Re: [Phys-l] Richard Dawkins Answers Reddit Questions

[William Robertson <wrobert9@ix.netcom.com>]

You state that anyone with religious beliefs is operating under a  
severe handicap when doing science. That's not just an unbiased,  
objective view. It's anti-religion. To make such a statement as if  
it's obvious to everyone is rather arrogant and certainly not fair- 
minded. I believe that's the kind of comment that raises Rick's ire.  
And I am not a religious person--pretty much an agnostic. I am,  
however, tolerant of people with religious viewpoints. My wife is  
religious. She's also very intelligent. Her views on religion are a  
personal matter, and nothing I feel I need to attack. I don't  
understand the need for people here to attack religion, and I don't  
understand the need for Dawkins to attack religion. As for Dawkins, he  
reveals that science is his religion when he states that one of the  
unsolved questions in biology is to determine not how we came to be,  
but why we came to be. Science can't answer why we came to be.  
Religion can, for many people. Personally, I don't care or worry about  
why we came to be--it's enough that we're here. I don't, however,  
labor under the notion that science can give us this answer.

And just another comment on Dawkins. He reveals his scientific  
arrogance when he states that biology has pretty much answered the  
major questions and is in the process of filling in the details.  
Didn't a number of physicists take this position before the advent of  
relativity and quantum mechanics?

Bill


William C. Robertson, Ph.D.


On Nov 16, 2010, at 10:40 AM, John Mallinckrodt wrote:

> Rick,  I've noticed that my postings often have a tendency to elicit  
> responses from you that I personally find to be remarkably over the  
> top, using language that I would consider uncivil coming from  
> anyone, and yet motivating others to subsequently accuse *me* of  
> "demonizing those who hold differing views."  I'm hard pressed to  
> see any justification whatsoever for what you write here, especially  
> as you have gone to some lengths to trim things in order to focus  
> specifically on *my* previous remarks.
>
> Maybe someone else (Brian?) could help educate me about what it is  
> that I said that justifies Rick's reaction.  Personally, I thought I  
> was being pretty fair-minded.
>
> John Mallinckrodt
> Cal Poly Pomona