I do deny it. People may bond together because of religion, but if they are killing each other, it is not because they are more attached to their religion but because they are insecure where land, food or personal security is concerned.
Of course they can. But they do not.
Sudan is another prime example. As is Indonesia and parts of the Phillipines as well. Religion plays a bigger role in the conflict than you may wish to acknowledge.
Even amongst families, religion has and will continue to divide families around the world.
Paranoia, yes. But religious paranoia?
We have people wearing both bikinis and hijab in India.
The problem is not the religion, the issues are related to discrimination, ostracism and economic insecurity. Well paid, well fed people in a secure society are not the ones looking for trouble.
Are you sure about that? Those who are wealthy and idle are also one's to want to start trouble if doing so will increase their wealth and if it means attacking others of another religion, they can and will do it and they do. Religion as a whole has played a huge role in defining wealth amongst the classes. Discrimination due to religious belief is something that occurs around the world.
My mother is a strict catholic. Very strict catholic and even she recognises that religion has caused and continues to cause a lot of conflict and discrimination in the public and private sphere.
Again I doubt it. Hindus deeply believe that life is sacred. However abortion is legal in India. There are Roman Catholics in India too and no abortion clinics have been burned down. If it is happening in "liberal societies" like the US, then there is a need to educate people, not put their backs up.
Ah but how do you educate the masses when religion has such a strong hold on power?
I'm from a country with less than 1% atheism. If a government cannot keep state and church separate, its certainly NOT going to happen by calling them clowns and nutters. Are we interested in resolving the issue or polarising the people?
How big a role does religion play in Indian society Sam? Surely you aren't saying that it is minute. The politics in India is secular, yes, but it is secular around the religions of the country.
Religion cannot be kept private (even though it should) because of its very nature. It can't be helped.
He would still be subject to peer review and his work would only be published if it met scientific criteria.
And this is exactly my problem with Dawkins. By turning religion into a scientific question, he joins the camp of these woo-woos who cannot differentiate between empirical evidence and faith.
Have you actually read his book?
That is the point Dawkins makes. Scientists like Rees literally say in their papers that some questions should only be left to theologians and it is accepted because for some reason, religion or the notion of God cannot and should not be insulted. When he, Dawkins, protests, he is criticised because he dared to protest and criticise against religions entry into the scientific arena. He can differentiate between faith and evidence and that is the real issue and why he is criticised to such an extent.
He states quite openly that we should never stop looking for answers. Even when we have an answer, we should not just put it aside and move on. Further study will always benefit us as a society. Religion does not do that. Questions asked are answered with "God" as the be all and end all.
Research in science is determined by funding. If there are enough people clamoring for a treatment, there will be research, regardless of what individual beliefs are. If not, then no one will invest in it, and any talk is pointless.
There is a huge demand for embryonic stem cell research, virtually a plea, and it has been stifled and restricted regardless of the amount of people such research could help. Funding comes from Governments who are entrenched in religion and religious dogma. Secularism is but a myth.
In Australia for example, the Catholic Church is getting control of the administration of public hospitals and buying out private hospitals. IVF treatments and treatments such as the morning after pill and abortions are now being removed from these hospitals, even the public ones (that are fully Government funded and owned but administered by the Church)... I had a thread about it not too long ago in these forums. There is a huge demand for IVF treatment and these people are being denied the right to access it because the Church is being allowed to attain control of even public hospitals.
So if there was no religion, Mendel would never have happened?
How can I answer that? He would exist regardless of religion. I can't say if there was no religion whether society would be so restrictive as to not allowing the not so wealthy to study or do research. 'What if' questions can never be answered because there are so many variables.
Since when was government synonymous with religion?
If you have enough ignorant people in a country, they will oppose any change, and they do not have to be religious to do so.
Religion helps breed the ignorance. After all, look at the influence it has on Governments that are now demanding that evolution not be taught in public schools, instead resorting to creationism and ID.
You really should read his book Sam.
And they care about this because?
Who? The Church? You're asking me why the Church is against embryonic stem cell research and is demanding boycotts, etc?:bugeye:
Media and politics play a MUCH bigger role in determining the direction of science. Why else would Michael J Fox come on TV and talk to potential voters about the necessity for stem cell research?
So you don't think the media and politics are not influenced at all by religion? Ermm ok. When you have a President of one of the most powerful nations on Earth proclaiming that God told him to attack another country, you don't think religion has something to do with that? You don't think his beliefs have influenced him politics?
And as someone pointed out, Fox had valid and a personal reason to want to campaign for stem cell research. So did Christopher Reeve.
And there are many more issues like race, color, class, gender discrimination.
Do you think that all these are based on religion?
Gender definately yes.
Race? Sometimes. Class? Yes. I was born in a country that only those of the high class were allowed to sit on benches in churches. Anyone of colour or who were poor were ordered to stand at the back. Religion also discriminates Sam.
I don't believe he propounds his notions of the big bang on the same level as a scientific theory, he merely says that his notions of faith do not contradict with his work as a scientist.
And since his work is primarily with the human genome your analysis makes absolutely no sense.
And?
So that's it? No more searching since "God did it" and because he can't find other answers, what he does have so far is supported by his God theory?
Its not since ALL the Sunnis, Shias, Protestants, Catholics, Christians, Muslims , Hindus, etc are not involved in them.
But so many are.
You really should read his book Sam. Even if you disagree with what he is saying, just out of interest, it is a good book.
