Athiests, how would you argue against this speech?

ciasplinter

New member
I'm really not trying to offend athiests, but I read this and I think it makes a lot of sense. It's a speech from the book Angels and Demons by Dan Brown (You may have heard of the movie, it just came out.) So, tell me what your thoughts are.

"Medicine, electronic communications, space travel, genetic manipulation ... these are the miracles about which we now tell our children. These are the miracles we herald as proof that science will bring us the answers. The ancient stories of immaculate conceptions, burning bushes, and parting seas are no longer relevant. God has become obsolete. Science has won the battle. We concede."

A rustle of confusion and bewilderment swept through the chapel. "But science's victory," the camerlengo added, his voice intensifying, "has cost every one of us. And it has cost us deeply."

Silence.

"Science may have alleviated the miseries of disease and drudgery and provided an array of gadgetry for our entertainment and convenience, but it has left us in a world without wonder. Our sunsets have been reduced to wavelengths and frequencies. The complexities of the universe have been shredded into mathematical equations. Even our self-worth as human beings has been destroyed. Science proclaims that Planet Earth and its inhabitants are a meaningless speck in the grand scheme. A cosmic accident."
He paused.
"Even the technology that promises to unite us, divides us. Each of us is now electronically connected to the globe, and yet we feel utterly alone. We are bombarded with violence, division, fracture, and betrayal. Skepticism has become a virtue. Cynicism and demand for proof has become enlightened thought. Is it any wonder that humans now feel more depressed and defeated than they have at any point in human history? Does science hold anything sacred? Science looks for answers by probing our unborn fetuses. Science even presumes to rearrange our own DNA. It shatters God's world into smaller and smaller pieces in quest of meaning ... and all it finds is more questions."

…"The ancient war between science and religion is over," the camerlengo said. "You have won. But you have not won fairly. You have not won by providing answers. You have won by so radically reorienting our society that the truths we once saw as signposts now seem inapplicable. Religion cannot keep up. Scientific growth is exponential. It feeds on itself like a virus. Every new breakthrough opens doors for new breakthroughs. Mankind took thousands of years to progress from the wheel to the car. Yet only decades from the car into space. Now we measure scientific progress in weeks. We are spinning out of control. The rift between us grows deeper and deeper, and as religion is left behind, people find themselves in a spiritual void. We cry out for meaning. And believe me, we do cry out. We see UFOs, engage in channeling, spirit contact, out-of-body experiences, mindquests-all these eccentric ideas have a scientific veneer, but they are unashamedly irrational. They are the desperate cry of the modern soul, lonely and tormented, crippled by its own enlightenment and its inability to accept meaning in anything removed from technology."

The camerlengo was talking more forcefully now. "Science, you say, will save us. Science, I say, has destroyed us. Since the days of Galileo, the church has tried to slow the relentless march of science, sometimes with misguided means, but always with benevolent intention. Even so, the temptations are too great for man to resist. I warn you, look around yourselves. The promises of science have not been kept. Promises of efficiency and simplicity have bred nothing but pollution and chaos. We are a fractured and frantic species . . . moving down a path of destruction."

The camerlengo paused a long moment and then sharpened his eyes on the camera.

"Who is this God science? Who is the God who offers his people power but no moral framework to tell you how to use that power? What kind of God gives a child fire but does not warn the child of its dangers? The language of science comes with no signposts about good and bad. Science textbooks tell us how to create a nuclear reaction, and yet they contain no chapter asking us if it is a good or a bad idea.

"To science, I say this. The church is tired. We are exhausted from trying to be your signposts. Our resources are drying up from our campaign to be the voice of balance as you plow blindly on in your quest for smaller chips and larger profits. We ask not why you will not govern yourselves, but how can you? Your world moves so fast that if you stop even for an instant to consider the implications of your actions, someone more efficient will whip past you in a blur. So you move on. You proliferate weapons of mass destruction, but it is the Pope who travels the world beseeching leaders to use restraint. You clone living creatures, but it is the church reminding us to consider the moral implications of our actions. Yo
(I realize that it's long. If it's too long, you don't have to answer it. Logic, huh?)
I don't hate progress or technology. Science has solved problem. I think the speech is more about the people who insult and put down religion by way of scientific "proof" when it's obvious that religion and science don't have to be enemies.
I don't think you guys are reading the whole thing. The point isn't that science has killed religion. It's that religion and science could productively coexist is science wasn't trying to destroy religion all the time. And again, I'm not trying to insult anyone.
Yeah, I know it's from a ficticious book. Does that mean it's meaningless? And I guess I didn't make this clear: I said it MADE SENSE, not that I agreed with everything in it. The person in the book who says this quote is kind of crazy. Can you stop insulting ME, and make a reasonable argument of why you think people who use science to beat down religion are doing the right thing?
TheKitten, you've made a great deal more sense than any other five people on here.
Oh yeah, the end got cut off, so let me throw this in from the end of the speech.


"You ask what does God look like. I say, where did that question come from? The answers are one and the same. Do you not see God in your science? How can you miss Him! You proclaim that even the slightest change in the force of gravity or the weight of an atom would have rendered our universe a lifeless mist rather than our magnificent sea of heavenly bodies, and yet you fail to see God's hand in this? Is it really so much easier to believe that we simply chose the right card from a deck of billions? Have we become so spiritually bankrupt that we would rather believe in mathematical impossibility than in a power greater than us?”
Saint Lilith: That makes a lot of sense too, and funnily enough that same thing came up when I was talking about religion with a friend: it's like saying that a gun killed someone, and not the shooter. This is one of the points on which I disagree with the speech.
 
yes, reality isn't pretty. in the good old days when we could pretend there were pots of gold at the end of the rainbow may have been nicer, but it was all a lie.
 
"Since the days of Galileo, the church has tried to slow the relentless march of science"

That line sort of sums it all up. Science has the potential to DESTROY religion. Science is the thing that could prove religion completely false. The church has always known this. Relgion has never tried to compete with, or even coexist with science, it has always tried to stop it. I agree that this speech represents the general attitude of religion toward science.
 
Science is not supposed to provide morality, nor does it claim to. One can easily find morality without having to resort to religious teachings.

People who cry that science takes away the wonder in the world are probably the same people who had to be told at the age of 16 that their parents, not Santa, puts the presents under the tree.
 
I got as far as realising you were going to quote from a book of fiction. Whether it is a Dan Brown book or the bible, both are fiction and irrelevant.
 
"...these are the miracles about which we now tell our children."

They're not miracles. They're the wondrous accomplishments of rigorous HUMAN study. GOD HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.
 
Damn we kicked the Churches fucking ass!!!!!!!!!!!!


WOOOOOOOOOOOH!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Well. Seems somebody is completely missing the point of what science is, and whining about the fact that science works where religion fails.
 
1) Way too long. I got about a quarter of the way before I got distracted by my goldfish.

2) You took that speech out of Angels and Demons? You do realize that book is fiction, right? That entire speech was probably made just to set up the plot of the book.

3) I managed to read a little bit more (I skipped to the end), and I have to say: Science has kept it's promise. Life is a lot easier. Think about all the stuff that science has given you, such as vehicles and mass communication, and think about how much harder life would be without it.
 
Answer me this: Do you honestly think that when I look at a sunset I am thinking about the wavelengths of the red, orange, and blue light? I look at it as a beautiful work of nature's artistry. In light of such beauty, I forget what the hell a wavelength even is.

Also, the fact that we are a "cosmic accident" does not rule out the idea that life is a divine blessing and that there is a reason why life can and does exist not only here on earth but in other places in the universe. The chemical components that make our emotions do not explain the way they affect our mind - sure, "love" is caused by the hormone dopamine, but what do you think it is that makes dopamine give us that wonderful feeling? Science can't explain why certain chemicals make us feel the way we do, but the idea of a divine order does. Not necessarily the Christian God, but a higher power of some sort.

Life most certainly has a purpose, and I am inclined to believe that, God or no God, science will never be able to tell us that.
 
im sorry it was to long to read but i think aethist win if it wasent for use u wont be txting us now would u u would be killing freanch u bastereds i hate cristians u blasphmamous savage savant creatures u are among the worst of the humanly kind the bible is explained 2 be fake by many ways i shall tell the ones i like most becues its to long god sightings and what not are caused by our limbic shystems and im sorry i just got bored im gonna go becuse this 1st passage is 3 pages long
 
A lot there so hard to respond briefly.

I disagree with his idea that science or knowledge make people worse off. What people choose to do with knowledge or science may sometimes make some people worse off, but that is not the fault of the science or people who made a discovery public. Everything good in life is prone to abuse.

I also disagree that the church's attempts to limit science or knowledge were always done with benevolent intention. At least in many situations it was clearly done for reasons of power.
 
You can still have wonder and meaning in a world largely explained by science. There's still a lot beyond our little planet that we haven't fully explored, for one. There are many incredible things in our world that, even though we understand them, are still very amazing. Like how our bodies battle infections and repair damage, or how each of us who are born are created from one of billions of sperm produced by an individual, most of which died. Or working out how the human brain works, how we observe the world and process information!

"Meaning" is created by us, it's not something handed to us by a divine being. To lament not having your life's meaning handed to you is ridiculous. You were unreasonable to expect that; the universe is not unreasonable for not giving it to you.

If you can't handle the fact that every irrational idea you'd like to believe in isn't always true, then boohoo for you. The rest of us would like to continue living in the real world, learning things that can have real benefits for us.
 
Back
Top