The things they do in the name of religion

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]Thats my opinion. And i am a muslim so its not the christain perspective you perhaps wanted but a religious one nevertheless you got

Yes..... EUHM .... not to be descriminate but it was rather directed to christianity solely. Though youre answers aren't less valuable to the constructiveness of this thread.

In addition i made devision in my question ,the first partof question's ,those that you answered ,were directed to people that folow the teachings of the bible directly as written ,the second part of questions were aimed for those people who see the bible as a book full of symbolism to be evaluated with nuancism rather than folowing the directly written words.

IMHO ,you clearly are a part of those who look to the symbolism of their religions teachings and do not folow their bible literaly.For ex. you can see abortion as justified under extreme circumstances ,however people for ex that folow the bible literaly will deem abortion as a grave sin under any circumstance ,in their case this question would be confronting taking their beliefs in mind ,in youre case it clearly isn't.

Let me rephrase my questions again:

-Do you take Religious dogma's literaly or symbolicly?

if literaly:

-In youre oppinion did God create the world as described in the bible ,contradicting certain proof made in the fields of quantummechanics and bioligy?

-Did the following story's in youre oppinion really happened:

The flooding of the world for Noah.

Mozes splits the red sea.

Mozes initiate's the plague's

Jezus walks on water

Jezus feeds a whole town on a measel rantion of fish and bread.

-Do you believe in hell ,and will you folow certain morality dogma's of religion to avoid being send to it?

Are you of the oppinion that a seperation of "good" and "evil" is logical within the overall dogma's of christianity?

Do you believe in an good and an evil withought nuiancations between them?

Can God as the abstraction of "good" be vengefull?

What is in youre oppinion the threshold of number's of sin's that can be commited withought being sent to hell ,or are you of the oppinion that either any sin will send you to hell or that an infinite amount of sin's can be commited withought being send to hell as long as you confess them?

Is their a grade for Sins and a point system how to calculate when you hit treshold ,for ex would murder send me 5 points closer to hell while not respecting my father only 2 points towards hell ,or are all sins of same manitude?

Can a person that is gennetacly born to commit certain "sins" be send to hell for that? (Scientiests have about proven Homosexuality to be genetacly ,serrial killers are often a product of socialogical enviroment or sheer genetical insanity)

Do you see anticonceptia as sinfull product's ,even in places like South Africa where they can solve a enormous humanitarian problem? Do you see abortion as sinfull ,even if a 14 year old gets pregnant by a rapist?

Are you of the oppinion that overall christianity has and had a good effect on the evolution of humankind ,even taking into account historical phenonema like the Crusade's ,the Inquisition and witchburning?

if symbolicly:

-Where do you draw the line between symbolism and reality.Wouldn't we rather as unperfect being's be incompetent in understanding the correct symbolism of any dogma?Can God itself be a symbol from that perspective rather than a fact?How can we decide within the teaching's of christian religious what is within the boundaries of symbolism and what's to be taken litterally ,especially when it come's to the practization of certain moral codes?

-When religion on itself is symbolicly ,isn't it then just a certain form of moral code rather than a true spiritual fenonema ,and possibly not a perfect form of moral code?

You should try to answer the "If symbolicly" section of questions IMO.

[Acecombat 0]

No your wrong there a bit apollo :

Quote[/b] ]For ex. you can see abortion as justified under extreme circumstances ,however people for ex that folow the bible literaly will deem abortion as a grave sin under any circumstance ,in their case this question would be confronting taking their beliefs in mind ,in youre case it clearly isn't.

I dont know about the Bible but the QURAN explicitly states 'we dont burden anyone more then he could bear' , along with several other verses which state that if the need arises its PERFECTLY permissible to break a Religious belief for the sake of moderation.For example a muslim is even allowed to drink beer or eat pork if he hasnt got anything to sustain his body , now ofcourse if some fool only read th part about not to eat pork and drink wine and follows it fanatically then its his problem.

Its not about taking it literally , its about balancing your belief. You cant take anything solely literally , you'l come to a paradox one after the other because of it.

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]Its not about taking it literally , its about balancing your belief. You cant take anything solely literally , you'l come to a paradox one after the other because of it.

Actually i am of the oppinion that paradoxes will arise either when you take religion literaly or even symbolicly as you do.

As i put im my last question's: How do you draw the line Between wich teaching's you should take literaly and wich teaching's to take symbolicly.If the literal teaching's can't provide a clear benchmark for dogma's then how can you correctly balance youre belief's?How can an unperfect being supposedly incapable to even comprehend its god decide for himself to wich extent to follow literall teaching's?Any single seperate dogma could be practiced even from tradition in an incorrect way ,due to potential incomprehended little details.

How can a god expect us to follow his teaching's given to us trough profet's correctly when the teaching's itself are inconclusive ,and how would he be able to judge us when his own teaching's were insufficiant to make us correctly folow his teaching's?

Youre Quran may have a written sollution for the pork and whine dillema when camping somewhere in a desert withought food ,then again such a scenario was quite conceivable in the region where the Quran was written.However the Quran is frankly unable to give a clear answer on all the question's that can be asked about God or afterlive ,it's not a perfect "howto live good" while i would expect a god's teaching's to be perfect ,afterall within an all perfect and untimatly good being there would be no motivation for creating anything inperfect.If god would be inperfect himself ,then his teaching's would be just an oppinion piece on moral conduct rather an ultimate "howto live good".

Let me give an other example.Many of the christian's that practice their religion symbolicly will argue that their god is the same god that other religion's have ,be it Budha or Allah.IIRC some muslim religios dogma itself says that Allah is the same as Jahwe from Christians or Jews.Most of the people within those religions that practice religion symbolicly will argue that a if person from another religion that shares the same god as their's and who lived correctly according to it's religion will eventually have its place in the same heaven as he might have when he lived correctly under his religion.For ex. many symbolicly practicing catholics will say that a person like Mahatma Ghandi will also get his place in heaven ,while those that rather follow the teaching's litteraly will be of the oppinion that only people from their religion will get in their one and only heaven.

I suspect youre one of the people that will say that indeed Mahatma Ghandi got his place in the same heaven as you might get in even if youre muslim.

In any case ,the arguments of contradiction lay here: If you take the litteral solution ,then it would be absurd that a God doesn't allow a person that lived a near perfect life because he didn't choose "the right religion" ,while an utter bastard that might repent from time to time in "the right religion" will have a better chance to get in heaven.

If you take the symbolic sollution ,then any teaching's of moral code you take from religion are actually tottaly rellative ,you could follow any teaching of the shared god with it's many difference's yet if you lived "correctly" to a certain localized rellative moral code of wich there is no valuation system to decide the treshold of sin or "counter-repent" then you could get "possibly" in heaven.

As such ,i my oppinion it's utterly uselles to take on a certain tag of religion.While i would argue that in many cases symbolic religious morrality can be a positive factor to society i would simply observe the moral code of any religious teaching and might follow some moral's from either religion as i see them valuable for my position within society ,however as thus interpretating that religion purely as philosofy rather than anything related to an unproven fenoneman.

[Pathy 0]

Quote[/b] ]You will say "prove god DOES exist", i will answer like you have been answering others questions, by asking the opposite question in return, "prove god DOESNT."

That's a rediculous argument in the context of the debate.

What if one day a man would come to you and say that actually the universe is encapsulated in a large orb carried on the back of a tortuse ,and because this tortuse has to stand on something he stands on an even bigger tortuse ,and under that increasingly larger tortuses in infinety.Sure that may sound rediculous ,but can you prove it to be wrong? No you can't.

No, i would say to you that youve been reading too much Terry Pratchet......

Actually the point was meant to be ridiculous, to show how ridiculous the way Baron was answering others arguments (by stating the question you asked in the opposite way), so that he never actually had to justify his beliefs either way (while all the time telling others that thier beliefs are crap)

So you may go on pointing out how ridiculous it is, because you are just compounding my point!

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]So you may go on pointing out how ridiculous it is, because you are just compounding my point!

Woops sorry ,ah well it's an argument worthy to repeat.

[Pathy 0]

No problem You reinforced my point for me without ever intending.

[Wick_105 0]

this is why I dont put any stock in organised religion......the words in the books that these people read say things about how murder and violence is wrong......but they always end up fighting wars and killing in the name of there god.......my two cents

[toadlife 3]

this is why I dont put any stock in organised religion......the words in the books that these people read say things about how murder and violence is wrong......but they always end up fighting wars and killing in the name of there god.......my two cents

Ah yes. The old 'I don't like religion 'cause it causes bad stuff to happen' attitude.

People end up fighting wars and killing for the same reasons rats fight eachother in an overcrowded cage - and no, I'm not talking about a cage overcrowded with Jewish and Catholic rats.

[brgnorway 0]

Well, people end up killing eachother despite religion and modern rationality. So neither religion nor science seems to prevent that. It only shows us the irrationality of human being.

[Pathy 0]

Do rats even have religion?

Well the core values of religion cant be bad, but its the manipulation by individuals (various popes changing the Bible to suit thier own political agenda, rouge clerics preaching extremist "Islam" to the people (dont forget, most of thier followers cant read the Koran for themselves) ect,) that cause religion to be the root of conflicts.

Hmmm thinking about it, in the Christian bible, doesnt god accept all religions? Im just thinking of Revelation, doesnt it say somewhere in there what proportion of each religion will be saved Have to reread it at some point, though i'm not religious, so dont have a bible to hand

[brgnorway 0]

Do rats even have religion?

Well the core values of religion cant be bad, but its the manipulation by individuals (various popes changing the Bible to suit thier own political agenda, rouge clerics preaching extremist "Islam" to the people (dont forget, most of thier followers cant read the Koran for themselves) ect,) that cause religion to be the root of conflicts.

Hmmm thinking about it, in the Christian bible, doesnt god accept all religions? Im just thinking of Revelation, doesnt it say somewhere in there what proportion of each religion will be saved    Have to reread it at some point, though i'm not religious, so dont have a bible to hand  

Good points pathy, but the same can just as well be applied to science. Quite a lot of rulers - even democratic ones - have perpetrated crimes with scientific "legitimation" . Nazi ideology "proved" with biology and racial theory that different ethnic groups where inferiour to the "arian" race. US set off more than a few A-bombs and hydrogen bombs in the pacific and our dear western pharmacy companies use the third world population as testing rats. How many cruelties and crimes haven't been done in the name of science?

Nothing is left unpolitized!

[Pathy 0]

Some people can be quick to manipulate anything to make other people believe what they want them to believe.....

[brgnorway 0]

Some people can be quick to manipulate anything to make other people believe what they want them to believe.....

Exactly - that's my point!

[igor drukov 0]

Just an article from the April 10th issue of the Times, in the comment section. It was written by Patrick West, the author of : Conspicuous compassion : why sometimes it really is cruel to be kind.

The article is called : Religion does not cause wars. People do.

Quote[/b] ]Religion is bad because it causes wars. Fact. From the Crusades to today's Islamist terrorism, it is axiomatic that organised creeds merely inspire man to murder his fellow man. If only we could liberate our minds from its deathly grasp, our world would be a far happier place.

You will hear this opinion parroted ad nauseaum. Anyone who has participated in a sixth-form debate, been harangued by a cantankerous atheist at the dinner table, or been subjected to the incoherent musings of The Man in the Pub will be familiar with this philosophy. This Eastertide, we will undoubtedly be reminded of the atrocities committed in His name, from the Spanish Inquisition and to the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

This argument is as tenuous as it is ridiculous. While faiths have indeed inspired men to kill, the casual aphorism that "religion causes wars" betrays an ignorant and selective grasp of history. Man has been willing to kill, since immemorial, for countless reasons: for land, tribe, nation and ideology. The Anglo-Dutch conflicts of the 17th century were fought over trade. The war in Iraq was, as the slogan goes, "all about oil". The Spanish and Austrian Wars of Succession were dynastic squabbles. The protracted problems in the Holy Land and Ulster are not just about religion ; they are as much concerned with territorial control. El Salvador and Honduras went to war in 1969 after a game of football between the two countries got out of hand.

But one doesn't hear voices urging the abolition of "oil" or "trade" or "football" because, sigh, "all they do is start wars". So why is religion singled out for such vilification ? The reason is because in the West organised religion has retreated.

For many its retreat leaves people wholly baffled by the idea of having a conviction in something. We live in an apathetic age in which people are too scared or too stupid to have an opinion about anything, for fear of being “offensiveâ€. To the timid airheads, consumed with their own narcissistic and amoral “New Age" religions, healing crystals, astrology, and other primitive hocus-pocus, the idea of having unswerving belief in a high ideal — well, one that does not involve self-worship — is incomprehensible. They have but one commandment: thou shalt not be judgmental.

As a liberal atheist, I sympathise with those on the militant wing of the humanist movement; the likes of Richard Dawkins, Ludovic Kennedy and A. C. Grayling, who, at the mere mention of religion, go red in the face, start banging fists on tables and throw furniture around the room.

To fight over the veracity of transubstantiation, or whether one stops off at Purgatory before ascending to Heaven, is as rational as taking the lives of those who assert that the Moon is made of Edam — when, as everyone knows, it's composed of Double Gloucester. One recalls the battles between Lilliput and Blefuscu over which was the doctrinally correct end to break an egg.

It is true that on an epistemological level, religions consist of accumulated mumbo-jumbo, fairytales and uriverifÄable metaphysical conjecture. But on an ethical level, however, it is absurd to deem religion as essentially malevolent. Organised faith has inspired the finest music, paintings and buildings in the world. It has also been a force for social good.

Our ostensibly secular notion of equality derives from the Christian notion that all men are created the same: the Levellers of the I7th century and America's founding fathers were inspired directly by this biblical doctrine. The campaigns to abolish slavery and to secure votes for women in the 19th century were similarly led by Christians who found such discrimination offensive to their creed. And the Labour Party, as Harold Wilson famously remarked, owed more to Methodism than to Marxism.

Religion is not "bad". It cornes in many guises: harmless, harmful and benign. Yes, a society free of all forms of superstition would be a more rational place, but not necessarily a more peaceful one. Indeed, a world populated by ignorant and bad-tempered atheists would be intolerable. Let us not forget that the anti-Christian creed of French revolutionaries resulted in unprecedented carnage in the 19th century. More horrifically, two aggresively atheist ideologies in the 20th century were responsible for the deaths of some 80 million people. Discuss : atheism is bad because it causes wars.

edit : typo

[whisperFFW06 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Why do I/us think it is necessary for them? But we do not think it is NECESSARY! We think it can helps. You see the difference?

But why do you think it helps?

Quite obviously, a great number of people live without needing it's help.  So, I ask you AGAIN, as you cannot answer the question, why do you think religion is 'needed' to help these people?

1) Because these peoples told me so. Like 2 people did in this thread?

2) Because it's focusing on answering questions nothing else answers, even science, because they are out of scope of science.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

To your 2nd question : No, I avoided every history courses. I only got to science courses....  

...

Of course I did history!

Doesn't seem like it if you don't know what the dark ages were or the effect religion had on society at the time.

In fact, my history teacher always talked about "middle age", I've never heard about "dark ages", apart from Tolkien's books. I agree awefull things were done at this period, like in many other periods (20th century included).

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]We repeated that religion (religion as opposed to atheism) helps answering questions like "what will happen after I'm dead" and "why am I here? Why this silly world? Is there a meaning behind it?". Science would answer... not really much. Appart from "don't know", "probably nothing". Accepting the existence of a god permits to see somthing after your death, some kind of mind behind the world's schemes. It helps certain people to accept living in this world.

But its NOT TRUE.

I'll post this again in case you missed it:

False hope is worse than the truth

Why is it not true? You keep claiming we are the one to prove something (answer given below), but meanwhile give us unsupported assertions like this one. Why is it not true? There is nothing saying that "God doesn't exists" or "there is no life after death". These concepts may seem weird to your "science only" point of view, but saying "they are not true" won't make them dissappear. Sorry to repeat, they are not disproven (far from it, there is not a single scientific fact which would be a beginning of refutal), so it is still possible to believe in them.

"believe"

that's the key word...

Which brings the newt point :

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

From what I see : What you refuse is the use and abuse of some religions by some people. You deny the right of a belief to avoid misuse of this belief by a certain portion of the believers. But the real issue is not the belief (scientifically not disproven) but the misuse (scientifically debatable).

Food for though...

'Scientifically not disproven' ffs.  How many times do you need this explained to you?  THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE BELIEVERS.

You are here asking to prove a belief.

to prove a belief.

Don't you see a huge irony in this sentence?

You're waiting for a scientifical proof? But religion is beyond the scope of science.

Religion is about the existence of God (a creator) and his effects over human death (mainly), and his effects on human behaviour (by the means of "commands" known by "clerics", these are the debatable points, IMHO, not religion itself). Existence of God and life after death are two things to which science cannot apply, they are beyond any observation, by nature (God being the Creator of the scientific object : the universe).

The existence of God is all a matter of belief.

You don't believe in it. Others don't either. I don't believe in it. Big deal.

Some believe in it. Who am I to tell them that I'm right and they are wrong, when it's all a matter of belief?

And why do it?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

Unless science disproves the existence of a God (something I'm not aware of), why refusing religion?

For the hundreds of reasons already stated in this thread?  Can't you read?

As (following my reasoning, sorry to do so) we have no reason to deny religion to people for what IS religion, because it's beyond proof scope and only a matter of belief, we could only deny religion for its consequences. "Dark ages", obscurantism (english word?), etc...

First, you're speaking of an age were science was not advanced enough to show anything to people. You're blaming on religion what science was lacking. Strange.

Second, if you want to bring up the list of bad things religion brought, we'll end up comparing with the list of bad things science brought. Like the number of deaths caused by eachothers. Pointless, it's just new ways to kill people and new ways to justify the murders. One is not better than the other.

Third, just to point out good points on religion's effects, I'll point to arts. Arts mainly developped because of religion.

[Chill 0]

True christians are hard to find. Look at what the Prince of Peace taught us:

Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

God is love! Man is the problem. Look at GW Bush and the people who support him, arnt they killing atm?

Stalin was a killer, Hitler! It was not one person who killed all the people , it was its supporters!

True christians follow the teachings which is peace.

Mat 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

And Jesus warned us about using vilonce:

Mat 26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

So there is proof on proof that Jesus wanted us to live in total peace. Man is corupt no God!

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Wasnt Jesus that guy who threw over all those honest hard working Jewish peoples tables in that temple or whatever? Oh well, im probably thinking of another Jesus.

If God made man and man is corrupt then who is to blame?

Because god is perfect the answer is supposedly man. But what if people are perfect and it is the evil of an all powerful god that chooses to corrupt them? Just thinking out loud. Evil may just as equally be ascribed to some divine force as good. Religions of the book (and others) have traditionally postulated some evil anti god ,who must of course be seen to be less powerful than the one god, in order to explain the presence and persistence of evil. Yet even such a being must have originated from god or else we resort to polytheism with a bunch of more or less evil gods (hopefully with fun incestuous, cannibalistic mythologies like the olypians). The other option is to blame human beings for the presence of evil and so to view evil as simply a subjective state, a lack of 'good', rather than a tangible thing, or force. Either way gods creation appears fundamentally flawed. I am left with the impression that God is either an incompetant dreamer or a total nut case.

Freedom (as a divine gift) is usually the excuse given but i cant help thinking an all powerful god would have been a lot kinder to allow us freedom except with the capacity and great enthusiasm we humans show for torturing and molesting all other living things and for all purpose savagery removed. Perhaps someone can explain to me why a decent friendly god included these things? (i dont think i need to make a list of mans inhumanity). Either god is dead or im having words with him before i go to hell. And death, he definatly shouldnt have created a vast almost boundless universe ,age-20 billion years, and then given us a measly seventy to explore it in. Tell me god loves us, really.

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ] Either god is dead or im having words with him before i go to hell.

Hell yeah.

If i'm going to hell it's because his inconsitencies ,so if he dare's so he'll have to hear quite some sarcastic insults at his adress.

Wanna hear something blasphamous? I once prayed to God in an open meadow when raining that he would struck me with litghning ,just to prove that God didn't exist.Suffice to say i'm still posting.

[toadlife 3]

Wanna hear something blasphamous? I once prayed to God in an open meadow when raining that he would struck me with litghning ,just to prove that God didn't exist.Suffice to say i'm still posting.

Some of God's greatest gifts are unanswered prayers.

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]Some of God's greatest gifts are unanswered prayers.

I pray that G.W bush win's the upcomming U.S ellection.  

And while i was blasphoming enthusiasticly in the rainy meadow James Caviezel got struck by lightning for playing Christ in "the passion of Christ" . (god is a moviecritic)

And the devil just wont answer my my request to sell my soul for a Porsche 911 GT2.   (lazy bastard)

[Acecombat 0]

Oh well getting back to the original topic which i posted on page 1 i say this is getting out of hand , these basta**s first didnt have anything to do except preach their retardedness but are now actively thratening others who negate their fundamentalistic attitude strongly

Fighting Under the Banner of Religion and Doing the Devil’s Work

Suraya Al-Shehry, Arab News

Quote[/b] ] I have been described in the ugliest terms; they have claimed that I promote immorality. Why? Is it for saying that the noblest revelation of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is different from our understanding of it? That our understanding of Shariah or religious knowledge has a human basis that developed gradually, and therefore we cannot claim to have learned everything we can about the Qur’an? Or perhaps it is that I said that truth is constant but not the understanding of truth. That while what is perfect is constant, not everything that is constant is perfect. Or that I said that we should stop abusing those scholars and jurists who enriched our minds with greater understanding of the religion through the ages. Just as they endeavored, so must we, because the best of times are the most fertile.

Perhaps it is for saying that Islam does not promote intellectual paralysis but respect for the use of the mind. That our understanding of the Shariah must be compatible with and affected by the knowledge of our time, and that it is there that we will find healing answers to our problems. Shariah of course does not benefit from the knowledge of the age, but what we take from that knowledge helps us in studying the Shariah. When our share of human knowledge is greater, we will better understand the Divine Revelation.

These are things that I have said, and I will continue to promote these ideas until my dying breath. I am aware that my words may carry some threat for those who have injected poison into their followers in the name of religion, who determined that the stagnation of their thought is evidence of its perfection. It would give me great pleasure if in some way the harm they are doing can be turned back on them.

The attacks have gone beyond my articles and now cast doubt on my religion and my loyalty to my country — the latter because my mother has non-Saudi roots. It grieves me that there are those who try to limit Islam to a certain group and with their ignorant obstinacy harm both country and religion. When I chose to publish my e-mail address along with my articles it was for the purpose of communicating with my readers, to listen to their criticism before their praise. I have made every effort to respond to each of those letters individually, not with prepared answer; this has usually been at the expense of family commitments. What has been the result? Letters that dishonor and threaten, accusations that only a morally bankrupt person would think of, intrusion into my privacy — all signed “No one can catch us.â€

To give an example of the level of argument these people work on: Saudi blood banks are sending what they can to Iraq, and these people claim on their websites that the blood is infected with AIDS. Their aim is to silence others, not to argue with them.

“And their purpose was to tempt thee away from that which We had revealed unto thee, to substitute in Our name something quite different (in that case), behold! They would certainly have made thee (their) friend! And had We not given thee strength, thou wouldst nearly have inclined to them a little. In that case We should have made thee taste an equal portion (of punishment) in this life and an equal portion in death: and moreover thou wouldst have found none to help thee against Us.†(Surah 17, Verses 73-75)

When these people hacked into my e-mail account and said its contents would make my parents’ hair turn gray, logic would have dictated that they publish them. But nearly a month has gone by, and they have published nothing.

This experience has opened my eyes to the language and methods of these people. This is something both ruler and ruled here share: The anguish of dealing with intolerance, spite and reckless extremism, with hatred and lack of mercy. What kind of society do these people live in? What are their parents and children like? How can the Ummah ever hope to develop if it relies on such schizophrenics? They hate the West but rely entirely on Western technology. They fight under the banner of religion but do the work of the devil.

The question is of course much greater than a hacked e-mail account or even trespassing on another’s privacy. It is a question of the fate of future generations. There are children fed on extremism, and invisible hands whose money supports the extremism that feeds them. Instead of being concerned with the progress of their country, increasing their knowledge and understanding, these young men are only bent on destruction.

The danger cannot be warded off simply by relying on the security apparatus. It requires determination from all of us. We must be unyielding, and undeterred by threats, and united by love of this country. Whoever wishes us ill must yield to our resolve and become an outcast in the eyes of the people as well as the state.

* * *

(Suraya Al-Shehry is a Saudi writer. She is based in Riyadh.)

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Hi all, been away down south for a few days.

I think it'd help if I condensed what I've (tried to) say this far into a single post, so that those who cannot or will not read will find it easier.

Topics:

Are science and religion converging?

NO. Categorically. People confuse the words of modern scientists who sound religious on a casual reading, but who are not. Stephen Hawking, particularly, is frequently misquoted as being religious; he isn't. Physicists and others use phrases like 'to know the mind of God' to denote 'the workings of the universe' in the same way you might say 'god knows.'

Angela Goodenough's book The sacred depths of nature is sold and presented as a religious book; it has prayers and meditations throughout it. But Ms Goodenough does not have any of the trappings of religion; no belief in gods, does not believe in life after death; on any normal understanding of the english language she is as religious as I am. She shares with other athiests a feeling of awe at the majesty of the universe and the intricate complexity of life. The cover of her book says science does not 'point to an existance that is bleak, devoid of meaning, pointless....' but in fact 'can be a wellspring of solace and hope.' If that is religion, then I am religious. But it is not. There is absolutely no religion involved there.

If you count Hawking, Einstein ('It was of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is been systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.' - Albert Einstein), Ursula Goodenough, Paul Davies, Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins as religious, then what you are doing is redefining the word religion. "If we are allowed to relabed scientific awe as a religious impulse..... it's hardly surprising if they turn out to 'converge'"

Do science and religion handle their own topics?

NO.

This naive intellectual appeasement policy parcels up science to answer 'how questions' and religion to answer 'why questions.'

Well, what are why questions, and why should we feel entitled to think they deserve an answer? There may be some deep questions about the multiverse that are forever beyond science. The mistake is in thinking that they are not beyond religion as well.

When something is thought 'beyond the realm of science' people tend to assign it to the priest or the chaplain to 'explain.' But, as Dr Dawkins says, why not the chef or the gardener? The only reason is that chaplains, priests et al claim to have some insight into the answers to these questions. What reason have we to take these claims seriously? Is it not the same as when Einstein or Hawking uses the word 'god' to mean 'that which we don't understand'?

Concessions to religion: 'you can't prove a negative'

The following common piece of wooly thinking is common as a concession to the religious:

'You can't prove a negative (so far so good). Science has no way to disprove the existance of a supreme being (this is strictly true)* Therefore belief (or disbelief) in a supreme being is a matter of pure individual inclination, and they are therefore both equally deserving of respectful attention! When you say it like that, the fallacy is almost self-evident: we hardly need spell out the reductio ad absurdum. To borrow a point from Bertrand Russell, we must be equally agnostic about the the theory that there is a china teapot in elliptical orbit around the Sun. We can't disprove it. But that doesn't mean that the theory about the teapot is on level terms with the theory that there isn't.

Now, if it be retorted that there actually are reasons X, Y and Z for finding a supreme being more plausible than a celestial teapot, then X, Y and Z should be spelled out because, if legitimate, they are proper scientific arguements which should be evaluated on their merits. Don't protect them from scrutiny beyond a screen of agnostic tolerance. If religious arguments are actually better than Russell's teapot, let us hear the case. Otherwise, let those who call themselves agnostic with regards to religion add that they are equally agnostic about orbiting teapots. At the same time, modern theists might acknowledge that, when it comes to Baal and the Golden Calf, Thor and Wotan, Poseidon and Apollo, Mithras and Ammon Ra, they are actually atheists. We are all athiests about most of the gods humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.

In any case, the belief that science and religion occupy different magisteria is dishonest. If founders on the undeniable fact that religions still make claims about the world which, on analysis, turn out to be scientific claims. Moreover, religious apologists try to have it both ways, to eat their cake and have it. When talking to intellecuals, they carefully keep of science's turf, safe inside the seperate and invulnerable religious magisterium. But when talking to a non-intellectual mass audience they make wanton use of miracle stories, which are blatant intrustions into scientific territory. The Virgin Birth, the Ressurection, the Raising of Lazarus, the manifestations of Mary and the Saints around the Catholic world, even the Old Testament miracles, all are freely used for religious propaganda, and very effective they are with an audience of unsophisticates and children. Every one of these miracles amounts to a scientific claim, a violation of the normal running of the natural world. Theologians, if they want to remain honest, should make a choice. You can claim yor own magisterium, seperate from science but still deserving of respect. But in that case you have to renounce miracles. Or you can keep your Lourdes and your miracles, and enjoy their huge recruiting potential among the undeducated. But then you must kiss goodbye to seperate magisteria and your high-minded aspiration to converge on science.'

What harm does religion do?

Religion represents a huge financial and work burden on mankind. It's not just a matter of religious believers wasting their money on church buildings; think of all the time and effort spent building churches, praying, and so on. Imagine how that effort could be better spent.

Many theists believe in miracle healing. There have been plenty of instances of ill people being "healed" by a priest, ceasing to take the medicines prescribed to them by doctors, and dying as a result. Some theists have died because they have refused blood transfusions on religious grounds.

It is arguable that the Catholic Church's opposition to birth control -- and condoms in particular -- is increasing the problem of overpopulation in many third-world countries and contributing to the spread of AIDS world-wide.

Religious believers have been known to murder their children rather than allow their children to become atheists or marry someone of a different religion. Religious leaders have been known to justify murder on the grounds of blasphemy.

There have been many religious wars. Even if we accept the argument that religion was not the true cause of those wars, it was still used as an effective justification for them.

Religious zealotry over the centuries has been directly responsible for countless deaths, imprisonments, needless suffering, torturings, and the oppression of people on grounds of sex, race, colour, sexuality or belief.

A few obvious examples :

* The Crusades.

* The Inquisition.

* Witch trials in Europe and America.

* The Divine right of Kings (valid until killed by another Divinely-appointed King).

* Missionaries destroying/converting smaller, "heathen" religions and cultures.

* Missionaries such as Mother Teresa.

* The demonization of other religions, e.g. Christianity demonizing Pagans ("They're devil-worshippers!"), the Romans demonizing Christians ("They're atheists and cannibals!").

* Persecution of Heretics - e.g. Galileo for daring to suggest that the Earth orbits the Sun.

* Children dying because their parents refused them medical treatment on religious grounds; relying instead on faith-healers and prayer.

* Slavery, supposedly supported by scripture ("Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, just as you would obey Christ.", St.Paul, Ephesians 6:5)

* Holy wars - followers of different faiths (or even the same faith) killing each other in the name of their (benevolent, loving and merciful) gods.

* The destruction of great works of art considered to be pornographic/blasphemous, and the persecution of the artists.

* Censorship (often destructive) of speech, art, books, music, films, poetry, songs and, if possible, thought.

* Persecution/punishment of blasphemers (Salman Rushdie still has a death sentence on him), and blasphemy laws in general.

* The requirement of theism in order to stand for public office or to testify in court.

* Serial killers believing they are doing the work of Satan (or sometimes Jesus).

* Often-fatal exorcisms by priests believing they are destroying the work of Satan.

* People suffering dreadful injury or death in the belief that their faith has made them invulnerable (e.g. people climbing into lion enclosures at zoos, with a Bible as protection).

* Whole societies divided by minor differences in belief or doctrine, often resulting in violence.

* Mass suicides of cult-members following a charismatic leader who believes the world is about to End (most recently, the Heaven's Gate and Solar Temple cults - there will be more as we approach the year 2000).

* The attempted genocide of followers of a particular faith (e.g. the Jewish Holocaust, "ethnic cleansing" in former Yugoslavia).

* Blood sacrifices to appease the Gods, or to ensure a good harvest. (The Aztecs made daily human sacrifices to ensure that the Sun would rise. Or did they? )

* The practice of "female circumcision" (more accurately termed genital mutilation).

* The discouragement of rational, critical thought (resulting in young-earth creationists, for example).

* Uncontrolled population growth caused (or at least helped) by churches prohibiting birth-control and abortion. (You can also add : unwanted pregnancies, ill-fated forced marriages, and pregnant teenagers condemned to a life in mental institutions to avoid embarrassing their families.)

* The spread of sexually transmitted diseases (e.g. AIDS) due to churches prohibiting the use of condoms.

* Believers whipping, impaling, poisoning or crucifying themselves during religious festivals as a demonstration of their faith and piety.

* Suicide bombers taught to believe that martyrs go straight to Paradise.

* The indoctrination of children into the religion of their parents, giving them an arbitrary, life-long belief that is almost entirely dependent on their place of birth.

* Women treated as second-class citizens or even slaves (article : Islam's Shame).

* Persecution of homosexuals (Genocide of gay and lesbian youth)

* Abuse of power, authority and trust by religious leaders (for financial gain or sexual abuse of followers and even children).

* Minor religions ("cults") stockpiling weapons to defend themselves from the Armies Of Satan (i.e. the police and the government).

"Ah, but that was all years ago." you might say. Yes, it was. Unfortunately, a lot of these things still go on today. Look through the Freethought Today Newsletter for "In the News", "Religious Violence", and "You won't believe you're reading this" articles. You might be surprised at how many children are killed each year by well-meaning parents trying to exorcise demons, or people killed/imprisoned by fundamentalists for trivial infringements of "holy laws". People still persecute and kill each other safe in the knowledge that God is on their side, and that they are in the right, fighting for Holy Truth and Divine Justice.

It should be noted that many of these atrocities are caused as a direct result of religious belief - if the person did not follow a particular religion, or did not believe quite so strongly, then they simply would not have acted as they did. Not only is religion used to reinforce/justify a person's prejudices, it may also cause someone to commit an act of violence that they would otherwise have considered abhorrent (i.e. the mother who spent several hours beating her young daughter in order to force out the devil that was making the child playfully turn cartwheels in the house - resulting in the death of the child).

The benefits of religion (many of which may be achieved without religious belief) can include spiritual well-being, charitable works, a sense of meaning and purpose, the bringing together of communities, comfort in times of distress and the (unconfirmed) promise of eternal life after death.

How does this weigh against the other side of the scales?

Most of this is based on others work, large portions are transcribed from memory, and some is just quoted (with marks) - but it's exactly my position. *edit* - there are some spelling and grammatical errors in there, but that's my lack of typing skills, so don't bother bringing them up.*edit*

*It is, however, possible to prove logically that self-contradictory beings cannot exist, as I said earlier.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Just an article from the April 10th issue of the Times, in the comment section. It was written by Patrick West, the author of : Conspicuous compassion : why sometimes it really is cruel to be kind.

The article is called : Religion does not cause wars. People do.

edit : typo

The essay is a follow-up to Dawkins' powerful article, "Religion's Misguided Missiles," appearing in The Guardian on September 15, 2001

Stop respecting religion and start submitting it to the same scutiny as any other idea or argument, says Richard Dawkins. And September 11th 2001 makes this scrutiny more urgent than ever...

“To blame Islam for what happened in New York is like blaming Christianity for the troubles in Northern Ireland!†Yes. Precisely. It is time to stop pussyfooting around. Time to get angry. And not only with Islam.

Those of us who have renounced one or other of the three ‘great’ monotheistic religions have, until now, moderated our language for reasons of politeness. Christians, Jews and Muslims are sincere in their beliefs and in what they find holy. We have respected that, even as we have disagreed with it. The late Douglas Adams put it with his customary good humour, in an impromptu speech in 1998 (slightly abridged):

Now, the invention of the scientific method is, I’m sure we’ll all agree, the most powerful intellectual idea, the most powerful framework for thinking and investigating and understanding and challenging the world around us that there is, and it rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked. If it withstands the attack then it lives to fight another day and if it doesn’t withstand the attack then down it goes. Religion doesn’t seem to work like that. It has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. What it means is, “Here is an idea or a notion that you’re not allowed to say anything bad about; you’re just not. Why not? — because you’re not!†If somebody votes for a party that you don’t agree with, you’re free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it. But on the other hand if somebody says “I mustn’t move a light switch on a Saturday,†you say, “I respect that.â€

The odd thing is, even as I am saying that I am thinking “Is there an Orthodox Jew here who is going to be offended by the fact that I just said that?†But I wouldn’t have thought, “Maybe there’s somebody from the left wing or somebody from the right wing or somebody who subscribes to this view or the other in economics,†when I was making the other points. I just think, “Fine, we have different opinions.†But, the moment I say something that has something to do with somebody’s (I’m going to stick my neck out here and say irrational) beliefs, then we all become terribly protective and terribly defensive and say “No, we don’t attack that; that’s an irrational belief but no, we respect it.â€

Why should it be that it’s perfectly legitimate to support the Labour party or the Conservative party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows — but to have an opinion about how the Universe began, about who created the Universe... no, that’s holy? What does that mean? Why do we ring-fence that for any other reason other than that we’ve just got used to doing so? There’s no other reason at all, it’s just one of those things that crept into being, and once that loop gets going it’s very, very powerful. So, we are used to not challenging religious ideas but it’s very interesting how much of a furore Richard creates when he does it! Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you’re not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn’t be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn’t be. (http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/index.html)

Douglas is dead, but his words are an inspiration to us now to stand up and break this absurd taboo. My last vestige of ‘hands off religion’ respect disappeared as I watched the “Day of Prayer†in Washington Cathedral. Then there was the even more nauseating prayer-meeting in the New York stadium, where prelates and pastors did their tremulous Martin Luther King impersonation and urged people of mutually incompatible faiths to hold hands in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the first place. It is time for people of intellect, as opposed to people of faith, to stand up and say, “Enough!†Let our tribute to the September dead be a new resolve: to respect people for what they individually think, rather than respect groups for what they were collectively brought up to believe.

Notwithstanding bitter sectarian hatreds over the centuries (all too obviously still going strong), Judaism, Islam and Christianity have much in common. Despite New Testament watering down and other reformist tendencies, all three pay historic allegiance to the same violent and vindictive God of Battles, memorably summed up by Gore Vidal in 1998:

The great unmentionable evil at the center of our culture is monotheism. From a barbaric Bronze Age text known as the Old Testament, three anti-human religions have evolved —Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. These are sky-god religions. They are, literally, patriarchal — God is the Omnipotent Father — hence the loathing of women for 2,000 years in those countries afflicted by the sky-god and his earthly male delegates. The sky-god is a jealous god, of course. He requires total obedience from everyone on earth, as he is not just in place for one tribe, but for all creation. Those who would reject him must be converted or killed for their own good.

In the Guardian of September 15th (http://www. guardian.co.uk/ Archive/0,423,4257777,00.html), I named belief in an afterlife as the key weapon that made the New York atrocity possible. Of prior significance is religion’s deep responsibility for the underlying hatreds that motivated people to use that weapon in the first place. To breathe such a suggestion, even with the most gentlemanly restraint, is to invite an onslaught of patronising abuse, as Douglas Adams noted. But the insane cruelty of the suicide attacks, and the equally vicious though numerically less catastrophic ‘revenge’ attacks on hapless Muslims living in America and Britain, push me beyond ordinary caution.

How can I say that religion is to blame? Do I really imagine that, when a terrorist kills, he is motivated by a theological disagreement with his victim? Do I really think the Northern Ireland pub bomber says to himself, “Take that, Tridentine Transubstantiationist bastards!†Of course I don’t think anything of the kind. Theology is the last thing on the minds of such people. They are not killing because of religion itself, but because of political grievances, often justified. They are killing because the other lot killed their fathers. Or because the other lot drove their great- grandfathers off their land. Or because the other lot oppressed our lot economically for centuries.

My point is not that religion itself is the motivation for wars, murders and terrorist attacks, but that religion is the principal label, and the most dangerous one, by which a ‘they’ as opposed to a ‘we’ can be identified at all. I am not even claiming that religion is the only label by which we identify the victims of our prejudice. There’s also skin colour, language, and social class. But often, as in Northern Ireland, these don’t apply and religion is the only divisive label around. Even when it is not alone, religion is nearly always an incendiary ingredient in the mix as well. And please don’t trot out Hitler as a counter-example. Hitler’s sub-Wagnerian ravings constituted a religion of his own foundation, and his anti-Semitism owed a lot to his never-renounced Roman Catholicism (see http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/murphy_19 _2.html).

It is not an exaggeration to say that religion is the most inflammatory enemy-labelling device in history. Who killed your father? Not the individuals you are about to kill in ‘revenge’. The culprits themselves have vanished over the border. The people who stole your great-grandfather’s land have died of old age. You aim your vendetta at those who belong to the same religion as the original perpetrators. It wasn’t Seamus who killed your brother, but it was Catholics, so Seamus deserves to die ‘in return’. Next, it was Protestants who killed Seamus so let’s go out and kill some Protestants ‘in revenge’. It was Muslims who destroyed the World Trade Center so let’s set upon the turbaned driver of a London taxi and leave him paralysed from the neck down.

The bitter hatreds that now poison Middle Eastern politics are rooted in the real or perceived wrong of the setting up of a Jewish State in an Islamic region. In view of all that the Jews had been through, it must have seemed a fair and humane solution. Probably deep familiarity with the Old Testament had given the European and American decision-makers some sort of idea that this really was the “historic homeland†of the Jews (though the horrific stories of how Joshua and others conquered their Lebensraum might have made them wonder). Even if it wasn’t justifiable at the time, no doubt a good case can be made that, since Israel exists now, to try to reverse the status quo would be a worse wrong.

I do not intend to get into that argument. But if it had not been for religion, the very concept of a Jewish State would have had no meaning in the first place. Nor would the very concept of Islamic lands, as something to be invaded and desecrated. In a world without religion, there would have been no Crusades; no Inquisition; no anti-Semitic pogroms (the people of the diaspora would long ago have intermarried and become indistinguishable from their host populations); no Northern Ireland Troubles (no label by which to distinguish the two ‘communities’, and no sectarian schools to teach the children historic hatreds — they would simply be one community.)

It is a spade we have here, let’s call it a spade. The Emperor has no clothes. It is time to stop the mealy-mouthed euphemisms: ‘Nationalists’, ‘Loyalists’, ‘Communities’, ‘Ethnic Groups’, ‘Cultures’. ‘Civilisations’. Religions is the word you need. Religion is the word you are struggling hypocritically to avoid.

Parenthetically, religion is unusual among divisive labels in being spectacularly unnecessary. If religious beliefs had any evidence going for them, we might have to respect them in spite of their concomitant unpleasantness. But there is no such evidence. To label people as death-deserving enemies because of disagreements about real world politics is bad enough. To do the same for disagreements about a delusional world inhabited by archangels, demons and imaginary friends is ludicrously tragic.

The resilience of this form of hereditary delusion is as astonishing as its lack of realism. It seems that control of the plane which crashed near Pittsburgh was probably wrestled out of the hands of the terrorists by a group of brave passengers. The wife of one of these valiant and heroic men, after she took the telephone call in which he announced their intention, said that God had placed her husband on the plane as His instrument to prevent the plane crashing on the White House. I have the greatest sympathy for this poor woman in her tragic loss, but just think about it! As my (also understandably overwrought) American correspondent who sent me this piece of news said:

“Couldn’t God have just given the hijackers a heart attack or something instead of killing all those nice people on the plane? I guess he didn’t give a flying fuck about the Trade Center, didn’t bother to come up with a plan for them†(I apologise for my friend’s intemperate language but, in the circumstances, who can blame her?)

Is there no catastrophe terrible enough to shake the faith of people, on both sides, in God’s goodness and power? No glimmering realisation that he might not be there at all: that we just might be on our own, needing to cope with the real world like grown-ups? Billy Graham, Mr Bush’s spiritual advisor, said in Washington Cathedral:

But how do we understand something like this? Why does God allow evil like this to take place? Perhaps that is what you are asking now. You may even be angry at God. I want to assure you that God understands those feelings that you may have.

What an honour, to be licensed to speak for God! But even Billy Graham’s patronising presumption now fails him:

I have been asked hundreds of times in my life why God allows tragedy and suffering. I have to confess that I really do not know the answer totally, even to my own satisfaction. I have to accept, by faith, that God is sovereign, and He is a God of love and mercy and compassion in the midst of suffering. The Bible says God is not the author of evil. It speaks of evil as a “mysteryâ€.

Less baffled by this deep theological mystery were two of America’s best-known televangelists, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. They knew exactly where to put the blame. Falwell said that God had protected America wonderfully for 225 years, but now, what with abortion and gays and lesbians and the ACLU, “all of them who have tried to secularise America... I point the finger in their face and say you helped this happen.†“Well, I totally concur,†responded Robertson. Bush, to his credit, swiftly disowned this revealing example of the religious mind at work.

The United States is the most religiose country in Christendom, and its born-again leader is eyeball to eyeball with the most religiose people on Earth (the Taliban’s religion-inspired laws include draconian penalties for men whose beard is too short — Monty Python could not have dreamed it up.) Both sides believe that the Bronze-Age God of Battles is on their side. Both take risks with the world’s future in unshakeable, fundamentalist faith that God will grant them the victory. J.C. Squire’s famous verse on the First World War comes to mind:

God heard the nations sing and shout

“Gott strafe England†and “God save the King!â€

God this, God that, and God the other thing —

“Good God!†said God, “I’ve got my work cut out!â€

Incidentally, people speak of Islamic Fundamentalists, but the customary genteel distinction between fundamentalist and moderate Islam has been convincingly demolished by Ibn Warraq in his well-informed book, Why I am not a Muslim (see also his statement at the website for Secular Islam: http://www.secularislam.org/).

The human psyche has two great sicknesses: the urge to carry vendetta across generations, and the tendency to fasten group labels on people rather than see them as individuals. Religion fuels both. All violent enmities in the world today fuel their tanks at this holy gas-station. Those of us who have for years politely concealed our contempt for the dangerous collective delusion of religion need to stand up and speak out. Things are different after September 11th. Let’s stop being so damned respectful!

A revised version of a paper written for the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Madison, Wisconsin, reproduced by kind permission of Richard Dawkins.

[denoir 0]

Good essay, but with some flaws. One big thing is that humans are generally conservative. People like to stick to traditions regardless if they are rational or irrational. And a human life involves more than just science. We're not 100% rational beings. Very often we are emotion driven and discarding that part would not only be undesirable but plain impossible.

The Douglas Adams text is nice, but also flawed. He says:

Quote[/b] ]

Now, the invention of the scientific method is, I’m sure we’ll all agree, the most powerful intellectual idea, the most powerful framework for thinking and investigating and understanding and challenging the world around us that there is, and it rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked. If it withstands the attack then it lives to fight another day and if it doesn’t withstand the attack then down it goes.

That is quite correct, but he failed to note that religion is an idea that has survived for very long. It is the survival of the fittest, not the survival of the most rational or 'best'. Scientific theories are no different in that respect. The theory that survives is not the most correct one, but the most practical one. We still largely use Newtonian mechanics and not relativistic because the newtonian is more practical. We have quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity which are completely incompatible and contradict each other. Yet we stick with them because we can do nice calculations with them.

By the same logic you can give religion respect out of the simple fact that a lot of people seem to like it and it has survived for centuries. That doesn't of course mean you should not question it but it should be obvious by now that attacking religion from a rational point of view is an excercise in futility. Religion is not rational and it does not have the ambition (or should not have) to be rational.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Good essay, but with some flaws. One big thing is that humans are generally conservative. People like to stick to traditions regardless if they are rational or irrational. And a human life involves more than just science. We're not 100% rational beings. Very often we are emotion driven and discarding that part would not only be undesirable but plain impossible.

What specifically are you referring to there? I don't see anything, nor remember typing anything, about discarding emotions.

Quote[/b] ]

The Douglas Adams text is nice, but also flawed. He says:

That is quite correct, but he failed to note that religion is an idea that has survived for very long. It is the survival of the fittest, not the survival of the most rational or 'best'.

I'm sure (from reading the entirety of his speech, and from his other articles on the subject) that he knew that. And that, to me, is exactly the point; religion as a meme has survived not because it is rational or best, but because it is 'fit' for surviving- like a virus. It carries with it other memes which maximise its survivability; the 'science can't explain everything' meme, the 'irrational beliefs are good' meme, etc.

Quote[/b] ]

Scientific theories are no different in that respect. The theory that survives is not the most correct one, but the most practical one. We still largely use Newtonian mechanics and not relativistic because the newtonian is more practical. We have quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity which are completely incompatible and contradict each other. Yet we stick with them because we can do nice calculations with them.

I'd say we stick with them because we have nothing better and because they work in the context they are in. I do see waht you are saying, but ask yourself this: if a new theory came along, which explained both, with no contradictions, and fit the evidence better, would it be accepted? The answer is yes, as I'm sure you'd agree. That is the point about the scientific method. It's self-correcting.

Quote[/b] ]

By the same logic you can give religion respect out of the simple fact that a lot of people seem to like it and it has survived for centuries.

I cannot see how you think that. Do we give viruses repect? Do we give parasites respect? Yet they have survived for a long time.

Quote[/b] ]

That doesn't of course mean you should not question it but it should be obvious by now that attacking religion from a rational point of view is an excercise in futility. Religion is not rational and it does not have the ambition (or should not have) to be rational.

So your point is: religious people ignore rational attacks, therefore it's ok?? Shall we apply that to the law? Criminals are not law abiding, nor do they want to be. Should we then stop attempting to enforce the law?