[Kevinaswell]

The existence of a supernatural being in the form of a god who can dish out punishment in the afterlife may have been an important force in the past that helped to keep societies together as co-operative entities – but not so in the future.

Lord May of Oxford, the president of the British Science Festival, said that although religion may have once helped to stabilise human societies, the rise in fundamentalism could make it more difficult to bring about the sort of high-level co-operation needed to tackle the global problems of climate change and a growing human population.

The former chief scientific adviser to the government warned that the rise of fundamentalist religions in both the east and west will have a detrimental impact on the ability of the world to cope with the problems of the 21st Century.

Lord May, a mathematical biologist, said in his presidential address to the conference, that co-operation between people globally will be needed more than ever in the coming decades but added he feared that to make sure it worked there had to be some kind of mechanism that punished those who cheated others. In the past, the ultimate punisher was God.

He said that punishment was much more effective if it came from "some all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful deity that controls the world", rather than from an individual person.

"In such systems, there is unquestioning respect for authority. Faith trumps evidence. But if indeed this is broadly the explanation for how co-operative behaviour has evolved and been maintained in human societies, it could be very bad news. Because although such authoritarian systems seem to be good at preserving social coherence and an orderly society, they are, by the same token, not good at adapting to change."

The rise of fundamentalism, not just in the Muslim world but in the United States, and within the Catholic church, could actually make global co-operation more difficult at a time when an unprecedented level of teamwork was needed, Lord May said. "If you take the view that in times of stress, authoritarian hierarchies tend to resist change, what the history of religion has been has been towards a softening, less dogmatic values, but under stress you simplify complex problems to simple mantras," he said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fundamentalism-will-damage-society-says-top-scientist-1782930.html]Source.

[Marino]

Will?

[Stars]

Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. If this article was written to talk about the dangers of religious fundamentalism, why does he believe in the ridiculous lie that is man-made global warming? That fits his definition of a fundamentalist religion pretty well. Highly authoritarian. We MUST do what Al Gore, James Hansen, Paul Ehrlich and Ban Ki-Moon tell us if we're to solve this crisis. We must force carbon taxes on the people, force them to stop using as much gasoline and electricity, force them to adapt to 'clean energy'." Faith triumphs evidence. The weather patterns from the last 1000 years show that what is happening now is perfectly normal. NASA changed their entire procedure for collecting climate data in 1998, and all the years after this procedure change ranked among the hottest. Yet whenever anyone brings these points up, they're accused of being "deniers" and "brainwashed little sheeple". The most extreme forms of the global warming religion have their own forms of supernatural punishment: the Earth Goddess Gaia. But they have adapted to change pretty well. 35 years ago, they said global cooling was occurring. Enough people realized they were being decieved, so they went away for a while and came back with a different hoax.

[Kevinaswell]

Although that is a good point (despite how there IS evidence of global change, but I myself am not a believer either), I don't see how in any way it debunks anything at all he is saying >.<

If anything, it only proves his point further.

[HenRickunit]

Well.... haven't all religion adapted?
Earth goes around the sun problem with Galileo.
I'm sure their are more examples I haven't thought of.

But something may just not be worth addapting to.


This guy really doesn't give any valid points.
He draws up assuptions in my opinion.
He needs to validate his assumption better.

[Ungweliante]

Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. If this article was written to talk about the dangers of religious fundamentalism, why does he believe in the ridiculous lie that is man-made global warming? That fits his definition of a fundamentalist religion pretty well. Highly authoritarian. We MUST do what Al Gore, James Hansen, Paul Ehrlich and Ban Ki-Moon tell us if we're to solve this crisis. We must force carbon taxes on the people, force them to stop using as much gasoline and electricity, force them to adapt to 'clean energy'." Faith triumphs evidence. The weather patterns from the last 1000 years show that what is happening now is perfectly normal. NASA changed their entire procedure for collecting climate data in 1998, and all the years after this procedure change ranked among the hottest. Yet whenever anyone brings these points up, they're accused of being "deniers" and "brainwashed little sheeple". The most extreme forms of the global warming religion have their own forms of supernatural punishment: the Earth Goddess Gaia. But they have adapted to change pretty well. 35 years ago, they said global cooling was occurring. Enough people realized they were being decieved, so they went away for a while and came back with a different hoax.

Seriously...

I don't think there is DEFINITE proof for the man-made global warming. Then again, there is not DEFINITE proof that there is no man-made global warming. But let's look at the threat assessment:


Global warming is not man-made and we pay taxes to divert it:

+ there is less threat that we're all going to die because of an ecological catastrophe
- we pay more taxes, global warming will not be diverted but other ecological damage might get repaired

Global warming is man-made and we do not pay taxes to divert it:

- there is more threat that we're all going to die because of an ecological catastrophe, since what is happening is unprecedented and there are lots of theories why the ecosystem can't handle such rapid change
+ before we all die, we get to enjoy more money via a lower tax-rate


Personally, I can admit I'm hardly unbiased about this. I'm a follower of the Goddess, a communist and a human rights activist. I can freely admit that people who value getting more money higher than the future of most life on Earth make my blood boil. Despite all that, I'd like to suggest that you would try to use your brains about the issue - should you actually have one.

[Munchies]

nice kevin, good intro

[Eylrid]

Seriously...

I don't think there is DEFINITE proof for the man-made global warming. Then again, there is not DEFINITE proof that there is no man-made global warming. But let's look at the threat assessment:


Global warming is not man-made and we pay taxes to divert it:

+ there is less threat that we're all going to die because of an ecological catastrophe
- we pay more taxes, global warming will not be diverted but other ecological damage might get repaired

Global warming is man-made and we do not pay taxes to divert it:

- there is more threat that we're all going to die because of an ecological catastrophe, since what is happening is unprecedented and there are lots of theories why the ecosystem can't handle such rapid change
+ before we all die, we get to enjoy more money via a lower tax-rate


Personally, I can admit I'm hardly unbiased about this. I'm a follower of the Goddess, a communist and a human rights activist. I can freely admit that people who value getting more money higher than the future of most life on Earth make my blood boil. Despite all that, I'd like to suggest that you would try to use your brains about the issue - should you actually have one.

A logical and well presented post. I approve of it, except for the part suggesting brainlessness.

[Ungweliante]

A logical and well presented post. I approve of it, except for the part suggesting brainlessness.

I usually don't write aggressive posts. Considering how emotional this issue is for me - I couldn't resist it. I wholly stand by what I said.

[Kevinaswell]

I usually don't write aggressive posts. Considering how emotional this issue is for me - I couldn't resist it. I wholly stand by what I said.

Imagine that all the time constantly.

And you'll get a little bit what it's like to be INTP :P

(But also the fact that your post wasn't at all emotional.)