sBMJ | Science without religion

Science without religion

Keith Amarakone is an atheist. For him, not having a faith to adhere to means that he is free to rationally form his own moral response to situations

Born to Buddhist parents--although they are not practising--and attending Church of England schools, I flirted at times with the idea of being religious. Fortunately I found myself unable to make the necessary leap of faith--atheism was something I drifted into. Unlike religions, it is easy to do this. You do not need to make a conscious decision to be atheistic--literally, without God. Atheism is not a defining part of me, it is not a big deal, and it is nothing to be zealous about. Not believing in the existence of any God seems to be quite natural to my liberal scientifically biased upbringing.

Common sense approach

Being an atheist is, in many ways, a rational common sense approach. Religion, necessarily, requires faith in the supernatural. Religious people have the ability to both embrace the concepts embodied by science, and allow for the existence of God, which is above and beyond science. This capacity has always seemed foreign to me--I cannot accept or reconcile the two starkly different beliefs--although I fully appreciate that many do not see any contradiction.

I have on many occasions been asked why I claim to an atheist, rather than an agnostic, and in all honesty, still sometimes struggle to find an answer. However, the question is complicated by the fact that, as with religions, there are different types of atheism. And, also a bit like in religions, opinion differs about what actually constitutes these varieties of atheism. Two positions are generally accepted to exist. Weak atheists are sceptical of the existence of God or gods, and disbelieve in their existence. Strong atheists believe that God does not or cannot exist. Similarly, agnostics can be of two camps. Strict agnostics believe that knowledge of the existence of God is unobtainable, and therefore permanently irresolvable, and therefore we can never know whether God exists or not. Empirical agnostics believe that our current state of knowledge is such that we cannot know whether God exists or not, but we might be able to in the future. If pushed, I consider myself to be a weak atheist.

It's the universe

Atheism does not equal amorality

Being an atheist does not mean that I am amoral, and I approach medicine in much the same way as most medical students do, regardless of their faith or lack of faith. Studying medicine is a mixture of privilege, trepidation, and pleasure. At times I wonder why certain tragedies occur to certain individuals. But by not having a deity to explain why bad things happen to good people, I find my belief hardening that sometimes life is not fair and this is something we just have to deal with. Not because what happens in our lives is beyond our control, but because sometimes it is not controlled at all. At other times, I have little idea how to react to a situation; knowing what is the right thing to do is not always obvious.

Not having an external standard of values does not prevent me having a comprehen-sible ethical system. In lots of ways I embrace humanistic values--my core moral values revolve around the idea of a common humanity--an equality between people and the importance of an individual's right to self determination. Such values are most probably found in many religions, but because I am not bound by any particular faith, atheism gives me the sense of being freer to shape my moral response to individual cases without being constrained by tradition or religious custom.

Religion is a crutch

Religion has, by those who are religious, been described as filling a void in their life, supplying a sense of security, and giving meaning and purpose to life. By those opposed to religion, including many atheists, religion has been described as a crutch, supporting those too weak to face the supposed truth that we are evolved organisms in a godless existence. In my time at medical school I have often questioned the meaning and purpose of human life and wished for a crutch upon which the answers could be supported. But, for me, religion has not managed to do either of those things, and part of me envies those for whom it has. The answers I have found useful are those that emphasise the idea that this world and this life are all that we have, and that our lives are best lived by maximising the happiness of ourselves, our friends, our colleagues, and, of course, our patients. The best ways of achieving these goals, for me, are through reason and experience rather than faith.

Keith Amarakone fifth year medical student University of Bristol
Email: keithamarakone@yahoo.co.uk

studentBMJ 2003;11:393-436 November ISSN 0966-6494

Articles	Responses
LIFE Science without religion Keith Amarakone (November 2003))	Akber Ali (August 2, 2004) Read this response

LIFE Science without religion Keith Amarakone (November 2003))	Pang Chia Yong (August 18, 2004) Read this response

	LIFE Science without religion Keith Amarakone (November 2003)
	Akber Ali (August 2, 2004)
	Thank you for your interest in bringing about the issue of Science without Religion. There are a number of issues I think you have misunderstood and I wish to present my view on the following subjects that you have raised: "Common sense approach" I absolutely agree that rational common sense thinking is essential for humankind to progress in this world and is the most correct way of thinking. However, the pretext you have used that " a leap of faith is required to believe in the supernatural" I beg to differ. There are two points here to discuss. One is the fact that, what is required to have faith? And the second point is, does a Supernatural being exist? Faith means having trust or confidence in something. Using the common sense approach no human being puts trust in anything until there is evidence or proof of the subject matter at hand to put trust into. If you observe yourself or any other person in their actions of trust or putting faith into somebody, they seek for evidences to justify their action. So as an example, if I told you that my dad is a Consultant Urologist and he can fix your bladder problems, you will automatically look for signs or proof in reality to validate my statement such as what hospital does he work in, how many operations has he done, etc. etc. By this argument and line of thinking (if agreed), anyone that does put faith into a man thinking he is a Consultant Urologist without looking for evidences than I believe you can make your conclusions of this person. Thus anyone who seems to put faith into a supernatural being without any coherent evidences and proof will also fall into the same category. Does a supernatural being exist? I believe it does and have found numerous of evidences to prove this fact. Going into them will be out of the scope of this response, thus if you would like to know contact me. Adopting Science and Religion for me is not at all a problem but rather I find them complimentary to each other. However, what needs to be understood are the limits of scientific thinking even though it is a branch of rational thinking. Scientific thinking cannot be the yardstick for approving or disapproving everything in life due to the inherent restrictions and limitations contained within it. Scientific thinking or analysis requires certain pre-requisites to be of use. There firstly needs to be a tangible reality upon which the scientist can make a hypothesis on. Then it must be available to be tested upon and the results measured so that a conclusion can be based upon the findings. You are absolutely right to say the supernatural being is "beyond science" because this form thinking is restricted and what should be used is the rational common sense thinking to prove it. "Atheism does not equal amorality" I agree with this statement. But, I believe an individual not having and external standard of values is bound to be lost. Human beings generally are limited in their ability to make judgements due to the single fact that they produce contradictions, are influenced by the environment or bias. Religion provides the framework by which you can produce a judgement. If a religion is verified by rational thinking to be the message from the supernatural being it would be absurd to contradict and set-up our own individual framework for producing judgements on issues which the supernatural would know best. A classic example of the amount of chaos and confusion is what does the law say about who owns the dead body? There are so many issues connected with this law that if studied further you will see the contradictions in the man - made laws. The fact that forming your own moral response to situations should be more of a worry rather than comfort because it would be not known for definite if it is right or wrong? "Religion is a crutch" Religion to me supplied me with answers to the three fundamental questions in life. How did I get here? What am I doing here? What is there after I leave this place? Any source, which will be able to answer these questions in a manner that convinces the mind, agrees with our nature and produces tranquillity in the heart, shall be the core source by which we obtain our answers to any questions that may arise in our lives because all the problems we face shall be a ramification of the three fundamental questions. If it can’t than I think radical research will be needed to examine which source is the best. No other sources accept the supernatural being is capable of achieving this in my opinion.

	LIFE Science without religion Keith Amarakone (November 2003)
	Pang Chia Yong (August 18, 2004) 3rd year medical student, International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur p_cy2@yahoo.com
	We human are bound by logic and reason, whether you believe it was gifted by the Almighty or cultivated through the process of evolution. Logic and reason enables us to question the origin of life. Until now, scientists still are not 100% convinced of the theory of how Life came to be. Whatever conclusion that they arrive at would probably converge at a point where there was a starting point in Life's timeline which started this system called Life. This starting point (by logic and reason) could not have appeared suddenly out of void. Someone or something (a Creator ) had to create that starting point as nothing could be born of void. We cannot and should not discard of the theory that there was not a Creator that started this system even though there is seemingly no convincing proof. Let me end off by saying that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.