Have you seen the September 2007 issue of the NewScientist magazine yet?

With the recent disasters, such as the fires that blazed through Greece in late August 2007, and the public’s concern over global warming, which is blamed for almost any disaster that happens nowadays, NewScientist magazine has decided to make a special story about it. With the logos depicting each major disaster and everything, it’s appealing to the eye as well as drawing attention.

But putting the headline of the story right beneath the question “If morality is hard-wired in the brain, what’s the point of religion?”, with the symbols of the major religions parallel to the symbols for the disasters, it’s just a bold, very bold move.

Well, anyone who has taken the time to read about me on my website, you would already know that I’m more of an agnostic than anything. That’s why I have been asking myself this question for years already, and haven’t really found a concrete answer yet.

Taken from the abstract present on the magazine’s website, NewScientist.com, which was titled “What good is God?”:

RELIGION occupies a strange position in the world today. Religious belief is as powerful as ever, yet religion is under attack, challenged by science and Enlightenment thought as never before. Critics like Richard Dawkins would have us believe that it is a delusion, and a dangerous one at that. He is one of many thinkers who are challenging the traditional view of religion as a source of morality. Instead, they argue that it provides a means for justifying immoral acts.

Their views have recently been bolstered by evidence that morality appears to be hard-wired into our brains. It seems we are born with a sense of right and wrong, and that no amount of religious indoctrination will change our most basic moral instincts.

It’s definitely an interesting discovery, but putting it together with the disaster story in the same issue, especialy showcasing them in the same style gives me the idea that the editors really want to prove something.

I’m against the preaching of atheism. I’m not religious and I don’t think I’d ever be able to follow the teachings of a religion due to the logical flaws with most religious practices (own opinion), but atheism isn’t a religion either and can’t be preached. At least, it shouldn’t be preached. It’s an oxymoron for an atheist to try spreading atheism I believe.

I call this aggressive atheism, although I don’t think NewScientist has yet crossed the line into becoming aggressive atheists. This article, however, is just obviously a message, just a single step away from starting to publicly bash religion to draw more people into atheism.

I believe that atheism should remain as a personal choice, otherwise it wouldn’t be any more different than a religion.