E O Wilson: You don't have to be an atheist to know that religion is harming the Earth

[What Would Jesus Do?]

http://www.alternet.org/belief/eminent-biologist-religion-should-be-eliminated-sake-human-progress

“All the ideologies and religions have their own answers for the big questions, but these are usually bound as a dogma to some kind of tribe,” he said. “Religions in particular feature supernatural elements that other tribes – other faiths – cannot accept … And every tribe, no matter how generous, benign, loving and charitable, nonetheless looks down on all other tribes. What’s dragging us down is religious faith.”

“Humans everywhere have a strong tendency to wonder about whether they’re being looked over by a god or not. Practically every person ponders whether they’re going to have another life,” Wilson continued. “These are the things that unite humanity.”

But he said that the “transcendent searching has been hijacked by the tribal religions.”

“So I would say that for the sake of human progress, the best thing we could possibly do would be to diminish, to the point of eliminating, religious faiths. But certainly not eliminating the natural yearnings of our species or the asking of these great questions.”

Wilson, who was raised as a Baptist in Alabama, has said that he “drifted” away from Christianity, but he doesn’t refer to himself as an atheist.

“I’m a scientist,” he told the magazine.

 

[TexMichFan]

Let's control all thought that we feel is wrong and thus achieve utopia.

 

[naturalmwa]

I think a religion with rules for an afterlife is potentially better for society than a nebulious belief that there is an afterlife with no rules. Of course that assumes the rule is something like the Golden Rule and not burn all the witches to get to heaven.

 

[naturalmwa]

Let's control all thought that we feel is wrong and thus achieve utopia.

So you agree with this guy?

 

[pablow]

The first necessary step to control beliefs and behaviors is to claim to be its victim. Good work E.O.

 

[The Tradition]

The militant Atheist are just as bad as the Evangelicals. Both try to persuade others to come to their "side." Why can't we just respect each others' beliefs (or the lack thereof) and just be cool like that?

 

[naturalmwa]

The militant Atheist are just as bad as the Evangelicals. Both try to persuade others to come to their "side." Why can't we just respect each others' beliefs (or the lack thereof) and just be cool like that?

We could if people kept their religion to themselves.

 

[The Tradition]

We could if people kept their religion to themselves.

Why's that necessary? Should people keep their sexual orientation to themselves?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

The militant Atheist are just as bad as the Evangelicals. Both try to persuade others to come to their "side." Why can't we just respect each others' beliefs (or the lack thereof) and just be cool like that?

Because not all beliefs are worthy of respect, and some are downright dangerous.

 

[strummingram]

Because not all beliefs are worthy of respect

Wow...

 

[naturalmwa]

Why's that necessary? Should people keep their sexual orientation to themselves?

Yep, I don't get to put it in every cute ass I see. Religious shouldn't get to put it in every policy.

 

[naturalmwa]

Wow...

You don't agree? Wow!

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

The militant Atheist are just as bad as the Evangelicals. Both try to persuade others to come to their "side." Why can't we just respect each others' beliefs (or the lack thereof) and just be cool like that?

We could if people kept their religion to themselves.

Why's that necessary? Should people keep their sexual orientation to themselves?

But that's the point, isn't it? If you keep your views to yourself there is less to get upset about. If you put your views out there - whether we're talking about religion or sexual preference or taste in music - you are opening yourself up for argument and conflict. May or may not happen. You might find agreement and fellowship instead. So there could be reward. But there's also risk.

That's not to say you should be quiet. Just that you shouldn't be too surprised if there's pushback. And if you don't want predictable conflict, maybe keeping your views private will help with the "respect" part.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Because not all beliefs are worthy of respect, and some are downright dangerous.

Wow...

You don't agree? Wow!

Seriously. It's really easy to come up with beliefs that definitely do not deserve respect. We don't even have to play the Nazi card, either.

 

[strummingram]

Seriously. It's really easy to come up with beliefs that definitely do not deserve respect. We don't even have to play the Nazi card, either.

They may not be worthy of your respect... or mine. But, they are worthy of consideration. I meant to include that with the original "Wow..." Sorry

 

[The Tradition]

Okay I'm putting naturalmwa and WWJD down as "not willing to just be cool like that."

 

[naturalmwa]

Okay I'm putting naturalmwa and WWJD down as "not willing to just be cool like that."

So you're not willing to respect my beliefs? not really a shining example of the philosophy you seek.

 

[22*43*51]

So you're not willing to respect my beliefs? not really a shining example of the philosophy you seek.

Wait.

That is the philosophy you and WWJD are championing.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Wait.

That is the philosophy you and WWJD are championing.

So . . . you are saying we treat respect like liberals treat money - hand it out without requiring that it be earned?

My head is spinning.

 

[22*43*51]

So . . . you are saying we treat respect like liberals treat money - hand it out without requiring that it be earned?

My head is spinning.

Your argument is never one from the position of an atheist.

It is always anti-religion. Without exception.

There is no tolerance in it.

 

[22*43*51]

So . . . you are saying we treat respect like liberals treat money - hand it out without requiring that it be earned?

My head is spinning.

...and great liberal dig btw.

Respect.

 

[naturalmwa]

Wait.

That is the philosophy you and WWJD are championing.

Nope. I don't think we should repect all forms of crazy inserted into policy. I am unabashedly against imposing magic thinking on others. Keep your magic to yourself. I ain't no fairy.

 

[dbq hawk 32]

I ain't no fairy.

you sure?

 

[22*43*51]

Nope. I don't think we should repect all forms of crazy inserted into policy. I am unabashedly against imposing magic thinking on others. Keep your magic to yourself. I ain't no fairy.

What a interestingly conservative thought process.

You'd make a fine Puritan.

 

[naturalmwa]

you sure?

I know my fairies.

 

[naturalmwa]

What a interestingly conservative thought process.

You'd make a fine Puritan.

Puritans wanted to impose magical thinking on other's. I'm an advocate of maintaining a secular society and keeping magic out of it. That's a liberal position, like our founders.

 

[The Tradition]

So you're not willing to respect my beliefs? not really a shining example of the philosophy you seek.

I'm tolerant of your beliefs. Are you tolerant of mine?

 

[naturalmwa]

I'm tolerant of your beliefs. Are you tolerant of mine?

Sure, if you don't try to make others follow them and keep them out of policy.

 

[The Tradition]

Sure, if you don't try to make others follow them and keep them out of policy.

Agree with that.

 

[22*43*51]

Puritans wanted to impose magical thinking on other's. I'm an advocate of maintaining a secular society and keeping magic out of it. That's a liberal position, like our founders.

Actually they were terrified of magic. That's why they burned so many gals at the stake. Most of the magic that they feared turned out to be science waiting to be discovered.

Now, you have a fear of magic and no use for women.

Witches beware.

 

[The Tradition]

Sure, if you don't try to make others follow them and keep them out of policy.

Agree with that.

Actually, I need to add a caveat to that. Freedom of religion is an enumerated right. Freedom of sexual orientation is an implied right. Are you willing to put the "keep [it] out of policy" dictate for sexual orientation, or just for religion?

 

[naturalmwa]

Actually they were terrified of magic. That's why they burned so many gals at the stake. Most of the magic that they feared turned out to be science waiting to be discovered.

Now, you have a fear of magic and no use for women.

Witches beware.

That's pretty good, I LOLed

 

[Pepperman]

Sure, if you don't try to make others follow them and keep them out of policy.

The funny thing about "this argument", and I use quotes because it comes up a lot here thanks to the OP's obsession... is that you of all people ought to understand what it feels like to be "attacked" over and over for your beliefs. But since this particular case has nothing to do with you, you don't seem to care much. It is the classic case of "when they came for the ____, I didn't speak up because I'm not a _____"

 

[naturalmwa]

Actually, I need to add a caveat to that. Freedom of religion is an enumerated right. Freedom of sexual orientation is an implied right. Are you willing to put the "keep [it] out of policy" dictate for sexual orientation, or just for religion?

I think I would be willing to have no laws that reference sex or gender or preferance of any kind. Would you? Can we repeal all the laws based on religious thinkimg? I haven't given it a great deal of thought, but as I sit here pondering it, I can't think of too many problems for me.

 

[The Tradition]

I think I would be willing to have no laws that reference sex or gender or preferance of any kind. Would you?

ABSOLUTELY! The reference to "sex" in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has caused all sorts of unintended havoc.

 

[naturalmwa]

The funny thing about "this argument", and I use quotes because it comes up a lot here thanks to the OP's obsession... is that you of all people ought to understand what it feels like to be "attacked" over and over for your beliefs. But since this particular case has nothing to do with you, you don't seem to care much. It is the classic case of "when they came for the ____, I didn't speak up because I'm not a _____"

How so? What case are you talking about? The OP was about a theory some scientist had that religion is bad, but spirituality is better. I defended religion as better because it has rules which equate to values.

I then went on to defend secularism in public policy. That position protects religion again. It protects religion from corruption, ensures no religion gets to dictate to another and allows everyone to believe as they wish. You're going to need to build a case or back down.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I think I would be willing to have no laws that reference sex or gender or preferance of any kind. Would you? Can we repeal all the laws based on religious thinkimg? I haven't given it a great deal of thought, but as I sit here pondering it, I can't think of too many problems for me.

The only exception I would like to make to that "compromise" is to leave the door open to helping any who may have been disadvantaged by discrimination based on religion or sex/gender.

 

[naturalmwa]

ABSOLUTELY! The reference to "sex" in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has caused all sorts of unintended havoc.

I guess we solved that transgender bathroom problem. We're all just people now.

 

[Pepperman]

You're going to need to build a case or back down.

Perhaps I didn't understand what you were saying... but I kind of feel like you're not the most tolerant of religious beliefs. I guess like when you said "keep it to yourself". I mean, you clearly don't keep certain things to yourself. On the contrary, you are proud of it. Well, don't tell me or anybody else what I can be proud of then. So, yeah, I guess maybe you should take your own advice here?

 

[TexMichFan]

So you agree with this guy?

I think you know better.

I find it ironic when the scientist opine on the bad and faults that man has made in the name of religion but seem to overlook the bad and faults that man has made in the name of science.