Guy,
This is a long discussion that goes back to other threads. I think I mentioned Pascal's wager back then.
Regardless, I have no dog in this fight. I offer two political solution to a political problem. The questions is can science literalists realize the world they live in and complain about is political? They can jump up and down all they want and cry, "this isn't science" but it isn't pragmatic.
JA, find a political solution to the problem because otherwise you simply aren't going to browbeat science into them.
Guy, could you explain what exactly was a silly stance, the thought on global warming or the foibles of man found in science?
In response to your final question: The former. Global warming deniers have no argument that can defeat Pascal's Wager. However, scientists, like everyone else, are fallible. That said, they're still far more educated than non-scientists when it comes to their particular field, and therefore their opinions regarding that field hold more weight. That's not to say them being right about particular issues more often than laymen means bull-plop in the greater scheme of things. As you said, it's the politics of the time that dictate whether or not anything will be done to fix problems. That is why, if I'm making an argument to support renewable energy in the US, it is typically from the standpoint of eliminating dependence on foreign powers for energy and generating perpetual jobs in America with, "Oh yeah, and it's good for the environment too," thrown in for good measure.
I want to say that your (Guy-jin's) position on Atheism is one that I have the greatest respect for. It is the most honest and reliable justification for Atheism and believe it or not, I could defend it myself pretty well, except for the fact that I am not an Atheist.
This is why I say that my faith is irrational, and I think your position is very rational. Where I do get defensive, though, is when people say that science disproves God either out of ignorance, or out of what I might call scientific fundamentalism.
My previous post explains why I believe that, since it explains what I think are the limits to empiricism (if you consider science as the ultimate practice of empiricism).
Anyway, my favorite Dawkinism is this (when challenged by a rabid Christian): "Ma'am, whether you know it or not, you and I are both Atheists. It just so happens that I disbelieve in one more God than you do."
I suppose it's as rational as one can be in response to the question of whether there's a god or gods. However, it's not that much more rational than your position.
The honest truth, which you clearly see as well, is that while there's no evidence that a god exists, there's no evidence to the contrary either.
From a scientific perspective, the negative stance wins out because there's no reason to assume something exists without evidence of it existing, but intellectual honesty means that any good scientific mind must admit that there is the potential for a god or gods to exist.
I will admit to being one of those evil Atheists who convinces others of his position from time to time. Particularly, agnostic friends who consider becoming more religious, and in two cases Theists who mistakenly came to me to convince me of their perspective first.
I have sat down with one or two of them and discussed why it is that I have no need to believe in god, and why, from a spiritual perspective, a disbelief in god is actually more satisfying than a belief in god. These conversations rarely if ever have anything to do with "evidence" of there not being a god, but instead are about my feelings about why a godless universe is more satisfying and fulfilling than one that depends on an all-powerful, anthropomorphic deity.
Anyway, I suppose that's why I find Dawkins' recent work a bit tasteless. It actually works against the approach I might take to make a case for Atheism by belittling Theists and considering spirituality as foolishness, which is clearly a fallacy given that humans appear to naturally be spiritual.
