Benjamin Franklin Essay

Founding father benjamin Franklin once said, The way to see cartel is to shut the oculus of reason. Theists for thousands of days boast shut their eyes to reason and blindly doed the word of those who would shed them believe in false deitys. Reason demonstrates, with outlets such as Occams razor, the lack of a enquire for the public of those gods and the shortcomings of theists in strives to screen their faith. Such shortcomings most prominently center in the failure to tender data- found data for the hu populaces of gods, in fact, experimentation and observation show new(prenominal)wise.To accompe real a lack of need and a lack of licence, because faith causes angiotensin-converting enzyme to turn a blind eye to reason, arguments for theism be often easy, personal, and circumstantial at best, and cease be easily negated. Reason, a lack of state, and weak arguments kick in mankind only one option in calculates to smell in the occult no god or gods demonstrablely exist. Occams Razor non only establishes the falsehood of a look at for gods, precisely alike shifts the center of proving the human race of gods unto the theorists.In blunt marges, the Razor states that, al unneurotic other things creation equal, a undecomposabler report is preferred over a intricate one (Krauss). Therefore, entities should non be cipher unnecessarily, so the simplest of theories should be chosen forward the most complex and that the un cognise should eldest be measured in known quantities (Krauss). A divinity fudge, while providing a simple metaphysical escape for the absence of evidence, tote ups a plethora of unneeded layers of complexity to the first appearance of the existence.The addition of a supreme organism to the equation non only dismantles established laws of physics, but creates a type of pyramidical scheme to the universal hierarchy, with the deity at the top, as its influence lav fleet out to touch eachthing in existence and possibly altering its physical properties. The metaphysical effect of a deity on the physical human would have out of the incertitude effect on known forces and constants, creating a faucet that streams unknown quantities. as luck would have it, Occams Razor demands that without existential data solving close to of those unknowns, on that point is no need to add a god to the equation and the deity buttocks be dismissed (Krauss). To chemical twine reactor on the tolerateance of a tone ending of gods by the Razor, Occam also requires that the burden of substantiation of gods falls to theists. Without a need for a god, one mustiness not anticipate without evidence that a deity exists, on the dot as one would not pretend a Minnie Mouse teapot floats between the primer coat and Mars without empirical proof of its existence (Krauss).Therefore, if there is no need for a god, then theists must go out distinct confirmation demonstrating the existence of such a being in order for a sportsmanlike(a) person to feel the need to believe in it (Myers). If the theists, on the other hand atomic number 18 unable to go away tangible confirmation, then the majority ar essentially asking the world to follow their religion without a need for god, without proof, and on the terms that the church under arises all there is to know of the universe. In the end, thanks to Occams Razor, in order for the thesis to stand atheists need not dis take the stand the persuasion of gods, as one cannot taste a negative.They need only to disprove (or prove the absence of) the evidence supporting theism. The spectral throughout history have failed to provide empirical data for the existence of gods in fact, experimentation and observation shows otherwise. Theism ultimately provides no factual evidence indicating the existence of a god or multiple gods. The alleged(prenominal) strongest proof for the presence of the super earthy lies some correctly in t he realm of fallible personal experiences (Faust 72). Theists impart often withdraw that they know of their gods through personal converse or through the feeling of their presence in the world.This liking inspires quite the mated of the confidence in God the spectral are trying to demonstrate by sharing that in divisionation. What the concept of feeling gods or having them babble to a person is not only condoned as ludicrous by those who do not partake in the lie, but if true indicates something that drifts really near toward borderline mental illness. Those who believe their gods speak to them should not be granted any immunity other schizophrenics are not and need to be chooseted into a psychiatric ward.The thought that personal experience that cannot and has not been processed through a reasonable scientific experimental procedure can take the place of real evidence is one shared solely by theists. The world does not so lightheartedly admit untested and inconstant var iables such as personal experiences because no one who logically assesses the facts could morally do so. The nonreligious portion of the states population does not do it personal experience as a viable form of evidence for anyone at any rate theists (Faust 72). This arises from the pattern that these experiences claimed by the religious are not comparable to witness accounts r recollection of victims in the court of law. irrelevant in the case of witness accounts and recollections, theists demand that the super instinctive feelings they have be class as stand-alone evidence without empirical data or essentially a case to back it up (Faust 74). This form of proof cannot stand by itself, particularly when one takes into con positioningration the fact that these experiences extend so petite and with so little correlation to any direct number or circumstance that when compared with the rest they nominate an insignificant number (Faust 75). non to list of course, that any wit ness account in a case must be taken with a grain of salt, as one can never be certain they are telling the righteousness without the backing of empirical data. In a vain attempt to denounce alternatives to supernatural creation theists often cling to the royal notion that if they can find a single flaw in an cardinal scientific possibility, such as natural infusion or evolution, then the entire case of the nonexistence of god collapses (Dawkins 51).First, as proved earlier in the paper, the burden of proof is on the theists, so flattide if theists can disprove every scientific opening they must still prove theirs (Dawkins 53). Second, a scientific opening must be show to be basically flawed in order for it to collapse. A few issues in the theory precisely shows that there is a small amount of data missing or that a certain aspect must be corrected, both of which existences would serve to further the theory (Dawkins 53).The distinct difference between cognizance and relig ion is that the scientific method of proposing a theory allows for the theory to change and hold according to what is observed, meaning the core of the thought process is what needs to collapse for it to be incorrect, not the random outliers and exceptions picked on by theists. Conclusively, foreign religious arguments, scientific theory is based on observation and change and thereof need to be proven essentially wrong to be publically denounced. Atheists have all heard it before, Complexity, complexity, complexity, complexity, complexity.Did you know that a cell is really complex? Complexity, complexity, complexity, and you are just going to be pursy away by the Trilobites. It crazy, theyre give care little machines. Complexity. Therefore, forge. The argument of complexity through born(predicate) design is another titbit of supposed empirical data theists nonplus forth in an movement to provide physical evidence for the existence of gods (Myers). This list is one of th e main, and essentially their only, religious attempts to beat forth empirical data which scientists can measure. The entire idea of complexity indicating design is in every sense ridiculous.The notion can be dispelled by observe the known world and watching nature, or even humans, create complex structures by chance or accident. Take for example, a young boy who tires of playing with a joystick and throws it into a nearby creek. The stick floats downstream until it gets caught between two rocks at a narrow, and begins to catch other junk floating by. Eventually a conformation of different types of objects will form a natural dam in the creek, creating a small pond, which in turn can develop its own eco dust filled with manners giving the illusion of design, but being whole natural (Myers).As shown in the example, the complexity of the world derived not from design, but from the wonder of chance, evolution, and natural selection. Over hundreds of millions of years life has sl owly developed and pieced itself together much like the dam, changing and adapting to conditions and lifestyles on Earth (Myers). The extreme complexity through which the systems of life today work is derived from the natural selection aspect of evolution, if a system does not work, or fails to quickly adapt, then the system is eliminated time and time over again until a system that operates survives (Myers).The argument of complexity solely resides in world of fantasy, has no scientific basis, and should be disregarded as viable physical evidence. Full well up knowing how pitiful the points of the argument of intelligent design are, theists look to one final, very childish, measure to save their drowning plight, questioning the cogency of science and the scientists who propose it (Mathew 1). Worshippers have broad tried to poke holes in beta theories such as natural selection and evolution or convince pile to dismiss them as simple guesses by scientists (Mathew 1).On the recei ving end of most of this ill-informed chaff rests a creationists worst enemy, the theory of evolution. According to many theists, evolution cannot be as there are, so pompously pointed out, several gaps in the evolutionary chain (Dawkins 52). not only does this not impact the validity of a theory as proved earlier, but is entirely untrue. Fortunately in this world there stands a concept known as a universal constant, a constant essentially keeps humans from testing if the floor will hold them every time they leave bed, or if the stove is hot when the on light is on, or allowing them to understand if they umpire from a building they will die.These constants allow mankind to make a serial of assumptions that make up nearly every decision in an average day. These assumptions appropriate humans to deduce situations such as that if a malicious looking blood-soaked man leaves a room with a clapper in hand and a torso is found that the man was the murderer. The same idea transfers t o the concept of evolution in the regard that scientists, with proper reasoning and motive, can moderate the theory across gaps in the chain and still hold a fair evidence base.This utilization of basic skills as assumptions paired with evidence to substantiate them, along with earlier points of scientific theories abilities to withstand stranded flaws discredits theist attempts to put science to the question. Not only do the religious creaky attempt to discredit scientific theory and method, but they often will question the religious background of scientists in an effort to win people over to their side (Mathew 4). Perhaps the two most known cases of the abuse of character are that of Albert psyche and Charles Darwin.For ages now religious fanatics such as Ray pouf have bastardize their work by releasing alter copies of their books and mining for quotes that will purposely subvert the common citizen into believing the scientists were theist. For example, Ray Comfort puts fo rth this quote somewhat Einstein, I believe in Spinozas God who reveals himself in the orderly capital of New Hampshire of what exists Comfort removed the quote completely from context in order to misconstrue its true meaning (Mathew 4).Spinozas God is not a god at all, but a term used to sum up the forces of the universe into a word. Einstein in that very paragraph went on to describe how he does not believe in a god who concerns himself with the fates and actions of humans (Mathew 4). Einstein even addressed this kind of misleading substantial in his own day piece of music statements denouncing those who claimed him as a believer in God, It was of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which has been consistently repeat (Mathew 4). Zealots like Comfort also release carefully crafted versions of great work like Darwins Origin of Species in which Darwin claims that he finds it hard to believe that something as astounding as the human eye could have developed through chance, neglecting to add the parts right in which Darwin continues to assert that despite this, reason suggests that its true (Mathew 5).The attempt to discredit science and scientists by theists is contraband and such a ersonal attack in an impersonal topic alone should be grounds to dismiss the claim. Overall, theists have repeated neglected to present any actual empirical data, therefore have no proof of the existence of gods, and must asylum to metaphysical or personal claims. Not only do Occams govern and the absolute lack of empirical evidence disprove the idea of gods, but what arguments theists do rely on are weak, individual, and circumstantial at best, and can all be easily negated.One of these arguments for theism is the existence of righteousness and the correlation of morals throughout the world and history (Hauser et al 1). This can be easily negated as, put simply, atheists are the undefiled example of how this cannot be true. Without guidance and belief in gods they are just as morally good as any religious person (Hauser et al 2).