Religion Will Be the Death of Us All--Mark Morford

Religion will be the death of us all

By Mark Morford on February 3, 2015 3:00 AM

Here’s what’s sure to be a popular idea, widely and thoughtfully accepted throughout the land, calmly discussed during the next presidential debate because America is nothing if not full of sagely educated, spiritually curious beings who increasingly understand the fatal shortcomings of false dogma and blind belief.

Here is the quite brilliant entomologist, author and naturalist E.O. Wilson, professor emeritus at Harvard, myriad awards, two-time Pulitzer winner, intellectual heir to Darwin, more than a dozen books, etcetera and so on, discussing in this New Scientist interview the second in a trilogy (!) of new books he’s writing (the man is 85), about the nature and future of the human animal. His newest? The awesomely titled “The Meaning of Human Existence.” I mean, when you’re 85, why be coy?

Wilson’s conclusion about the current state of humanity? Not so great. Not only is humankind driving thousands of creatures both large and small, land and sea to a shockingly rapid extinction – far more quickly and more cruelly than nature would ever allow otherwise – but we have the bizarre chutzpah to believe that we, ourselves, are somehow exempt. We couldn’t possibly be on that list. Could we?

This is the great and terrible human irony, no? We think we’re different, protected, too special to fail. We’ve convinced ourselves that we are immune to the vicious, accelerated cycle of brutal extinction that we ourselves brought to bear. And Wilson, along with myriad scientists and thinkers like him, is here to remind us: Guess again, selfish biped.

To be clear: Wilson is not suggesting we’re headed for fiery apocalypse. Rather, he shows how we are systematically, methodically wiping out our own habitat, destroying the razor-thin biosphere that holds it all together, casually decimating all the delicate, complex ecosystems that both created us and keeps us alive. “Death by a thousand cuts,” he says. What’s worse: We can’t seem to stop.

And why? Wilson identifies a single, overarching culprit, the main reason we’re on the fun train to self-extermination, and can’t/won’t get off.

It’s not climate change. Not overpopulation. Not war, or disease, or resource abuse. Those are all very real, but they’re also merely the consequence, the end result of centuries of blind, dogmatic adherence to, well, to God.

Continues here

Its ironic that what I want to say is Amen to this Post, so maybe this is a better response, Aimin to that!

One of the insidious things about a certain religion that starts with a C is that it teaches that your human nature is corrupt and as filthy rags in the eyes of the Lord, a thing to be without, imagine that

but it's your human nature that invents the word humane, and is the source of music, medicine, magic, science dictionary's and hope. Its the power hungry and controllers that invent the word religion.

If there is to be a book called The Word, let it be the dictionary
and If there is to be a church let it be called The Church of the Humane

I have a misconstruction

I must apologize

below is only a part I want to do that for,

this part

".....your human nature is corrupt...." "

it seems the word could be core ruptured also and in that thinking you would want to close the rupture and

continue on

traffic on the footpath can slow down for kiosk counter potions

"One of the insidious things about a certain religion that starts with a C is that it teaches that Your human nature is corrupt and as filthy rags in the eyes of the Lord, a thing to be without, imagine that"

one other thing

human nature stranges random

I have a different perspective on this. I think it is legitimate to call religion to task for the misdeeds it has done and is doing. But if it is legitimate to critique religion on this basis, then, I think it is only fair, that we do the same for secular and atheist views.

If it is belief in God that is responsible for the negatives that Wilson highlights, particularly the assaults on our natural world, then why is China becoming one of the, if not the, major polluter in the world? China is an officially atheist state and its populartion is predominantly secular in its orientation. Yet that does not seem to slacken China's contribution to the world's difficulties.

I think a case can be made that if humanity is to vanish, it is science that will be the major contributor to humanity's passing. It is science, after all, which has created weapons of mass destruction. Imagine, a single bomb at the end of W.W. II obliterated an entire city, killing 100,000 people; not to mention other living creatures. It was an assault on life itself. And that bomb was small in comparison to what is available today. And scientists are busy even as we discuss this, in developing new biological weapons; a nightmare we may all live to see.

When you think about it, most of the resources that are dedicated to science are used to generate ever more refined and powerful WMD's and other means of aggression. The image of science as aloof and uninvolved and objective doesn't really reflect the reality of what most scientists are actually doing and the actual consequences of what they are doing.

Am I anti-science? No, not at all. Am I anti-religion? No, not at all. But, again, if religion must answer for its misdeeds, and I think it must, then science should answer for its misdeeds as well.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jim Wilson:

I have a different perspective on this. I think it is legitimate to call religion to task for the misdeeds it has done and is doing. But if it is legitimate to critique religion on this basis, then, I think it is only fair, that we do the same for secular and atheist views.

Am I anti-science? No, not at all. Am I anti-religion? No, not at all. But, again, if religion must answer for its misdeeds, and I think it must, then science should answer for its misdeeds as well.

---

Excellent points, Jim. I'd like to throw one more ingredient into this "soup:" Humans.
I write about "Emotional Intelligence and Emotional Literacy," because my experience has proven to me that Humans are unaware of their own Psychological Behaviors and this (selfishness) is now rampant in Society.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jim Wilson:

I have a different perspective on this. I think it is legitimate to call religion to task for the misdeeds it has done and is doing. But if it is legitimate to critique religion on this basis, then, I think it is only fair, that we do the same for secular and atheist views.....

if religion must answer for its misdeeds, and I think it must, then science should answer for its misdeeds as well.

---

science isn't equivalent to "secular and atheist". it's a process and a framework - you bring your own ethical standards to it. People whose ethics are religiously-based sometimes can't apply the principles of science because of the conclusions reached by using the scientific method. That's also true of people with secularly-based ethics.

so science didn't do nuthin. It's the people who were willing to, say, do eugenics research on humans who did. And just 'cuz the Catholic church sent kids to the holy land for the Crusades doesn't mean religion did either - it was a social organization that sent them. But you can make a good case that the ethics that were indeed part of that religion's teachings made them willing to go.

You raise a good point -- I was responding to E. O. Wilson in particular, and those who resemble Richard Dawkins. But you are right, there are many religious people who are also scientists; in fact probably a majority.

On the other hand, I can't take seriously the assertion that 'science didn't do nuthin' -- This reminds me of those who say that 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'. Science is the activity of scientists; I don't think it is a free floating abstraction. And if you look at the activity of scientists they are 'doin sumthin', and a lot of that something is destructive.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

science isn't equivalent to "secular and atheist". it's a process and a framework - ...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jim Wilson:

This reminds me of those who say that 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'. Science is the activity of scientists; ... a lot of that something is destructive.

---

not really parallel, since the purpose of guns is exactly to kill people. And animals, for dinner - not necessarily for murder. But in a real sense guns aren't responsible; it's the people who use them. The reason that saying is meaningless in debates about gun control is that the goal isn't to assign responsibility. It's to find a way to limit the damage caused by people who use the guns. An indirect method, restricting guns, works fine.

The parallel to that regarding science, if we agree to treat it as a 'thing' in the sense guns are, is that to limit the damage caused by people using technology inappropriately or ignorantly, we prevent development of the knowledge behind those technologies. That's a very different thing. However, suspicion of knowledge has been widespread in many cultures. It's a very normal human response. But that's why I responded to your post in the first place - it's possibly inadvertently blaming the acquisition of knowledge itself for the bad results, and again possibly unintentionally questioning the value of doing so.

Isn't it science what we all do to understand this mystery of life? We observe something, attempt to make an opinion of it, make an action according to your opinion, then see if things line up behind your opinion, it seems the ones who do science better are the ones who are most concerned for the truth of their opinion and willing to let it go if it seems faulty, for a better opinion

What is science?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

...The parallel to that regarding science, ...

---

85% of scientists do not believe in god. That leaves you with just 15%. Sorry and thank goodness.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jim Wilson:

You raise a good point -- I was responding to E. O. Wilson in particular, and those who resemble Richard Dawkins. But you are right, there are many religious people who are also scientists; in fact probably a majority...

---

That is pretty much what Richard Dawkins says. And he says it as a true scientist!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Thad:

Isn't it science what we all do to understand this mystery of life? We observe something, attempt to make an opinion of it, make an action according to your opinion, then see if things line up behind your opinion, it seems the ones who do science better are the ones who are most concerned for the truth of their opinion and willing to let it go if it seems faulty, for a better opinion

What is science?

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Thad:

...What is science?

---

"what is science"? I won't try to give a definitive answer - google will find people with better answers than I'd come up with. But it's not quite accurate to say we all do it, though I agree with most of your post. Some key parts of science that are often missed, besides the really key fact it doesn't establish "truth", are the ones about predictions and repeatability.

Sure, you come up with a theory that explains your observations. The theory isn't particularly useful if it doesn't lead to predictions, especially predictions of counter-intuitive events. A classic example is Einstein's prediction that light would bend if it traveled near the sun. That came from nowhere; it wasn't a phenomenon anyone had previously observed and was completely unexpected. This principle is also one problem for string theory. That's a mathematical formulation of how things work at the quantum level, but it hasn't led to any predictions. So if it's "true" it sort of doesn't matter, and doesn't really add anything.

The big deal that was made about the discovery of Higgs' Bosun was because several theories had predicted it; once it was actually found those theories remained plausible - which is nice because if those theories were incorrect, they'd be thrown out, and they are used because they explain other things that have already been observed. Note that there isn't yet one theory, apparently there are a few that differ in some details and no experiment has eliminated all but one.

There's also the principle of falsifiability. That's why things like Intelligent Design aren't science; there's no way to disprove a literal deus-ex-machina explanation, so such explanations aren't useful in developing a theory. Even if they're "true", they don't add to any body of science.

And finally, the question of "truth". Science doesn't tell us (to cross-thread, like a badly installed bolt) what a sensible policy on vaccines is. It can be used to help create one, though. So some of the challenges to vaccine safety that are made by, uh, those who don't toe the establishment line, may be true. They may even be based on 'good science' in that they made accurate observations and valid correlations that indicate a strong cause and effect. You can use the methods of science to evaluate various data, including using statistics to help synthesize new data from existing experiments and observational studies, but all it generates is a level-of-confidence in any particular theory.

To me, that's why science is thought of the way it is in our society. People are more interested in truth, or in disqualifying one option in favor of another. Scientific processes and scientific knowledge can help with that, which should be enough to expect; "science" won't give a definitive answer. Ethics and social values are just as important in the final stages of setting policy.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Thad:

Its ironic that what I want to say is Amen to this Post, so maybe this is a better response, Aimin to that!

One of the insidious things about a certain religion that starts with a C is that it teaches that your human nature is corrupt and as filthy rags in the eyes of the Lord, a thing to be without, imagine that

but it's your human nature that invents the word humane, and is the source of music, medicine, magic, science dictionary's and hope. Its the power hungry and controllers that invent the word religion.

If there is to be a book called The Word, let it be the dictionary
and If there is to be a church let it be called The Church of the Humane

---

A-Freakin-men Brother. The Dictionary Rocks and Rules!:heart:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Timothy Gega:

Excellent points, Jim. I'd like to throw one more ingredient into this "soup:" Humans.
I write about "Emotional Intelligence and Emotional Literacy," because my experience has proven to me that Humans are unaware of their own Psychological Behaviors and this (selfishness) is now rampant in Society.

---

I’d like to expand on my own comment here by asking:

What year did “An Inconvenient Truth” come out? 2006
That was science in 2006.

Today,we have 350.org. This is science now.

Today, in 2015 we are still (arguing) the pros and cons of whether this Global Warming is or is not valid science based on denial, ignorance, need or corporate greed.

The same method applies to every religion as well; Then and Now.

People generally make decisions (life and death/safety/survival) based on emotions, (fear or joy, etc.), for themselves or others.

It does not matter to them if their immediate choices involve either science or religion because (human) needs, wants and desires trumps all of these, (religion or science).

One thing about Prophets, they're not all in the Bible

I think George Orwell should be canonized


Samsung's warning: Our Smart TVs record your living room chatter

https://www.cnet.com/news/samsungs-w...tag=YHF65cbda0

Not sure where you got your figures, Edward. Pew research says 51% of scientists believe in God or some form of higher power (as opposed to 95% of the general populace).

https://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/...ts-and-belief/

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:

85% of scientists do not believe in god. That leaves you with just 15%. Sorry and thank goodness.

---

I got that information from Neil DeGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist who is both a scientist and an atheist. Tyson stated this at a public conference on religion and science (I did not attend it myself but Tyson's participation and comments are available in video on the Internet). My best guess is that his data set is different than that of Pew.

To offer another example of competing data sets, research, and studies with different results, there is an article, "Scientists are still keeping the faith," by Larson, E. J. & Witham, L., Nature 386, 435-436 (1997). It was published by the Nature Publishing Group and they have a journal called, "Nature," which is about science and nature.

In the article, it states that 39.3% of scientists still believe in God, 45.3% disbelieve, and 14.5% had doubts/did not know. So this is another source that gives a THIRD conclusion that differs from the original two that you and I referenced. I'm sure that if you continue to do research on the subject, you will get an ever greater variation of conclusions.

If you consult religious sources (and I'm not saying that Pew is), I wouldn't be surprised if they invert Tyson's numbers. It all depends on who you ask and how interested they are in the results being one way or the other.

Here is another study published by Lock Haven University that found 72% of "leading scientists" do not believe in god. How do you like them apples? And don't ask me to define "leading scientists."

So, you can find much of the research available on almost any topic that will support your prejudice and that of your opponent.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by wisewomn:

Not sure where you got your figures, Edward. Pew research says 51% of scientists believe in God or some form of higher power (as opposed to 95% of the general populace).

https://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/...ts-and-belief/

---

A few additional comments:

Wilson and Dawkins tend to depict religion as a concept without variation; in this I feel that their critique lacks nuance. Sam Harris is, to my mind, clearer on this point. As Harris likes to point out, no one is worried about Jain terrorists because such activity runs counter to the central tenets of their faith. Similarly for groups like the Amish. These kinds of distinctions are lost on Wilson and Dawkins, and others who want to discredit religion by focusing on its most negative manifestations.

Along with this kind of lack of nuance there is the tendency to compare the most negative manifestations of religion with the most positive manifestations of science; it is not surprising when this tactic is used that religion suffers by comparison. If you compare Darwin to bin Laden, guess who is going to win the day! But this is a lazy tactic. Why not compare Gandhi, or Martin Luther King, or a less famous, but dedicated Doctor servicing the poor out of religious conviction with some nefarious scientist conducting experiments on human beings?

If I wanted to copy the procedure of comparison by atheists like Dawkins and Wilson, I would compare Gandhi with those who ran the Tuskegee Medical experiments, or some other notorious example. But, again, this is lazy and ultimately does not contribute to greater undersanding.

Finally, I would like to respond to the comment about human nature by Thad who objected that Christianity depicts human nature as corrupt. I would like to suggest that there is a lot of evidence to support such a view. The evidence comes from history which would seem to demonstrate that the tendency for human beings to act selfishly, destructively, and with malevolence is virtually unlimited. The 20th century demonstrated over and over again the human capacity for this kind of behavior and it demonstrated this in numerous contexts both religious and secular; the greatest violence and destructiveness being on the part of officially atheist regimes. For this reason, I think that the idea that human nature is, in some respect, inherently flawed has merit. If, in spite of this, humanity manages to create beautiful works of music, poetry, architecture, and art, and, on occasion, act with a certain degree of altruism, I don't think that negates the view that humanity is, to some degree, inherently deficient.

Wacco is a place for progressives and it is one of the basic tenets of progressives that humanity is moving forward and improving itself over time. This is a metaphysical view, but I wonder if it is supported by history? Is it really true that we have improved ourselves over time? I have my doubts.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


It seems the use of the word to be the sacred thing as it was to Adam to give names to things, it would be in the tradition of Truth to use those words accurately. Why is it so difficult to consider human nature as something other than animal nature?

The corruption is not in human nature it is in using the wrong words to name things.

Errors of logic will not be made sacred simply by placement in holy writings.

Hitler wins the cake as far as destructiveness is concerned in the 20th century and he was Catholic.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jim Wilson:

The 20th century demonstrated over and over again the human capacity for this kind of behavior and it demonstrated this in numerous contexts both religious and secular; the greatest violence and destructiveness being on the part of officially atheist regimes.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Thad:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


The corruption is not in human nature it is in using the wrong words to name things.

Errors of logic will not be made sacred simply by placement in holy writings.

---

I so agree Thad. There can be no doubt in one's lexicon.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Timothy Gega:

I so agree Thad. There can be no doubt in one's lexicon.

---

And, another misquote:
Give Credit where Credit is due: Iran
Moses plagiarizes the 10 Commandments here.
(In my mind, this is the sibling rivalry that is the root cause of these religious (infidel) wars today.)

The 9th Commandment:
*You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor, Or the penalty is death.*(is):

**An Ancient 10,000 year old Cuneiform Inscription in Behistun, Iran (Inset) {{Quotation}}
*You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness. You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice, nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his lawsuit. *

"The Nuclear Option";
Psychological Warfare (head) Games
Combative, underhanded, sabotage, destruction
Of another person’s Reputation, Life, Spirit and Family Values
Using a Court of Law (Taxpayers dollars) to guilt, shame and emasculate
Another (innocent) person for the sake of power to separate the man from his children,
or his ability to provide support for them, his Community, or for himself.

(A salacious and unproven lie) Provided by unscrupulous Lawyers to spouses
Used too frequently to *win* a Divorce case, or (for gaining money).
As they all “Swear to tell the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth,
so help me God.” (No longer applies to these No-Fault Divorce Court Cases)

Blasphemy/ Slander / Malice / Ill-Will
There are six things that the LORD strongly dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him:
haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies,
and one who sows discord among brothers.


[The command against false testimony is seen as a natural consequence of the command to
*Love your neighbor as yourself.* This moral prescription flows from the command for holy people to bear witness to their deity. Offenses against the truth express by word or deed a refusal to commit oneself to moral uprightness: they are fundamental infidelities to God and,
In this sense, they undermine the foundations of covenant with God.]

(District Attorneys, et al are included in this collusion to separate and destroy
the Spirit and Soul of every male on this planet.)
Prayer has never manifested one thing good. Neither has prayer banished anything evil.

Manifesting the *Perfect Mate* is a selfish delusion unto itself.
Punishing an *imperfect Mate* is not "Love," Forgiveness nor *Moral Uprightness.*
As long as this *Nuclear Option* exists, there will never be a Level Playing Field,
Nor will there be any Equality, Nurturing, Love or Unity among the Genders in Society.

Sometimes it's sufficient to say " I cannot love you for I am not that wise"

It would be such a better world if people didn't claim talents they do not own.

Because one wants to Love doesn't mean the talent is there at that time.

To know that others are wounded helps to forgive.

Forgiveness is for you not for them.

the truest thing I ever heard

"It takes a village to raise a child"

We are all those children

did we have a village that raised us?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Timothy Gega:

*Love your neighbor as yourself.* .

---

Thad, I believe the one thing that makes me different, (other than always being an outsider my entire life) is that my birthday is V-Day, Feb. 14. I have had 62 years of watching people market Love, but observing that rarely do they live it. Kind of hypocritical, right? I wrote my first book on that one emotion when I was 29 and still write about Love today. It does take a village, and it was a doctor, (MD) that showed me what caring for others meant. Then my 2 college instructors proved this again. Without these and many more spectacular Role Models I would not be the person I am today and I would not be right here right now. In turn for what these gentlemen did to teach me, I teach what I know (Paying it forward) to help anyone that I can. It takes a village of generous, actualized, caring people.

I’m not sure what you mean in this statement:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Thad:

Sometimes it's sufficient to say " I cannot love you for I am not that wise"

It would be such a better world if people didn't claim talents they do not own.

---

It reminds me of those who put “Conditions” or limits on Love: i.e.:
I’ll love you if
I’ll love you when
I’ll love you, But.
All sounds like self-doubts (to me).

And, I believed this thread was about Religion.