Pharyngula

I read this article this morning - I'm surprised that you didn't comment on the one sentence that made me sputtering mad.

"Also, people who read these books will realize that it is impossible to tar all scientists with the brush of amorality."

Right. Because not being religious AUTOMATICALLY makes one amoral. It was just slipped in there as a matter of course, that amorality is equivalent with atheism, so only the religious scientists aren't amoral.

Posted by: Carlie | July 25, 2006 10:36 AM

I would just add that the 90% of people being religious is abit hyped. By all indicators non religious is the fastest growing group in America and those that do claim religiosity are by and large a 'spiritual' type religion. At least according to polls some people of another branch of religion found discomforting.

Posted by: GH | July 25, 2006 10:43 AM

Three years ago I attended the XIX International Congress of Genetics in Melbourne and there was a special opening session with Sydney Brenner, Charles Yanofsky, Seymour Benzer and others being feted (James Watson was not able to attend and Francis Crick sent a video message). During that session, the panel - the guys who made many of the basic discoveries of that time - spoke scathingly and at length of those who deny the clear evolutionary basis of biology (the "religious right"). Imagine being one of these guys, having helped to decipher the basic facets of genetics, and someone turns to you and says you and your whole life's work are wrong because it isn't what the bible says. http://www.geneticscongress2003.com/ (I was also lucky enough to have my abstract selected for a talk at this meeting.) All the fundamentalists' ears should have turned red.
(signed) marc

Posted by: Marc Buhler | July 25, 2006 10:51 AM

I appreciate that Ian. I am one of those HS biology teachers. Fortunately I also am one of the most popular teachers which has a few perks. One of which is a general immunity to most BS. Doesn't stop all of it, but it does slow it. I start my year with evolution and changed my lesson plans to do so last year. I felt it was a good way to unify all the biological information and detail how science works.

Now the teacher beside me is an out and out creationist who says there is no evidence for evolution all the while believing voices speak to her. A very sweet lady but not a person well grounded in science. Many of her students come to me to discuss evolution as she simply won't discuss it other than a basic presentation of the material.

Posted by: Uber | July 25, 2006 11:13 AM

And Gingerich, being a scientist, can back up his claim about dawkins with evidence. Right?

(Actually Gingerich hasn't really been a scientist for very a long time, even before he retired. Even way back when I was an undergrad at Harvard he was pretty much strictly a historian.)

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | July 25, 2006 11:34 AM

P.Z.: I disagree with your comment on how if the roles were reversed, religious people would be treated better than atheists are treated now. I think the only reason why atheism is generally a pretty moral philosophy for life is because most people who are atheists are also progressive, educated and intellectual, things that would likely make you a decent and kind person on their own. There's no way you could maintain that sort of correlation if the majority of people did not believe in a god.

I'm sure it's not hard to find examples of atheists who are no more tolerant of religious people than religious people are of atheists. The only difference is that those sorts of atheists don't belong to the sort of herd that religious people do, and so aren't able to bring the sort of discrimination forward that they'd like to. Believe me, I've met a few people that make Dawkins and Dennet look like religious apologists.

Posted by: CrazyChemist | July 25, 2006 11:51 AM

I'm tired of the anti-dawkins crowd and their lamebrained theories.

Hmmm. Who's more believable... Dawkins or Robertson?

If a fence sitter can't see it... then they're already a lost cause.

Posted by: Steve_C | July 25, 2006 12:10 PM

CrazyChemist, religious believers have never been persecuted except by believers in other religions (inclusive of non-theistic ones like communism).

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | July 25, 2006 12:20 PM

PZ:

Here's a thought. I agree: few, if any readers are going to turn to religion because of their distaste for Dr. Dawkins. That's because, no matter how odious some might find it, at the end of the day, it's just an idea in a book. It's not a manifesto for a religious or political movement.

But I don't think the same thing is true for a Pat Robertson or a Jerry Falwell! Why is the percentage of free thinkers in North America growing, as many posters here seem to indicate? I think, in part, as a negative reaction to the ideas of the fundamentalists and the manner in which their spin on ancient texts is being pushed in the schools, the courts, the legislature. They are pushy in a way that Dr. Dawkins could never be.

So, I think there's merit to the sort of argument that Gingerich uses. I just think he's got the wrong target. I wish people like him would show more interest in the fundamentalists, who truly are in the business of 'taking liberties', rather than the strongly-held views of one particular scientist.

Sincerely...Scott

Posted by: Scott Hatfield | July 25, 2006 12:39 PM

Dawkins has increased the number of people opposing evolution

Evidence for this statement please? His books are so widely read I think the contrary is much more likely.

evident to any smart religious person, like equating religion to superstition

Shouldn't any smart person be able to see that religions are superstitions with a structure built up around them. How is that offensive if it's obvious? Whats wrong with pointing that out?

Why can one simply not just see the overwhelming probability that the religion you practice is what was thrust upon you as a child and admit as such.

oh and:

) Trust me on everything!! I am a SCIENTIST, reason itself incarnated!!!! Have faith in ME and abandon religion!!!

Only an idiot sees that in what Dawkins writes given his oft repeated statements about evidence and the scietific method. He never asks or says anything that you are saying. Your building a strawman.

Posted by: GH | July 25, 2006 12:43 PM

Well done, PZ! (Not that I would ever expect anything less from you)

It was about time that some-one pointed out that religion is highly developed superstition, and that there is no more irrationality involved in beleiving in the tooth faery than there is in practicing religion. As a matter of fact, if there was nto such a huge and overwhelming bias in favour of religion all over the world, religious fundametalists would be classed as insane and committed to mental hospitals (since, without the religious bias, religion and mental disease are indistinguishable; I've seen both first hand).

Posted by: valhar2000 | July 25, 2006 1:02 PM

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/07/murder_did_i_sa.html

You're hemming and hawing just like the white house.

Is there are movement or not?

Posted by: Steve_C | July 25, 2006 1:24 PM

Dawkins doesn't ask people to have faith in Dawkins, he points to the science and points to the religion and makes perfectly valid points about the wackiness and danger of religion and the credibility of the scientific enterprise.

Responding to Dawkins' attacks by being even more pig-headedly pro-religion is just more proof of the religious person's basic inability to critically examine their religious beliefs.

Dawkins is a very effective proselytizer for science and atheism and more of his kind are sorely needed in a world swamped by kooky proselytizers for religion.

Posted by: George | July 25, 2006 1:39 PM

Greetings, Everybody, Mind, and Spirit! :) :) :)

Specifically, Dr. PZ Myers: Contrary to your conclusion above, I think Ms Cornelia Dean has had presented a fairly good survey of the several new books on Science and Religion, to be (or have been) published by the prominent scientists in the US and the UK.

And, her conclusion on the negative effects that Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett have had brought upon to themselves, is especially critical and acute, from her global view of the affair--ie, Religionism vs. Scientism in general, and Neocreationism vs. Evolutionism in particular--an important debate that I have had also a chance of observing and commenting on, since after the publication of my own book Gods, Genes, Conscience in January 2006, online; and at a time which was coincidental to the 30th anniversary celebration of the British renowned atheist Dawkins' bestseller The Selfish Gene (1976)!

Recently (also as contrary to your arguemnets above) I discovered a new posting (May 18) that came after my (April 2) posting in the GuardianUK, in opposing to the idea of enlisting The Selfish Gene therein, as a science canon!

For your convenience, let me present all these postings (including one that I responded on June 1) herein, with minor editings (as there are several US keystrokes are incompactable with the GuardianUK files); and I would like you all be the judge, scientific and religious, in this matter of importance and consequences--especially as far as Science education and integrity in the UK is concerned; let alone the now worldwide phenomenon, whereupon we are increasingly facing the rise of religious fundamentalism (Religionism and ID neocreationism) as well as Scientism and Evolutionism, as exemplified by the work of Dawkins' above, and the US Tufts philosophy professor Dennett's bestseller Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (February 2006), which I've had also characterized as an anti-Darwinism, Scientism, as well as anti-Religionism--wherein Dennett has had implied Religion as a parasitism, blindly in attempt to resurrect the faulty theory of meme (or myth that I would prefer to call), in the metaphysical wordplay that was initially conceived by Dawkins in his first book The Selfish Gene, over 30 years ago!

------------------------------------------------------------

To the Editor [Comment is free GuardianUK; April 2]:

I read Ian McEwan's article A Parallel Tradition with great interest (Guardian Unlimited, April 1); and couldn't resist to post my relevant responses in this Sue Blackmore's column The selfish gene's birthday hereunder. Subject: Apologia for Scientism

What an Apologia for the Richard Dawkins' scientism propagated in The Selfish Gene, by equating Dawkins' modern evolutionism to the tradition of good science literature! Didn't McEwan realize that The Selfish Gene has had spawned a scientistic groupie of ibots--intellectual robots--who has had since lost their own critical and scientific thinkings? Obviously McEwan is one among them!

What Dawkins has had created is a modern evolutionism, or a genetic determinism to be exact, that if Charles Darwin could have had found out, he would have had turned over in his grave!

Darwinian biology is based on the traditional science of taxonomy and material empiricism; whereas genetic determinism is merely based on Dawkins' metaphysical thinking and definition and wordplay that he misconceived over 30 years ago as a result of his training in ethology--the study of animal behaviorism--while later he decided to venture into modern biology and molecular genetics, instead.

These academic misadventures have had created Dawkins a genetic determinist in his pure intellectual and literary pursuit, while without realizing that his blind (without any scientific basis or empiricism) pursuit of genetic determinism, has had been likened to his throwing out of the baby (evolutionary biology) with the bathwater (the scientific spirits of Charles Darwin or Darwinism)!

Therefore, like the self-defeatist Intelligent Design neocreationism of today in the US, Genetic Determinism is anti-Darwinism! If McEwan could list The Selfish Gene as a traditional science canon, we might as well throw James Frey's bestseller A Million Little Pieces into the mix of good English-language literature!

Thank you for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely, Mong 4/2/6usct3:55p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience (iUniverse, January 2006) and www.GodsGenesConscience.blogspot.com (February 2006).

------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Selfish Genes are killing science [Comment is free GuardianUK; May 18]

Fearing a US-style revival of religion as an alternative to science, the Royal Society recently decided to oppose the teaching of Creationism and intelligent design in UK schools. Some of the same celebrity scientists backing this position are also speaking out against the closure of university science departments, despite evidence that there is an ongoing decline in the number of school leavers wanting to study their courses. It is time they saw the connection.

A few years ago, a professor in a UK university contacted my research team to see whether we could help reform their increasingly unpopular physical science undergraduate degrees. We suggested what we felt were some common sense reforms making the relevance of the science to social and environmental problems explicit from the first lecture, and sacrificing some of the rote-learning of "basic" facts for a more problem-based synthetic approach.

Our proposals were never acted on. We heard reports that les eminences grises had dismissed them as a step backwards. They would rather stick to the traditional approach, and hope the students eventually saw the light. This year their Vice-chancellor announced that recruitment had nose-dived further, and that their whole department was to be closed.

Though the lack of attractive and well-paying careers may be one cause, the fall in demand for science courses is also linked to a sense among young people of a moral emptiness in traditional science.

For much of the twentieth century new generations struggled, often against the odds, to have a career in science because they believed that more science would mean greater social progress. Today's youth see a political system that seems unable to address rising poverty or runaway climate change. They rightly conclude that solving scientific puzzles or inventing new gadgets alone is unlikely to save the world. This is where religions such as Christianity and Islam, with their strong emphasis on social justice, are coming back to haunt the rationalists.

The teaching of Biblical accounts of humanity's origins as having an equal factual basis to biological evolution is, as Britain's teachers voted this spring, nonsensical. Yet few of the sofa scientists acknowledge the need to understand the causes of the revival of Creationism, not merely condemn its consequences.

The quasi-religious belief in the selfish gene by the political class in the UK also helped lay the ground for a return to Creationism. Richard Dawkins justifies unfettered free-market capitalism as if it naturally follows from the laws of nature; and despite New Labour's tinkering, these ultra-Darwinists have helped create a culture that values the pursuit of individual gain above all else.

So should young people believe that selfishness or solidarity is at the heart of humanity? In contrast to their prominence elsewhere, I didn't see many selfish gene advocates taking a leading role in Make Poverty History last year. Like the then-editor of Science, Daniel Koshland, maybe they think poverty is "in the genes." Economics used to be called the "dismal science," but now it seems biology is in danger of joining it.

Too many academic scientists who make a virtue of the amoral nature of scientific inquiry when appearing in the mass media. Yet most young people realise that science conducted without a valuing of the very un-selfish concept of universal human rights ultimately leads to programmes such as eugenics and the cold logic of Nazi gas chambers. All sciences will have to become less dismal, and more moral, if they are to inspire young people again.

There are some exciting new initiatives that seem to be moving in this direction, such as the University of Plymouth's Holistic Science degree, or the University of Strathclyde's collaboration with the Centre for Human Ecology. Even the Hippocratic Oath for scientists recently launched by the Council on Science and Technology was a small step in the right direction.

Some among a new generation of scientists give me hope about the future of our profession. They are modest about the certainty of their knowledge and open to including broader perspectives in their judgements than those that come out of the laboratory. But by living out the saying that "it is not new ideas that triumph, but old professors who pass away," Britain's celebrity spokespeople for science are holding us back. They are making the public think that nothing fundamental about the way we do science needs to change.

Tom Wakeford is Director of Co-Inquiry at the Policy, Ethics and Life Sciences Research Centre, University of Newcastle. His latest book Liaisons of Life (Wiley) explores alternatives to ultra-Darwinism.

------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Rescind Scientism and Evolutionism Now! [Comment is free GuardianUK; June 1]

Thanks to Tom Wakeford, now, I know that I was not the only proverbial little boy, who could see that our Emperor in Darwinism actually has no clothes! (see my post above)

Recently I tried to review the World of Richard Dawkins on his selfish robotic genetics and memetics, but to no avail. Apparently his web pages have had been delisted. Whereas in the Guardian archives, there are still 2 silly nilly statements, that may well become the proverbial nails to his mindless, emotionless, robo-genetic Determinism or Evolutionism coffin, so to speak, and quoted as follows:

1) We admit that we are like apes, but we seldom realize that we are apes; and
2) Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.

As I analyzed above, these lines of scientistic thinking ring hollow in the name of Science; and they certainly run counter to the scientific empiricism of Charles Darwin, or Darwinism, intellectually and spiritually. That is why the US Intelligent Design neocreationists love Dawkins Evolutionism turned anti-Darwinism as anti-Religionism!

As such, I hereby request that both Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett rescind immediately their armchair Scientism--their misusing Darwinism as anti-Religionism--as they have had been propagating in their respective bestsellers The Selfish Gene (1976) and Breaking the Spell (February 2006). In fact, as any hands-on hard-working scientists and philosophers can attest, that Science--as a transparent means of truth knowledge seeking method--will not and should not quarrel with any Faiths of the world; only Scientism and Evolutionism as relentlessly and myopically pursued by Dawkins and Dennett, will!

Furthermore, in order to move on and beyond these senseless Scientism vs. Religionism in general, and Evolutionism vs. Creationism in particular, I have just started a new forum/thread with the Physorg.com entitled Let's begin the Dialogue and Reconciliation of Science and Religion Now! (also listed in my very simple blog www.GodsGenesConscience.blogspot.com), so as to stimulate ourselves to see if we can all evolve to be a better and wiser humanity worldwide--especially in the post 9/11/2001 world today and beyond.

At your convenience, please feel free to comment on the above forum/thread. Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, and scrutinizing!

Sincerely, Mong 6/1/6usct1:49a; author Gods, Genes, Conscience (iUniverse, January 2006) and www.GodsGenesConscience.blogspot.com (February 2006); a freelance philosopher of mind, whose work is based on current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally.

------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening! :) :) :)

Best wishes, Mong 7/25/6usct12:42p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.

Posted by: Mong H Tan, PhD | July 25, 2006 1:42 PM

ID is bad for religion and for science. This is an example why it is silly from a religious point of view. ID is also plainly dishonest and unsincere to anyone because guys like Behe act like they are unclear about common descent (when what the really want to say is "no common descent") and also say its "just about science" (when they know they want "god", and knowing also the supernatural is unavoidable for ID theory)
Scientifically, as we all know, ID provides no mechanism and is thus vacuous, worthless to science.

Posted by: Alexander Vargas | July 25, 2006 1:50 PM

CrazyChemist - Take a visit to Sweden. IIRC, about half the country characterizes themselves as "not religious", and only about 10% goes regularly to church (well, technically, I think more people go to the mosque than the church, these days, as Sweden has a fairly large proportion of muslim immigrants).

Yet Swedes are quite nice people. Honest, generous, peaceful. It contributes more to the UN and to international aid than almost any other country as a percentage of GNP. It has a social security system that is usually the envy of other nations (even though it is faltering). Sweden hasn't been in a war since 1848. All qualities I'd equate with a "moral society", even though most swedes aren't liberal academics...

Although, admittedly, your thought might have the merit of we extend the thought to entire societies instead of individuals. If we refer to Sweden as a highly enlightened society, then it makes sense that it would also be non-religious.

And I kind of like the tag-line "Sweden - the liberal academic of the western world"

Posted by: Schrodingers Gnu | July 25, 2006 1:53 PM

Oh great. Another Time-cuber.

They're crawling out of the woodworks,

Posted by: Steve_C | July 25, 2006 1:59 PM

Greeting everybody from the Conscious and subconcious within the TimeCube!

Posted by: Steve_C | July 25, 2006 2:05 PM

From the article: "Of course, just as the professors of faith cannot prove (except to themselves) that God exists, the advocates for atheism acknowledge that they cannot prove (not yet, anyway ) that God does not exist."

For me, that says it in a nutshell:

No evidence for God, but I'm going to go ahead and believe anyway

vs.

No evidence for God, so why should I / how could I make claims for his/her/its existence?

One person's lack of evidence is grounds for faith, another person's lack of evidence is grounds for scepticism.

Those who go the faith route gain the ability to make a lot of stuff up.

Those who go the scepticism route have no reason to believe the claims of the faithful - it's all made up.

And never the twain shall meet.

Posted by: George | July 25, 2006 2:43 PM

j writes: "Are you saying that it is preferable to use a religious argument against ID, or are you just giving an example?"

I don't know whether it's preferable or not, but MY GOODNESS in my dealings with IDevotees and other creationists the arguments that absolutely INFURIATE them are theological, rather than scientific. And, I might add, they get REALLY mad if you point out that you're a believer who accepts evolution, much more so in my experience than if you don't.

So, since some of you guys seem to enjoy infuriating these folks, the irony is that you might get more satisfaction by employing religious arguments.

Coyly....Scott

Posted by: Scott Hatfield | July 25, 2006 3:19 PM

"these "moral and ethical reflections" you cite, being for the most part rather logical outgrowths of some pretty basic biological imperatives or simple observations of the natural world, were formulated first and that religions were later built up to justify them a posteriori once humanity developed a capacity for abstract, imaginitive thought.
Human ancestors were working together for the common good of their little societies long before they started burying their dead, a fairly unambiguous indicator of religious or proto-religious ideas"

Thats fine, but the fact that these abstract and imaginative thinking, however "a posteriory", have been developed, kept and reinforced in religious frameworks, should be enough for you to realize that religion cannot be reduced to superstition, even if you may argue there is a "superstitious" component.

"Given another 5000-7000 years, it wouldn't be at all surprising to see an agglomeration of silly modern superstitions develop into a full-blown religion of its own"

Nonsense. You mean that black cats, broken mirrors and stuff like that will just condense into a religion in the future? No. Anything that is to develop into a full-blown religion must provide an existencial framework that fits into the needs of a society at a given historical moment.
Right now,the huge amount of truly impressive knowledge accumulated in science contrastsstrongly with its failure to succesfully or convincingly provide an existential framework, that people have become disappointed, they have turned their back on science. They are bored with atoms, neurons, molecules, and planets that however wondrously and perfectly known, they cannot feel they relate it in any significant way to the quite real problems of their own personal lives and of the ongoing problems of humanity at large. They seem just like some huge almanaque, a guiness book of useless knowledge whose bulk itself emphasizes its uselessnes.
People expected high scientifi development to bring nothing less than a peaceful, enlightened and rational society, where existence would be fulfilling. And scientist can only respond by invoking that it IS going to come, yes, only it is STILL in the future...
But people have to deal with their lives NOW

And therefore, they may turn to religion, of course

Posted by: Alexander Vargas | July 25, 2006 3:58 PM

Ms dean's review of dennett's book calls into question whether she read it or just started with some preconceptions, found a statement or two supporting them, and moved on to the next book.

"Dennett ... refers again and again to the "brave" researchers (including himself) who challenge religion."

after two readings of the book, I don't remember any significant number of instances, which is probably a commentary on my reading retention but is nonetheless suggestive that it wasn't repetitive to the point of being noticable. and altho certainly the integrating theme of ms dean's review, it wasn't at all a theme of the book.

"Dawkins and Dennett sound two major themes: a) the theory of evolution is correct, and creationism and its cousin, intelligent design, are wrong; and b) a field of research called evolutionary psychology can explain why religious belief seems to be universal among Homo sapiens. ... these sermons, which the authors preach with what can fairly be described as religious fervor, are unsatisfying."

and a) is noteworthy because?? the converse theme would be, but this just establishes their rationality. and in the case of dennett, b) is flat out wrong. his discussion of EP (late in the book, so maybe ms dean did read it) is replete with caveats about the embryionic state of the field. ms dean is clearly trying to play on the "science is religion" ploy - not very impressive for a science writer.

"which leads one to ask, who are these books for?"

well, if ms dean had made it to the introduction of dennett's book, she would have discovered the answer - see below.

"... filled as they are with denunciation not just of their [religious people's] ideas but of themselves"

this highlights a problem that all critics of religion face. dennett's book is for the religious; he literally begs the religious reader to give him a fair hearing; he makes no dawkins-style inflammatory claims; but he necessarily has to confront some uncomfortable (for the religious) truths. and that, to the apparently hyper-sensitive ms dean, constitutes "denunciation", a catch-22 theme prominent in the book. ie, she missed the whole point.

that even a potentially supportive reviewer so misunderstands and/or misrepresents dennett's book is reason to doubt that it - or any other so themed - can have the intended effect of opening a rational dialogue.

Posted by: ctw | July 25, 2006 4:23 PM

If they had a $&^%*# clue what their lives would be like without science, they'd start to care a hell of a lot more...

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | July 25, 2006 4:27 PM

I think they can acknowledge what science does for them, but they feel it is insufficient, that they need a more social and immediate existential scheme that science may not be able to provide.

This makes me think what Lewontin says about the causes of cholera. We may localize it to a bacteria, we may develop a medical treatment... yet despite these scientific advances, people continue to die of cholera, basically becuase they don't have running water, becuasethey cant afford the medicines...that is, there is more than a bacterial cause... there is a social cause, too...and how the rise in life expectancy in the 20th century was more a result of the social-political elimination of bad labor, economical and general conditions...interesting

Posted by: Alexander Vargas | July 25, 2006 4:40 PM

YIKES! Forget Gingerich:

Curiously, Gingerich's lectures have sometimes evoked more criticism from fellow Christians than from his secular colleagues. His scientific perspective often elicits criticism from "young earth" creationists, who are uncomfortable with the 20 billion years of cosmic history the scientific account of creation now implies.

Yet Gingerich avoids the temptation to respond dogmatically to his critics. He says, "I think that it might be possible, the ultimate truth is, that the universe was created only 6,000 years ago. But since, in my view, the Creator has filled it with marvelous clues pointing back to something like 10 or 20 billion years, I would be content to do my science by building up this coherent view of a multibillion-year-old creation."

http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_owengingerich.htm

Posted by: George | July 25, 2006 5:13 PM

Here's a simple thought experiment, though. If some prominent scientist came out with a book in which he claimed that his keen analytical mind and training in science had led him to support the idea of the existence of Zeus or the Tooth Fairy, how would book reviewers and scientists react?

Alan Sokal, check your messages.

Posted by: quork | July 25, 2006 8:24 PM

Vargas your arguments are, well, not so good.

I asked you for evidence that Dawkins is hurting the cause of evolution. You give none. A really weak retort but none. In his home country and throughout Europe evolution is widely accepted. It is not Dawkins who is the problem over here. We need more of him not less.

Nonsense. You mean that black cats, broken mirrors and stuff like that will just condense into a religion in the future? No. Anything that is to develop into a full-blown religion must provide an existencial framework that fits into the needs of a society at a given historical moment.

But that framework is based on the same mentality as other superstitions. One could create a religion out of black cats and broken mirrors also. How is saying a roseary or using a cross or any of the other endless religious rituals any different at all? Your just playing word games.

Not that overwhelmingly. People can switch religious beliefs or abandom them, sometimes massively as documented by history.

To abandon them is the greatest. But all statistics point to the fact that if your born Baptist your 98% likely to die Baptist. Your just wrong about these mass conversions. Except for the 'forced' ones at the end of a sword.

And you still haven't shown where Dawkins is even remotely wrong about religion. Just some ad hoc junk.

Posted by: GH | July 26, 2006 12:58 AM

I constructed this in response to a General saying the ever popular "there are no atheist in foxholes" BS. I think it is apropos here... as in response to the ever popular "good science and religion are not irreconcilable" BS. So for all those "rational" believers out there allow me this rant (again prompt was a Army General and the "foxhole" declaration):
_____________________________________

If your God is so important, so powerful, so merciful, if you believe in his love and care and protection so much, why not rip off your armor, throw down your arms, stop all offensive, defensive, and evasive moves, lift up your hands to heaven and ask god, who promised NEVER to forsake you as a believer, to deliver you and your buddies from evil and harm? Why not?

Hey at home, why not refuse medical care for your beloved child and put your precious child's fate in the hands of god who PROMISED to heal all sickness if you believe? Why not?

Let me tell you why you (assuming you are sane and knowledgeable) do NOT simply rely on god in critical situations: IT'S BECAUSE YOU ARE AN ATHEIST! Plain and simple; a spade being called a spade!

Yup -- for every bloody excuse you give like "god doesn't work that way" etc., etc., I say that you are just running from your ATHEISM!!! Oh deny it if you have to; call me silly, foolish, the devil, or whatever. BUT actions speak louder than words and FACE IT "BELIEVERS": when the chips are down you believe in the power of god about as much as I (an HONEST atheist) do!!!! Because you know deep down that for all your prayers and worship and affirmations of faith, I (an honest ATHEIST) get the same bloody odds and results you do for any given action in a particular situation!! True believers go figure how that can be?!?!

Again, I'm honest - you just think you are honest, "believers!"

Get HONEST!!! You are god invoking god praising ATHEISTS at the core!!!

My take for what it is worth. But think about it.

Posted by: ConcernedJoe | July 26, 2006 6:45 AM