Richard Dawkins

[shoes]

So does that mean we have to absolutely believe Dawkins' and other scientists' views on God and religion, or should we just say, "Yeah, alright mate, that's an interesting theory. Next?"

Seems like Science is wracked with self-doubt to me.

No you don't have to absolutely believe Dawkins. You don't have to absolutely believe anyone. This is the point I am making. If I could just borrow from Monty Python's 'The life of Brian' for a moment.

Brian: Please, please, please listen! I've got one or two things to say.
The Crowd: Tell us! Tell us both of them!
Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't NEED to follow ME, You don't NEED to follow ANYBODY! You've got to think for your selves! You're ALL individuals!
The Crowd: Yes! We're all individuals!
Brian: You're all different!
The Crowd: Yes, we ARE all different!

[Old Greg]

Does that put committed atheists like sasguru et al into the same bracket as Pol Pot, Joe Stalin and Adolf Hitler?

Dawkins argues that Hitler probably wasn't an atheist.

[dang65]

No you don't have to absolutely believe Dawkins. You don't have to absolutely believe anyone. This is the point I am making.

See, I've got a bit of an issue with this. It's like this:

1) There is complete consensus amongst scientists and experts working in the climate change field that it is being inarguably escalated at an incredible pace by the impact of human activity.

2) There are a lot of (non-scientific) people who simply don't give any credit to climate change theories at all, let alone that human activity is causing/exacerbating it.

3) There are quite a lot of scientists who have no problem with believing in God at the same time as being scientists. It's really no big deal, and there is no particular conflict with science, any more than enjoying abstract art or avant garde music conflicts with science. It's a matter of personal belief, personal feeling and spirituality.

4) Dawkins, a respected scientist, appears to devote his entire life to his crusade [sic] against religion.

The thing is... shouldn't such a respected scientist - and indeed all respected scientists, and the people who respect them - dedicate their time to totally and unquestionably convincing the human race that we are heading for huge upheaval, famine, flooding, mass migration and conflict. Or should we follow your advice and just shrug and go, "Yeah, well, that's what all scientists agree is happening but I don't have to absolutely believe them."

[barely_pointless]

hmmm, I've personally no issue with "belief" systems, as long as those belief systems are altruistic & based on Evolutionary Biology and that is where a "Religion" or a common belief which organised a group of early man to co operate for their survival, we see the same thing in Chimpanzee's today (strong alpha's normally looking after weaker, younger less capable members of the group, very often in return for favours from the females but very often not, food is shared with the most vulnerable first and with the strongest last).

Now, whilst the original basis was organisation and welfare for others, somehow (jump in any time you want folks) I think that modern "religion" has been warped, corrupted and twisted to serve a not so noble purpose.

I have a significant problem with people of [INSERT ANY RELIGION] who seem to think that their place in eternity is assured by repeating some mumbo jumbo claptrap and that their religion allows them to steal, murder, lie and cheat their way through life, this goes for all religions , I include Islam, Judasm, R Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant and last but by no means least, infact the grandaddy of all "problems" , evangelical nutbags from the mid west in the USA.

I say "Big Business" , because it it, I've been to a super church here in Sydney and it's a fecking joke, money making at it's most slick - Elmer Gantry would have been proud. It's is packaged and sold as a common good, but it is far from it.

If I do believe in god ? then it's on my terms and not some other nutbag's and I'll stand infront of him or her or it with no excuses , because I can.

[fzbucks]

Also, why is it that the people that love Dawkins and believe so solidly in Science are the same ones that so avidly dispute Man Made Climate Change, Peak Oil, the damage being done by private cars and junk food - all backed up by scientific and medical research.

It's all very well dropping thousands of years of human beliefs and spirituality, but is it only going to be replaced by raging consumerism? How about reading some more of the findings of the great scientists, and acting on them.

you still p1ssed that your wife took your car away from you?

[dang65]

hmmm, I've personally no issue with "belief" systems, as long as those belief systems are altruistic & based on Evolutionary Biology

[...]

I have a significant problem with people of [INSERT ANY RELIGION] who seem to think that their place in eternity is assured by repeating some mumbo jumbo claptrap and that their religion allows them to steal, murder, lie and cheat their way through life, this goes for all religions , I include Islam, Judasm, R Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant and last but by no means least, infact the grandaddy of all "problems" , evangelical nutbags from the mid west in the USA.

But this is the thing... why do scientists and their supporters have such a significant problem with religion, which on the scale of things throughout history has really been responsible for so little harm and responsible for so much good?

What is it about the war against religion that gets universal support on threads like this, whilst issues like the impact of human activity on the environment, which is already creating massive destruction to the planet and will soon cause massive destruction to the human race itself, are brushed over or ridiculed or even denied (despite complete scientific consensus that it is happening and that Man has caused it)?

[Troll]

indeed

[dang65]

Actually, there's an attempt at explaining this sort of phenomenon (i.e. being obsessed with the wrong thing) in The Independent this morning.

[Old Greg]

But this is the thing... why do scientists and their supporters have such a significant problem with religion, which on the scale of things throughout history has really been responsible for so little harm and responsible for so much good?

What is it about the war against religion that gets universal support on threads like this, whilst issues like the impact of human activity on the environment, which is already creating massive destruction to the planet and will soon cause massive destruction to the human race itself, are brushed over or ridiculed or even denied (despite complete scientific consensus that it is happening and that Man has caused it)?

OK - I'm half summarising Dawkins as best I can and half giving my own view:
Scientists are interested in evidence-backed knowledge. If there is something they can't explain, they want to find out, using scientific methodology to expand knowledge. Religion has no part in this. It offers explanations but they are not backed up by evidence and are thus anti-scientific.

So little harm? Let's have a look at a few things:

Crusades
Spanish Inquisition (both in South America and against European 'witches' for example)
Anti-Jewish pogroms
Religious wars in Europe of 17th century
Communal murders at partition of India
Taliban / Al-Qaeda

You talk about 'human activity' but religion is part of this. The conservative evangelical lobby is firmly against the theory of global warming (this may be starting to change in a few places with the birth of something they call 'climate care') for a variety of the following reasons:

Global warming is a scientific theory (like evolution, the age of the universe), not a faith position
It's a 'big government' liberal-left lie
Scientists only promote it because they're paid off by grant-gving bodies
In the book of Genesis, man was given dominion over the Earth
Even if we are causing problems, we are in the final days anyway and this disaster may even precipitate the 2nd coming of Christ.

Now, we'll all agree, I think, that they're nutters and we can't judge all religious people by them, but they are influential on Bush and US policy.

[dang65]

I'm not sure I get the point of your post? You're saying that this "conservative evangelical lobby" (whoever they are) are firmly against the theory of global warming, but what I'm saying is that a huge percentage of the general public are disbelieving of the "theory" as well, including a lot of people who are completely convinced by evolutionary "theory" to the point of anger against those who prefer to believe in their own alternatives. Those alternatives (creationism and a higher being and that) don't cause any trouble, any more than watching Doctor Who does. Why worry about it? They're wrong, end of story. Just leave them to it.

Meanwhile, climate change is real. It's happening and we're incredibly close to disaster for the human race (though not for the planet which has been through plenty of this sort of thing before and is probably quite looking forward to the entertainment after a rather dull Holocene period).

It's not just religious nutters that have their heads in the sand, and what I don't get is why the same rational and educated people who so angrily protest against religion aren't up in arms about climate change.