Respecting the beliefs of others is a good way to prevent disputes in the short run, but in the end it’s what got us into this horrible mess. If people believe stupid things, they deserve to be mocked.

Do you still plan to post the asymmetric warfare BP? Just curious as to who else you asked.

[Patience young jedi. Sometime in the next week or so. - Ed]

It’s not as if priesthoods have played nice with scientists, have they?

While churches reserve their most vicious persecution for competing faiths, scientists have been vilified, threatened and even tried in court by powerful priesthoods… for merely pointing out that

A) The Earth revolves around the Sun, not the other way around;

B) Homo Sapiens is but one of many species on Earth, and did not spring into existence fully formed.

At some point in the future, science will finally challenge the notion of an afterlife. The priesthoods are not going to take it lying down. It could get hairy…

A.R,

I think the two examples you cite are water under the bridge. We shouldn’t be holding religion (or anyone really) to account for nastiness committed by people centuries ago. The statuette of limitations for Galileo’s mistreatment has long since passed.

One bemused aside: Pope John Paul apologized for the jailing of Galileo (apparently these apologies take a few centuries to organize) but in an absurd touch he blamed it on bad legal advice. Was this a weasaly PR move, a delusional statement or an act of comedy genius? It’s hard to tell.

But the fact is that the two items you mention aren’t disputed by most religious people nowadays. And those that disagree are doing so peacefully. Granted many of them are being dishonest but this doesn’t get them anywhere and destroys their own credibility. Anyone remember the creation science movement and their fake dinosaur footprints? They didn’t need to be attacked by Richard Dawkins they were too busy slitting the wrists of their credibility themselves.

And athiests aren’t people who are more rational than christians by default. Look at the rise of all kinds of whacked out new age beliefs, reiki, deified interpretations of the Gaia hypothesis, tarot and perhaps the most destructive: conspiracy theory. There’s no shortage of athiests who will decry the absurdity of religion but who nonetheless live in la la land.

It’s a stickler, this one. I’ve already had a crack at it myself.

Yngve has a point, but I tend to concur with Jose on this; if we want rationalim to triumph in the end, it is imperative that we argue from a moral high ground. If we create a huge schism between religion and science, we run the risk of being (accurately) labelled as hypocrites. After all, aren’t some of the main complaits about religions that they (1) act as cultural isolators, (2) espouse a ‘them and us’ mindset, (3) start unnecessary and wasteful conflicts over ideological differences and (4) are utterly intolerant of conflicting opinions?

The best way for rationalism to triumph over religion is surely for it to expose the hypocrisy of religion - and the best way to do that is not to be drawn into a black-and-white face-off. As rationalists, it is our responsibility to show that rationalism is more peaceful and more understanding than religions claim to be (not to mention actually are). To lambaste people for their faith only paints us into a corner, whereupon we can be accused of doing all the things which we castigate religions for doing. We must not fall into the trap of using the language and invective of our opponents - if we continue to do so, their victory is assured. We can only win by refusing to fight - by taking the path of peace, we can demonstrate that religion says one thing but means another.

Granted, a “face-off” can and should be avoided. I’m not advocating one. I can imagine, though, that churches will continue to retreat further, until they decide to stand and fight over a remaining core issue… such as the afterlife, the existence of an indestructible soul, or the location of “Hell” or “Paradise”.

Why would any of those paradigms be challenged by science? It could very well happen by accident. Darwin was not out to attack church dogma, any more than Galileo had planned to anger the Pope.

As for the question of an afterlife, perhaps science could offer a possible way to realize that promise… would churches see this as a challenge, or try to “hog” it as part of the Divine Plan?

I see what you’re saying, Yngve. Almost all the reactions of religion to scientific progress have been a result of them choosing to be offended - but almost all of those reactions came a t a time when religion was the overwhelmingly dominant political and philosophical force. That’s not to say it’s not strong now, of course - but there is a beautiful irony in people blogging about their opposition to the scientific method: surely they should have the courage of their coinvictions and not be using the tools of science at all?

My point is that, yes, they may well decide to fight their corner at some point - but if we don’t enter into the fight, then it’s just they waving their arms around in the air and shouting:

Religion: “But we believe that there is an eternal life of the soul!”
Science: “Fair enough, go ahead. In the meantime, we’ll just get on with making life better for ourselves and others in the life we can see and touch.”
Religion: “But you are condemning yourselves to eternal damnation!”
Science: “We can live with that. But we’re not going to stop you from living in self-imposed misery if you feel it is the right thing to do.”
Religion: “But…you’re infidels!”
Science: “Guess so. If you’re right, there’ll be none of us cluttering up the afterlife for you, will there? You win, we win. No zero-sum game required. Give us a call when your crops fail due to climate change - we have some ways of dealing with that, if you want them.”
Religion: “…”

See where I’m going? If we leave them alone to stew in their own soup of hocus pocus, they’ll either defeat themselves or realise that we’re on to something.

Of course, if religious fundamentalists choose to be CONSISTENT in their opposition to science — to deny themselves the access to electricity, modern medicine, computers, the Internet, the internal combustion engine, and especially nuclear weapons — like the Amish! — then we can all relax.

If only…

Should scientists criticise religion? Many already do, some don’t. I’d put it another way? Should we challenge our minds and intellect, exercise common sense, hold out a hand of peace? Yes. But the religious mind always returns to the same point when logic and science grind the fairy tales into the dust: we have FAITH, WE BELIEVE, and that’s enough for us. But not for a logical, rational scientific mind. End of story. A stand off.

Stand aside, and agree to disagree. Let folk believe what they want. Belief is for those who need to feel connected to someone/something bigger than themselves. That’s fine for the folk who choose to think that way. For those of us who stand back from organised religion, then that’s fine. too. We all have a right to think what we like; say what we like. If not, then our minds are being fucked with, and I for one will not be told what to think. Slavery of the mind is to be fought against as hard as any form of physical slavery or oppression.

Here are my 1.99 cents on this matter -

Anyone interested in truth, and humanity - and this certainly includes scientists - had better well try to understand and talk about the merits of religion. At very least, it is apparently as fundamental an aspect of human life as thinking and dreaming.

And here is its most obvious merit: calling our attention to things we do not now understand. You know, like how the universe came into existence? God is really no better or worse an explanation than the Big Bang or whatever it’s currently called. Something - a big, significant something - came from nothing. How?

For that matter, the basis of logic itself is irrational, as philosophers from Russell to Popper have noted. How can one defend one’s belief in - or just use of - rationality? By offering any one of a myriad of rational arguments - arguments, in other words, that employ the very method under question. That’s why Russell said you have to have an “irrational faith in reason”.

So - there have been, and still are, horrible abuses meted out by true believers in this or that religion. But that doesn’t obviate the value of religion in calling attention to the fallibility of our most profound attempts at knowledge. Or: Creationism in wrong, evolution is right, but we still don’t know very much about how intelligent life rose from non-intelligent life, life rose from non-living material, and matter somehow came from nothing. At its best, religion keeps our eyes on these prizes.