I saw this image along with a caption competition in the Freethinker recently; like most (good) comedy it's ridiculous but with an underlying grain of truth or unspoken message. I thought the captions people came up with were pretty reasonable too, they included...
"Mind Control, extortion, the pursuit of power – Vader felt like an amateur"
"He says he's on work experience"
"Fictional Empires enthusiasts congregate for their annual convention."
"Converting to a Jew or a muslim, even an atheist I could have dealt with, but no…..Frank had to become a bloody Jedi"
This stunt is clearly at the level of a student prank (it seems that way to me at least), but is it wrong? I can quite easily see some less enlightened believers getting fairly bent out of shape at this however in the cold light of day isn't it just an attempt to point out (perceived or real) injustice or falsehood associated with the establishment via humour? There is a very long tradition of (successfully) doing exactly this in our country through films, cartoons, plays and other art forms as well as more blatant protest, should religion and the religious be protected from this? In the interests of balance let's take a look at some comments made by Christians at the general Synod meeting in London and examine the boot on the other foot so to speak.
The CofE leadership didn't choose humour to get their perspective across, more of a proclamation, but in any case the underlying message is just as controversial and disputed as the one encapsulated above. The subject they were discussing was Science, more specifically can religious faith be compatible with science? Now clearly at a superficial level the answer to this is yes since many scientists quite happily compartmentalise the two things and lead normal and presumably as fulfilled lives as anyone else, but that's not quite what this motion was really about. Like the Jedi analogy in the prank above, there are underlying (more serious) ideas which this discussion is attempting to illuminate; the main message is that religion is equal to science as a way of "knowing" things about the reality of the universe, the claim is that theological thinking is sophisticated and actually answers important questions that science cannot, ergo. the caricature so called "militant atheists" present of religion as crude or delusional (like the Jedi example) is a false one.
Let's look at some of the claims made.
"religion can explain areas of existence that science cannot." - What exactly is an "area of existence"? are there any examples of "areas of existence" that have material impacts on people's lives other than the proposal of which puts money in the pocket of the proposers? Unfortunately, the discussion neglected to mention such examples which is a shame since being able to show that such areas actually exist outside of the minds of the believer would probably clinch the argument.
"Dr Capon said he rejected the idea that science can answer every question, insisting that some insights into questions of existence go beyond scientific explanation." - Scientists (or at least the ones I know) don't claim this, most are skeptical that we'll ever know everything. Mr Capon claims that he has insights into questions of existence which go beyond scientific explanations WITHOUT actually stating what these insights are. This seems to be avoiding the obvious question, i.e. what questions of existence does religion "answer" (i.e. not simply offer an opinion on) which science does not, opinion is cheap, answers require a little more effort.
"However close to the truth scientific and mathematical theory brings us, it remains an approximation.There are degrees of accuracy it cannot achieve. Somewhere in the remaining mystery is God." - Oh dear this is pure God of the gaps, I find it hard to believe that such supposedly "sophisticated" thinkers can trot out this kind of stuff so long debunked by philosophers down the ages.
"Belief in the invisible subatomic particles of quantum physics requires just as great a leap of faith as belief in God." - well no it doesn't, this is the kind of crude ignorance that "militant atheists" are pointing out, for subatomic particles we have a mountain of evidence, it's pretty impossible to design a working computer without a pretty good understanding of electrons for example, no faith required there.
I find it somewhat ironic that in attempting to refute the idea that Atheists attack a crude caricature of religion, religious leaders present a crude and caricatured defence of their position, rather like the one that "militant atheists" continue to point out, with or without the added dimension of humour.
No comments:
Post a Comment