Posted by
Rob on Friday, November 06, 2009 5:10:20 PM
Science has posted an article on
the origin of religion: its in the genes.
(Let's just play along with these genii who write for Science.)
"Let me understand you. You are saying that belief comes from a predisposition from the genes, like belief in evolutionary theory. That means evolution isn't true, right, you're just programmed to believe in evolution?"
"No? So religion can be in the genes and can also be true?"
"No? So being in the genes has nothing to do with something being true or not, only with belief?"
"Great. I'm think I'm getting it. So your belief that religious faith is determined by genetics is also something in your genes, and doesn't mean that this paper you just wrote is actually true, only that you have a faith in evolutionary explanations that you were born with."
"No? I'm afraid you've lost me again, can you explain?"
"So, some things are necessarily true, like your belief in the truth of this paper, whereas other things are evolutionary artifacts, like your appendix and religion?"
"Great, we're communicating again. Then how are those things that are necessarily true separated from those things that you merely want to be true, especially since your evolutionary past will have mixed them up considerably?"
"Oh I get it. Your faith in evolution is what makes you certain that religious faith is fake. But how do you know for sure that the religious guy is the one who is wrong; how do you know that tomorrow you won't wake up religious and think that evolutionary faith is fake?"
"Data? But I thought you just said that beliefs were something you were born with?"
"Oh, belief in data. But isn't that also something you are born with? What if you were born not to believe your eyes, say, you were born blind. Then how would data convince you of anything, especially that your data contradicted what you were born believing?"
"Wait! I am taking you seriously! This is Science after all, a very serious journal... "
Alas. The theory is reflexively incoherent. Now if it had said that belief in Darwinism was in the genes, at least it would have been reflexively coherent. Why is it that none of these materialist positions can ever be subjected to their own analysis? When
Skinner was telling how everyone was programmed to react for rewards and that this explained religion, my one question to him would be, "Why are you telling me this Bif?"
The nice thing about religion is that it is reflexively coherent.
Why do people believe in God? Because He
made them that way.