If you choose to believe the Universe was created and/or is controlled by a supernatural intelligence, fine. After all, you might even be right. But when you start specifying the exact nature of the godhead and its requirements for our conduct in great detail, then it's just superstition. Good manners and citizenship require we treat believers civilly and fairly, but non-believers have every right to expect the same treatment in return. To elevate conventional religious thinking to the separate but equal status of just another of many equally valid world views is simply wrong.
Even the most hardened skeptic can understand the concept of a creator and should respect the opinions of those who embrace it. But to accept that people who hold these beliefs have a right to dictate morality, the law, politics, natural philosophy, and culture is to surrender control of society to the basest and most vicious intolerance the human mind is capable of. The question is not "whether or not you believe in god", it is "should your belief in god give you the right to tell me how to live". Unfortunately, people who believe they already know why the universe exists have an alarming tendency to despise those whose lives are dominated by the curiosity to learn how it works.
Off Topic » in reply to Does science have a duty to "spread the word?"
A generation of vipers
The whole thread (27 posts)
- Does science have a duty to "spread the word?"
- re: Does science have a duty to "spread the word?"
- re: Does science have a duty to "spread the word?"
- re: A quote from Hubert Reeves:
- A generation of vipers
- Scientific evangelism
