Expelled? The wrongness of the religion vs. science debate

Charles Darwin and Ben Stein in the ludicrous documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed".

After seeing Ben Stein’s horrifyingly awkward and oversimplified documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, I was shocked by the lack of legitimacy beneath Mr. Stein’s reasoning. Yes, I am an atheist – which, in my case, means an impotence and unwillingness to believe in something I cannot proof, and not a hatred against all things religious, except for the obvious, groundless humiliations of mankind throughout the history of the world. But moreover, I am someone who believes in so-called “conflict efficiency” – meaning that debates should only arise on justified grounds, by justifiable means. Therefore, I just like to add my following two cents to this religion vs. science debate.

The core of the religion vs. science debate is, essentially, neither religious nor scientific at all. Science, regardless of its form or practice, is based on the single ideal of objectivity. Unfortunately, pure objectivity is, outside the worlds of theory and philosphy, an unreachable goal – for every vision of the world, every theory, has been conjured up by human minds, seeing the world through their particular eyes.

Therefore, one has to come to terms with the fact that every dogma decreases the level of relative objectivism (meaning the maximum amount of objectivity possible in our world). And by this, I mean religion as well as more scientifically founded concepts such as Darwinism. Every presupposition blocks truly objective analyses.

In the end, every human being should be constantly and fully open to whatever can add another dimension or temporary answer to the never-ending, highly subjective human urge to stretch life’s meaning beyond the obvious.

I hereby invite all of my dear readers to join in the discussion!



Filed under Articles, Background, Critique, English, Personal

3 responses to “Expelled? The wrongness of the religion vs. science debate

  1. I am surprised that a mention of Ayn Rand is not made in your discussion …..

  2. That’s a good one, Ed. Reality does not depend on individual interpretations. A = A. And A is not A via B – B being either christianity, Darwinism, or any other model one can use to shape his/her vision of the world. I will plunge into the works of Rand first thing!

  3. I don’t think ‘plunging’ would be a good approach for Rand … better to step back, take a deep breathe, then settle in for a good read.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s