Religion and Steven Weinberg
Here is a (relatively) old video I came across where physicist Steven Weinberg shares his thoughts on religion and its pernicious effects. In reference to George Bush’s idea that Islamic terrorists have “hijacked” an otherwise “good” religion, he says the following:
I think, for example, George Bush said that these terrorists have hijacked a great religion. Because their actions, their terrorist actions don’t fit his idea of religion. You see, what’s really happening there is that, instead of using religion to decide what is moral, they’re using their moral sense… to decide what is religious. And, if that’s the case, then what’s the point of the religion?
This is an important point that I have made before. Since our modern notions of “good” or “evil” stem basically from our secular reason anyway, and that is the lens through which we analyze the holy books, what do we need the holy books for?
He also discusses the reasons for his antipathy toward religion:
The most rational reason for [my hostility to religion] is because of the harm that I see it does… Many people do simply awful things out of sincere religious belief—not using religion as a cover, the way Saddam Hussein may have done—but really because they believe that this is what god wants them to do, going all the way back to Abraham being willing to sacrifice Isaac, because god told him to do that. Putting god ahead of humanity is a terrible thing.
Excellent quote, that one. And he goes on to criticize the culture, particularly in the United States, vis-a-vis religion:
Another reason is because I’m offended by the kind of smarmy religiosity that’s all around us… after a while you get tired of hearing clergymen giving the invocation at various public celebrations and you feel, haven’t we outgrown all this? Do we have to listen to this?
And finally, a series of thoughts that merit extended quotation:
But then, maybe at the very bottom of it, I really don’t like god. It’s silly to say I don’t like god because I don’t believe in god. But in the same sense that I don’t like Iago, or I don’t like the Reverend Slope, or any of the other villains of literature. The god of traditional Judaism and Christianity and Islam seems to me a terrible character. He’s a god who’s obsessed with the degree to which people worship him and anxious to punish with the most awful torments those who don’t worship him in the right way. Now, I realize that many people don’t believe in that any more who call themselves Muslims or Jews or Christians, but that is the traditional god, and he’s a terrible character. I don’t like him.
I had a friend, Abdul Salam, who was trying to bring science into the universities in the Gulf states, and he told me that he had a terrible time. Because, although they were very receptive to technology, they felt that science would be a corrosive to religious belief, and they were worried about it. Damn it, I think they were right. It is a corrosive of religious belief. And it’s a good thing too.
Many religious people who think that science and religion are perfectly compatible are technically right. As I have said, believing that there is a god is not illogical because there is no proof that god does not exist (the same can be said for the tooth fairy or the Loch Ness monster). However, insofar as science and modern secular reason focuses our thinking to demand evidence for claims, to cast unabashed skepticism on all claims—no matter how hallowed or rooted in tradition—it corrodes religion, because religion, by its nature, depends on an ample willingness to accept a multitude of claims without evidence or proof or justification. And, indeed, it is a good thing. Why? Because such an approach to discovering truth has led, and will continue to lead, to greater knowledge, greater understanding, greater prosperity, and greater human fulfillment.
MORE ARTICLES:
Comments are currently closed.