Gap widens between science, religion

[Lee]

The AGE November 30, 2009

SUSHI DAS

THE September 11 terrorist attacks had set back the case for a measured debate between science and religion, giving rise to more extreme views on both sides, according to one of the world's foremost scientists.

Physicist and cosmologist Paul Davies said the ''religion wars'' had been ''breaking out all over the world'', but particularly in the US, following the attacks.

The debate between science and religion has attracted extra attention recently as this year marks the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth.
''I think [9/11] has polarised people and it's meant that people think that by religion, what you mean is people prepared to go out and kill, and religious zealots are people who are just dangerous,'' he told The Age.
''It's a world away from my Jesuit priest friends and Buddhist people I know, and people who don't have an absolutely fixed position in advance and are quietly looking to make this a better world and try and understand our place in it in greater depth,'' he said.

After spending 16 years in Australia, British-born Dr Davies moved to Arizona State University in 2006. In 1995 he was awarded the Templeton Prize, the world's richest prize for intellectual endeavour, for his work on the deeper significance of science.

In that year, the prize was described as being for ''a living individual who has shown extraordinary originality in helping to advance the world's understanding of God and/or spirituality''.

Tom Frame, director of St Mark's National Theological Centre at Charles Sturt University and former Bishop to the Australian Defence Force, said science and religion could walk together comfortably.

But views like those of evolutionary biologist and outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins did not help to foster a mature debate between science and religion.

In his 2006 popular book The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist, and that beliefs based on faith rather than on evidence are a delusion.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/ga...1129-jywo.html

[SchizoDeluxe]

Dawkins attitude may be a bit rough but rightly so, it's about time the religious nuts were shown just how stubborn and ignorant they have been for thousands of years.

[gruber]

So what's the point of this article other then to bash some atheists

[nettybetty]

I find this article rather pointless, simply because it highlights one side, and not really the other, and then supports said side by stating the person making the claim has won awards. It's very poorly written in my opinion, and offers no points of view or argument other than the poor, beaten religious folk are after pity and sympathy. Since so many people are asking the religious to defend their position , they are being 'attacked'? As an atheist I'm tired of being attacked and being told I'm going to hell, I'm a sinner, I'm a bad person blah blah blah....not to mention all the folk who went through inquisitions, wars, and got thrown in prison for trying to advance scientific endeavour. They can't take a few questions? The world's smallest violin is playing for you...seriously harden up.

And quoting Dawkins at the end of the article hardly is presenting the other side of the argument...he takes the the extreme end of atheism, but I think by calling the religious deluded he is doing a great job at getting them to attempt to defend their beliefs. And it's like the pot calling the kettle black when you think about it.

[robertkd]

But the article has good woo factor, reinforcing the righteousness of the beliefers and imposing some form of "we think we must be right therefore we're obviously right hey?" preposition. It would appear that beliefers are feeling threatened and the polarising of fundamentalists since 9-11 is I think a smoke screen on the one hand secularism and science threatens the beliefers position, on the other hand extremist actions strengthens beliefers position and people that don't conform aka atheists weaken their position therefore they attack us. Form a xian fundamentalists position 9-11 couldn't have been better if they had planed and executed it themselves.

[deesl4e]

@ robertkd
exactly right about beliefers as you call them feeling threatened. I don't know if it's just me but there seems to have been an upsurge in attacking atheists from the theists. Bit like a conered cat lashing out.

[wearestardust]

Originally Posted by Lee

the Templeton Prize, the world's richest prize for intellectual endeavour,

Ahem. the Templeton prize is for religious writing and thought. Dawkins is spot on when he says that the prize is usually given "to a scientist who is prepared to say something nice about religion" (TGD, cited on Wikipedia).

What this reflects is the continuing response of theists to secularism and atheism: to be offended. Any perspective that differs from theirs is offensive; any public expression of an opinion that differs from theirs, and is not couched in terms of "but maybe religion has something to say", is considered strident and unhelpful.

Religion seeks to enslave us all, and is based on falsehoods. That's not strident, it's saying what I think in a clear and pithy way that theists would do well to emulate. Happy to debate on that basis.

[Aam]

With the templeton prize, one of Dawkins' friends suggested jokingly he take it (from TGD) if he ever fell on hard times. In the end its just a bribe for scientists to create theories compatible with religion.

The article points to "my Jesuit priest friends and Buddhist people I know, and people who don't have an absolutely fixed position in advance and are quietly looking to make this a better world and try and understand our place in it in greater depth" however, isn't a large driving factor of atheists the fact that our political motives are not based on secular judgements? Its not those people that end up trying to alter laws, its the loud ones, and thats why we have people like Dawkins to oppose them. Their issue, as has been said, is that people actually exist to oppose them.

[DanDare]

Mumble mumble mumble Templeton Prize mutter mutter atheists mumble strident mutter mutter Dawkins, so there.

Oh ho hum.

[DanielV]

Interesting article.

I'm very fond of Paul Davies as a writer.

But I find I still come down on the side of Dawkins - I just don't think that just because a system of thought (religion) has existed for a long time and is widely embraced by the population that that should in itself accord that system of thought special privelege or respect.

Respect should be something that is earned, over time, through the repeated application of decisions, logic and actions that contribute; overall; to the well-being of others. I don't see religion filling this criteria.