Best coverge of the so-called reason rally I've seen:-http://townhall.com/news/religion/2012/03/30/firstperson_a_reason_rally_full_of_attacks

(Concerning the agnostic fence between theism and atheism, please see my post under "Why is there anything?")-TONY (B_M): [Science] insulates itself from moral responsibility.-DHW: Maybe some scientists do. Science itself is (or perhaps "should be") the study of the material universe. Morality is not its remit. If scientists behave immorally (or "insulate themselves"), one should not blame science, any more than one should blame Christianity for the un-Christian acts of many so-called Christians (ditto Islam, Judaism etc.).
 
TONY: Science as a discipline is what I refer to, not the scientist. I say this because science as a discipline rarely considers whether they SHOULD do something, only concerning itself with whether or not it COULD do it. There has been more than one pandora's box opened by such negligence.-You are referring to particular branches of science that are concerned with "doing" as opposed to finding out. Admittedly these sometimes overlap, but the search for the origins and mechanisms of life, and the study of Nature's Wonders (David has provided us with a vast catalogue of these), have no link to should do or could do. In any case, as with all human institutions, you cannot separate the subject from its practitioners, and "considering"/"concerning itself"/"negligence" (not to mention your accidental use of "they") are all terms relating to the scientists and not the subject. You wrote: "My accusation to science as a discipline though is the same that I leverage at religion and politics, that of allowing itself to be a platform for bigotry." Disciplines like science, religion and politics cannot stand up and say, "Stop using me as a platform for bigotry!" Only their practitioners can do that.-TONY: Treat others as you yourself would want to be treated.-The Rev. Charles Kingsley invented a character called Mrs Doasyouwouldbedoneby in The Water Babies(before Jehovah's Witnesses came on the scene) ... and I can think of no better basis for any moral code. It is a perfect summary of moral principles according to humanism as well as many religions, and is mercifully stripped of all theological trappings.-Incidentally, it was Kingsley whom Darwin quoted in later editions of Origin as having gradually learnt to see "that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that he created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws." One in the eye for those who insist that the Theory of Evolution is incompatible with religious belief. I'm chucking that in for free!

TONY (B_M): [Science] insulates itself from moral responsibility.
> > 
> > DHW: Maybe some scientists do. Science itself is (or perhaps "should be") the study of the material universe. Morality is not its remit. If scientists behave immorally (or "insulate themselves"), one should not blame science, any more than one should blame Christianity for the un-Christian acts of many so-called Christians (ditto Islam, Judaism etc.). 
> > 
> 
> Science as a discipline is what I refer to, not the scientist. I say this because science as a discipline rarely considers whether they SHOULD do something, only concerning itself with whether or not it COULD do it. There has been more than one pandora's box opened by such negligence.-> Any time we speak in generalities we run the risk of condemning the innocent. Yes, it is the bigoted fundamentalist that I am referring too primarily. My accusation to science as a discipline though is the same that I leverage at religion and politics, that of allowing itself to be a platform for bigotry. -The validity of research is under question. In my opinion there is too much grant money from governments not insulated from political considerations; consider the climate study garbage. This article makes a major point:-
http://telicthoughts.com/science-sucks/-
47 0f 53 could not be replicated! Matt, there is Tony's point.

More views from the agnostic's fence, in response to recent posts:-1) Reason tells us that if we cannot answer a question (e.g. what was/is the first cause, how did life originate, what is the source of consciousness?), we should keep an open mind. However, there has to be an objective truth, and those who believe they have found it ... whether through science, reason, intuition, experience or observation ... should respect the views of those who have different beliefs or no beliefs at all, since no-one KNOWS the truth. -2) Science is the study of the material universe. -As a result of science, there has been increased understanding of how the material universe works, and there have been enormous benefits for our quality of life.-As a result of science, there have been developments that represent an enormous threat to the quality and even the existence of life.-Science only studies the material world, but one cannot assume that all aspects of life are explicable in material terms. There are many unanswered and perhaps unanswerable questions, which could suggest that science may even be a hindrance to our understanding of the universe. -The study of the material universe has nothing to do with morality, but the uses to which scientific discoveries are put raise moral issues which are the general responsibility of scientists, politicians, doctors, industrialists etc., and the individual responsibility of each of us.-3) Morality varies from culture to culture and from period to period. Judgements can only be based on (inter-)subjective criteria. Current western criteria are different from the current criteria in, say, parts of Africa and Asia. The violence, corruption and greed of modern times are on an incomparably larger scale than 3000 years ago. These facets of human nature do not seem to have changed throughout recorded human history, and even if they are now officially deemed immoral in some parts of the modern world, that does not mean that the modern world behaves more "morally" than the ancient.

Tony,-> By definition, if you think that chance and random events are enough to explain the life, the universe, and everything, then you think that numbers are sufficient explanation.
> -That depends heavily on your perspective. Science works via the "null" hypothesis, and for most atheists I've encountered this means that to validate some claim--such as God exists--you actually start with its *negation* and then work to build your case. For example, when a scientist tests how a medicine will work, he will make the claim, "This medicine does NOT work." He then validates his hypothesis by experimenting and generating enough evidence that dislodge the claim. That's then where our "confidence intervals" come into play. This is in fact, how I operate, though I don't consider myself an atheist. When someone asks, I simply say "I haven't been convinced God exists." -Judging purely in a literalist light, most claims that holy books have made against the physical universe have been overturned by exactly this process. We know for example, that Zeus is NOT throwing lightning bolts down from Olympus. -
> I don't claim to know where God came from, or how he came to be in existence. I only claim that the well regulated system that we are fortunate enough to live in has to start with organization. Even if you try to say that "the laws of physics dictate that...." you are starting with a rule, a law, a means of organization. 
> -As opposed to what? I'm currently reading "Everything Forever" by a Gevin Giobran. He makes an extremely good argument that science unnecessarily has assumed that the 2nd law means disorder. The argument is based on the observation that we have two types of order in the universe--symmetry order and grouping order. Meaning, that our ideas of "disorder" are wrong. What we identify as disordered patterns are all systems where order is mid-transformation from one kind of order to the other. I'm still mid-read, but this is compelling work. If we establish that in all frames of reference--with or without God--there is no such thing as nonexistence, then that also means there is no such thing as disorder. -> > Troublesome is your statement in red. What's the moral value of a rock? How about a qubit, quark, the Sun, or the new planet they just discovered 22 light years from here? 
> > 
> 
> When a new string of genetically engineered food is introduced, or a new vaccine is developed, or a new drug, or a new system of power generation, a new weapon, or a new piece of hardware, there are ALWAYS moral questions that should be examined with the same exactitude as the discovery itself. 
> -Here's where we'll disagree. Should we have questioned building the Atom bomb? Had Hitler succeeded, what then? -> > Furthermore, science limits itself in psychology and sociology by ethics boards, whose job is to stop experiments like The Stanford Prison Experiment.
> > 
> > But even for the harm those studies have caused, they certainly give us extremely powerful information about the human mind, do they not? 
> > 
> 
> Was the expense worth it to the people being experimented upon? Are the advances in pharmaceuticals worth it to the people who die or have a life filled with horrendous side effects of medications that in all likelihood were not 100% necessary to begin with?
> -Missed my point. Ethics boards. Scientists have that problem handled. -> 
> > I will further make the claim that morality now, is far superior to the morality of 3000 years ago. I read a book over the last few months called "The Better Angels of our Nature." It makes no argument over what's caused the nonviolence trend in our species, but it seems to me pretty clear that despite Hitler and Pol Pot, we live in a much more moral age than our ancestors. 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> I will argue this point. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam, Bosnia, Apartheid, WWI, WWII, etc etc. We are no better. Don't kid yourself. More people have died in wars/murders in the 20th Century alone than in all of recorded history combined. 
> -Ha! What happened after Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Did we do what the Romans did to the nation of Carthage? Didn't we continue to support and rebuild Vietnam? -In fact, the entire notion of rebuilding the nation of your former enemy, is a HUGE paradigm shift from the ancient concept of Total War. It had never been done before. Even up to WWI, the loser always paid the entire cost of the war. -You're right: Human nature itself hasn't changed. In that sense, yes, we are no different from the ancients. But the solutions to common human problems we have are drastically different. Hitler's morality, was Spartan morality. -In the 70 years since WWII, we've had an unprecedented period of peace in the world compared to ages past. Where did that come from? -> > Finally, I'd like you to point me to where you got the statistic about "most" of all scientific papers being retracted after 3 years. Considering how fast paced some fields are (like my own computer science) it doesn't sound like a horrible number.
> 
> I will have to find the link again. It was an article I read about a year ago that, with particular regard to the medical field, cited a 60%+ redaction/overturn rate.-Medicine. Not shocking. Hardly a "hard" science. David?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"