In responding to this NPR post, I found myself returning again to what I was saying last time and what I regularly say about religion, that it’s an addictive vice. I know nothing about the author, so I don’t know if he’s one of the religion appeasers (and thus, an enabler) but a couple of things he said bothered me. Have a read and if my comment doesn’t appear there, well I have it here…
What on Earth is an atheist fundamentalist? I’d love to hear a breakdown of that label sir, for it’s nonsensical to me.
As for the scientists who see their work as unraveling their god’s work, well yes, if that’s truly the extent of their belief than they’re functional religionists. By the same token, we shouldn’t be upset if they show up for work smelling of scotch. If they can function with a buzz, what’s the problem? Of course one could argue drinking is a problem to their health, but that’s their choice, right? We do, however, put our foot down when that drinking threatens others, and I think that’s precisely what the objections are to religious use, that it’s very difficult to isolate the effects to just oneself.
I agree that science doesn’t have an anti-religion agenda, but it does have a seek and share the truth agenda, and so if there are truths to be said concerning religion and/or its effects, it should say them without worrying about anyone’s delicate sensibilities. And let’s not forget, whereas science has no anti-religion agenda, religion has quite the history of an anti-science, or more specifically, an anti-inquiry agenda.