Scientists meet to tackle religion

[Cowperson]

Scientists figure its time to organize and take on organized religion . . . . a big conference sees them mapping out strategy.

Somewhere along the way, a forum this month at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, Calif., which might have been one more polite dialogue between science and religion, began to resemble the founding convention for a political party built on a single plank: in a world dangerously charged with ideology, science needs to take on an evangelical role, vying with religion as teller of the greatest story ever told.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/sc...e1b&ei=5087%0A

Cowperson

[troutman]

As refererenced, "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins:

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feat...ins/index.html

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins explains why God is a delusion, religion is a virus, and America has slipped back into the Dark Ages.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/God-Delusion.../dp/0593055489

I'm not sure science should make a direct assault on religion:

By the third day, the arguments had become so heated that Dr. Konner was reminded of “a den of vipers.”

“With a few notable exceptions,” he said, “the viewpoints have run the gamut from A to B. Should we bash religion with a crowbar or only with a baseball bat?”

His response to Mr. Harris and Dr. Dawkins was scathing. “I think that you and Richard are remarkably apt mirror images of the extremists on the other side,” he said, “and that you generate more fear and hatred of science.” [NY Times article]

[Hack&Lube]

As seen on the recent South Park two-parter "Go God Go" and "Episiode XIII", removing religion as a catalyst for conflict simply resulted in various atheist factions fighting world wars in the name of science in the future.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

As seen on the recent South Park two-parter "Go God Go" and "Episiode XIII", removing religion as a catalyst for conflict simply resulted in various atheist factions fighting world wars in the name of science in the future.

Witness the Eugenics Wars of the original Star Trek as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_Wars

Cowperson

[Textcritic]

When I was last in the UK, I watched all four installments of Dawkins' documentary The Root of All Evil. It was a scathing indictment of religious extremists of every faith, creed and colour, and if his presentation were even moderately balanced and accurate, I would tend to agree with Prof. Dawkins' position that religion is a universal scourge. Unfortunately, his film exhibited only the worst offenses of organized religion, and he failed to address the truly positive impact that millions of sincere Jewish, Muslim, and Christian people throughout history and presently have had on our world and upon culture in general.
Is Dawkins an extremist? Is he the high priest of naturalistic fundamentalism? Based upon his rhetoric, I would have to think so. His approach is so abrasive and so hateful, I have to imagine that the only conclusive result of his ideology would be the elimination of religion, which can only culminate with the elimination of the religious.
Dawkins and those of his ilk involved in the La Jolla Conference are only exacerbating the problem. What good can come from extremists from all sides engaged in a fight to the finish? The way to combat religious fundamentalism is NOT through Dawkins' brand of extreme naturalism.

[Crazy Flamer]

What? Cheese hasn't posted yet??

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

When I was last in the UK, I watched all four installments of Dawkins' documentary The Root of All Evil. It was a scathing indictment of religious extremists of every faith, creed and colour, and if his presentation were even moderately balanced and accurate, I would tend to agree with Prof. Dawkins' position that religion is a universal scourge. Unfortunately, his film exhibited only the worst offenses of organized religion, and he failed to address the truly positive impact that millions of sincere Jewish, Muslim, and Christian people throughout history and presently have had on our world and upon culture in general.
Is Dawkins an extremist? Is he the high priest of naturalistic fundamentalism? Based upon his rhetoric, I would have to think so. His approach is so abrasive and so hateful, I have to imagine that the only conclusive result of his ideology would be the elimination of religion, which can only culminate with the elimination of the religious.
Dawkins and those of his ilk involved in the La Jolla Conference are only exacerbating the problem. What good can come from extremists from all sides engaged in a fight to the finish? The way to combat religious fundamentalism is NOT through Dawkins' brand of extreme naturalism.

Here I am CrazyFlamer...

My opinion is that YES Dawkins is an extremist. Is that bad? Im not so sure...he is held in high regard by many and his opinions hold more weight than say...Cowpersons or trouts.
Where I continually focus is the use of children to forward religious thinking, AND the hilited reference you make to the positive impact of religion. I personally believe man would pick up that slack in a secular society...once again that man is inherantly good and will generally give the shirt off his back to help his neighbor.

Glad to see you back in the chat textcritic! You are the best negotiator by far from "the other side"...LOL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5z8Kb06cMPI

[Azure]

Why?

Why must science tackle religion? Why can't they just get along?

[fanforever1986]

Originally Posted by Crazy Flamer

What? Cheese hasn't posted yet??

I would have put money on that as well.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Azure

Why?

Why must science tackle religion? Why can't they just get along?

Because religion is tackling science . . . . . . ask Kansas.

Cowperson

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Here I am CrazyFlamer...

My opinion is that YES Dawkins is an extremist. Is that bad? Im not so sure...he is held in high regard by many and his opinions hold more weight than say...Cowpersons or trouts.

Has there ever been a good example of extremism? My point is that whether or not Dawkins is dangerous, the power of his opinion threatens to be. The problem with extremism of any brand is that there are millions of people who are not responsible enough to quell the ultimate effects of its universal goal, which is always the elimination of an opposing ideology. Dawkins may not wield an anti-aircraft arsenal, or command a regiment of soldiers like bin-Laden, but I believe that both are committed to a similar cause: the extermination of the other side.

Originally Posted by Cheese

Where I continually focus is the use of children to forward religious thinking, AND the hilited reference you make to the positive impact of religion.

I wholeheartedly agree that the manipulation of children for any religious cause is akin to a form of abuse. The problem is in determining where indoctrination and manipulation is distinguished from good moral teaching from a religious perspective. I am certain that you and I would be much closer to the same position on this spectrum thanI would be to, say, Becky Fischer. This, however, does not disuade me in my efforts to raise my son in what I believe to be a Christian environment. Such an environment is one which tolerates reasonable opinion and competing ideas about the quintescence of faith and revelation in a context which champions the dignity of life, humanity, and the importance of tangible service for the improvement of mankind.

Originally Posted by Cheese

I personally believe man would pick up that slack in a secular society...once again that man is inherantly good and will generally give the shirt off his back to help his neighbor.

I would argue that given human nature's seemingly instinctive desire to form objects and practices of worship, the secular society you envision would almost certainly develop some sort of religious devotion to the ideals of science and naturalism. It may be more palatable for you, but this does not alter the fact that this kind of ideology is still a brand of religious devotion, which is equally susceptible to the types of evil which you and I both despise in the guise of organized religion. To this end, it causes me to ponder how inherently good men truly are. While I believe in the sincerity and qualified goodness of humanity in general, why are people—regardless of creed, or race, or level of education, or cultural sophistication—prone to unspeakable forms of evil? Religion is not to blame for the childish ****ing-contest of humanity, people are. That people are capable of what they are—both noble and horrific achievements—is what confirms my pursuit of my own brand of religious idealism. It is what Jesus did. It is what the Buddha did. It is what Confuscious dreamed of.

Originally Posted by Cheese

Glad to see you back in the chat textcritic! You are the best negotiator by far from "the other side"...LOL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5z8Kb06cMPI

I am honoured by your compliment, Cheese. It's been a hectic Fall: my dissertation does not write itself; I have had courses to teach, essays to grade; and my research commitments don't dissolve without the contribution of my own sweat and tears.
I'm always happy to participate in wranglings of faith, nevertheless.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Cheese

.once again that man is inherantly good and will generally give the shirt off his back to help his neighbor.

Man is inherently seflish and historically, without religion, could not have hoped to have possibly "taken up the slack" that religion provided as a social service.

Maybe in today's age technology and convienience can make up for it but think about this, one of the older historical reasons why America's health care costs spiralled out of control overnight was the change between hospitals largely staffed by purely volunteer and unpaid nuns and nurses to becoming secular/business oriented and having full paid staff.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Has there ever been a good example of extremism? My point is that whether or not Dawkins is dangerous, the power of his opinion threatens to be. The problem with extremism of any brand is that there are millions of people who are not responsible enough to quell the ultimate effects of its universal goal, which is always the elimination of an opposing ideology. Dawkins may not wield an anti-aircraft arsenal, or command a regiment of soldiers like bin-Laden, but I believe that both are committed to a similar cause: the extermination of the other side.


I wholeheartedly agree that the manipulation of children for any religious cause is akin to a form of abuse. The problem is in determining where indoctrination and manipulation is distinguished from good moral teaching from a religious perspective. I am certain that you and I would be much closer to the same position on this spectrum thanI would be to, say, Becky Fischer. This, however, does not disuade me in my efforts to raise my son in what I believe to be a Christian environment. Such an environment is one which tolerates reasonable opinion and competing ideas about the quintescence of faith and revelation in a context which champions the dignity of life, humanity, and the importance of tangible service for the improvement of mankind.


I would argue that given human nature's seemingly instinctive desire to form objects and practices of worship, the secular society you envision would almost certainly develop some sort of religious devotion to the ideals of science and naturalism. It may be more palatable for you, but this does not alter the fact that this kind of ideology is still a brand of religious devotion, which is equally susceptible to the types of evil which you and I both despise in the guise of organized religion. To this end, it causes me to ponder how inherently good men truly are. While I believe in the sincerity and qualified goodness of humanity in general, why are people—regardless of creed, or race, or level of education, or cultural sophistication—prone to unspeakable forms of evil? Religion is not to blame for the childish ****ing-contest of humanity, people are. That people are capable of what they are—both noble and horrific achievements—is what confirms my pursuit of my own brand of religious idealism. It is what Jesus did. It is what the Buddha did. It is what Confuscious dreamed of.

###

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Witness the Eugenics Wars of the original Star Trek as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_Wars

Cowperson

I'm not sure what KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!!!! has to do with this subject. I think you are missing the point that religion is not the inherent reason why men fight or form violently opposed ideologies or tend to gravitate toward objects, persons, or practices of worship (even if that worship is toward "science" and revered intellectual figures). In the South Park episode, the atheist people of the future were pretty much worshipping the Dawkin's like figure who "destroyed religion" in their society.

The eugenics wars was more a moral against trying to artificially augment human beings by skipping evolution and genetically engineering superhumans. It had absoletely nothing to do with religion.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Because religion is tackling science . . . . . . ask Kansas.

Cowperson

Yeah, I know.

Sad though...that fundamental religious people seek to destroy what science has given us...or is trying to give us.

Even so..I still firmly believe science and religion can exist side by side.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

The eugenics wars was more a moral against trying to artificially augment human beings by skipping evolution and genetically engineering superhumans. It had absoletely nothing to do with religion.

It had a lot to do with science . . . . which was my point.

Even so..I still firmly believe science and religion can exist side by side.

So do I.

Proponents of religion can agree the separation of church and state is necessary as a minimum . . . . something very, very difficult for the control freaks among them to do.

In contrast, scientists can concede they can't prove a creator didn't unleash The Big Bang . . . as one example.

I don't think science is looking for a fight by the way . . . . but religion certainly is.

Cowperson

[octothorp]

If the scientific community takes a rigid stand, it's going to come back and bite them in the ass. As scientific exploration becomes increasingly intangible and decreasingly practical, they're going to want to be granted the same tolerance that religion deserves. Consider string theory: most string theorists talk in terms of belief, as opposed to knowledge: a series of complex equations that can't currently be proven or disproven, and which they may never be provable; and objections to string theory have largely been answered by tweaking the equations. I'm not directly equating string theory with religion, but in looking at string theory, it's pretty easy to imagine how, in a predominantly atheist world, theories gradually become dogmas. Sure, it's possible for experts still to grapple with the theories themselves, but certainly it's becoming increasingly difficult for the common man to have more than a passing familiarity with advanced scientific concepts. As that disconnect between science and public knowledge expands, scientists will need to ask the public increasingly for belief. If you discount religion simply on the grounds that it cannot be proven, some areas of scientific study may eventually reach a point where they, too, are unable to advance because doing so would require belief.

[Knut]

Originally Posted by octothorp

If the scientific community takes a rigid stand, it's going to come back and bite them in the ass. As scientific exploration becomes increasingly intangible and decreasingly practical, they're going to want to be granted the same tolerance that religion deserves. Consider string theory: most string theorists talk in terms of belief, as opposed to knowledge: a series of complex equations that can't currently be proven or disproven, and which they may never be provable; and objections to string theory have largely been answered by tweaking the equations. I'm not directly equating string theory with religion, but in looking at string theory, it's pretty easy to imagine how, in a predominantly atheist world, theories gradually become dogmas. Sure, it's possible for experts still to grapple with the theories themselves, but certainly it's becoming increasingly difficult for the common man to have more than a passing familiarity with advanced scientific concepts. As that disconnect between science and public knowledge expands, scientists will need to ask the public increasingly for belief. If you discount religion simply on the grounds that it cannot be proven, some areas of scientific study may eventually reach a point where they, too, are unable to advance because doing so would require belief.

I agree with you on one thing...

The Majority of people need everything to make sense, and will take "leaps of faith/science" for that to happen...

However i disagree that science is becoming overly theoretical and hard to prove.... if you read about the history of science you know that people have taken these leaps of science throughout history... from Einstein to Newton to Darwin to Gallileo... these guys understood the universe differently from convention and hence did not really receive recognition for their acheivments until much later... how many people even today understand Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity???

I think it is a mistake to think that we will reach a boundry in science where beleif is required to make sense of the world.... because there is always someone out there trying to prove/disprove the theory..

Fact is... our understanding of the way the world works changes everyday and has expanded exponentially in the last few centuries... but our understanding of the way god works hasnt changed for Millenia... I think it is time for relgion to catch up with the modern times and realize that "god created it" is not a suitable answer for problems in life.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Hesla

...our understanding of the way god works hasnt changed for Millenia... I think it is time for relgion to catch up with the modern times and realize that "god created it" is not a suitable answer for problems in life.

I agree with this, however, it is a little shortsighted of you to suggest that religion has remained stagnant for a millenium. Certainly, there are groups within Christendom who remain contentedly ignorant of science, and have preferred to find a terminus to their own cultural and theological development in the 18th or 19th century. It should be noted, nevertheless, that Christian fundamentalism was once an innovative movement that is only 200 years old. Modernity and the emergence of post-modern thinking have responded to the innane ramblings of fundamentalism accordingly, and this reaction has had a dramatic impact upon every segment of the Christian church.
In my own religious experience, it is absolutely unacceptable to settle upon "God created it" as an end to intellectual discovery, and the pursuit of knowledge, understanding, and improvement for the glory of God and the benefit of mankind is something which informs my faith daily. I am not alone in my pursuit, and it only requires a cursory examination of the history of the Church since the Enlightenment to show that Christianity (I am sure the same could be said for Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism et al) is a rather organic entity which continues to necessarily change and transform itself to meet the challenges of the age. Some segments move much more slowly than others; some become stuck, and as a result tend to disappear. But change in the Church is not nearly as glacial as you suggest.

[Cheese]

Dawkins says...

...that science could never disprove God – "There's an infinite number of things that we can't disprove," he said. "You might say that because science can explain just about everything but not quite, it's wrong to say therefore we don't need God. It is also, I suppose, wrong to say we don't need the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, Thor, Wotan, Jupiter, or fairies at the bottom of the garden. There's an infinite number of things that some people at one time or another have believed in, and an infinite number of things that nobody has believed in. If there's not the slightest reason to believe in any of those things, why bother? The onus is on somebody who says, I want to believe in God, Flying Spaghetti Monster, fairies, or whatever it is. It is not up to us to disprove it."

And in reality thats what it all boils down to. If the church <pick any church> had anything to prove their theories, outside of the doctrine, we could all just move along and get on with a life with a God. The fact that there is far more "black then white" to the theories, simply prolongs the theists agony. Faith my friend...have Faith...it is the only way!
Stagnant in the effect that the church, <once again pick any church you like>, cannot prove anything within the boundaries of its doctrine, which suggests an inability to move forward and embrace science or for that matter anything of this century. (see 6000 year earth Creationists, Adam and Eve, etc etc)
In hockey analogy, I think Dawkins is using the "best defence is a good offence".

Atheist bashing has long been a favorite pasttime of the church....labelling Atheists as evil, unknowing, or simply ignorant. Ignoring scientific knowledge, and generally stopping the advancement of mankind for hundreds of years. People like Dawkins are simply suggesting that its not true...in a loud and clear voice...and I might add with reason.
The Church might be advancing...but by the time it moves into this century it could be too late to save itself.