Science is not a religion.

Science is not a religion. Science is a discipline, a way of thinking and discovery. A religion is having faith in something that is completely different than science. The bible is far too often taken far too literally. It is a moral guide. Yes, some religions have extremists sects that are aggressive and believe in killing others. What about the religions that don’t? Kids may grow up in a household with their parents, taught what they should believe, then they grow up and think for themselves. It is not necessarily right for some kids to be forced what to believe, but in the end, they will make their own decision. “Mental child abuse” is sure as hell not dressing your child up and labeling them as a Christian, Jew, or Muslim. This is one of the most ridiculous, biased articles I have ever read. The Two Cultures debate is surely splattered with ignorance toward either discipline, well, guess what Dawkins, you’re just emanating ignorance. There is definitely a problem in society today regarding science and religion. Some people don’t believe in evolution, that’s fine. But with a minimal knowledge of what religion is truly about, people too often jump to the conclusion that every single person who is religious believes in the story of Adam and Eve. There is a direct correlation between ignorance in science and ignorance in religion, I think. The focus should be mending that rift, not spreading it further through ignorant words, actions, and even hatred. Dawkins, you really fueled the fire. Faith exists for a reason. Faith is believing in something beyond yourself, that you may not be able to physically prove. The definition of religious Faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. Isn’t that beautiful in its own right? Some people scream ignorance at those who believe in God, or something greater than man. But look at what is around us, an incredible Earth filled with infinite opportunity and some of the most incredible natural occurrences ever.  I, similarly to Spencer, am a baptized, confirmed Catholic. All this article ever did was make more problems, not mend the differences. Science does not have all the answers. And Dawkins, you can downplay abortion all you want, but a “small piece of fetal tissue”? I am disgusted by your description. “What is the basis of this fence that we erect around Homo sapiens— even around a small piece of fetal tissue?”

 

I could go on and on about this article, but I must not. I have to keep my head.