Re: An insult


Dave Smith wrote:
On 28 Aug, 09:56, Lance <LanceG...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 27, 10:42 pm, Dave Smith <da...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On 27 Aug, 07:56, Lance <LanceG...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Surely atheists contradict this claim? And note that atheism is not a
modern phenomenon - there were plenty in roman and Greek times.

Yes, I think in that quote Wilson gets a little carried away. Later
in the same chapter he discusses how science challenges religion:

" ..the final decisive edge enjoyed by scientific naturalism will come
from its capacity to explain traditional religion, its chief
competitor, as a wholly material phenomenon. Theology is not likely to
survive as an independent intellectual discipline. But religion itself
will endure for a long time as a vital force in society."

The perseverance of religion is due to its emotional appeal and:

"The spiritual weakness of scientific naturalism is due to the fact
that it has no such primal source of power. While explaining the
biological sources of religious emotional strength, it is unable in
its present form to draw on them, because the evolutionary epic denies
immortality to the individual and divine privilege to the society, and
it suggests only an existential meaning for the human species.
Humanists will never enjoy the hot pleasures of spiritual conversion
and self-surrender; scientists cannot in all honesty serve as
priests."

I think science can be, and often is, driven by a passion for truth.
bertrand Russell thought so.

I think social organisations can be driven by mundane things such as
the desire for profit, but they can also be guided a by a passion for
justice and an ethic of care and service. In my opinion I would rather
believe the pronouncements of someone driven by a passion for truth
than fronm someone serving a mysterious unobservable God to whom (he
thinks) he has some kind of priveledged access. Ditto justice and
service.

I doubt whether many science lecturers can stir the emotions like a
Billy Graham.

What about Hitler? Was his ability to stir emotions related to
religion?

What about fear? Do you think many priests could make people as afraid
as Stalin did? Was the source of Stalin's power religion?

There are many sources of emotion that have zilch to do with religion.
And sometimes the good guys can bring about social change without
being emotional. I think that is why Socrates was given hemlock to
drink...

Lance

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: AiG goes after Francis Collins
    ... principles is incompatible with what science tells us about the world. ... the idea that God speaks directly to any person, ... any "is" claims must be accompanied by evidence. ... was that the proper domain of religion is "ought" claims only. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... acceleration of the universe was found? ... "Science any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical ... this is no more than religion. ... "Scientists maintain that scientific investigation must adhere to the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Televangelist Robertson warns town of Gods wrath
    ... continue to exist--yet no one would argue that they have consciousness. ... The former is what religion and philosophy try to explain. ... >>The latter is what evolutionary science deals with. ... pursue science because they are dedicated to the discovery of new ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Re: Justice and Equity
    ... Yet it is science which has informed us that in many cases the cause ... science which has given us this very useful information not religion. ... recognise is our common humanity. ... reformation is reason. ...
    (soc.religion.bahai)
  • Re: AiG goes after Francis Collins
    ... inconsistent with the rest of science. ... Have you considered taking a class in comparative religion? ... questions of "ought" is compatible with science. ... and that is the key problem that "compatiblists" constantly ignore. ...
    (talk.origins)