Benjamin Franklin Essay Example for Free

Benjamin Franklin EssayFounding father Benjamin Franklin once said, The way to see faith is to exclude the eye of reason. Theists for thousands of years pay shut their eyes to reason and blindly followed the word of those who would gain them believe in false gods. Reason demonstrates, through outlets such(prenominal) as Occams Razor, the lack of a need for the human race of those gods and the shortcomings of theists in attempts to prove their faith. Such shortcomings most prominently come in the failure to bequeath empirical data for the existence of gods, in fact, experimentation and observation show otherwise. To accomp whatsoever a lack of need and a lack of evidence, because faith causes hotshot to turn a blind eye to reason, arguments for theism are often weak, personal, and circumstantial at best, and potentiometer be easily negated. Reason, a lack of evidence, and weak arguments go on mankind only one option in regards to belief in the supernatural no god or god s actually exist. Occams Razor non only establishes the falsehood of a requirement for gods, but also shifts the burden of proving the existence of gods unto the theorists.In blunt terms, the Razor states that, All other things being equal, a fairr explanation is preferred over a thickening one (Krauss). Therefore, entities should non be multiplied unnecessarily, so the simplest of theories should be chosen before the most complex and that the incomprehensible should first be measured in known quantities (Krauss). A deity, while providing a simple meta corporal escape for the absence of evidence, adds a overplus of unneeded layers of complexity to the creation of the universe.The addition of a supreme being to the equation not only dismantles established laws of physics, but creates a type of pyramidic scheme to the universal hierarchy, with the deity at the top, as its influence can butterfly out to touch everything in existence and possibly altering its physical properties. The metaphysical effect of a deity on the physical world would have unimaginable effect on known forces and constants, creating a faucet that streams unknown quantities.Fortunately, Occams Razor conveys that without empirical data solving some of those unknowns, in that respect is no need to add a god to the equation and the deity can be dismissed (Krauss). To stack on the allowance of a dismissal of gods by the Razor, Occam also requires that the burden of proof of gods falls to theists. Without a need for a god, one mustiness not assume without evidence that a deity exists, just as one would not assume a Minnie Mouse teapot floats amidst the Earth and Mars without empirical proof of its existence (Krauss).Therefore, if there is no need for a god, then theists must provide tangible confirmation demonstrating the existence of such a being in order for a reasonable person to feel the need to believe in it (Myers). If the theists, on the other surpass are unable to provide tangi ble confirmation, then the majority are fundamentally asking the world to follow their religion without a need for god, without proof, and on the terms that the church comprehends 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 overthrow the idea of gods, as one cannot prove a negative.They need only to disprove (or prove the absence of) the evidence supporting theism. The sacred throughout register 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 so-called strongest proof for the presence of the supernatural lies almost constitutionally in the realm of unreliable personal experiences (Faust 72). Theists pass on often introduce that they know of their gods through personal communication or through the feeling of their presence in the world.This idea inspires quite the opposite of the confidence in idol the religious are trying to demonstrate by sharing that information. What the concept of feeling gods or having them speak 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 very nearly 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 admitted 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 merely by theists. The world does not so lightheartedly admit untested and inconstant variables such as personal experiences because no one who logically assesses the facts could morally do so. The nonreligious portion of the Earths population does not recognize personal experience as a viable form of evidence for anyone besides theists (Faust 72). This arises from the sentiment that these experiences claimed by the religious are not comparable to witness accounts r recollection of victims in the court of law. Unlike in the case of witness accounts and recollections, theists demand that the supernatural feelings they have be classified 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, especially when one takes into consideration the fact that these experiences happen so little and with so little correlation to any direct event or circumstance that when compared with the rest they produce an insignificant number (Faust 75).Not to mention of course, that any witness account in a case must be taken with a grain of salt, as one can never be certain they are telling the fairness without the backing of empirical data. In a vain attempt to denounce alternatives to supernatural creation theists often cling to the proud notion that if they can invite a single flaw in an important scientific scheme, such as natural selection or evolution, then the entire case of the nonexistence of god collapses (Dawkins 51).First, as turn up earlier in the paper, the burden of proof is on the theists, so even if theists can disprove every scientific possible action they must still prove theirs (Dawkins 53). Second, a scientific theory must be show to be fundamentally flawed in order for it to collapse. A few issues in the theory simply 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 science and religion is that the scientific method of proposing a theory allows for the theory to change and adapt according to what is observed, meaning the core of the idea is what needs to collapse for it to be incorrect, not the random out liers and exceptions picked on by theists. Conclusively, unlike religious arguments, scientific theory is based on observation and change and therefore need to be proven fundamentally 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 blown away by the Trilobites. It crazy, theyre like little machines. Complexity. Therefore, design. The argument of complexity through intelligent design is another tidbit of supposed empirical data theists put forth in an effort to provide physical evidence for the existence of gods (Myers). This contention is one of the main, and essentially their only, religious attempts to put 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 observing the known world and wa tching nature, or even humans, create complex structures by chance or accident. Take for example, a young boy who tires of playing with a stick and throws it into a near creek. The stick floats downstream until it gets caught between two rocks at a narrow, and begins to catch other debris floating by. Eventually a variety 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 body filled with life broad the illusion of design, but being completely 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 slowly 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 locomote 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 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 cognize 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 validity of science and the scientists who propose it (Mathew 1). Worshippers have large tried to poke holes in important theories such as natural selection and evolution or convince people to dismiss them as simple guesses by scientists (Mathew 1).On the receiving end of most of this ill-informed ridicule 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 th is not affect 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 ump from a building they will die.These constants allow mankind to make a series of assumptions that make up nearly every decision in an average day. These assumptions permit humans to deduce situations such as that if a malicious looking blood-soaked man leaves a room with a knife in hand and a body is found that the man was the murderer. The same idea transfers to the concept of evolution in the regard that scientists, with proper reasoning and motive, can carry on 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 prove them, along with ear lier points of scientific theories abilities to withstand isolated flaws dishonors theist attempts to put science to the question. Not only do the religious weakly 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). perchance the two most famous cases of the abuse of character are that of Albert Einstein and Charles Darwin.For ages now religious fanatics such as Ray Comfort have deprave their work by releasing edited copies of their books and mining for quotes that will purposely mislead the common citizen into believing the scientists were theist. For example, Ray Comfort puts forth this quote well-nigh Einstein, I believe in Spinozas God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony 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 employ to sum u p 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 material in his own day writing statements denouncing those who claimed him as a worshipper in God, It was of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which has been systematically repeated (Mathew 4). Zealots like Comfort also release cautiously crafted versions of great works 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 say that despite this, reason suggests that its true (Mathew 5).The attempt to discredit science and scientists by theists is ignominious 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 resort to metaphysical or personal claims. Not only do Occams Rule 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 morality 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 perfect 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).