The Ultimate South Park and Philosophy (11 page)

Many religious academics realize this and doubt such doctrines; they just believe in God. After all, as Stan points out to Mr(s). Garrison, even if evolution is true, there could still be a God. Evolution could just be “the answer to how and not the answer to why.” He’s right. There is nothing about evolution specifically that is incompatible with belief in God.
¹⁴
But is science itself incompatible with belief in God?

Cartman witnesses heads exploding when the United Atheist Alliance attacks the Unified Atheist League, and he exclaims “Jesus Christ!” Spheck mocks him: “Ha, ha, ha. You believe in a supernatural being.” By 2546, science has replaced traditional religions and everyone is an atheist. But does being scientific necessarily entail atheism?

Not necessarily. About 51% of scientists today say they believe in a “universal spirit or higher power.” However, 41% of scientists say they don’t, and that’s far more than in the general population, where only 4% don’t believe. If you get more specific and ask just about God, only 33% of scientists believe, compared with 83% of the ­general population.
¹⁵
Although science doesn’t necessarily entail atheism, they’re clearly correlated. This is because most scientists understand that the kind of evidence for God based on “scientific reasoning” is faulty. God isn’t needed to explain the origin of the universe, its design, or human origins, either. Quantum mechanics, the conservation of energy, and evolution provide much better explanations.
¹⁶
Science simply doesn’t need God.

That’s not to say science has explained everything, but good scientists know that the fact we haven’t explained something isn’t a good reason to stick God in as the explanation. To do so would be to commit the “mystery therefore magic” fallacy, and to actually hold back scientific research and progress. For example, if we had been satisfied with explaining diseases by demon possession, we would have never discovered the germ theory of disease. Besides, any theory that appeals to God will always be
less simple
than a scientific competitor because it will always require at least one more huge assumption: God’s existence.
¹⁷
(But, of course, if God looks like he did in “Are You There God? It’s Me, Jesus,” that assumption is not so big.)

Can a scientist simply choose to believe in God anyway, by faith alone? If you’re dedicated to the scientific method, you can’t believe something despite evidence to the contrary. That’s the only dogma of science: you should proportion your belief to the evidence. But it’s debatable whether there actually is evidence against God’s existence. So what if there isn’t evidence either way?
¹⁸
When a scientifically minded person is presented with the option of deciding whether something is true or false without evidence either way, can they ­rationally choose to go either way?

William James (1842–1910) thought so. He argued that when a person is forced to make an important decision about what to believe without evidence either way, she has the right to choose to believe what she wishes. There’s some precedent for this. There’s no evidence in the scientific sense, for example, to support the belief that freedom is a fundamental human right or that happiness is fundamentally good. Yet most of us wouldn’t think you’re
irrational
for believing such things. It’s not scientific, sure. But it’s not
contrary
to science.
¹⁹

The problem is, belief in God is a belief about what exists, and when it comes to beliefs about existence, the burden of proof falls on the believer. For example, if I want to rationally believe that there’s a killer whale named Willzyx on the moon, even though I have no evidence either way, I can’t. To believe rationally, I need to have evidence in favor of Willzyx’s existence.
²⁰
When it comes whether something exists or not, and there’s no evidence, preference should be given to disbelief. Even if we lack conclusive evidence, preference should be given to atheism.
²¹

So, it’s going to be difficult to retain a literal belief in God if you want to be scientifically minded. It could set off a “Retard Alert” and you may end up in the corner with a dunce’s hat that reads “I have faith.” But what about a non-literal belief? As The Wise One pointed out to his fellow otters, “Maybe some otters do need to believe in something. Who knows, maybe just believing in God makes God exist.” Of course, this can’t
literally
be true, since believing something doesn’t make it true. The world was round even when everyone believed it was flat. But perhaps there’s a way to believe in something without “actually” believing it. As the mayor of Imaginationland said about leprechauns in the Imaginationland trilogy, “Just because they’re imaginary doesn’t mean they aren’t real.”

Some scientifically minded theologians and philosophers acknowledge the conflict between science and religion but maintain that ­religious beliefs are still true—just not literally true. They are more like “the truth” of a good book.
The Lord of the Rings
contains truth, even though the events it depicts never occurred and its characters don’t really exist. Some view religion in this way, as mythically true: God doesn’t literally exist, Jesus didn’t really resurrect, but the stories about God, Jesus, and his followers contain mythical truths that are worth (non-literally) believing.
²²
This might even be the way little Mormon Gary approaches Mormonism. At the end of “All About Mormons,” he tells Stan:

Maybe us Mormons do believe in crazy stories that make absolutely no sense. And maybe Joseph Smith did make it all up. But I have a great life, and a great family, and I have
The book of Mormon
to thank for that. The truth is, I don’t care if Joseph Smith made it all up, because what the church teaches now is loving your family, being nice, and helping people. And even though people in this town might think that’s stupid, I still choose to believe in it.

This makes you wonder about the 33% of scientists who continue to believe in God. Are they ignorant of the problems we’ve been considering? Do they turn a blind eye to them to protect their social connections and cherished beliefs? Or might they say they believe that God exists, but merely think it is mythically true?

The atheists of the future seem to worship science as if it were a god. “Science be praised!” “Science help us!” “Oh my Science!” “Science H. Logic” has even replaced “Jesus H. Christ.” Matt and Trey seem to be implying that Dawkins’ brand of New Atheism is
itself
a religion that worships science. Is this fair or accurate?

“Religion” is notoriously difficult to define. Some say the only difference between a religion and a cult like Blainetology is its popularity. Roughly, however, we might say a religion is a set of doctrines regarding the universe and supernatural forces that includes rituals and moral laws. Is the New Atheism a religion by this definition?

In some ways, maybe it is. “God doesn’t exist” is a doctrine about supernatural forces. Although it doesn’t have rituals, it does have a law: “You should, when possible, proportion your belief to the evidence.” But this isn’t a moral law—it’s just what you have to do if you want to be rational. And, although science is concerned with describing the universe, it’s not a set of doctrines about the universe, but merely a method for gaining knowledge about it. So I don’t think it is fair or accurate to call the New Atheism a religion.

Of course, some New Atheists tend to be a bit evangelical; they redirect every conversation to religion, forcibly engage in religious debate with the uninterested, and try to convert everyone they know. But these are signs that someone is interested and passionate about something, not that something is a religion. True, some religions try to gain converts, but some religions don’t (like most forms of Judaism and Buddhism) and some non-religions do (like political ideologies). As a teenager, I used to relate everything to
The Simpsons
because, as we all know, “
The Simpsons
have done everything, already.” But that doesn’t make
Simpson
-watching a religion. Sure, evangelism is annoying, but promoting something doesn’t make it a religion.

Even if the New Atheism was a religion, it isn’t guilty of one of religion’s main vices. Religion is both notoriously intolerant of challenges to its dogmas and extremely resistant to change. If you say the church is wrong about something—for example, that St. Peter was really a rabbit—you’ll be labeled a heretic, excommunicated, ostracized, burned at the stake,
²³
or even boiled in a rabbit stew. The Catholic Church didn’t even officially admit that Galileo was right about the Earth revolving around the sun until 1992—a full 350 years after he died.
²⁴
The New Atheism, on the other hand, invites counter-argument; Dawkins gets upset when he isn’t invited to debates. And science is set up to determine which challenges have merit, and which ones don’t. That is how scientific progress is made. If you fail to admit when you have been proven wrong, then you might be ostracized—like Andrew Wakefield, who still pushes his theory that vaccines cause autism despite the fact that many independent, large, well-controlled studies have proven him wrong.
²⁵
But no scientists have ever cooked someone in a rabbit stew for not proportioning their belief to the evidence.
²⁶

Do New Atheists worship science? Not in any conventional sense. Science has proven to be our most effective method for determining the truth about the world, and the New Atheists respect it for that. But if another more effective method came along, they wouldn’t think twice about abandoning science. The Great Otter seems to think that atheists believe that reason and logic is “all there is.” But that’s a mischaracterization. There are a lot of things about which science is silent—meaning, ethics, value—and most atheists know this.
²⁷
When science can speak, you should listen to it, but few atheists think that science is the only thing speaking.

“Go God Go” depicts atheistic factions at war over what atheists should call themselves. At the end of the episode, by calling Dawkins on his Crank Prank Time Phone and revealing to him that Mr(s). Garrison had a sex change, Cartman changes the past and prevents Dawkins from having such an influence. As a result, the future changes. The factions are no longer at war because they’ve learned to get rid of all the “isms.” “Long ago we realized, ‘isms’ are great for those who are rational, but in the hands of irrational people, ‘isms’ always lead to violence.”

Dawkins famously condemns religion because of all the violence for which it has been responsible. As he says to Mr(s). Garrision before he … uh … let’s just call it “the motorboat”: “Can you imagine a world without religion? No Muslims killing Jews. No Christians bombing abortion clinics. The world would be a wonderful place without God.” But by having atheists fight over what to call themselves, Matt and Trey suggest that it doesn’t matter. Even if we rid ourselves of religion and replace it with atheism, we’ll just find something
else
to fight about.

Religion
has
led to a lot of violence—the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, witch trials, 9/11, and more. And it’s certain that the end of religion wouldn’t eliminate all violence. People will always find something to fight about, whether there are “isms” or not—like those “stupid French Chinese [who] think they have a right to Hawaii.” But it’s much easier to justify horrendous evils in the name of protecting an infinite good, like God. What’s a few thousand innocent women and children killed in a Crusade compared to the glory of the infinite creator of all? Without religion, it would be much harder to find ­justification for killing someone because they disagree with you. “Kill the table eaters in the name of almighty science,” isn’t really going to fly. Sure, eliminating religion wouldn’t end violence, but wouldn’t it at least reduce violence? After all, in “
The Simpsons
Already Did It,” the tiny Sea People didn’t wage war on each other until they started ­worshiping Cartman and Tweek. How would they have found an excuse to annihilate themselves if not for religion?

Perhaps one could find some excuse for killing in atheism, but I’m not sure what that excuse would be. The fact that Matt and Trey had to appeal to such ridiculous plot devices is telling, because no atheist is really going to think reason can settle a value question like what atheists should call themselves. Even if they did, why would they care enough to kill each other over it? No atheist has ever threatened to kill a creationist for teaching pseudoscience in a public school science class. If they’re not willing to kill
others
in the name of protecting rationality and science, what would atheists kill
each other
over? Even if atheists worship science as a god, science only has one rule—and, as far as I know, no one has ever killed anyone because they didn’t proportion their belief to the evidence.
²⁸

To justify their war, the atheists of 2546 “quote” Dawkins: “The Great Dawkins said we cannot tolerate those who don’t use reason … Using logic and reason isn’t enough. You have to be a dick to everyone who doesn’t think like you.” I love Matt and Trey, but they’re just not being fair to Dawkins here. Dawkins is, quite notoriously, ­intellectually vicious to his opponents. He will degrade their intelligence, say they are deluded, and call them idiots. He can be a bit of a dick. But this is certainly no different than what Matt and Trey have done to Tom Cruise, Rob Reiner, Paris Hilton, Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, Jennifer Lopez, John Edward (the biggest douche in the Universe), Al Gore, Michael Jackson, Mel Gibson, Saddam Hussein, Mormons, Scien­tologists, and a host of other people who sued South Park in their 200th episode. And that’s great. Matt and Trey aren’t obligated to agree with anyone or respect their intelligence. But neither is Dawkins. And they can’t fairly criticize Dawkins for doing the very thing that they do—at least, not without being hypocrites.