A long response by me at my other weblog to Alan Jacob's piece, Too Much Faith in Faith. A sample:
As they say, read the whole thing. Alan, as a Christian, place particular focus on the New Atheists who wish to leave at religion's feet all evil done it in its name but explain away as incidental all the good whose motivation was putatively supernatural. But he does note there are those such as Rodney Stark, an extremely pro-Christian sociologist, who would ascribe to religion all the good in the world while staying relatively silent on the evil enacted in the name of God (or, the usual special pleading that "that's not the real fill-in-the-blank-religion"). Below are a few general responses I have to Alan's piece.1) Religion means different things at different times and different contexts, and it means a lot. That's a mouthful, but what I mean by this is that there is a lot of debate on what exactly religion entails on the margins. There are particular core traits which people recognize as religious, but the fact that almost every random functionally unrecognizable material remain has been classified as a "religious cult object" by archaeologists illustrates the catchall nature of religion. Additionally, different religions have different emphases; some are more focused on "orthopraxy," and some are more fixated on "orthodoxy."
More like this
This is weird: if you go to the Google page and start typing in search phrases, it helpfully tries to offer suggests…sometimes.
Elaine Howard Ecklund has a new paper out, building on her survey of scientists' views on religion, research she reported in a book last year, and in a series of
Mitt Romney gave his speech on religion today at the George Bush library. Read it here. It's filled with the usual horseshit that one might expect from a man like Mitt:
Religion is ubiquitous, rational, adaptive and wrong.
It is not inherently in opposition to science in general, but it often is.
Science needs to figure out how to deal with this, because most religions will not.