age of reason

Having recently entangled myself in frequent clashes with avowed religious conservatives over the small range of topics they feel themselves compelled to harangue the rest of us with as though these monologues presented some wisdom, I was also engaged in completing Paine's work, which was, in effect, a basic critique of the biblical texts (presumably the same texts upon which these present effects are taken). One thought which occurred to me, and which at least partially occurred to Paine, was that it is only in the language of our opponent that we can defeat the force of their arguments. We can never really do so with them personally, as all matters of belief really come down an acceptance of subjective arguments, but it can be done with others, the undecided bystanders or innocents afflicted by the conflicts of ideas and beliefs.

Thus in a recent "debate" over evolution, rather than bury my opponent with a procession of ideas, it became clear that his tone and language itself was the necessary target. A person who would be willing to take the processes and operations of scientific method and condemn them to a position where we may take of it as we please, as though its conclusions were of a supernatural philosophy, is not a person likely to be convinced of arguments steeped in the rational world from which scientific theory is based. Evidence, when presented, will be dismissed for example. Or calls for ever more evidentary support made, shifting the goal posts as it were. While such doubts are structurally essential in science, physical, observational, and extrapolated evidence eventually commands that we surrender. We cannot all command the world to be flat by our beliefs, we must accept that this planet has the character of a globe, and is in fact, quite a bit round. Thus the essential argument being made by such people is not based on evidence, but on deconstruction, wherein they base their belief, positive or negative upon the contrarian conclusions of theological study or pseudosciences. While it is certainly a sensible intellectual policy to study various points of view within science, it does require that these points of view submit themselves to some measure of scientific examination of course. But our opponents in such a debate are often unaware of such a distinction, and claim their own "scientific" findings or evidence in support. Thus what is learned is that learning apparently only happens through some means of revealing information. And observed or direct information can be somehow disregarded, often in a manner which reinforces the original belief rather than pushes it aside.

What happens when an argument of theirs is deconstructed in a like manner, by say manufacturing evidence against it or by compelling a coherent argument to be made when there isn't quite one? Well, unfortunately these logical precepts have little impact upon the desired target. Telling a ID/creationist to read a book on evolution by someone who actually studied evolutionary theory certainly would help them make more constructive arguments, arguments which might even be of use to scientific advancement and knowledge, but this is unlikely to actually happen of course. People are always more comfortable given their preconception of the universe, and that intellectual world is not a world to be trifled with, particularly when peopled with minds unaccustomed to divorcing themselves in contemplation of a new idea. It is my contention that I learn most about a subject by engaging it as directly as I can, looking for ways it can convince me of its truth or wisdom, subtracting my doubts until I have finished, and then evaluating it with all its particulars. I have, despite my lack of personal interest in faith, studied after a fashion the particulars of religious institutions, their theological dogma and development. I would not regard this study as granting some grand expertise on the subject, but I also did not come to it merely by examining only the detractors of religious faith either. I came about it by examining the institutions and canonical texts themselves where possible, the histories of the institutions and people. Evolutionary theory, when examined solely through a prism of creationist mysticism certainly would have great holes, in a like manner to that of a study of religion and institutions of religion would have if only studied from the perspective of militant atheists. But these "holes" in evolutionary theory are not holes of logic, as is contended, but of omission. And these can be made because facts are removed and altered in a classical battle of ideas, weakening the strength of the original argument by removing the legs on which it stands. This is a natural and useful method, but only if the removal is validated by facts rather than force of will.

As I said, the engagement is not without merit for the effect it has upon the bystanders. It must be necessary to engage with great will the strength of the arguments put forth in support of evolutionary theory. These are gained by mountains of evidence. It eventually becomes necessary to bury opponents in them, not for their sake, or the sake of silencing their asinine and persistent objections in the face of scientific study, but for the sake of reducing the power of such objections in the minds of the unassuming who observe these rancorous public debates between ideology and evidence.

It also eventually becomes clear that science ultimately will be at war with religion. If only because of the mindset of the religious and their tenacious defence of institutions which exist largely to pillage one another in the name of god(s). I have little qualms with individuals and their opinions, their subjective nature to decide what to believe in life, even to accept personally some manner of mysticism or revealed knowledge over the natural philosophies of the sciences. Such behavior of the spiritual or metaphysical basis, where it moves men to tolerance and even fellowship is generally harmless. But to use and abuse institutions established nominally for fellowship and devotion to one another so as to pass judgment, defame, castigate, and torture one another instead is something that must be absolved of the human condition to create any form of actual moral peace and justice. Where it becomes often sensible to abolish powers conceded to governments to establish a general liberty of each person to make of themselves what they will and to form a society that permits such movements as to follow our dreams within any harmless forms, it seems likewise necessary to abolish powers conceded to organised religions and allow each individual the liberties required to make their conscience sensible, certainly to free it of the conflicting hypocrisies of the classical and mystical scriptures on which they are fabulously and weakly based, and to gather or converse with like-minded individuals, or unlike, free of some man-made charge to extend a business relationship within that circle and a hostile relationship without it.