At the Elizabeth Kolbert talk last December, UW professor Stephen Gardiner echoed Al Gore and Jimmy Carter's sentiment that the looming crisis posed by global warming is a moral predicament more than a political, religious, or scientific one (albeit, it is all of those other things as well, just not as urgently so). Today we read about a joint coalition formed by both evangelical and scientific types aimed at convincing the current administration and congress (and other evangelical and science types) to work together. Legendary biologist and self-proclaimed "scientific humanist," E. O. Wilson was, not surprisingly, one of the signers. We hope more religious leaders step forward (they're supposed to care a smidge about morals, right?), and that scientists don't shy away from working with them to move from arguing to action.

It is in this arena that we find outspoken atheist scientists (a group with which we strongly cohere) such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris to be horribly misguided and myopically selfish. They argue that religion is tearing the world apart (we don't necessarily disagree with this in many specific instances) and yet we find their biting animosity as perilous and poisonous as those they strike out against. Yes, we don't much care for people who pick and choose when science works for them vs. when they'd prefer to ignore or discount it, and yet in this case we're rooting for religious leaders in this country to prove the Dawkinses and Harrises of the world wrong. Who better to navigate with a moral compass that supersedes the current imbroglio amongst religious and scientific groups in this country?

And no, this does not have much to do with Seattle. Sorry.

Photo from Science vs. Religion, which is funny if you know much about Freud, organized religion, science, and Pokemon.