The birth of modern science is attributed to the battle between the emerging empirical movement, which included people like Da Vinci (pioneer in the empirical examination of nature) and Galileo (pioneer in observing the motion of objects and stars alike), and the religious/alchemist movement, which was based on rationalism (the belief in "pure logic" instead of the senses). Francis Bacon is well-known as the father of modern science because his Novum Organum was the codification which spear-headed the scientific movement.
By the time of the Enlightenment, science had definitely proven that empiricism was the only method that produced permanent results, and could improve the human condition. Religion and alchemy had failed. We now know that everything is perceivable, material, measurable and predictable (at least at the macroscopic level - quantum physics is an issue that is beyond the scope of this article).
Today there are still some people who obstinately refuse to acknowledge the power of natural law, despite the fact that they live in a scientific era that doubled their lifespan and opened more than half their lives to leisure - people who think that "pure logic" and imagination is better than the senses. These "modern alchemists", prehistoric cavemen in suits, are called Christians and pseudo-scientists.
By this, I don't mean that there is nothing complicated about materialism. For instance, we know that some things exist without having perceived them, on the basis of its effects on other objects. We know that some planets exist without seeing them, simply by measuring the fluctuations in a sun's orbit. And we can do this because of the law of gravitation. The sun's orbit is observed, the sun is material, the law of gravitation is based on observed facts.
Another argument sometimes used is people's belief that the mind is not material. But we now know that the brain is the mind, or at least that the mind completely depends on the brain. Brain damage has proven to us that the brain contains all the functions we attribute to the "mind", and damaging one area damages our capacity to use its functions. That alone is enough to disprove all the beliefs in "souls" and all these spooks in your head. There are no demons in your head, stop talking about this nonsense.
Go To Page: 1 2
| Here's the follow-up discussion on this article: | View all related messages |
For a complete listing of article comments, questions, and other discussions related to Francois Tremblay's Atheism topic, please visit the Discussions page.