modern
era
are
ethical
in
their
behavior.
They
fall
under
the
zeitgeist
of
the
21st
century
which
they
claim
pays
homage
to
the
teachings
of
Jesus.
The
Golden
Rule
comes
from
divine
knowledge
and
is
shown
to
be
right
by
witnessing
the
prosperity
of
the
times
in
which
we
live.
This
prosperity
is
due
to
the
ethical
and
moral
structure
that
was
setup
in
the
New
Testament
by
Jesus.
Lets
test
these
claims
to
see
if
they
hold
their
ground.
The
ethical
structures
that
we
maintain
today
will
be
different
tomorrow.
We
only
need
to
look
back
to
see
how
differently
we
view
torture,
slavery,
bigotry,
intolerance,
and
the
countless
isms
of
our
time.
Its
reasonable
to
believe
that
this
trend
will
continue.
But
where
should
it
go
and
how
should
it
get
there?
The
religious
claim
ethical
advances
(and
we
should
hold
that
they
are
advancements)
have
all
been
an
effort
to
enforce
the
Golden
Rule.
We
are
constantly
improving
by
finding
ways
to
treat
our
neighbors,
as
we
would
hope
they
treat
us.
All
religious
moderates
and
reasonable
citizens
will
agree
that
we
should
always
seek
to
improve
our
ethical
capacity
(guided
by
the
word
of
God
or
not).
If
we
agree
that
ethics
has
room
to
improve
then
we
should
agree
that
reason
and
inquiry
offer
tools
to
advance
our
knowledge
in
this
realm
(unfortunately
it
requires
geneticists
to
convince
some
of
the
immorality
of
racism,
sexism,
etc).
Even
if
we
take
a
teaching
of
Jesus
based
in
the
Golden
Rule
we
can
all
agree
that
this
is
up
for
interpretation.
For
instance
should
I
want
to
be
treated
harshly
at
certain
periods
of
my
life
to
encourage
happiness
at
a
later
point?
I
hope
we
can
all
agree
that
reasoning
mainly
through
the
process
of
science
can
help
us
improve
the
way
we
live.
It
has
proven
to
have
the
ability
to
right
many
wrongs
of
the
past.
Is
it
reasonable
to
state
that
God
is
the
provider
of
these
tools
for
reason?
If
not
we
find
a
screaming
problem.
I
should
not
be
a
Christian
but
for
the
miracles
Augustine
All
forms
of
reason
require
faith.
If
I
were
to
reason
that
Im
sitting
in
this
chair
pulled
a
spherical
clump
of
dust
floating
in
an
empty
space
by
invisible
forces
I
must
first
have
faith
in
the
idea
that
anything
exists
at
all.
Descartes
takes
issue
with
this
when
he
says
our
only
true
certainty
is
that
we
are
conscious.
We
may
never
know
if
what
we
are
conscious
of
is
the
truth.
Does
this
mean
that
all
forms
of
faith
maintain
the
same
merit?
Of
course
upon
the
reason
that
our
intuition
provides
it
seems
absurd
to
believe
that
a
teapot
orbits
the
sun
as
Bertrand
Russell
claimed
in
his
famous
analogy.
We
can
use
our
minds
to
state
on
belief
that
it
is
highly
improbable
that
a
teapot
orbits
the
sun.
Any
dogmatist
who
claims
this
can
be
dismissed
without
need
of
proof.
Does
the
same
hold
for
the
miracles
that
the
Bible
claims
Jesus
performed?
Is
it
reasonable
to
hold
without
evidence
that
after
three
days
of
quiet
death
his
brain
suddenly
became
active
again?
And
that
he
assented
to
some
unknown
paradise
beyond
the
stars?
Its
fundamental
for
any
Christian
believer
to
maintain
these
views.
If
they
do
not
then
Jesus
is
nothing
more
than
a
(wise)
philosopher
and
we
have
no
problem
dismissing
other
philosophers
of
the
past.
So
a
Christian
must
hold
these
views.
Is
this
compatible
with
reason?
On
what
grounds
should
we
hold
that
these
dogmatic
claims
have
the
right
to
hold
our
faith
as
true?
The
faiths
that
science
and
reason
hold
are
sometimes
untestable
like
the
assertion
that
we
are
nothing
more
than
brains
in
a
vat.
Does
this
mean
that
all
is
up
for
grabs?
It
is
possible
to
believe
that
in
some
universe
there
really
is
a
teapot
floating
in
space.
Despite
this
we
have
logic
and
reason
to
categorize
claims
with
measures
of
probability.
We
are
highly
certain,
even
if
reality
itself
is
some
simulated
illusion,
that
there
isnt
a
teapot
orbiting
our
sun.
Lets
get
back
to
the
claim
that
modern
Christians
make
about
the
teachings
of
Jesus
and
how
they
provide
an
ethical
and
overall
better
world.
First
we
established
that
to
believe
this
we
must
believe
its
reasonable
to
assume
these
miracles
that
happened
2000
years
ago
truly
did
occur.
Doesnt
this
lower
our
standards
for
reason?
Of
coarse
it
does,
but
this
doesnt
mean
it
didnt
really
happen.
In
order
to
maintain
consistency
we
must
raise
the
probability
that
a
teapot
orbits
the
sun.
Id
also
like
to
point
out
that
it
raises
the
probability
of
all
other
world
religions
being
true,
though
this
doesnt
seem
to
worry
modern
Christians.
How
does
this
increase
in
the
error
terms
of
our
probabilistic
measures
affect
science,
reason
and
ethics
of
the
modern
world?
Because
we
put
such
a
strong
faith
in
these
miracles
that
were
performed
we
should
lower
our
faith
in
physical
laws.
There
must
be
something
we
are
missing
in
our
explanation
of
the
universe
far
more
fundamental
than
is
currently
believed.
Therefore
we
should
be
skeptical
when
scientists
argue
that
Global
Warming
is
a
reasonable
threat.
We
should
also
be
skeptical
of
biologists
and
neuroscientists
understanding
of
what
makes
a
human,
human.
So
we
cannot
allow
embryotic
stem
cell
research
because
there
is
a
higher
probability
that
there
is
a
metaphysical
substance
like
a
soul
(something
other
than
atoms)
making
up
these
cells.
Its
logical
to
then
conclude
that
stem
cell
research
is
killing
this
soul
substance,
which
is
obviously
unethical
according
to
the
Golden
Rule.
Now,
taking
climate
change
seriously
does
have
the
ability
to
mitigate
harmful
runaway
temperature
increases.
Also,
if
we
hold
that
there
is
a
high
chance
that
a
zygote
is
purely
physical
then
there
are
no
ethical
concerns
when
considering
the
chances
that
good
research
with
these
cells
has
to
better
understand
cancer
but
we
cannot
justify
this
utilitarian
approach
if
there
is
a
deity
who
sets
the
rules.
Clearly
adjusting
the
probabilities
of
certain
beliefs
has
practical
concerns.
Is
the
belief
of
a
divine
creator
a
justified
one
given
the
real
life
implications
that
it
can
have
on
our
ethics
the
ethics
that
arise
from
or
are
derivatives
to
the
Golden
Rule?
These
beliefs
do
effect
how
we
establish
policy
and
govern,
so
we
should
be
sure
that
the
beliefs
that
we
hold
are
at
least
as
strong
as
the
claims
that
sprout
from
them.
It
seems
that
in
order
for
us
to
be
fully
ethical
we
must
know
whether
a
God
exists
or
not,
and
given
the
religious
doctrine
if
this
God
truly
wanted
us
to
be
ethical
he
would
have
made
himself
known
without
the
need
for
us
to
loosen
our
reasoning
capabilities.
Either
a
hypocritical
deity
designed
us
or
billions
are
infected
with
a
dangerous
meme.
Natural
Selection
if
a
belief
held
by
biologists
today
because
they
have
been
unable
to
believe
otherwise.
It
seems
perfectly
reasonable
to
believe
that
a
self-replicating
entity
that
is
subject
to
mutation
will
over
a
long
period
of
time
change
dramatically
through
the
processes
described
by
Darwin.
We
have
yet
to
have
a
biologist
or
any
scientist
for
that
matter
show
the
flaw
in
this
idea
and
if
s/he
did
they
would
surely
be
awarded
the
Nobel
Prize
the
incentive
for
this
discovery
is
certainly
there.
We
then
have
good
reason
to
believe
that
its
as
close
to
a
truth
as
we
can
get.
There
is
a
high
probability
that
natural
selection
explains
how
Homo
sapiens
came
into
existence.
There
is
a
little
amount
of
faith
needed
to
claim
this.
It
seems
clear
that
in
order
to
arrive
at
truths
we
need
to
work
to
minimize
our
faiths.
It
also
seems
clear
that
once
we
arrive
at
these
truths
there
are
great
practical
applications
to
these
ideas
that
provide
us
with
better
lives.
A
Darwinian
understanding
of
life
allows
for
helpful
cancer
research
where
a
metaphysical
limits
it.
By
minimizing
our
faith
and
maximizing
our
reasoning
capacity
we
should
be
capable
of
living
more
ethically
and
prosperously.
This
is
a
controversial
claim
for
many
modern
religious
people
(especially
Christians).
Id
ask
these
people
to
consider
what
religious
faith
did
a
few
generations
ago
in
medieval
Europe.
Perhaps
it
was
the
age
of
reason
that
changed
the
zeitgeist
rather
than
the
reinterpretation
of
the
Bible.
Regardless,
religion
does
no
work
to
maximize
reason
and
minimize
faith
it
reasons
(weakly)
that
we
should
increase
our
faith.
How
does
it
manage
this?
Again
we
can
go
to
Darwin.
Imagine
an
ancestor
of
ours
wandering
alone
in
a
dense
woods.
She
suddenly
hears
a
tree
branch
snap
behind
her.
There
are
two
options
she
has
here:
1)
turn
around
and
examine
what
caused
this
noise
(or
I
suppose
ignore
it)
or
2)
run.
If
she
chose
option
1
and
the
reason
for
the
branch
snapping
was
because
it
had
just
fallen
from
a
tree
she
would
turn
back
and
continue
on
with
her
day.
However,
if
this
branch
snapped
because
a
predator
was
following
her
she
would
have
a
higher
likelihood
of
being
eaten.
If
she
had
failed
to
produce
any
offspring
prior
to
this
event
then
her
genes
would
not
be
passed
on.
On
the
other
hand,
if
she
chose
option
2
she
would
have
probably
survived
to
reproduce.
Now,
of
course
she
wouldnt
have
the
pleasure
of
examining
how
gravity
pulls
tree
branches
to
the
ground
occasionally
if
this
was
the
case.
Here
we
see
how
a
natural
process
encourages
survival
(not
the
discovery
of
truth).
Youre
better
off
believing
theres
a
threat
when
there
isnt
than
the
other
way
around.
This
natural
process
of
gene
selection
can
help
us
understand
why
we
are
so
susceptible
to
believing
in
falsities.
It
probably
increased
our
ancient
ancestors
chance
at
surviving
this
trait
largely
allowed
us
to
exist.
Is
this
what
religion
is?
It
would
certainty
explain
why
the
threat
of
hell
is
a
major
component
of
the
worlds
most
influential
religions.
Maybe,
were
at
a
point
in
history
where
its
better
to
turn
and
examine
the
mysterious
effects
of
gravity
than
it
is
to
run.
Maybe
its
time
we
accept
the
world
for
all
that
we
can
reasonably
assume
by
casting
away
age-old
religious
dogma.
Wouldnt
that
allow
us
to
live
a
better
more
ethical
life?
I
certainly
think
so.
And
if
reason
happens
to
arrive
at
there
being
a
high
probability
of
a
creator
then
so
be
it
but
lets
not
go
there
before
we
have
strong
reasons
to
believe
it.
Lets
not
let
our
fears
of
not
believing
get
in
the
way
of
our
capacity
to
reason.
This
brief
life
of
ours
is
far
too
beautiful
to
be
scared
of
it.