Freedom From Religion Foundation

I wrote this after reading and having a few reflective thoughts on this blog (The Dumbest Question Award)on Dead Wild Roses.  So, I constructed a letter to Creationists based on what feelings and thoughts this blog inspired, and this is what I came up with:

A Friendly Message To all Creationists with some inference to general religiosity:

If you devoted your life, even if you spent an entire lifetime researching a way to “destroy atheism“, destroy the well-supported scientific principles that support evolution and atheism for those who follow it, or destroy the entire ideology about the lack of deities, you would still be unable to do so, as your human lifespan is far to short to perform the task.  To be able to research enough data that contradicts the sheer magnitude of the amount of evidence that exists, the many lives/lifetimes and centuries of research that went into defining the principles we now accept in science, our understanding of the world, and in the possibilities of deities existing within the context of those found in modern religion would be insurmountable.  So, there is absolutely no way, with one question or even a dissertation, that you can “destroy atheism”, as such an act is infinitesimal compared to the devoted research by a human even if possessing of a longer than average human life span.

Additionally, to put as much research into finding a way to “counter all of atheism, all of science supporting atheism, and all the knowledge we have as a species” (those all go together) as would be required to counter it, much less destroy, would require an “inhuman” amount of mental gymnastics to obtain, a degree of which would drive a person insane, and likely to suicide, as the cognitive dissonance would be more than just “an annoyance”.  A person doing such research would be so overwhelmed with cognitive dissonance that they’d be unable to sleep, eat, or function normally as a complete individual.  That is because the evidence supporting evolution, and evidence contradicting the idea of divine intervention and existence of a divine entity according to religion is so great that the only possible outcome for someone trying to research everything required to counter it and still deny it would be so immense that the cognitive disruption of such a position is ‘not’ humanly possible.

You would have converted to being an atheist, scientifically literate, and in agreement with your opponent long before you could ever, possibly, even in a million years, come up with a way to counter the position of atheism, or the scientific evidence of evolution (gravity, and many other “theories”) which is also the counter-evidence of the existence or the need for the existence of any known deity as specified in modern-day religions.  You would have also likely converted long before you went totally insane, but that isn’t out of the realm of possibilities.  When researching science and the reasoning behind why a evolutions is true, and moreover why a “Judea-Christian deity doesn’t exist” the amount of evidence is so irrefutable that no human being known to science is that capable of denying what is right in front of them without also being legitimately, literally and clinically insane.

The only way for a person to hold such a belief knowingly (and being sane), is to maintain (specific to their unique psychological constitution) a high level of “ignorance” to the facts of scientific knowledge, how science works and the definitions therein, and to the way things exist in reality and not the way we perceive them as human beings.  Human perception is fallible, and science has “to date” proven itself to be the best way to counteract human flaws in reasoning.  It is demonstrable, effective, and consistently repeatable, unlike the whimsical judgements of average human beings.  Is science perfect? No.  Does it have all the answers?  No.  But it has been more reliable, historically, that religion in giving answers that accurately predict the outcome of things we can observe, and can therefore be determined to exist.  Humans are irrational, but we have the capacity for logic that we must train to counteract and understand our own natures.

That is what science means to me, and partly why I am an atheist.  A way to understand the world, while being human and ultimately subject to its properties.  I am a human being like you, and I understand what it’s like.  It’s likely though that science functions outside of that as well.  Science can open our eyes to the world, and allow for us to shed our petty differences.  It can highlight our humanity, and point out just how small we are compared with the weight of everything.  It can highlight the fallacies of bigotry, and it destroys ignorance in its wake.  So, to all those who stand by their principles and who seek to become better human beings, I state this… Test your principles and intuitions with evidence.  If they are truly valuable and accurate they will stand the test of scrutiny.  If not, then they aren’t worth believing in, and holding fast to them will hold you back.  Even in ignorance, we are all are still governed by the rules of this universe, albeit in that state, unknowingly.  Wake up and smell the science!



End Transmission – – – –