the Glocal Trekker Blog

Why is someone who is especially a scientist passionate about debunking "God." The scientists and researches tell us now that we have a "God" gene. Researchers tell us prayer makes people get well quicker. Aren’t all genes necessary for survival? Why do they want to take away that gene? These are men who readily admit you can’t "scientifically" prove God, but also admit you can’t "scientifically" disprove God. If science cannot prove their point--especially as scientists--why are they so passionate about this? Why not continue new ways of research to prove their point?

They are smart men. They ask the same questions we all ask. If there is a God, why is pain and suffering allowed? How can injustice abound? Why does the Bible not take a stand against slavery? Why is there not more physical proof? These are all legitimate questions. He is familiar with some of the arguments for God: creation, form and order, diversity, uniformity, the uniqueness of man, the moral nature of man, man’s belief historically in "God" of some kind. He really doesn’t address those.

In Sam Harris’s new book Letters to a Christian Nation – he takes on not just the fundamentalist, but moderates and liberals, as well, making them out as the absolute worst because they should know better. He even takes on Mother Teresa! Here’s the deal--if Sam’s right, then none of us need to care for the poor or feel any sense of responsibility. It’s pure Darwinism--survival of the fittest. BUT, if he’s wrong, then all of us should be caring for the poor!

Poor Sam Harris--of whom I think I’d like if I knew him--he’s reduced to philosophy and emotion and opinion polls! He asks how can most people believe in God and that even though they do the vast majority are wrong. He then uses as a reason we shouldn’t believe in God to be because so many scientists don’t believe in God. Do you wanna use stats or not? Make up your mind. Because, people are smart in one field, they think they’re smart in every field. Because, science teaches us so much and has impacted our world so much—and, no doubt, you have to be smart to do it and understand it. Some scientists feel like that qualifies them for philosophy. When it’s all said and done every single one of us are reduced to faith--Billy Graham and Richard Dawkins.

Therefore, since we all live on this pale blue dot together and must get along to survive and given that religion isn’t going away any time soon, the most important philosophical question perhaps we should ask is "what is the benefit of believing in God and how can that pull us together?" If we are reduced to machines and there is no soul, then there is no hope. If we are elevated to family, and we are all the same blood, that’s a different kind of humanity. No doubt about it, we have massive "religious" challenges. You think you’ve seen war and violence with religion, imagine what you would see without it? At least some can challenge people doing things in the name of God based on the truth of their Holy books. What morality do you appeal to a man if there is no God?