reply to post by jjf3rd77
Faith and logic I think would be a better comparison for this discussion. Reason suggests a motive, a goal, or a destination of some kind. Faith
definitely has a reason behind it: self-empowerment; unification; monetary obsession; superiority; censorship; etc
. Logic, on the
other hand, does not necessarily have a reason or driving force behind it. The pursuit, and comprehension, or logic can definitely be driven by
numerous motivations, many of which mirror the motivations of faith. On its own though, logic is as it stands, regardless of why it is pursued.
To begin with, you misidentify the reasoning behind atheism. It is not that an atheist cannot comprehend the reasons why a believer has their beliefs.
What the atheist does not comprehend is why a believer continues to adhere to their beliefs, when logic, science, evidence, and all other manner of
studies conducted without a bias arrive at the conclusion that the belief is wrong, faulty, dangerous, or inherently untrue. You state that science
"explains away all the mystery," as if this makes scientific rationale into something negative. It does not.
For example, before science studied the shape and the form of the Earth it was believed that our planet was both flat, and the center of the Universe.
This produced a mystery of why we were the center, and what mechanism made the flat Earth inhabitable. Scientific studies then arrived at a different
conclusion: the Earth was round, and our sun was the center of the solar system, which in turn was on the far tip of our galaxy, which is just one in
a numerous cluster of galaxies spanning the whole Universe.
To the faithful this removes the "mystery" of why our planet is flat by concluding: our planet is not flat. This allows new mysteries to be
embraced: why is our planet spherical; how did our planet form; does our planet move? On and on the list can grow. Likewise, we also now know that our
planet is just one of incalculable planets in the Universe, and that we are not the center of everything. This lays to rest the question of why we're
the center of everything: we're not. It also opens up new mysteries for our exploration: if we're not the center, how did we get here; are there
other planets like us; are we alone, or is our Universe populated with other life forms?
I feel like you judge belief as being only that there is a God who created and designed everything. Which I feel is incorrect. Belief, to me, evokes
awe, wonder, and amazement in our emotional perception of existence. God was a belief when we did not understand how things worked. God was the answer
to things which shocked, inspired, and filled us with awe. Now we know how life came to be, how our planet was formed, why our planet can support and
sustain life, from where our solar system came, and to where our galaxy is heading. The belief in "God" is outdated now, and no longer a necessity
for the continuation of our belief structure.
It is not that belief and reason, logic, or science are at odds. It is that the beliefs people once held are so tenaciously defended that the adherent
do not listen to reason, logic, or science. If the definition of God evolved into something more contemporary perhaps God's continued belief could be
defensible. Instead, people reject the advancements of medicine, evolution, history, psychology, and geological studies in favor of comforting fairy
tales. That is why belief clashes with logic.
Your original stand-point was backward, implying that science tries to remove the mystery, making it a negative. When in reality, the negative is
preserving the mystery, and keeping the whole Universe uneducated.
~ Wandering Scribe