One fallacy circulating on the Internet, and the most deceptive and misleading claim is:
Theism is faith, atheism is faith, both are faiths, the same level, the same level.
If theism is criticized as superstition, wouldn't atheism be half a pound? Therefore, the eldest master does not say the second master, and no one can deny anyone.
But is this statement correct? Obviously, this is a specious and confusing view. This is not the case. The truth is this:
First, superstition is mistakenly equated with faith. That is to say, the theism that originally belonged to the category of superstition is forcibly "exalted" as faith. This kind of "elevation" is, of course, inconsistent with the facts and has no basis.
Second, atheism is not a belief, and we should analyze it in detail. Atheism is divided into three kinds, one is the simple atheism born in ancient times, which originates from people's practical experience; one is philosophical atheism, which is enlightened by materialist philosophical thought and belongs to the category of philosophical concepts; one is modern scientific atheism, which comes from two aspects, on the one hand, related to some major philosophical concepts and achievements, on the one hand, its core and foundation are a series of scientific discoveries and scientific theories in modern times, and science is not faith. So modern scientific atheism is not faith at all.
In the following, I will analyze and elaborate on the above two points a little. Let's start by saying "mistakenly equating superstition with faith".
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="11" >"First, superstition is mistakenly equated with faith. That is to say, the theism that originally belonged to the category of superstition is forcibly "exalted" as faith. ”</h1>
Professor Li Shen, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and former director of the Confucian Research Office of the Institute of World Religions, pointed out: The connotation and extension of a concept is a long-term historical process. One of the pseudoscientific means of falsification is to look at the literal meaning and steal the concept. Confusing both theism and atheism with faith is a classic means of falsification.
Let's first clarify what superstition is. Superstition, from the point of view of religion, is that you do not believe in my view, you are superstition. For example, some religions are also divided into several sects, and these sects have contradictions in doctrine, so different factions accuse each other of being "superstitious" with each other. But in its original sense, superstition refers to "mistakenly believing what should not be believed." This is the basis and core definition of superstition. Remember, superstition refers to "mistakenly believing what you shouldn't believe." For example, FA officials are obsessed with "if players are treated well, they can enter the World Cup", which is a superstition, because North Korea and many other South American players are treated poorly, and as a result, the level of competition is better than ours.
The treatment is really good
There is an essential difference between superstition and belief, and it is not that I believe in something, it must be faith. Superstition is not faith, and the level of belief is higher than superstition. Why?
1, faith is the mentality, and superstition is not the mentality, it is the loss of cognition.
As I said earlier, the original meaning of "superstition" is to mistakenly believe things that should not be believed. "Shuowen": confused, "confused"; confused, "chaotic also". If you are confused in your heart, it is easy to do the wrong thing, just like walking to the fork in the road and losing your way. Therefore, in "Zhou Yi", there are "first fans, then winners". Fan is "lost in the way". For example, Taoism has a "Song of Breaking the Mystery of the True Path", which is to break what they believe to be a false belief. Therefore, the original meaning of superstition is not "obsessive belief", but "mistaken belief in things that should not be believed".
When we examine the various superstitious phenomena in society, there is an essential difference between them and faith. Faith is very religious, based on obedience to authority, and once certain beliefs are established, they are used as a guide to life and do not change easily. Superstition does not have such piety. What we call superstition generally refers to feudal superstition, and feudal superstition does not make people religious. For a person who is sick and worships the gods and Buddhas, he can worship both Heavenly Dignity and Guanyin, or he can worship some kind of "obscenity", in short, they think that "there is always no harm in prostrating more" and "you can try your luck". There are also some superstitious people who always say, "Believe if you are sick, do not believe if you are not sick", "do not believe, do not believe fully", which proves that superstition is actually not attached and undeserved, and its original meaning is that there is a deviation and loss in cognition, the so-called "undetermined view", that is, "wrongly believing things that should not be believed".
2, superstitious so-called knowledge is completely unreliable, there is no logic, and faith has logic.
Some things of superstition are all specious things, such as superstitions about "regenerating people", news from some street rumors, or some people's self-statements. But if we examine these "regenerated people" a little more closely, we know that they are all lying. For another example, some people believe that practicing Qigong can cultivate "external qi" on the grounds that they have truly experienced the "sense of qi" through "practice". But this so-called "practice" is not practice in the true sense of the word, but a subjective experience of the individual. See "Why is Nan Huaijin's practice not reliable at all?" " article. And the myths claimed by superstition have no real basis. Faith, on the other hand, has a relatively complete logical system, including a large number of arguments and reasoning. There are also many kinds of beliefs, which are not necessarily scientific, but must be complex logical systems.
Pseudo-practice
In general, faith is higher in level and realm than superstition.
Theism, on the other hand, is merely a superstition, not a belief. Why? Theism is a simple idea of acknowledging the existence of "supernatural" beings in the world. This cannot be equated entirely with philosophical idealism. Idealism does not directly affirm the supernatural, but says that "mind" is the first, "things" are second, and there is a distinction between priority and subordination. In philosophical systems, argumentative idealism has a great deal of logical reasoning. Theism, on the other hand, has no philosophical concept, but is merely a crude idea that does not require any logical validation and is not a thing of philosophical idealism.
Theism is not only not a belief, but a superstition. Why is theism a superstition? To figure out why, first make it clear that "what is not superstition" is.
As already emphasized, the original meaning of superstition is "mistakenly believing what should not be believed", which is "cognitive loss". For those who are cognitively lost, they all have one thing in common, and as has been rigorously proven over countless years, that is, they are all obedient to authority. For example, this authority may be a well-known witch and goddess who is respected by everyone, or it may be a famous figure, or it may be a viewpoint propagated by mainstream public opinion, or some classic works of religion (such as the Diamond Sutra, the Six Ancestral Tantras, the Bible, etc.), or even an authoritative expert in the scientific community (such as Zhu Qingshi). Superstitious people do not dare to question authoritative statements or opinions, but hold a submissive mentality.
Contrary to this attitude of obedience to authority, it is "non-superstition." What is "non-superstition"? In fact, it is the spirit of science. In 1915, Chen Duxiu founded the Youth Magazine, which had the sixth article of its program, which was "scientific rather than imaginary." In this article, Chen explains the concept of science: "What about a scientist? Our concept of things synthesizes objective phenomena and appeals to subjective rationality without contradiction. He then criticizes "imagination", which is neither based on objective phenomena nor subjective reason, but only constructed out of thin air. Chen Duxiu believes that in order to obtain true knowledge, it is necessary to proceed from objective facts, rather than to sort out logically from subjectivity. In fact, he is talking about the spirit of science, that is, using the spirit of science to obtain the most reliable knowledge. A very important manifestation of the scientific spirit is that there is little emphasis on authority. Specifically, much attention is paid to the works of authoritative classics. Scientists who study biogeography, for example, write papers that list experimental data and basically do not cite classics like Darwin's On the Origin of Species. Psychologists publish papers, which are also various experimental data, basically do not quote Freud's psychological works, and often criticize the views of this authoritative figure in the history of psychology.
The habit of obeying authority is superstition. On the contrary, it is not superstition.
And the scientific system is the highest crystallization of non-superstition. Some of the absurd claims that science is also a belief are also false. For details, please refer to "Is Science a Religion?" No, science is not a faith! "On Science Is Not a Religious Belief" two articles. There will be no more development here, otherwise it will be too long.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="36" >"Second, atheism is not faith; modern scientific atheism, this ideological culture comes from two aspects, on the one hand, related to some major philosophical concepts and achievements, on the one hand, its core and foundation is a series of modern scientific discoveries and scientific theories, and science is not faith, so modern scientific atheism is not faith at all." </h1>
The above is a very important proposition. Few scholars have described and explained this in detail before, and I will comment on it today.
Scientific atheism, with a prefix of "science," proves that this atheism is closely related to science, not just a simple conceptual culture. Scientific atheism, which emphasizes the use of science to explain the world and guide life, is a brand-new atheism developed on the basis of criticizing the achievements of historical atheism. It is to scientificize the old atheism, and to use scientific ideas and scientific spirit to guide atheism, which is a concept that is constantly evolving. Whether it is superstition or belief, it is often not developed, it belongs to something more rigid, and it is a typical feature of science that continues to develop.
Scientific atheism has long since been "reborn" from faith. The fundamental basis of scientific atheism is derived from philosophical achievements and scientific discoveries and scientific theories.
Let's start with the philosophical achievements associated with it.
Specifically, there are philosophical "seven excaliburs". By mastering these seven artifacts, we can improve our thinking ability, distinguish between true and false information, and naturally stay away from superstition and naturally completely abandon theism.
First, Occam's razor.
The core content is: do not add entities if not necessary.
That is, assuming that there are two or N different interpretations of certain phenomena, we shave off unnecessary or impossible assumptions as superfluous. The explanation left behind must be the most concise explanation. For example, there was thunder in the sky, one explanation is that some of the clouds in the sky are positive, some are negative, and different clouds have come into contact, and another explanation is that Thor casts spells to punish the evil. This explanation of Thor's spell casting is obviously a more complex one. Because we have to describe how this thunder god uses spells, how this thunder law forms thunder and lightning, and according to what kind of standards of good and evil are used to punish evil, so the situation is complicated, and the more you explain, the more chaotic it is. According to the positive and negative poles of the clouds, it is clear at a glance, and it is simple to explain why the thunder is struck. If we apply the philosophical sword of Occam's razor, we know that "God" is inherently superfluous, and we don't need these superfluous assumptions. Because even if they don't exist, they won't have any impact on our lives. Remember, the more concise the explanation, the more likely it is to be correct when logic is self-correct.
Second, Hitchens Razor.
The core content is that claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I'll take an analogy, or the example of thunder. If some people insist on thunder because Thor casts spells in heaven, then ask them to prove it for themselves. Ask them to prove a series of things, for example, first prove the existence of Thor, show concrete evidence of things, use experiments to prove how spells form thunder and lightning, prove that Thor and not other gods are casting spells, prove that Thor casts thunder instead of using blindfolds... Simply put, whoever makes the claim proves it himself. You can't say that there is a god of thunder in the sky, but let me prove it. The more incredible claims there are, the more incredible evidence is needed. For example, if you say that your grandfather was a worker, it doesn't take a lot of effort to prove this, but you say that your grandfather is Washington, the founding president of the United States, this statement is incredible, of course, you have to show incredible, conclusive evidence. Otherwise, I can say you're a liar. I refute you, and there is no need to come up with evidence that "your grandfather is not Washington." The same is true for theism, since you say there is a God in the world, of course you prove its existence yourself. If you can't prove it, I certainly have the right to say that your personal opinion has no value. I also don't have to come up with evidence of "no God" in my rebuttal.
Third, Hume's axiom.
The core content is that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the falsehood of the testimony is more miraculous than the fact it seeks to establish.
For example, an opponent of genetically modified organisms said that my father ate pork, and as a result, he changed his genes and now becomes the eight precepts of pigs. So I will compare the following two situations and analyze which is more likely: first, this person is deceiving people or being deceived by Teacher C, because eating pork cannot change the genes of the human body; second, this person is telling the truth, his father really ate pork and was genetically altered. Hume's axiom is that unless the probability of the first being false is lower than the probability of the second being false, it is not necessary to accept his testimony. This is actually comparing the size of the two possibilities and excluding the less likely one. According to Hume's axioms, we see that the idea of "god" is obviously more transcendent, and its possibility is less likely. This is not to say that to deny such a small-probability existence is necessarily not to exist, but rather that we tend not to accept it until there is not enough evidence to prove that there is a God. And this evidence must be accurately measured under the strict design of scientific experimental procedures.
Hume
Fourth, Hanlon Razor.
The core content is: if you can explain it stupidly, don't use malice to speculate about others.
Let me give you an example, you asked your boyfriend to go to the movie "Chosin Lake", and you waited in the movie theater, and the boyfriend just didn't show up. So you wonder, is it that the boyfriend deliberately did not come to me, in order to anger me? In fact, if you use the Hanlon razor, you can think of the biggest possibility that the boyfriend is negligent due to something. Here, the boyfriend's negligence (stupidity) and intentionality (malice) are two very different properties. Many people on the Internet who spread pseudoscience or superstition are not necessarily intentional, but just stupid. Just like Zhu Qingshi of the University of Science and Technology of China, he often spread things without any basis in public. Can you say that he is deliberately doing evil in order to make China back? In fact, Zhu Qingshi was just stupid. The same is true of theism, and those who put forward the "god" view are not necessarily malicious propaganda superstitions. It can only be said that they are indeed cognitively deficient. For example, we can do research to see if there are supernatural beliefs among the world's highest level of intellectual scientists. Can you refer to "Science and religion are opposites, the vast majority of scientists and religion are incompatible" and "Religion is universal, eliminate atheism, the world will be perfect?" " two articles. You can see the results of the survey: the vast majority of scientists do not believe in the supernatural. A survey conducted by the Siberian Branch of the Russian National Academy of Sciences found that 97% of scientists in the country do not believe in the supernatural. The academies of science in Britain, the United States, Brazil, Japan and other countries, the rate of first-class scientists who do not believe in God, all have findings close to those of the Russian Academy of Sciences. In fact, in the 1990s, the international authoritative journal "Nature" also published a survey conclusion, pointing out that the vast majority of first-class scientists in the world do not believe in the supernatural, and the proportion at that time was 93%. Since the vast majority of scientists representing the highest intelligence of mankind do not believe in "god", in general, the average "stupidity" of the group of scientists is compared with the "stupidity" of believing in Gods, and naturally I agree that the people in front of them are smarter and more reliable.
Fifth, the Sagan standard.
The core content is: bland claims do not require much evidence, not even evidence; but very unusual claims require very unusual evidence.
Sagan is Karl Sagan, the world's most prominent astronomer and popular science writer of the 20th century. He had studied the possibility of extraterrestrial civilizations and told us that no aliens had been found so far, despite his deep desire. I've given the example of "Grandpa is Washington" before. Obviously, for the "godless" claim, "having a god" is a particularly unusual proposition. To prove that there is a "God" in the world, very strong evidence is needed. An unexplained "miracle" must be displayed, and this "miracle" must be accurately predicted and measured, and the results must be repeatedly tested by global intellectuals. But "theism" has so far been a personal claim that cannot be verified in the slightest complexity.
Karl Sagan
Sixth, the Popper Principle.
The core content is that only a theory that is falsifiable can be considered a scientific theory.
I give an example, the "theistic" person said that although we have not yet cited any evidence of the existence of gods, it is because the gods are in "high-dimensional space" and can only be discovered by the science of the earthlings. This claim is completely untrueable. Physics has yet to acknowledge the existence of "high-dimensional spaces." The so-called "high dimension" is only a corollary of non-scientific theories such as string theory. String theory is not yet a scientific theory, but only a metaphysics, which argues that the universe may have been multidimensional, but that the extra dimensions were huddled up in space a few orders of magnitude smaller than protons. To verify the accuracy of string theory, scientists have made calculations, and there are two theories, one is to build a collider with a diameter as large as the Milky Way, and the other is to build a collider with a diameter larger than the observable universe. Either way, string theory is clearly unverified. But even if the real future proves that string theory is correct, it cannot prove that the gods are necessarily not in the "high-dimensional space." Because, there may also be other higher dimensions, which are high dimensions that string theory is not aware of. It could also be that the gods happened to "run away from home" and went elsewhere. In short, the claim that the gods are in a "high dimensional space" cannot be falsified. A claim that cannot be falsified is, of course, not scientific.
Someone said, you open your mouth and shut up about science, but can science deny the unknown? Can science explain everything? For this, refer to the articles "The Logical Trap: "Invisible Does Not Mean Non-Existent" and "Science Cannot Explain"" "Known" is the conquest of the "unknown", and without the basis of scientific "known", it is not worth talking about the so-called "unknown". Because, when we have scientifically "known" knowledge and theories, we can clearly know which ones in the world are truly "unknown". If a person does not understand any scientific knowledge, he will go around talking and guessing, and his statements are worthless and meaningless "unknown". Meaningful "unknown" must have a scientific "known" basis. The unknown of natural phenomena is endless, but everything is based on the laws of physics. By mastering the basic laws of physics, there is a precise path to explore the unknown. Since the microatomic structure of any salt in the world is exactly the same fractal arrangement, if there are salt grains on any other unknown planet, its crystal structure must also be arranged in this way. Even if the level of science and technology on the earth is only "backward" in the vast universe, the basic physical laws are common, and the same physical laws are everywhere in the universe. By mastering the basics of the laws of physics, we know why the planets are circular instead of square. Even "non-Earth science" cannot prove the existence of a naturally formed square planet in the universe. Even "science on Earth" knows that there are no square planets in the universe.
Seventh: Alder's razor.
Also known as "Newton's Flaming Laser Sword", the core content is that anything that cannot be experimented and observed is not worth debating.
This is also well explained, and the previous example is enough. "Theism" is unexamined and observable, merely an illusion in the human mind, a cognitive confusion and loss.
Newton's Flaming Laser Sword
All of the above is a philosophical denial of the rationality of "theism."
Let's start with the scientific achievements associated with it.
There are too many things about this. In fact, science is a system of disciplines and ideas based on materialism. No scientific theory is suspected of idealism. See my publication "The Nature of Quantum Mechanics: The Science of 100% Materialism" and "Quantum Theory Proves the Existence of the Soul?" Is quantum mechanics a materialistic discipline? "The Theory of the Quantum Soul is a Kind of Pseudoscience" and other popular science articles. Since science has nothing to do with idealism, let alone any connection with "theism" that is even lower than idealism.
I'll give a few examples of scientific discoveries and scientific achievements.
One is Darwin's creation of the theory of biological evolution, which proves that species are constantly evolving, gradually evolving from primitive to complex, and modern DNA evolutionary evidence also proves that the chain of evolutionary theory is complete. After the birth of the biological evolution theory, there was a huge impact on "creationism" and the species invariance theory proposed on its basis. Darwin's book On the Origin of Species was the first to base biology on a completely scientific basis. The publication of On the Origin of Species caused a sensation in Europe and the world at large, dealing a heavy blow to the foundations of theocratic rule. The theory of biological evolution has blasted away people's ideological inhibitions, inspired and educated people to liberate themselves from the shackles of superstition. The biological community now supports the theory of biological evolution.
One is Hawking's cosmological research. The "first driving force" has always puzzled the philosophical and scientific worlds, but Hawking has already solved this puzzle. Hawking himself considers his highest achievement to be the denial of the necessity of the "first impulse", which has extraordinary significance in the world of thought. Through rigorous scientific proof, he confirmed that the universe does not need the "first push" to exist at all, and the universe can be spontaneously born and evolved. In his speeches and writings, he wrote that the laws of physics that support the Big Bang theory challenged the traditional belief that "since there are laws such as gravitation, the universe can, and will, create itself from nothing." Natural generation is said to be the cause of the existence of things rather than nothing, and the reasons for the existence of the universe and mankind. There is no need to use God to ignite the blue fuse and let the universe be born. Hawking said in a speech: The question of the origin of the universe is a bit like this ancient question: whether there will be a chicken first, or an egg first. In other words, what created the universe, and what created that thing? Maybe the universe, or the thing that created it, has been around for an infinite amount of time and doesn't need to be created. Until recently, scientists had tried to avoid such questions, feeling that they belonged more to metaphysical or religious questions than science, yet in the last few years it was discovered that the laws of science held true even at the beginning of the universe. In that case, the universe could be self-contained and completely determined by the laws of science. ”
Hawking
One is Professor Zhang Honglin's scientific research on Qigong. Qigong, historically known as guiding, is closely related to supernatural beliefs. Wang Yangming, a thinker of the Ming Dynasty, also practiced guidance techniques in the mountains for several years, and as a result, he had some psychological hallucinations. Then Wang Yangming took the initiative to give up, believing that taking the path of cultivation was not the right path, and it was not good to practice this illusion, and it belonged to a kind of "false way." But the superstition of the guiding techniques in later generations has become more and more intense, and almost no one has disbelieved in a certain period of modern history. The superstition of qigong has plunged hundreds of millions of people into mysticism and is extremely harmful to society. However, the average researcher only denies the existence of "external qi", and cannot make a scientific and reasonable explanation for the essential principle of qigong. Professor Zhang Honglin, as one of the few authorities on Qigong research at home and abroad, after half a century of dedicated research and following a large number of scientific experiments, finally convincingly proved that the essence of Qigong is "psychological therapy with national characteristics". This scientific assertion has far-reaching influence and great significance, and is not only a directional guide in the medical community, but also a great contribution to the entire intellectual community. Professor Zhang's contribution to science is also a strong support for materialism and atheism, and is a heavy blow to the doctrines of mysticism and supernatural pseudoscience.
Zhang Honglin
Another example is the summative scientific report of the National Academy of Sciences. In 1988, the National Academy of Sciences publicly issued a detailed scientific report, classifying parapsychology as pseudoscience, pointing out that all scientific research done in the past 150 years has not obtained evidence of the existence of paranormal phenomena. This is a comprehensive and summative authoritative report produced by the American Academy of Sciences through a long period of scientific research and analysis. It's 2021, and another 30 years have passed, which means that the scientific community has been studying the paranormal for at least 180 years, and the evidence for the existence of the supernatural is still zero. Since the supernatural phenomenon is denied, the "theism" of nature is completely untenable.
All of the above is to deny the rationality of "theism" from a scientific point of view.
Both philosophy and science deny "theism."
To sum up: theism is not faith, but superstition; atheism has long been not faith, but science. The two are not on the same level at all.
This is the truth of the matter.
Author: Skeptical Explorer