satyagraha,

( Hindi: “insistence on truth” or “zeal for truth”) concept introduced in the early 20th century by Mahatma Gandhi to designate a determined but nonviolent resistance to evil. Gandhi’s satyagraha became a major tool in the Indian struggle against British imperialism and has since been adopted by protest groups in other countries.

According to this philosophy, satyagrahis—practitioners of satyagraha—achieve correct insight into the real nature of an evil situation by observing a nonviolence of the mind, by seeking truth in a spirit of peace and love, and by undergoing a rigorous process of self-scrutiny. In so doing, the satyagrahi

Thanks Janforgore.....

I hope the evil in this example is no science....

That was an enjoyable lecture , but i am not sure he made a clear case ... I do see the point though , and he is right religion is absolutely NOT the only repository of morality , in fact , it had best NOT be , historically and metaphorically it has a poor track record .

I firmly believe that morality, kindness, and generosity is innate to humans. I always point to my charitable giving, volunteerism, career as examples that one can exclude belief in imaginary beings and still care about others.

Simple idea that doesn't take a "god" to make people's lives better.

I saw this a while ago and SamH is spot on. The only people who think morality requires religion are those who have been sold on religion already. Science IS the answer and would do the best at producing results that our objective and fair.

Its so simple to see how science and religion are hitched to the same cart, at least from a rational point of view. Religion is a group activity who's taboos and prescriptions are aimed at maintaining the vitality of the community and getting everyone on the same page. Problems arise as groups progress from homogeneous small groups to large heterogeneous modern states. Readers of this post can easily interpolate the consequences of this evolution for themselves just by referral to history books. The religions that survive will evolve, split, etc. and remain viable , and ( here's my main point) that's what religions have in common with science). They both serve to protect the survival of the next generation i.e., the generation of living children. . This is the cart both science and religion are harnessed to. As an example from religion. What's the first practice Mohammed stopped. Wasn't is human sacrifice? What is the seminal moment that differentiates Judaism from from the now extinct cults? Wasn't it the substitution of the lamb for Isaac? Science is concerned with the repeating processes that we can measure and harness in order to insure the survival of our offspring. The conflict occurs when a religious group makes a call for orthodoxy, because they feel their doctrines are threatened by the discoveries of science. Of course religions also conflict with each other and sometimes participate and/or dominate the power structure of a state. Scientists don't as far as I know, seek to share power with the state. the state allows or directly puts science to use, whether for war or peace; not scientists. So in my opinion it is the state that decides to for example drop atom bombs. Scientists may be personally in favor (Teller) or against (Oppenheimer); but they don't make the decisions. Scientists may provide data on oil location; give you technology to reach that oil; and give you data on the safe employment of that technology. But a businessman decides to ignore safety, and therby endanger life and the environment. Scientists never fight over established doctrine. If you prove the established doctrine to be untrue, you are a hero. Stephen Hawking didn't want to burn Susskind because Susskind took the point of view that information could not be lost in a black hole. But a religious zealot might have placed him under house arrest for disagreeing with the Church/State.

The other side to the argument? You mean the side that has been hashed out on this site over and over again where everyone who hates Christianity and Jesus gets to trash them? I take no "sides" because I know that there are people on both "sides" who are immoral and see no reason or logic in trying to make some sort of argument that it is any different. Did not Christopher Hitchens who was an atheist support the Iraq war and Bush? Would you not say that was immoral based on the events that unfolded? I am a Christian and didn't support it nor Bush. Carl Sagan, a brilliiant scientist who was an agnostic would not have supported the war and would then have been on the same side of that with me, a Christian. Just one small example, but immorality/morality is not dependent on your label but your character in my view.

However, if you really want to see the immorality of science look no further than MONSANTO, DOW and those companies that use science to kill people willingly as opposed again to Sagan who used it to inspire people and those who use it in its truest form as religion should be used- to better the world while doing no harm and seeking the truth.

I then see more similarities between science and religion/spirituality and cast no aspersions on either. It is the people on all sides who pervert them for their own profit (and that happens both in religion and science) who are immoral not the disciplines intrinsicly. I still say the day we can merge the divine and true message of religion and spirituality with the truly noble aspects of science is the day we will find the answers to the questions of life. The day when there are no "sides." Peace.

The other side of the argument is always welcome////