Atheism vs. Religion: An Overview In 400 Words Or Less
Jason Streitfeld
June 18, 2008
The debate between atheism and religion involves disagreement over how to approach religious belief. For atheists, religion must be understood scientifically, like any other phenomenon. For theists, religion must be embraced without science.
Arguments against atheism follow three main points. First is the claim that science and reason cannot answer important questions about the meaning and value of life. To this, atheists say all meaningful questions about life have scientific answers.
Others claim religion is not about answering questions at all; it is about feelings, not facts: God is to be felt, not understood. Atheists argue that feelings should be studied scientifically and do not require belief in anything we cannot understand.
Finally, some theists argue that science also rests on faith; like religion, it can neither be proved nor disproved. Atheists say science is different because it makes testable predictions.
The disagreements between atheists and theists are played out through ongoing political and legal debates involving, for example, abortion, stem-cell research, and the teaching of evolution in public schools. The debate is therefore often a battle between competing forms of authority.
According to atheists, religious authority lacks accountability because it does not rely on evidence. Without any basis in science, religion is said to be irresponsible and even dangerous. Atheists often cite the historical prevalence of religious wars and the violent behavior of extremists to support this view.
Theists often contend that science is dangerous because it places no value on human life and cannot offer moral guidance. They claim religion does more for humanity. For example, there are indications that religious individuals are more likely to help the poor and give money to charities.
Atheists in turn say that people do not need religion to provide moral guidance; instead, atheists can attain strong moral values through secular institutions and biological instincts. The question about moral authority is empirical and can be answered with statistical and biological evidence. Atheists point out that scientists have begun to uncover biological and evolutionary roots of morality.
The political debate includes a spectrum of views, with extremists on both sides promoting intolerance of the opposition. Agnostics and religious moderates are in the middle. They say religious beliefs are entirely personal and should not influence public policy, and regard those who disagree as extremists or fundamentalists.
Arguments against atheism follow three main points. First is the claim that science and reason cannot answer important questions about the meaning and value of life. To this, atheists say all meaningful questions about life have scientific answers.
Others claim religion is not about answering questions at all; it is about feelings, not facts: God is to be felt, not understood. Atheists argue that feelings should be studied scientifically and do not require belief in anything we cannot understand.
Finally, some theists argue that science also rests on faith; like religion, it can neither be proved nor disproved. Atheists say science is different because it makes testable predictions.
The disagreements between atheists and theists are played out through ongoing political and legal debates involving, for example, abortion, stem-cell research, and the teaching of evolution in public schools. The debate is therefore often a battle between competing forms of authority.
According to atheists, religious authority lacks accountability because it does not rely on evidence. Without any basis in science, religion is said to be irresponsible and even dangerous. Atheists often cite the historical prevalence of religious wars and the violent behavior of extremists to support this view.
Theists often contend that science is dangerous because it places no value on human life and cannot offer moral guidance. They claim religion does more for humanity. For example, there are indications that religious individuals are more likely to help the poor and give money to charities.
Atheists in turn say that people do not need religion to provide moral guidance; instead, atheists can attain strong moral values through secular institutions and biological instincts. The question about moral authority is empirical and can be answered with statistical and biological evidence. Atheists point out that scientists have begun to uncover biological and evolutionary roots of morality.
The political debate includes a spectrum of views, with extremists on both sides promoting intolerance of the opposition. Agnostics and religious moderates are in the middle. They say religious beliefs are entirely personal and should not influence public policy, and regard those who disagree as extremists or fundamentalists.
Print
Email
