Have you ever read the story of Jesus' resurrection?
Perhaps you might want to read it again, this time from a fresh and “science-friendly”
point of view:
You see, there's this very interesting part, shortly
after Jesus rises from the dead, where he briefly appears in a room in which his
disciples are gathered. One of them, named Thomas, has been insisting on
remaining skeptical about the issue of resurrection. He doesn't want to believe
yet; at least, not until he's witnessed some evidence. After all, might he be thinking,
perhaps it is just hype; perhaps the others have been honestly mistaken. He
certainly wouldn't want to spread false information and since his friends have
no evidence, no pictures and no recordings, he decides that before he's going
to believe any of it, he needs to see it with his own eyes. Fair enough?
Well, it doesn’t seem so. Not
satisfied about having been able to convince Thomas, Jesus now deems essential
to tease him by making a little speech about it. This great philosopher of his
time goes out of his way to put a strong emphasis on how foolish it was from Thomas to insist
for evidence. Because it's obviously foolish to dare questioning the resurrection
of someone whom you’ve witnessed dying a slow death on a cross, tortured and
punctured. From this moment in biblical “history” it becomes clear why science (as we know it today) will not be rediscovered for a long time after Jesus. And we’re also getting a pretty good feel of the many hardships our very first scientists will have to overcome before they even start being taken
seriously. People tend to believe that trust is better than inquiry. Since biblical times, we’ve made quite a lot of progress. Whoever you are
today, for example, you most certainly know that epilepsy isn’t caused by demonic possession. You also know that bats are mammals, just like us; not birds, as divinely revealed in Leviticus. But doesn’t this leave you wondering how far the scientific enterprise would be today if we had
had more people like Thomas and fewer like Jesus?
I was read this story by my parents, back when I was
pretty young. They were sincerely convinced that the entire story of the bible literally
happened. Up until today, they still believe that Noah's ark really existed.
Unlike you and me, they never really stopped to wonder how it is that the kangaroos
and polar bears managed to even get on the ark. They’ve never really thought
about how Noah and his family were able to find anything to drink after getting
out of the ark, considering that all oceans had been mixed with any available
source of drinking water for forty days and forty nights. Neither did they stop
to wonder just how ridiculously huge the ark would have needed to be in
order to store all the food needed for each species to survive or the excrement
produced by the entire ecosystem they were supposedly carrying along. The bible
says you shouldn’t question the bible, simple as that. And yet, even as a child, I could already feel
the cognitive dissonance going around in my head as a result from hearing such
nonsense. Today, I find it quite interesting how the narrative so
strongly and shamelessly suggests that a person who honestly wants evidence
should be publicly ridiculed by someone who’s supposed to be an ultimate moral
guide as well as wise, loving and perfect.
Anyone who understands the very basics of scientific inquiry would probably find that Thomas at least had somewhat of a scientific mind, otherwise he wouldn't have been inclined to skeptical thinking. But few of us really stop to think about what science is and why it's so important. We leave it to the elite, pretending that it's extremely complicated. We easily forget the simplicity of what actually makes science work. Science can even be applied to thinking, in the form of rules of logic and evidence, eliminating bias by trying to prove oneself wrong rather than right. This ability to think freely is exactly what, unlike religious people, allows us atheists to say: Perhaps there is no God; perhaps we’ve been wrong all along. It has given us the means to think without faith-based restraints and even an incentive to do so. Science says: "If there really is truth to it, then we shouldn't fear trying to disprove it. Let's test if prayer actually works, for example; let’s do it in a scientific environment." Science doesn't require us to reject certain views on the basis that they contradict previous notions. If the truth happens to be very inconvenient, we want to know anyway, because it’s the truth we’re interested in.
Thomas should have trusted his comrades without questioning or so does the
narrative naively wants you to believe. Although his character's role clearly shows mild signs of scientific awakening, he isn't a very
important character in the biblical story; it's quite obvious why. We'll probably never know if he even
existed, but one thing we do know is that people usually do not rise from the
dead. Of course, anyone could argue that it did happen, but on what basis
other than faith? Come to think of it, we wouldn’t believe it either if a bunch of excited people came telling
us that they saw John Lennon walking in the street. Scientific improbability as
well as a lack of evidence leads us to believe that none of the Gospel's many resurrections ever happened. Most of of the strangest parts of the bible are obviously very likely to have been made up, or at least exaggerated by people who didn't quite realize just how ridiculous their claims would sound to us, thousands of years later. The one about Jesus and Thomas, from the perspective of science, stands today as an awfully bad moral lesson. It was clearly intended to mock and discourage skeptical inquiry while at the same time praising blind faith in claims of divine revelation.
(must split it in 2 parts as it was too long. Here's part 1)
ReplyDeleteHey there!
Commenting on your second post rather than the first but don't worry, I'll do that too soon.
A point of view put into words in quite a clear fashion and, not that I'm telling you something new here, I agree with the general idea.
Coming from a different religious background (Islam), albeit a relaxed one (none of this praying 5 times a day devoted behaviour, coupled with the fact that my mother is, as a lot of Brits, Church of England), and born and raised in West Africa in a country 90% muslim, I've seen more than a fair share of blind devotion that could have been tempered by a bit of reasoning.
As a child and a teen, I was told many times not to question some religious "facts" because that would be blasphemous, because I was meant to believe that the way the story was told is the way it really happened. Not by my parents, no, my father - despite or maybe because his faith is quite strong - always said, "Question things. The Quran says you should strive to learn, to understand." He's always taken it to mean that the thirst for knowledge should be encouraged. Read, educate yourself, don't take things at face value, he says. He sees some of the stories told as metaphors, says the main message is what's important, the rituals are only for people who have a need for it. He's a man who will avidly watch and read anything about space explorations and the wonders of our universe and our own planet. He is also still a man who believes in a benevolent creator of mankind.
Incidently, both my parents have that whole attitude of 'religion should be a question of personal faith and you shouldn't impose it on other people, including your own family'.
That's the background where my own reasoning comes from. We have a brain and should use it. Question. Question. Question.
Which brings me back to your point. The 'Abrahamic religions' (to borrow the expression of one of my favourite British comedians) have that major flaw, in my own humble opinion, of asking people to believe in stories. Fairy tales for adults, in a way. Grim ones, terrible ones in some cases. There's quite alot of incredibly questionable, downright criminal behaviour even, in our religious books. Stories written in the third person eons ago. And re-written. And translated. By men. Writers of their era (whichever it happened to be). Men with artistic license and the mindset of that era. Writers who wanted to be taken seriously and probably thought the only way to get that was total acceptance (believe, don't question) and devotion on the pain of terrible reprisals.
The example you gave is exactly that: believe, don't question. Why? What would be the harm is trying to understand, trying to get to the truth of the matter. Wouldn't it be more powerful if having questioned that 'truth', I still decided in the end to embrace it? Shouldn't real acceptance come from understanding and choice?
As human beings who have evolved at the level we have now, it seems almost preposterous to still have that one element, religion, that we're not supposed to question, that we're supposed to believe blindly.
(part2 coming up)
(part 2 now)
ReplyDeleteWhen discussing religion and the lack of scientific reasoning, the one single sentence most often heard is "Science doesn't know everything". Of course it doesn't. That'd be ridiculous. It still knows a lot though, based on methodology and empirical evidence, on the principle that the same set of conditions should produce the same result. Variables and flukes happen too. Science can tell you what it knows up until now, only the 'truth' as far as we currently know it. Any scientist worth his salt should only admit to that and no more. If science knew everything, it would stop, wouldn't it? Why would you look further when you're all-knowing and omniscient?
If there is one thing that's a sure way of getting my hackles up is telling me it's too complicated and I won't understand it. Whatever "it" is. Can I at least try? No? That's what religion and most religious leaders often do: you won't understand, this is all above you, it's divine; just take it at face value.
That said, I have no trouble believing some of people actually existed and some of the events took place. Even Noah's ark. Except it was probably a man who witnessed floods or heard about them. He either had a boat or found/bought/made one and decided to put his family and some of their animals on it as their best chance to survive strong floods or move to another area. Now to imagine that a bit of forsight carries some divine quality is pushing it but certainly not as ludicrous as having lions and elephants and snakes and all sorts of mammals and insects with them on board.
(To anyone who tells me that's exactly what unfolded, I point to one of my comedy triumvirate, Eddie Izzard, explaining his issue with it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4bfl8GAMtQ).
But just like any story reported, the Noah's Ark feature carries the bias of the writer and the mindset of the era. Unfortunately, quite a lot of them seemed to have been hellbent on discouraging any burgeoning of an inquiring mind.
In essence, I (or you) could have simply asked the question: Do most religions actively discourage skepticism and reasoning? The short answer is definitely 'yes'. My corollary to that is: Why is it then that while we generally encourage children to learn, we still read these religious books to them without prefacing it with "these are only stories" (rather than, say, the TRUTH) and then let them make up their own mind when they're older?
As a bit of extra, here's the same Eddie Izzard explaining why he went from agnostic to atheist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-WN_z1v92k .
Cheers,
Nad.
Good post. Indeed, Thomas was made the scape goat of this story. Actually, he was isolated from the other...a bit like in school when the most popular guy would point and laugh at the unpopular kid because he thinks or act differently.
ReplyDeleteMichel