The Reason for Reason

The title of this blog is Reasoning Atheist.  Atheists like to use the word “reason” and theists often take offense to that.  They assume that we are claiming that we are “reasonable” and they are not.  Yes, there are many atheists who think that, but that has nothing to do with using the word “reason”.

Atheists are using that word a lot lately.  Just recently we had the Reason Rally.  Theistic attacks against the Reason Rally immediately picked up on the word reason and began attacking atheists in general for insinuating they were unreasonable.  But that is not at all what atheists are doing when they use the word reason.  A good definition for reason in the context we use it is this: Think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.  The definition for reasonable is this: Having sound judgment; fair and sensible.  The word “reason” describes a logical thought process where the word “reasonable” describes a person’s judgment.  Though the two words sound a lot alike, they are two completely different words with two completely different meanings.  Ironically, this means that charges by theists that atheists were calling them unreasonable were themselves unreasonable.

By claiming to be reasoning or to use reason we are not claiming our position is reasonable and theirs is not.  We are only claiming that we have come to our position through logical analysis.  It has been my experience that some theists will take offense at just about everything I say and this type may now say, “So you’re calling my beliefs illogical?”  No, I wasn’t.  I am not claiming that no theist has ever put deep thought into their beliefs.  I am claiming that no theist has ever used reason or logic to come to their beliefs.  There are many reasonable theists who will openly admit that their position is not one of logic, and I can respect that.  There are many others, however, who will insist that they have, in fact, used reason and logic to come to their position.  These people are wrong.  Don’t get angry at me about it.  I’m not the one who set the definitions for reason and logic.  To reason is to form judgments by a process of logic.  You cannot logically conclude that something supernatural is true without some real evidence to support the conclusion and, let’s face it, you have to have REALLY low standards for “evidence” to claim there is any real evidence for any supernatural claim given that every single supernatural claim ever tested scientifically has been falsified or, at best, inconclusive.  NEVER has there been a SINGLE instance of magic, miracles, psychic powers, ghosts, fairies, angels, demons, leprechauns, telekinesis or any other supernatural claim EVER proven scientifically.

I have found that many vocal theists really, really want to use certain words to describe their beliefs, often words grounded in science with meanings not compatible with any beliefs in the supernatural or beliefs in things for which there is no physical evidence.  Intelligent design proponents really want to use the words “scientific” and “theory”, for instance.  But intelligent design is not scientific, nor is it scientific theory.  Scientific method is well established and proven to produce results.  Intelligent design does not follow several components of scientific method.  Only “natural explanations” are acceptable, for instance.  Invoking a creator or designer is a supernatural explanation.  Another example is that before you can call something a theory it must make accurate predictions.  Electrical theory, for instance, allows us to design a circuit on paper and know exactly how it will work when it’s built.  This means a theory must be scientifically useful.  Intelligent design makes no predictions and is not scientifically useful.  Finally, a theory must be testable.  There must be a way to allow you to test a theory for it to be called “theory”, even if the tests can only disprove the theory.  Intelligent design fails on this front as well.  Intelligent design is a theistic claim, nothing more.  It is not theory and it is not scientific.  It is, in fact, creationism in a shiny new package, as was proven in the Dover trial.

Science, by its nature, is not compatible with religion, but neither is it incompatible.  Science, as I said, can only give natural explanations.  This means it has nothing whatsoever to say about the supernatural, either for or against.  Science can no more be used to disprove the existence of any gods than it can be used to prove the existence of any gods.  Theists who believe science has something against their particular god are either ignorant of what science is or upset that science disproves some of the particulars of their religious beliefs.  Science can disprove some religious beliefs and has disproved young earth creationism, for instance.  The earth IS billions of years old.  In no way does that mean that it has disproved a particular god, as many theists believe.  Their god may still exist, but their religious beliefs ARE wrong in this case.  It can be difficult to accept that a founding principle of ones religion is wrong, but the facts are what they are.  Science has proven the earth is far more than the 6,000 to 10,000 years old young earth creationists believe it to be.  Anyone who thinks they can use science or logic to prove that is wrong is only fooling themselves.  They could still claim that it is possible God created the earth 6,000 to 10,000 years ago in its current form to make it look as if it was more than 4,000,000,000 years old.  Science cannot disprove this.  But the claim is not scientific.  It doesn’t have to be scientific to be possible, but neither can you call it scientific when it is not to try to give it more credibility.

Like it or not, (I personally love it) there is a separation of church and science and there always will be.  Though many theists would like to integrate with science, they want science to change to be compatible with their religion.  Simply put, it’s never going to happen.  Science is about finding the proven truths of the natural universe, religion is about accepting on faith what are claimed to be truths.  I don't have a problem with theists believing in intelligent design.  They could be right.  I don’t think so, but it’s possible.  I certainly can’t prove them wrong.  But if they believe intelligent design is scientific, then they are wrong.  If they believe intelligent design disproves evolution, they are also wrong.  Evolution is scientific and not subject to the whims of supernatural speculation, only other science.

Science, like atheism, is the result of reason.  Not “to be reasonable”, but the result of thinking logically on a subject.  I think this is the problem many theists have with science.  Atheists can use some of the same tools scientists use to come to their conclusions.  But even atheism is not “scientific”.  Atheism is to not believe in any gods, thus, the rejection of a supernatural claim.  As I said, science can neither prove nor disprove a supernatural claim.  So atheism is no more “scientific” than theism is.  But both science and atheism use logic to come to conclusions, which I think may give the impression that many theists seem to have that science is out to get their god.  But the separation of church and science goes both ways.  There is also a separation of non-church or anti-church and science and there always will be.  There are many religious scientists who believe in and worship the same God as the theists who think they’re working for the devil.  There are just none (or very few) of them in religions that make claims which have been scientifically proven to be untrue.  Science is not on the side of atheists, nor is it opposing theists.  Science is impartial.  If it proves some religious beliefs are false, it’s not because they’re out to get religion.  In fact, religious beliefs didn’t even come up in the discussions.  It’s only because it was the best explanation given the observations made and was able to make useful, accurate prediction which would allow scientists some idea what would happen in a given circumstance before they got into it, such as allowing them to design a circuit or a dam before they built it or allowing them to plan an archeological dig before they begin digging.  It’s nothing personal.  It’s all about what is and what is not useful in the natural world.

Neither theism nor atheism is based in science, putting us on common ground as far as science is concerned.  Science doesn’t care about either and neither has a foundation in science.  Reason, on the other hand, favors atheism.  You don’t have to have faith to reason something out and you don’t have to reason something out to have faith.  So, theistically speaking, faith and reason are opposites.  Why would you need faith if you could come to the same conclusion through reason?  And why would you need to reason it out if you already have faith that it’s true?  You are not truly using reason if you begin with the faith that you already know the outcome and there is no possible way you are wrong, which is an accurate description of faith.  So, like it or not, theists don’t have reason and atheists don’t have faith.  I’m sure many theists would disagree, but then, many theists believe a lot of things which have been scientifically proven to be wrong.