DWill wrote: "While I do consider religious institutions and their representatives — popes, bishops, mega-preachers, ayatollahs, and rabbis — fair game for criticism, what good could come from insulting individuals who find value in religion? And more pertinently, what alternative does science have to offer? Science is not in the business of spelling out the meaning of life and even less in telling us how to live our lives. We, scientists, are good at finding out why things are the way they are, or how things work, and I do believe that biology can help us understand what kind of animals we are and why our morality looks the way it does. But to go from there to offering moral guidance seems a stretch./

I would question whether we derive morality from religion, but certainly religion seems to reinforce moral behavior. More importantly, many people find meaning in their religion, whatever flavor it is. I like to think that organized religion will eventually fall out of favor, but ultimately in a free society people get to choose what they believe.

I want to quote Muhammad here: "To you your religion and to me my religion."

Oh, thanks for posting the link.

DWill wrote:our old friend Frans deWaal... [asks] what good could come from insulting individuals who find value in religion?

The problem here is that people of faith commonly believe things that are not true. The eventual consequences of false belief are dire. The most stark example is that indifference to global warming has its intellectual foundation in religious blind faith, with a hostility to evidence that is psychologically very similar to creationism.

It should not be seen as insulting to point out that somebody is wrong, for example in their belief in creationism, flat earth theory, virgin birth, safety of CO2 emissions, etc. Many wrong people are just ignorant dupes, and if they repent of their error even Jesus says they will be forgiven.

Building a framework for morality that is based on evidence is bound to produce superior results than building a framework based on falsity. We ought to be able to measure the consequences of rival paths as a way to base values on facts. First we need to agree on common values, for example human flourishing and biodiversity. We can then say Path A will produce poverty and extinction, while Path B will produce prosperity and sustained diversity, so B is morally superior to A.

But this debate doesn't even get started while religious people insist on throwing spanners of false belief into the mix.

Religious people often assume that the longevity of their traditions makes them immune from criticism. This is a frustrating attitude that is quite hypocritical, given the emphasis Jesus placed on truth. However, atheists are often equally closed-minded, failing to see the social benefits of faith.

I suppose the key word from deWaal might be "insulting" those who find value in religious belief. I don't see this the way you do, Robert. Of the factors or influences that can send thinking into a ditch, religious belief is only one. As to whether global warming denial is religious in origin, it would be difficult to collect data indicating that, not when even the Southern Baptist Convention in the U.S. issues a position paper urging its members to support carbon reduction.

Saffron wrote:Did anyone watch? After viewing the first of three parts, it seems to me that we have always been a crazy country as far as religion is concerned.

Yes agree with you which leads the global culture towards a different direction which is not healthy for the future generations.

God? Who is this? Let's keep this forum on the topic of existant beings that have physical evidence of that they exist. And for anyone who tries to refute this argument, you're wrong. there is no proof for any God.

booksftw wrote:God? Who is this? Let's keep this forum on the topic of existant beings that have physical evidence of that they exist. And for anyone who tries to refute this argument, you're wrong. there is no proof for any God.

Do you even know what this thread is about?

Has anyone heard of or read "The Case for God"? I saw a girl reading it on the subway last week.

Clayburn wrote:Has anyone heard of or read "The Case for God"? I saw a girl reading it on the subway last week.

yes, I liked it. I wrote a review of it at http://www.booktalk.org/the-case-for-god-t8001.html

Darn! Wish I could see that over here. My husband and I were discussing why certain religious trends, such as Creationism, has managed to take hold in America but not here in Germany. Do you know if they have a transscript?

oblivion wrote:Darn! Wish I could see that over here. My husband and I were discussing why certain religious trends, such as Creationism, has managed to take hold in America but not here in Germany. Do you know if they have a transscript?

It is tricky trying to watch programs from a different country than the one you are living in. Until my daughter went to Japan I did not know that everything I see on the web is not what she is able to see. Also, DVD's only play in the country they were made to be sold in. With all that said, yes, you can get a transcript of the program.

http://www.pbs.org/godinamerica/transcripts/

I hope the link works for you. The entire program is available to view on the web, but not sure if it can be seen in Germany. PBS also sells the DVD, but again, I think it might not work in Germany.