{"id":16657,"date":"2026-04-25T20:03:00","date_gmt":"2026-04-25T18:03:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/frihetsnytt.se\/?p=16657"},"modified":"2026-04-25T23:55:57","modified_gmt":"2026-04-25T21:55:57","slug":"god-moral-och-andlig-renhet-del-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/frihetsnytt.se\/en\/good-morals-and-spiritual-purity-part-2\/","title":{"rendered":"CHRONICLE: Good Morals and Spiritual Purity - Part 2"},"content":{"rendered":"
This is a column. The writer is responsible for the opinions expressed in the text, not Freedom News.\nWe allow all opinions to be expressed, even if they are uncomfortable. We stand for real freedom of expression.<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
Science and faith<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
This is article two with the main title \u201dGood morals and spiritual purity\u201d under which I plan to write about language, politics, science, morality and spirituality in order to contribute to the understanding of the world religions and the rulers of our time. An insight that could become part of the moral and spiritual liberation of the West, which more and more people are beginning to realize the urgent need for. In this part, I address the phenomena of science and faith that both touch and overlap each other, which is worryingly rarely apparent<\/strong>. <\/h5>\n\n\n\n
There are different views on what science and faith are. According to the Swedish Academy's \u201dSwedish Dictionary\u201d, science means: \u201d- a system of proven methods and theories used to investigate, describe and explain reality as accurately as possible\u201d. This definition seems reasonable, although there is reason to consider the distinction between untested and tested methods and theories. This brings us closer to the related word \u201dscientificity\u201d, which usually refers to the practical application of science.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In many contexts, the concept of \u201dbelief\u201d is seen as something more or less opposed to knowledge. In this context, knowledge is usually defined as something that can be verified more or less objectively. This may be reasonable, while at the same time the boundary between the two may turn out to be less clear than it first appeared on closer analysis. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
Read also: Semantics and linguistic honesty<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
Questions to try to answer<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
An important question in this context, which is all too rarely asked, is which questions there is reason to try to answer. There are many questions we humans currently lack knowledge and data about and therefore also lack reasonable opportunities to answer. This does not mean that we cannot, should not or cannot ask them. It does mean, however, that we need to use all our reason and all our science to be open to alternative answers and our inability to assess the accuracy of these alternative answers in relation to each other. We neither need nor should have opinions about everything. Instead, we should be careful about what we choose to have opinions about and relentlessly link our opinions to knowledge and existing evidence. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In practice, this means that most of us, or at worst all of us, are forced to start from general beliefs on certain issues that seem to work in our social context, despite the fact that we ourselves lack some knowledge to be able to assess the issues. This in turn means that at any given time in the most diverse cultures there are likely to be a number of beliefs about reality that most people share and adapt their behavior to despite an inadequate basis for doing so. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
But the understanding of reality has increased<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Fortunately, there are still reasons to be positive about how humanity's understanding of reality has changed over time. Particularly in the Western world, many commonly held beliefs have become more relevant and in line with actual reality. In recent centuries, for example, the influence of religions has declined in favour of scientific findings. One of the most important contributions to this development is the publication of Charles Darwin's book \u201dOn the Origin of Species\u201d in 1859. According to many, the theory of evolution represents the most important victory of science, transforming it from politically incorrect blasphemy to perhaps one of the most well-proven theories in the history of science. The theory of evolution is a foundation for subsequent scientific research. Yet, even in our time, many seem to have misunderstood both the basic function of evolution and, even more so, its consequences. More on this later. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
What we believe, think and know<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
The word \u201dsuperstition\u201d has a negative connotation and people who feel they believe in various forms of superstition never use this word to describe their beliefs. According to the Swedish Academy's \u201dSwedish Dictionary\u201d, superstition means: \u201d- belief in supernatural phenomena, i.e. things that are not part of (one's own) recognized knowledge or religion of the time\u201d. Note the remarkable adaptation to prevailing power structures that this formulation is an expression of. As a kind of subordinate additional information, we are told that \u201dsupernatural phenomena do not meet the criteria for superstition\u201d - if they are part of contemporary religion! <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Note also the historically common unholy alliances between the representatives of power and religion, which have often been and are the same. The representatives of power benefit from describing what they stand for as something positive; competitors for power and what the competitors stand for, on the other hand, need to be described as something negative; this is so that the representatives of power can maintain and strengthen their power and counteract and prevent competitors for power from having the opportunity to benefit from it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In practice, as with most things in the world, such as democracy, this is rarely black and white. Regardless of the various definitions of what democracy and \u201dtrue\u201d or \u201dreal\u201d democracy \u201dreally\u201d are or should be, democracy as a phenomenon can to some extent be seen as an endeavor to allow competitors for power to compete for it on a reasonably equal footing. For this to be the case in practice, however, certain conditions are required which, worryingly, are rarely present. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
There is a difference between believing, considering and knowing, even if the meanings of the words often both touch and overlap more than is desirable for those who strive for clarity. Believers can typically do so more or less thoughtfully and consciously. In matters of religious faith, belief usually involves the believer making some kind of decision and \u201dchoosing to believe\u201d in something that someone else claims to have reason to believe. Instead of factual arguments, reference is often made to the oral or written claims of others, to one's own subjective experiences, and to a difficult-to-describe feeling and willingness to believe. In many cases, some religious believers try to rationalize their beliefs through bogus arguments. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Smearing science<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
A commonly used bogus argument for religious belief of various kinds is the vilification of science. On the grounds that science \u201dhas been wrong\u201d or \u201dcannot explain\u201d certain aspects of reality, there would, according to this bogus argument, be reasons to distrust science, and by extension more or less unconsciously believe without reason. Examples of such unreasonableness: <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Even if science could convincingly prove the Big Bang theory correct, the question remains as to what caused the bang. Science cannot explain that, let alone prove it. Given the failure of science in this regard, there are reasons to believe in a god as the reasonable explanation for the existence of the universe. Moreover, the infinity of God in time and space is beyond what we imperfect humans can understand. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Such bogus arguments are not uncommon in discussions between believers and self-defined atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, the late Christopher Hitchens and others. The aforementioned individuals possess undeniable intelligence, impressive education, and social skills, both in responding to stubborn fallacies and in charming an admiring audience. It is possible that these false arguments could sometimes be countered more clearly and more relentlessly than has always been the case. Example: <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Science cannot be criticized for not being able to prove or disprove all possible claims about reality. Rather, the presuppositions of true science provide, by definition, limiting frameworks which we need to understand in order to acquire any actual knowledge at all as an alternative to superstition and baseless fantasies. The fact that science can neither prove nor disprove all conceptions of reality is no reason whatsoever to believe anything without reason. On the contrary, it provides a reason not to believe pending relevant evidence. Only a fool can believe without reason! <\/p>\n\n\n\n
That a \u201dgod\u201d could not be understood by us humans because of our limitations as a species is a claim made by people who claim to explain this to other people. By making this claim, they have established that they do not understand what they claim to explain to others. Anyone who does not understand something specific is, by definition, unfit and disqualified to explain the specific thing they do not understand to others. Furthermore, it is rude, offensive and presumptuous to claim that all individuals belonging to the human race are incapable of understanding something specific on the grounds that someone else claims it to be so or because one feels that one does not understand. It could undeniably be the case that one or more other individuals are able to understand even if they do not know it themselves. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Apart from the contradictory and nonsensical claim that we humans cannot understand a particular god - explained by people who thereby undercut themselves in understanding that god - the reference to god as the cause of the big bang is just a meaningless play on words. Put more plainly, these believers are saying: Science\/you\/we cannot explain how the big bang came about, so the reasonable cause is something else that we cannot explain either. Thus we explain something unexplainable with something else unexplainable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
What we \u201dbelieve\u201d or \u201dfeel we believe\u201d is usually based on something more or less subjective or personally related. There is a difference here between more mundane matters of faith and existential matters of faith in the form of religious belief and supposed conviction. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Even those who \u201dbelieve\u201d that something is a certain way typically do so based on something more or less subjective. Those who \u201dbelieve\u201d something should therefore be regarded as based on their taste or individual starting point to a greater extent than those who \u201dknow\u201d something. At the same time, the meaning of \u201dconsidering\u201d something in this respect is sometimes blurred by formulations such as: \u201dscience believes that ...\u201d. Complicating matters, however, this need not always be unambiguously inappropriate. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Humble scientificity<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Further complicating matters is the fact that so many people claim to know both this and that even though they do not actually do so. The question then becomes who can decide what someone knows or does not know. Here, a linguistic and scientific alternative is to replace the expression \u201dI know\u201d with the expression \u201dI believe or think I know\u201d. This clarifies the unpretentious openness on a scientific basis, which means that we need to be constantly prepared to reassess conclusions when new, previously unknown circumstances give reason to do so. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
What we can really know is a difficult and, in a deeper sense, possibly impossible question to answer unambiguously. Rather, an attempt to answer the question of what we can really know needs to include a careful and exhaustive description of the conditions under which our supposed knowledge can be considered valid.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Turning to scientific experiments, there are two aspects of such experiments that many people seem to ignore or do not understand. The first is that scientific experiments can only prove the existence of something specific, not prove the non-existence of something not detected during the experiment. The second aspect, which is often overlooked, is that scientific evidence is valid under certain conditions and with a certain probability. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Beyond these two basic aspects, there is an overarching premise that touches and overlaps with the philosophy of scientific experiments, conclusions and evidence. This is that the emergence of new, previously unknown data may mean that previous conclusions and evidence must be re-evaluated. This in turn means that some previously assumed scientific \u201dtruths\u201d may be incorrect or at least incomplete. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Those who seek arguments for various forms of superstition and more or less unfounded beliefs have here an apparent opportunity to belittle science as the foundation for relevant perceptions of reality. For those who think deeper than that, it can actually be just the opposite! Precisely because reality is so multifaceted and difficult to understand, our only chance of succeeding as well as possible is to use the approach and methodology that has proven to be the best and most relevant from a knowledge perspective throughout history! <\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is important to be aware of several different perspectives at the same time. Science can help us understand reality by giving us reasons to believe that something is likely to behave in a certain way under specific conditions. If and when new information, possibly contradicting previous conclusions, becomes known, these conclusions should be revised in accordance with the new and previously unknown information. This is not a loss of prestige for science but its most beautiful and brilliant triumph! <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Religious belief and atheism as anti-scientific superstition and ignorance <\/strong><\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
The world-famous self-defined atheists of our time have a large following. The most famous and recognized of them is probably Professor Richard Dawkins, who recently appeared in Stockholm. Depending on the definition, the term \u201datheist\u201d can be troubling to some scientifically minded people. For most, the word \u201datheist\u201d should refer to a person who more or less categorically denies the existence of gods and goddesses. According to the Swedish Academy's \u201dSwedish Dictionary\u201d, atheist means: \u201da person who denies the existence of a deity\u201d. The question then becomes what it means to \u201ddeny the existence\u201d of something. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The definitional issue of atheism shows that complex philosophical contexts will often involve semantics and language analysis. Here it is important to distinguish between the meaning of \u201dnot believing in something\u201d and \u201dbeing certain of the non-existence of something\u201d. Not believing in something is a passive attitude according to which, given the prevailing conditions, one cannot experience this something as reasonable and worth believing in. Being certain of the non-existence of something, on the other hand, is a more active stance whereby it is understood that the prevailing conditions are sufficient to reach the conclusion that it is reasonable to deny the existence of that something.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In accordance with the previous statement that it is not possible, from a scientific point of view, to experimentally prove the non-existence of an unproven phenomenon, this principle, in order to have general validity, must also include the impossibility of proving that gods and goddesses could not exist. Simply put, according to the premises of science - as we understand them in our time - it is not possible to prove \u201dthat a deity does not exist\u201d. These linguistic and philosophical issues have certainly been handled more or less elegantly by many of the self-defined atheists, but nevertheless some of their critics consider their use of the word \u201datheist\u201d to be inappropriate because of its supposed unscientific nature. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Instead of a black and white either\/or attitude, the scientific starting point can be seen as putting together a puzzle and interpreting the motif to the best of our ability, even though many pieces of the puzzle are missing. If we do that, there are relevant conclusions to be drawn about all world religions. They are all created by people in a social and historical context. They also all involve different claims about and explanations of reality. The most successful of them all, so-called Christianity (more on the inappropriateness of religion later), was originally a Jewish sect rejected by the majority of Jews at the time. This fact has been used by Christians throughout history as an argument against Judaism and against Jews - especially with reference to New Testament accounts of the active involvement of Jews in the judgment, torture and execution of Jesus. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Note that both Judaism and so-called Christianity have the Old Testament of the Bible as part of their sacred texts. Thus, the sacred texts of both religions include the Jewish law, the Torah. It should also be borne in mind that the question of what \u201dreally did and did not happen\u201d according to the stories in these sources needs to be distinguished from textual analyses that aim to investigate questions of morality, culture and how certain people who fought to gain power have behaved and continue to behave. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Before 1859, when Charles Darwin's book \u201dOn the Origin of Species\u201d was published, a significant part of these Jewish fairy tales were considered as actual descriptions of reality. This fact has most probably contributed to the fact that even in our time - when science has largely taken over as the most credible source of explanations of reality - we regard so-called Christianity as \u201da little better\u201d and \u201da little more credible\u201d than other religious beliefs when it comes to describing reality in a relevant way. Moreover, even in our time, many people value thousands of years of Jewish fairy tales more highly than modern science as a source of explanations of how reality works. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Our Norse sagas are considered by some to be pure fantasy with little or no connection to reality. At the same time, some people with an interest in Norse myths and beliefs believe that the less black and white worldview represented by the gods and goddesses of our indigenous people is more in line with modern science than so-called Christianity; for example, in that gods and goddesses had to struggle with limited conditions in order to achieve their goals. This can be seen as indicating a higher degree of conformity with the conditions of life than a supposedly eternal and omnipotent Jewish god. The fact that a large part of humanity among all the peoples of the world claims to believe in and worship this Jewish god says nothing about the plausibility of the fairy tales that describe him. On the contrary, there are reasons to analyze the claims made about the god in the tales in order to assess his characteristics, goals and morals. More on this in future articles. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Writer: Gustav Berg<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Originally published on 2022-09-17<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The author deals with the phenomena of science and faith, which both intersect and overlap, in this article.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":16662,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[214,211],"tags":[437,1167,1166],"class_list":["post-16657","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-kronika","category-opinion","tag-moral-och-heder","tag-tro","tag-vetenskap"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/frihetsnytt.se\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16657","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/frihetsnytt.se\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/frihetsnytt.se\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/frihetsnytt.se\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/frihetsnytt.se\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=16657"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/frihetsnytt.se\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16657\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/frihetsnytt.se\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/16662"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/frihetsnytt.se\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16657"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/frihetsnytt.se\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16657"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/frihetsnytt.se\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16657"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}