In light of Dawkins' recentish high profile attacks on YE OLDIE GODS. Is there a relatively current, and growing energy, within the science community to step up attacks, in order to attempt to extinguish the belief in deities once and for all?

The question in your post doesn't quite match the poll options. Are we talking about a conflict of philosophies or of individuals?

The question in your post doesn't quite match the poll options. Are we talking about a conflict of philosophies or of individuals?

 

Individual perceptions.

Individual perceptions.

 

Whose perceptions of what?

Whose perceptions of what?

 

An individual's perception of if there is a war, 'of sorts', occurring between science and religion:

Is science at war with the belief in deities?

Is religion at war with science?

Is the war secret, clandestine, underground?

Is there a war?

Has the 'war' been on-going since alchemy was recognised?

 

 

I did rushed the poll a little. Does this help?

 

I'm just interested in peoples perceptions here. There is no right or wrong.

 

cheers

We've actually talked about this here before, and some of the most interesting comments have come from ostensibly liberal members who feel that classical liberalism has been supplanted (to some extent, depending on who is posting) by progressivism and political correctness.

 

I think that's a long way from a "war on religion", but there are aspects of progressivism that are clearly at odds with religion, just as the opposite is true. That's why I think (my opinion here) that people need to learn how to recognize partisanship and ideological intolerance and REJECT IT, whether it comes from the right OR the left. It's ALWAYS bad.

 

That's not to say that Richard Dawkins doesn't have some really important and interesting points, or that Rush Limbaugh can't shine a light on a significant problem. (Ok maybe not Rush -- perhaps Bill O'Reilly might be a better example.) Partisanship is a personal choice and partisans have opinions and votes just like anybody else. Partisanship can even be argued to help society (something I learned here at SFN), at least in the sense that it points out the places you don't want society, as a whole, to go.

 

But ultimately people need to realize that partisanship doesn't move society forward. Compromise is NOT a bad word, and finding middle ground can move society forward.

 

(Isn't it interesting that that's what "progressive" actually means -- gradual, forward progress, but the progressive movement actually preaches intolerance and refusal to compromise? Not that the radical right is any better, mind you, but I think it's interesting. One of my favorite examples of misnamed right-wing groups is the "moral majority", which was clearly neither!)

Many scientists have a high degree of religiosity. Many religious people have a firm grasp of the key tenets of science. The two are not so much at odds, and I don't believe there is a war in the way you suggest.

 

Science is a search for closer and closer approximations of the truth.

Religion is a set of truths left open for exploration.

The two really don't mesh too well, and the compromise is left within the mind of the person.

 

I would say that science is at war with the ignorance that is often associated with religion, not with religion itself.

 

 

To share my own stance, I think that religion is holding us back as a society, and that many of the stories and principles which helped us get where we are have begun to retard our progress. I find the psychological turmoil caused by religions non alignment (both across and within religions) is dangerous to our mental health. I also find further neuroses induced by the need to protect one's religious belief in the face of reality and contrary information, neuroses which could so easily be avoided. Religion exploits our evolved social behavior and grouping tendencies, and it is abused by those desiring power and control.

 

I have little problem with personal faith. I have a problem following the "personal" faith of someone else.

 

Now, more specific to "God"...

 

I suggest that just because one does not fully understand the complexity around them is no reason to jump to the conclusion that some suber uber omnipotent all powerful cloud surfer designed it. I too find immense beauty in nature. I look at the patterns, the connections, from the ocean to the forests to the stars, and find myself awe struck. I feel humbled knowing I'm a tiny piece of nothing on a tiny piece of blue world on a tiny piece of cosmic time. I love searching for knowlege and understanding, and trying to more fully connect myself with that which is natural beauty.

 

But why waste so much effort putting all this faith into a being which is unprovable, and tends more to satisfy weak minds? Again, just because we cannot fully comprehend the awesomeness of the universe does not logically dictate that there must be a super intelligent puppet master behind it all.

 

If you show me some evidence of god(s) that is not simple poetic rhetoric or calls to a 2 thousand year old book written by humans, I will re-evaluate my stance for sure. Until then, I'll find my own mind supporting the beauty of the vastness as a wonderful collection of random events spread across billions of years... without some ethereal editor behind the cosmic curtain.

iNow,

Let me first say that I'm not trying to convince you of anything; just to clarify.

 

But why waste so much effort putting all this faith into a being which is unprovable, and tends more to satisfy weak minds? Again, just because we cannot fully comprehend the awesomeness of the universe does not logically dictate that there must be a super intelligent puppet master behind it all.

 

But Faith is, by definition, accepting without proof.

 

From Webster's

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

 

"Weak minds"? How do you come to this conclusion?

Many of the greatest minds in history have believed in God. Including Einstein.

 

If you show me some evidence of god(s) that is not simple poetic rhetoric or calls to a 2 thousand year old book written by humans, I will re-evaluate my stance for sure. Until then, I'll find my own mind supporting the beauty of the vastness as a wonderful collection of random events spread across billions of years... without some ethereal editor behind the cosmic curtain.

 

I assume that you are refering to the New Testament. The Old Testament is almost twice as old. It is based in large part on the Hebrew Bible and was written from about the 15th century BC to the 4th century BC.

We do not believe that the Bible was "written by humans", but by the Holy Spirit.

 

Do random events sufficiently explain it for you?

I assume that you are refering to the new testament. The old testament is almost twice as old. It is based in large part on the Hebrew Bible and was written from about the 15th century BC to the 4th century BC.

We do not believe that it was "written by humans", but by the Holy Spirit.

 

So I presume it would have been better were I to say "irrational minds?" I'm pretty sure I already stepped over the line with my post above, and that the forum staff would prefer we do not continue this religious discussion in a science forum.

 

I am glad to PM if you wish.

 

I am okay that you feel otherwise, and hope you recognize that I'm just enormously frustrated by religion (which, btw, extends far beyond the scope of just Christianity).

 

Cheers.

So I presume it would have been better were I to say "irrational minds?" I'm pretty sure I already stepped over the line with my post above, and that the forum staff would prefer we do not continue this religious discussion in a science forum.

 

I am glad to PM if you wish.

 

I am okay that you feel otherwise, and hope you recognize that I'm just enormously frustrated by religion (which, btw, extends far beyond the scope of just Christianity).

 

Cheers.

 

 

LOL. Yeah, I felt a little uneasy writting that here too, but I' confident that what I wrote was fact-based (age, definition, Christians believe...., etc).

Many scientists have a high degree of religiosity. Many religious people have a firm grasp of the key tenets of science. The two are not so much at odds, and I don't believe there is a war in the way you suggest.

 

aha, you`re the one that voted the same as me then, I Did wonder

 

there is no "war".

Actually, I haven't voted!

Are there individual scientists and individual religious who think there's a war and are fighting it? Sure. Are the fundamental philosophies of religion and science engaged in some sort of cosmic struggle? I don't think so. I'm going to take that as what you mean and vote "no there is no such war."

One has to wonder, how do people get polarized to the point where they think that there is always a struggle between different philosophies or beliefs? Especially since that science is not an ideology, or a belief.

The war on drugs

The war on poverty

The war on terror

The war on guns

The war on christmas

The war on spam

The war on religion

The war on science

 

is it safe to go outside anymore?

Go on youtube and look up atheism or Christianity, and you will get untold numbers of videos. That may say something about the public's view on religion.

Is there a relatively current, and growing energy, within the science community to step up attacks, in order to attempt to extinguish the belief in deities once and for all?

I think most fundamentalists would like the answer to be "Yes". One of the ways to simultaneously gain followers *and* credibility (credibility with those who'll only hear one side anyway) is to suggest there's a big controversy going on. "OMG! The scientists all want to wipe out your belief in GOD!!!" But I'd have to say, "No, there is no secret or overt war against religion".

 

To me, it's really simple. God can't be proven or disproven, not by scientists or the clergy (though both try, both ways). Since He's unobservable science can't measure Him. It should be acceptable that science can ignore God until further evidence comes along. And it should be acceptable that people of faith can believe what they want as long as they don't force it on others.

 

I think the main problems are certain creationists who want to use science to prove God, and certain atheists who want to use science to disprove God. They are the ones blurring the lines and causing the big "controversy".

 

Stop trying to prove that evolution is false! Evolution isn't threatening your religion!

 

Stop asking for evidence of God! If He left incontrovertible evidence then faith would be worthless!

You know what I think might be an interesting addition to this discussion is to explore a bit of why religious people sometimes feel that there IS such a war.

 

Bear in mind that we've seen one aspect of that war, if it exists, right here on these boards, in the way religious scientists face criticism from atheists for their point of view. (A point of view which, by the way, is quite common, and perhaps even represents the majority! Are they all deluded and mislead? Even the ones with MDs and PhDs?)

Actually, I haven't voted!

 

with every assumption, there is a risk.

 

The war on drugs

The war on poverty

The war on terror

The war on guns

The war on christmas

The war on spam

The war on religion

The war on science

 

is it safe to go outside anymore?

 

There needs to be a war on fear.

 

Are there individual scientists and individual religious who think there's a war and are fighting it? Sure. Are the fundamental philosophies of religion and science engaged in some sort of cosmic struggle? I don't think so. I'm going to take that as what you mean and vote "no there is no such war."

 

As far as religious collectives at war with science (and opposing philosophies), I think there is quite a bit of strong evidence about. As far as scientific collectives, societies, 'stone cutters', being at war with religion and the belief in deities, I haven't seen a lot of strong evidence to point to this, only a handful of active individuals.

 

I think there is and has always been wars by various religious groups on science, generally out of ignorance, irrational fear, and the loss of personal control and status. Of course, some science can and does displace power.

 

I think politics spins science to help it’s various outcomes, with both positive and negative community impacts. Politicians are also unnecessarily fearful of loss of status and control when certain new technologies are pushing for public release. The home PC and internet come to mind here.

 

I think the mass media compacts and sensationalises (and in doing so, unintentionally provides incorrect information) science to boost it’s ratings, in order to grow it’s advertising revenue. In general the commercial media has no interest in providing accurate and easy to understand science information. And on this point, I think it is absolutely vital to have a U.N. type science media distribution organisation (a hub) that makes its business to make all highly probable science findings easy to understand (from pre-school student level on), interesting, accurate and non-sensational.

 

 

The great thing about science is that any political or religious (or both) group that puts a stop to scientific discovery, is also putting a stop to their own thoughts of global domination. So we see here that science will progress in even the harshest of human environments. Historically we can see this. Science will progress due to man’s ancient need for control. Religion and armies are the two obvious forms of control. Science is pretty much immune to full/permanent control by political and religious groups, because it help both to remain in control.

 

 

Also, to the moderator that re-titled this poll as 'against religion'. It's more accurate titled as science against a belief in dieties, gods, mythical beings etc. Or, those who believe in gods against science. Not religion as such. I think religion doesn't necessarily need a belief in a diety, or other mythical figure. cheers.

....religious scientists....(A point of view which, by the way, is quite common, and perhaps even represents the majority! Are they all deluded and mislead? Even the ones with MDs and PhDs?)

There must be some statistics on this somewhere...

There needs to be a war on fear.

 

Or better yet, a War on War.

Even the ones with MDs and PhDs?)

 

What? MDs & PhDs don't immunize one against irrational thought!