This from the New Scientist:

“Why does our species, especially the religious section of the species, seem to ignore scientific warnings about Earth’s future?

“I think primarily it’s our tribal structure. All the ideologies and religions have their own answers for the big questions, but these are usually bound as a dogma to some kind of tribe. Religions in particular feature supernatural elements that other tribes – other faiths – cannot accept. In the US, for example, if you’re going to succeed in politics, it’s a prerequisite to declare you have a faith, even if some of these faiths are bizarre. And what they’re saying is “I have a tribe”, and every tribe, no matter how generous, benign, loving and charitable, nonetheless looks down on all other tribes.

“What’s dragging us down is religious faith.  But is atheism the answer?  In fact, I’m not an atheist – I’m a scientist. Atheism is the belief that there is no god, and you declare there is no god: “Come, my fellow atheists, let us march together and conquer those idiots who think there is a god – all these other tribes. We’re going to prevail.”

“I would even say I’m agnostic because I’m a scientist. Being an agnostic means saying, dogmatically, that we will never be able to know, so give it up. The important thing is that it appears that humans, as a species, share a religious impulse. You can call it theological, you can call it spiritual, but humans everywhere have a strong tendency to wonder about whether they’re being looked over by a god or not. Practically every person ponders whether they’re going to have another life. These are the things that unite humanity.

“If humans have a built-in spiritual yearning, can we do anything about it?  This transcendent searching has been hijacked by the tribal religions. So I would say that for the sake of human progress, the best thing we could possibly do would be to diminish, to the point of eliminating, religious faiths. But certainly not eliminating the natural yearnings of our species or the asking of these great questions. (reported by Penny Sarchet, New Scientist)

This present writer/commentator is neither an atheist, an agnostic nor a scientist, nor does he want to eliminate anyone or their beliefs. He follows the teachings of Epicurus, which are very simple (please see the posting above,  which sets out the main points of Epicureanism in simple English).  Epicureans tend to be very individualistic. Some have tried to gather Epicureans into clans, societies and clubs – all have failed, because (I suspect) Epicureans are mainly introverts who don’t want groups dominated by jolly organisers or preachers manqués.  They just try to get on with following the humanistic advice of a very ancient, hard-done-by, but very intelligent savant called Epicurus:  lead a pleasant life,  think of others and avoid stress and unpleasant people.

Oh, and another thing: a sensible Epicurean questions what he hears himself saying, as in “Am I any different from any other human being” or “Is a follower of Epicurus any different from those who follow gurus/preachers/ subverters ranging from Jesus to Dawkins?”  An ounce of self-doubt is a healthy thing; absolute certainty about your beliefs a damn nuisance to the rest of us.