h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I must really be getting old - I find myself getting less and less tolerant and more and more right-wing in my views. My latest gripe has been inspired by the many circular science-vs-religion threads on these very pages.

In every case, someone brings up "...but science brought us the atomic bomb" argument, thus proving beyond doubt that science is evil, and inferring therefore that we should instead follow the preachings of . Science bad; religion good. Hmmm. I will resist the temptation to mention that the only time said bomb was ever used in anger, it was in a conflict initiated on grounds of religion and racist elitism. Oops, I just did.

Meanwhile in the UK, we are debating whether "incitement to religious hatred" should be criminalised when applied to all religions, in a similar way to anti-racism laws. Some tell us we should learn "tolerance" of other races and religions instead. The word in itself implies some fundamental difference. I have no need to "tolerate" other races - there is only one human race. Science taught us that. The ensuing moral obligation to treat people with such superficial differences goes without saying; it is not a religious mandate in any way.

Meanwhile, animal sacrifices continue in all parts of the world, notably the US, and the rest of us continue to conveniently exploit animals with zero thought to their wellbeing. The religious types, or at least those with no facts on which to base their opinion, will happily justify this by saying that animals only appear to behave intelligently; in reality they are automatons. Well, again science has taught us something else. It has taught us that the concept of an animal, separated from humans on the evolutionary tree by only a few million years, that exhibits similar behaviour to a human but due to a completely different underlying mechanism is nothing short of ludicrous. There exists a similar moral imperative to treat these creatures with a level of respect commensurate with their status as conscious, feeling beings like ourselves.

In fact, our aspirations to be the sole owners of conscious thought have been slapped down by research that shows that many of the decisions we make are made before we are even consciously aware of them. We may not be conscious at all, but merely experiencing a life directed entirely by our unconscious brains. You only have to observe a group of drivers on a motorway or a group of lads in a pub to conclude that most of our behaviour, no matter how complex it may seem close up, is almost entirely predictable, and therefore unlikely to be a result of what we call "free will". It doesn't bode well for the soul if even consciousness is an illusion.

So, we are not that special and are not that different to any other animal. Science has taught us to be humble. It has taught us our positions in both the universe and the biological hierarchy. It has taught us how to obtain and weigh evidence in order to make a rational decision, rather than one based on an inflated opinion of self-importance or unfounded beliefs.

Conversely, there exists a large number of people (probably a large majority) who decry science, and seek their enlightenment from religious, spiritual or any number of other ethereal sources that defy rational assessment. Every single day, I hear about such-and-such a new technology that could feed the poor or combat climate change rubbished by the spiritualist lobby. Polio is on the march again as a direct result of these unfounded "beliefs". GM rice in China is finally providing a reliable food source for the poor, and preventing hundreds of pesticide deaths every year - but we have effectively denied these benefits to the poor of Africa, basing our arguments on "GM is icky" or "we shouldn't play God". Hmm. Reshaping the land for our own benefit, causing the extinctions of entire species, or fundamentally altering the atmosphere of the entire planet is not, apparently, playing God. But creating *new* life or improving on it is somehow wrong.

Now, to the controversial bit. When was the last you heard of a scientist being accused of racism, terrorism, rape murder or even industrial negligence? In fact, when was the last time you heard of an atheist being accused of these crimes? Who are the few that still believe that climate change isn't happening, isn't our fault, or will sort itself out? It ain't the scientists, that's for certain. They are the one group who are (almost) unanimous in announcing that something must be done. The views of the rest of society will follow, eventually.

Now, who are the enlightened ones? Who are the people that understand their place in the world and try to improve society rather than tear it down? Who are the ones that actually understand the pros and cons of vaccines, nuclear power, criminal rehabilitation, mental illness, genetics, nanotechnology. The list goes on.

The more I learn the more enlightened I become. The less I believe the pseudo-scientific crap fired at me from all corners of this overtly commercial and ill-informed society. The more capable I am of making informed decisions. Most importantly, the better my ability to tell right from wrong.

Morality is not borne of religion or spirituality. Morality is borne of education. None of this will be new to anyone of a scientific persuasion of course. But as an atheist with a scientific background I feel very much in a minority. I am heartily sick of having to live in a civilisation that is at best lurching forward in small, random steps, held back and frequently vandalised, poisoned and broken into incompatible pieces by people who insist on making decisions based on zero evidence.

War, hunger, disease, exploitation and crime will not go away because of ley lines, auras, alternative therapies or religious morality. But we allow everyone to have their faith, even when that faith is in direct conflict with a peaceful society. A belief based upon nothing can be directed in any direction, and can take any form. This is dangerous. The problem is a lack of a sound scientific background to balance it.

I may be developing into a stubborn, opinionated old tosser or I may be justified. It may not be politically correct to speak out against people's beliefs, but in turn no one is proposing legal protection for mine. In short, I am losing tolerance, and I want a voice too.

Hear, hear!

One thing I'd like to point out involves the recent thing with the woman who died in hospital after her feeding tube was removed, while she was in a coma. (Can't remember her name, sorry, but you'll probably remember her - there was an international debate about it.)
In the paper I noticed that pope John Paul II (just before he died) said something along the lines of: "If she were to be allowed to die it would be unnatural."

Hang on, how is /stopping/ the mechanical process keeping her alive more unnatural than letting it continue? Even ignoring the fact that the reason she was in a coma in the first place was because she was bulemic(I think?) and had starved herself into it.
Would it have been more natural to let her die? Of course it would have. But that doesn't mean it would have been the right thing to do. That's why she had a feeding tube in the first place.

Anyway, just another example of why I think you're absolutely right on this point.

Thank you . Yes, I did remember that case, and you're right, it was a very good example of what I was trying to get across. As I remember the president intervened on purely "moral" grounds, without knowing anything about the facts behind it. That such a decision could be made at the highest level, based on nothing, scared the hell out of a lot of us over here. If he can do that with a woman on life support, he can start all sorts of moral crusades against other countries or religious groups.

It was also utterly hypocritical - they can't say life is sacrosanct on one hand and on the other continue to pollute freely until the third world starves or drowns. It is moral blinkers, and is exactly the sort of thing that wouldn't happen if every such decision was made on a scientific basis .