In "The New Naysayers."

The whole religion versus science thing is largely a beat-up on both sides, anyway. Science is a method (not a religion, just a method) of discovering and refining useful knowledge. Religions are primarily a set of traditions that purport to guide people toward healthy emotional responses to the things that happen to them. The fact that every scientist alive has a religious position of some sort - whether atheist or agnostic or humanist or Baptist or Buddhist or Muslim or Jewish or deep green or just doing their best to ignore the whole thing - does not mean that science itself is a religion. The only time a conflict arises between science and religion is when deluded people make heartfelt statements that contradict available evidence, or when certain scientists deficient in wisdom and common sense attempt to use irrelevant facts to tell people how they ought to live. Science in general has very little to say about how people ought to behave. About the closest it can get is documenting the consequences of the ways that people do behave, and that only in medicine and some of the social sciences.

To be atheist is.. it's assuming that you're omniscient. Bzzzzzt... wrong answer. To be atheist is... it's assuming there are no deities unless and until there is convincing evidence to the contrary. That's strong atheism, anyway. Weak atheism is failing to assume that there are deities unless and until there is convincing evidence to the contrary. Neither position requires omniscience.

Religious faith is nothing more or less than a widespread, socially acceptable mental illness. Being smart is no protection against being crazy.

(limited to the most recent 20 comments)