"The Root of All Evil" Parl II

the issue that any religious person will eventually tell you is the prime reason that they are religious ... morality.

Not true. True, perhaps, for "many religious people", but not for "any" religious person.

Here are my thoughts on the matter, about being a scientist and not an atheist:

http://brahms.phy.vanderbilt.edu/~rknop/blog/?p=42

BTW, part of what I say there does agree with your fundamental point -- of course you can be moral and good while still being an atheist. However, you don't need to misrepresent all of religion in order to make that point.

-Rob

I'm not so convinced that "changing the subject" is a viable solution - it just opens the door to the wack-jobs at the Disco Institute to preach their version as much as they'd like. Yes, I think we need to discuss why religion or a belief in God can fuel either moral or immoral behavior, but we also need to teach the science, and debunk the misinformation.

Just my 2c.

I don't know. I've talked to many religious individuals. And unlike Dawkins, I've tried (in my own limited way) to explore their views ... why do they believe. They have always told me the same. In the end humanity needs religion ... humanity needs a moral compass. This is there most tightly held belief. Other subjects such as evolution and other "liberal" ideas are seen in this paradigm. But is that true? Do we need religion to be moral? Is the belief in evolution evil ... does it leed to Nazism or any other BS they publish? Just read what they write ... it's all there. The debate has nothing to do with truth, in there mind it's a moral war.

I'm a big fan of the methods used by Dawkins. At least he has the balls to have a go at the people he interviews. Also, it is important to realise this program was made for a British audience, who are used to an interviewer with some actual intellectual bite.

"he confronts the interviewee too abrasively"
But ain't it fun to watch! I agree with the whole morality thing, that is the true driving force behind the Culture War.

All this battle of Science and Religion ... it's a mask, a mask for the REAL issue, the issue that any religious person will eventually tell you is the prime reason that they are religious ... morality. I can hear them now "if you don't believe what prevents you from stealing, killing, and raping?" Dawkins heard them too, is puzzled by it, but this remains a side issue. It is not. This is why people hold on to religions so tightly ... it's this fear of a moral-less life. They don't want their kids to learn evolution, because it will lead to immorality.

I thought the immorality thing was only important because it got in the way of the immortality thing.

I am inclined to agree with somnilista. Religion is attractive to those who have trouble with the notion that they are rather transient and insignificant bits of an indifferent universe, and that even being the rather insignificant bits they are is not part of anyone's grand design for anything. This should not be cause for depair. As Dawkins points out it is a rather remarkable thing that each of us beat the odds by being born, and we should savor the existence we have without childishly wanting more. It does not reflect well on the human intellect to desire, invent and then fervently believe in scenarios wherein more will be granted.

I'm not so convinced that "changing the subject" is a viable solution

Instead of "change the subject" I should have wrote ... address the root cause.

The presumed requirement of religion for morality is only part of the root of religious hostility to science. Differences of epistemology between "scientific" and "religious" views are also responsible, and cannot be as simply resolved.

In particular, Christianity (especially Protestantism), specifies that faith is a prerequisite for salvation. While this faith isn't simply credulity and it's details vary between the different strains of Christian theology, it typically involves an explicit rejection of empiricism with regard to the matter which one has faith in and is summed up nicely as "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Heb 11:1 ESV). Science, on the other hand, explicitly embraces empiricism.

While the "knowledge" stemming from faith doesn't conflict with the "knowledge" stemming from science, this isn't an issue. However, when they do conflict, a person has to chose which way of knowing to give preference to. This is why someone who has faith in (not simply believes) creationism (for whatever theological reason) cannot simply adapt their faith to match the empirical evidence - doing so means accepting empiricism as a better way of knowing than faith.

What scientists fail to understand about [some] religious people, namely christians, is the love they have for the man: Lord Jesus Christ, God's son. We see his actions and we want to imitate him, because he is good and loving. He confronted the entire religious establishment of his day and the government, peacefully, and submitted himself willingly to their verdict. Then, rose from the dead to prove that he wasn't just making it up.

What scientists fail to understand is that the real reason we love Jesus is that if there is a God, we know Jesus is him, because of his great love. Science says little about love except for chemicals and hormones and game theory about altruism. Love goes deeper, and science cannot measure or observe real love.

What christians can't understand about scientists is why they deny the fact that the universe had to be created by someone, it didn't just accidently appear as they claim. Even by the law of conservation of energy it becomes clear that all the energy in the universe must have originated somewhere. But anyway. People are religious because of LOVE not morality. I believe in Jesus not some abstract God-like being. And the fact of the matter is, he's the king, and he's coming back. be ready.

Jesus is the incarnation of pure love in human form. Its hard to read the new testament without seeing that, but some people neither have eyes to see nor ears to hear.

Hi Nick,

We are not talking about Jesus. We are not talking about love, we are not denying anything. We as scientist are trying to figure out reality. We make measurements and we assess what may have happened and what couldn't have happened. With regards to this entry:

- Right now there is a petty argument going on about evolution. It is the equivalent of debating whether algebra is true or not.
- Right now certain people believe in a God, but a minority of those people make life a living hell for others. I don't want to stop people from practicing their religion, but we all must be tolerant. That minority of religious people (whether they are Muslim, Christian or Jewish) are not tolerant and they claim that they hold these views in the name of morality. That is unacceptable. And it has nothing to do with the love of Jesus. They think that we scientists are at war with them ... but we are not. They think that we control "things", we do not. We simply want to know the truth. And the truth is something out there beyond our wishes, beyond what we want. It is beyond morality/immorality, beyond love. It just is. And my job is to find it.

But anyway. People are religious because of LOVE not morality

Now you're over-generalizing a bit. The Rev. Fred Phelps is not religious because of LOVE.

Jesus is the incarnation of pure love in human form. Its hard to read the new testament without seeing that, but some people neither have eyes to see nor ears to hear.

Like that Canaanite dog who dared to ask the saviour of the Jews to help here, she clearly did not have eyes to see nor ears to hear.