Religion challenged the conclusions of physicists as in the famous clash between the Roman Catholic Church and Galileo.  Early in the last century it was popular to believe that organic chemistry could never be understood by science because "...only God Can make a tree" (to quote a poem by Joyce Kilmer).  Darwin, however, had posed a significant threat to religious theories of the origin of living things.   Notice that we have moved from physics to chemistry to biology, a path of increasing complexity. Religion could always "explain" the more complex things which science had not yet mastered.

Psychological matters still seemed safe from the advance of science early in the 20th century. Recent developments, however, suggest that psychology may be coming of age after over a century of little progress.  Even the soul is opening up to investigation by both theoretical and practical advances and the development of artificial intelligence.  The Truth Tree agrees with Marvin Minsky that the task of psychology is the reverse engineering of the brain.   Consciousness will some day be created artificially.  The threat science will pose to religion when that happens will certainly be orders of magnitude greater than any previous threats.

Albert Einstein, in his essay, "On Science and Religion," wrote that it was far easier for him to define science than to define religion.  He defined science as a centuries-old endeavor to place the elements of experience into as thoroughgoing a relationship as possible.  But when it came to defining religion, he found the task to be much more difficult.  Instead of defining religion, then, he preferred to describe his concept of a religious person.  His idea of a religious person was one whose life was dominated by super-personal values.  There have certainly been many famous religious people whose lives were so dominated.  But religion has no monopoly here, and there have been many notable non-religious philanthropists.

It is the position of The Truth Tree that the various religions of the world are of equal dignity.   Thus, no special pleading for any religion over any other can be taken seriously if the proponents expect that their favorite religion is going to "win" in some sense or is going to be universally accepted as the one true religion.

Every religion is potentially dangerous.  Wars have been fought over the nature of "the holy trinity" or just about any question about God that people came to think that they had inside information about.  The greatest mistake in religious thinking is to conclude that religious ideas are literally true and that they compete with science.  Perhaps the "dark ages" were dark principally because of literalist Christian beliefs. And no one can possibly doubt the important role of Islam in the current conflict between militant Muslims and the West.

Religion is more poetic than scientific.  It is more aesthetic than empirical.  And the world's religions undeniably provide something of value for people.  Religious organizations have certainly done much good in the world.  Examples are the many hospitals created by Christian denominations in the United States and the indispensable roles religious leaders have played in the civil rights movement.  And the charitable work of Christians, Jews, and Muslims has earned much justifiable praise.  Mahatma Gandhi's contribution to the nation of India was a notable achievement.  And we should not forget that many wars have been fought and many atrocities have been committed by individuals and nations whose dominant philosophy was not specifically religious.   Secular ideologies can go just as wrong as religions!  It is interesting to see what happens when attempts to abolish religion are made.  In Roman times, Christianity finally abolished Paganism after a long and often bloody struggle.  (But paganism is making a comeback!)  Yet the Russian communists failed to abolish Christianity in the last century.  Apparently religion can be abolished only by substituting another religion for it!  In the case of the Roman Empire, there were many aggressive Christian activists who fought very hard to replace the old Pagan religion.  But communism couldn't quite replace Christianity, at least not in the Soviet Union.  Trying to abolish religion is like trying to abolish marijuana.  It just keeps springing up!

Undeniably there is a certain experience of transcendence which is well-nigh universal to our species, and religion, at the present time, may be the principal institution in our society which speaks to such experience in a manner easily accessible to most people.  There are times of "higher perception" which help convince us that life matters--that we matter.   Religious thought has at times provided a "dream" which exerts beneficial motivational effects.  Perhaps there are some achievements of our race that would not have occurred, or perhaps would not have occurred when they did, if it had not been for inspiration largely provided by religion.  This is debatable, and there are respectable students of the problem who deny any beneficial effects of religion whatsoever.  A metaphor has been suggested in which we are sailing the vast oceans of reality with faith filling our sails and science controlling the rudder.   Following this metaphor, people without religion should lack the driving force in their lives which religious people enjoy, and people who have not learned scientific reasoning should tend to make more foolish mistakes than those so trained.  Can such predictions be tested?  Perhaps the big laboratory of history can provide useful evidence.

The Truth Tree sees a place for reverence and respect for a person's dream.  At the same time there is a real need for vigorous opposition to religious ideas which fly in the face of objective reality and endanger the continued growth of the peace and prosperity of human society.  So-called "fundamentalism" is as intellectually unacceptable in Judaism and Christianity as it is in Islam. The Truth Tree does not seek to abolish religion, but to identify more clearly where a religious outlook can be beneficial and where it can cause great mischief.  The concept of the separation of church and state has been a very important principle in furthering this cause.  We need increased alertness to the dangers of theocracy in the world.  Thomas Jefferson once said, "Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error."  Listen here to two well known Christian fundamentalists, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, giving advice about the recent terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.  It is alarming that a small minority actually takes these two evangelists seriously.  Fortunately there is some evidence that the recent enthusiasm for "right-wing" religion is in decline.  And if you are a fast reader, you might want to look at a debate between me (Remi) and Jorge Fernández here.  Jorge is a fundamentalist Christian who displays in this debate the interesting structure of that kind of philosophy.

In a recent debate here on the Tree, the thinking of C. S. Lewis was brought up by Jero.  In reading Lewis, I experienced a clear perception of his epistemology and ontology.   Here is how it appears to me.  In Lewis's thinking, the "natural world" is seen by scientists as all that there is. This is because scientists insist on observation as the ultimate test of any knowledge.  Lewis and many others have believed that the natural world is not the whole world.  He believed that there exist important components of the universe which are not observable.  (Perhaps I should say, "not observable to science", because scientists have developed a special expertise in the area of observation, and not all "observations" are accepted by them as valid.)  Hidden in the statement, "there exist important components of the universe which are not observable", is a contradiction.  It is a profound and far-reaching contradiction.  To reveal this contradiction, I merely ask how anything can be both important and unobservable.  If a thing has any importance whatsoever it must somehow make a difference somewhere or sometime.  And if it makes a difference, we can certainly observe it.  The argument might be offered that we can only observe this difference indirectly, but all our observations are indirect.  When you see the Sun come up, you aren't actually seeing the Sun itself.  You are seeing the light from the Sun.  (And even this is indirect. Your brain doesn't see the light; it only processes the information passed on to it by the retina of your eye and a hierarchy of sophisticated analytical circuits which merge into "you".)  As a result of this insight, it seems to me inescapable that it is a mistake to believe anything "supernatural".  Of course it may be enjoyable.  After all, fairy tales are fun.  But there are very substantial reasons to challenge those who take supernatural beliefs seriously.

In the United States today, religious groups enjoy tax exempt status.   If we think of small churches in this connection such a policy might not be seriously objected to.   But today, religious organizations exist for the stated purpose of converting everyone in the world!  The Christian Coalition pays no taxes and is very active in preserving this state of affairs.  Secular groups such as Americans United have to pay taxes.  Evangelists run TV and radio stations without having to pay taxes.  And yet we hear from many Christians that they are being "persecuted"!  When will religious corporations see fit to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's"?   An organization which deals with this problem is Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.

Specifically, The Truth Tree opposes the religious ideas of prophecy, miracles, life after death, and the efficacy of prayer in bringing about actual physical changes in the world.  All of these theories can be subjected to objective tests.  All of them have been subjected to objective tests and have been found to be invalid.  No leader should be trusted who consults "God" in deciding important issues.  According to this outlook, religious freedom is like freedom of speech.  Everyone should be free to entertain religious ideas which may enhance his experience of life, but when these ideas lead to action, the actions must measure up to objective criteria.  It is just as undesirable for a religious leader to direct a mass suicide in the name of religious freedom as it is for a person to practice freedom of speech by shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater.  There is an unfortunate timidity about challenging religious leaders and their ideas.  Perhaps this is because they traditionally preach without allowing their audience to respond to what they are saying.  In the name of religious principles, sacred cows used to wander the streets of India.   There are just as many sacred cows in the West, and they are protected by laws, tax-free status, and political power.

It may seem to the casual reader that forbidding religion to have prophecies, perform miracles, promise eternal life, or teach that God answers prayer would completely destroy religion.  To the extent that the reader believes this, he is indeed trapped in an unfortunate and limited concept of religion.  Religion has been described as "just one gigantic metaphor".  It is more like music or poetry than science.  Fortunately for music and poetry, they don't try to compete with science.   In Coleridge's famous poem, Xanadu, we are not asked to believe literally in the river Alph nor the "caverns measureless to man".  No one will go on an expedition to find these places.  We appreciate music and poetry with what we call our aesthetic sense.  Perhaps religion can be appreciated in the same way.  When people speak in the religious mode, it would be as mistaken to think they are telling us about reality in the scientific sense as to hear a Bach fugue and think that it provides a formula for acetylcholine!  The great tragedy of modern religion is that so very few of its teachers understand this.  The survival of religion in our society ultimately will depend on intellectual respectability.  Important efforts are being made in this direction.   Let's hope they may soon succeed!

In comparing science and religion, the pro-science people often point out that science progresses while religion remains static.  The pro-religion people then answer that religion progresses too and as evidence they point to the fact that tne number of gods has declined in religious history.  (This ignores the fact that there are still many gods in Hinduism and many saints in Catholicism.)  I would suggest that tne number of gods in the universe is a complex number whose real part is zero and whose imaginary part is whatever you like.  (This is supposed to be a semi-humorous remark.)

The "Clockwork Universe"

Groping for an intellectual grounding for their beliefs, people sometimes say that the Universe shows "intelligent design", and that a super-intelligence must therefore have created it, just as we create computers or automobiles.  "All this," they say, with an impressive sweep of the hand, "could not be random."  But we know enough about the emergence of order from disorder now to see how the universe in all its marvelous complexity could indeed have evolved without some kind of supernatural guidance.  This way of thinking leads to a concept of God that makes him a part of the whole thing rather than a separate "being" who is like a person and who has constructed the universe the way an engineer would construct an automobile.  This is not to say, however, that we live in a universe that is like a giant clockwork in which everything that is ever going to happen has been predetermined.   We know that things don't work that way because of Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty and the mathematical principles of chaos theory.

The natural world provides countless examples of intelligent systems arising without being created by an intelligent being, such as the symbiosis between flowers and the ants who feed on their nectar, spread their pollen and defend the plant from harmful insects.  The system repeats itself because it happens to be a successful strategy both for the ant and the flower.  Random interactions occasionally enjoy successful outcomes and consequently repeat themselves.

A fascinating site that offers alternatives to traditional religious belief is to be found at   The Secular Web. A site which opens doors into a variety of world religions is Godserver. Highly recommended by the Truth Tree is Religious Tolerance which offers an excellent and highly inclusive summary of the world's religions presented without bias and with a plea for tolerance.   If you find that you have outgrown moldering superstitions, you should investigate Atheism.

Millions of people love the fruits of science, like computers and CD players, but don't understand scientific thinking and don't have a clue how to sort out the bogus from the plausible in everyday life.   Thus, a faith healer can seem as plausible as a television set.

Sir Arthur C. Clarke asserts that "one of the greatest tragedies in human history was the hijacking of morality by religion."   He endorses a magazine called Free Inquiry.   The tragedy Sir Arthur refers to is not beyond repair through successful universal education.

I turned to speak to God About the world's despair; But to make matters worse I found God wasn't there. --Robert Frost: Not All There