Let the other side worry about their PR.  I don’t want a truce; I want a fucking war.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

The only one’s who will read this are people like myself who agree with Dawkin’s. The U.S. is crazy with jesus and it’s troubling. As for peace between the two groups: they will never accept peace, trust me, They would prefer to wipe us out. Trust me, peace is not going to work, unless you want to end up like Jews in Germany under Hitler.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Kyle, please - this is meant to be the Reason Project.

But there is no doubt the article is one-sided. There’s no equivalent call for the religious fundamentalists to pull in their horns and come to some sort of accommodation with science and reason. To suggest that giving credence to the religious ‘moderates’ is a strategic way forward is a big mistake. Doing this implies some sort of validity in the religious argument, and in fact weakens the position of science and reason. It’s like trying to appease a tyrannical dictator by appealing to his less strident friends and allies. The truth must be told and the position of science must be defended vigorously for reason to prevail, and to prevent the religious bigots from imposing their vision of Armageddon on us.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Articles like this are part of the problem.  Pray tell why ignorance is to be appeased.  Is there a constitutional right to ignorance I am ignorant about? 

Religion is a widespread addiction and like most addictions, best served by cold turkey.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Reconcile science and ‘faith’ is, to begin with, a merger that needs to be valid to begin with. What is there to merge? Is science to merge with witch craft also? And alchemy? What is the contribution of faith to knowledge?.. What?
The only reasonable question I see is how faith is to mutate (re-formulate) and bend over backwards for science and scientific progress. And that question don’t need scientists and normal people (as we are mostly non believers in Sweden) in the debate.
In this respect I say: the question in it self, the debate, is giving away more to faith then it deserves. They need to prove the debate valid first- thats the real question.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Sadly I agree with most of the comments above. I say sadly because change will not come from conversion but from death. With each new generation more are falling away from the religion of their fathers. People see the resurgence of religion as something troubling, I see it as the desperate struggling of a dieing person.
Religion will die eventually,  but it will not die quietly and the real danger is will it take the rest of us with it.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Richard Dawkins is a rationalist, it is not his place to mitigate the truth so that it will be more palatable to those who are already intent on ignoring manifested reality.  Scientists and rational thinkers have mostly been either silent on the contradictions between evidence and faith or supportive of views on the coexistance of evidence and faith in moderate religious groups.  It is not the place of rational thinkers to preach a more acceptable type of religion that falls in line with science, moderate religious groups are perfectly capable of that task.

Our obligation is to confront those who refuse to acknowledge reality and have literally declared war on the credibility of science in the public sphere.

We have come to a time where religious beliefs, which are contrary to objectively testable reality, will either succumb as they have in the past or persist to the continued detriment of rational thought.  Richard Dawkins has his place in this struggle and it is to provide those who seek understanding of reality with sources tailored to their needs.  It is up to those who believe in the co-existance of science and faith to write in support of their positions and beliefs and perhaps it would have been better of the authors to encourage those who have those beliefs to be more vocal.

From a strategic or political standpoint, I would agree to with the authors to the extent that it is not currently in our best interests to confront or foresake organizations like the NCSE or people like Ken Miller.  To focus our attention on such targets would be to protect your tool shed from a wildfire while letting your house burn down.  It is my opinion that we should not let perfection be the enemy of good.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

The only way a truce can exist between science and religion is if science is watered down to the point of nonexistence, but these articles are revealing in the fact that they show religion is beat to the point of where, the only way it can exist is to ask for a truce.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Confronting ignorance is not akin to protecting toolsheds. No important conflict was ever won by being passive.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

The line in the sand seems to be clearly drawn between science and religion and this is now taking on a tone and an attitude that is not helping with a better understanding of who we are or where are we going. Advocates of religion have not abandoned their position, because science has failed to provide viable answers to searching questions such as; “how do we fit into this continuum called life? Or whether humans are evolving and if so, what of those who are ahead of us in the evolutionary chain?, or how does death fit into the continuum?? Religion has failed us as well, by offering outrageous explanations of who and why we are, and in most cases from behind a faith based wall that seems impervious to rationale penetration. But should we really blame then, since we have given then nothing to appease their fear of the unknown. Like me, they sense that humans in their present state of consciousness are far too fragile to be even near the end of an evolutionary journey.  They sense that there has to be more, and so in the absence of a better explanation, they went ahead and created a bigger version of themselves which is now the focus of their worship. This behavior is of course motivated by fear, and although I disagree with their conclusions, I still have interest in a deeper understanding of who and why we are. Neither groups (science nor religion) has so far done much in that direction. I see the battle lines drawn and each group passionately, and sometimes eloquently protecting their turfs. What I truly hope for is the emergence of another group who are interested in answers that will lead us into a greater state of enlightenment. At this point the focus seems to be on winning a debate, but after that, then what?? 
The answers are out there, so let’s find them……

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

JohnS

I think your sympathy is misplaced.  It does not follow that because questions of the Purpose of Live variety can be posed but not answered, that science has failed.

Just because some crave meaning outside themselves that there is such meaning. I find the entire line of questioning meaningless.

I am quite happy with the ‘I am here so I will have to do the best I can’  type of answer.  I need no religious flim flam for that.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Ravi,
It is quite interesting how similar your arguments are with the religious among us.  Their response is typically, that they are quite Ok with what they believe, and so refuse to engage any questions or concerns that may be at variance with those beliefs. 
In this regard both the athiest and the religious have decided that they already have all the answers to who and why we are, and now seem quite content to simply engage in a war of words about which group is right and which is wrong.
I believe that there is much more East to go, and hopefully there are persons out there who have not completely closed their minds to this view.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

JohnS

There is no parallel at all.  My point is this.  The argument you raise is what I call the Argument from Candyfloss. I want candyfloss every day. I need candyfloss every day. Since science cannot provide the candyfloss, ergo, there is a god.

Surely, the question is meaningless.  To allow science to engage with it is to reduce science.

An open mind is a good thing, but not so open that brains fall out.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Ravi,
I try to be careful whenever I use the word God , because God means different things to different people. For example I believe God is everything that there is in the universe and that would include you. I believe that God is not separate from us, so to understand ourselves and the things around us is to better understand what I call God.

Your quote” Surely, the question is meaningless.  To allow science to engage with it is to reduce science.”

I can see where the “answers” to a question might be meaningless, but surely you will agree that the questions themselves are never meaningless as questions are truly the beginning of our greatest possibilities.
I am prepared to encourage an open mind even to the extent that the brain falls out,  because this might just give way to a new brain with more questions, more answers, and ultimately more enlightenment.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.