I agree 100% with Dawkins's letter in Brian Whatcott's
message and with John Clement.
My only comment is about John's statement that
" All too often science is presented as "absolute truth"".
I do not remember having come across such cases in my=20
personal experience, and in any event, they are bad=20
(actually downright false) presentations of science made=20
by bad teachers. But what I did come across too often,=20
was that the statements of any organized religious system
I read or heard about were invariably presented as=20
absolute and ultimate truth.
One of the points of the Dawkins' letter was to emphasize
this "ultimative" aspect of a religious system. You either
accept and embrace the religious statement without shadow
of doubt, or you "do not belong", and then you might face
the consequences. =20
I think this is one of the most fundamental differences=20
between science and religion. While science is always
self-critical, open to questions and discussions, the=20
religios systems tend to be rigid and intolerant to other
beliefs. While science admits that it does not tell (and=20
probably can never tell) the whole story, the religious
sytems claim that they tell us all there is to tell (at=20
least to us, mortals). While science is always on the move,
creating ever more embracing and accurate picture of the=20
world, the religious systems basically remain stiff for=20
centuries if not millineums, and if changed, then mostly=20
through violence or coersion. While science tries to find
reasonable explanations of things, the religious systems
require unconditional acceptance of their dogmas. While=20
science not only explains lots of things, but has achieved
an awsome power in predicting things as yet unknown, the=20
religious systems only come up with prophesies so vague,=20
ambiguous, and elusive that they can never be tested.
While scientific discoveries have become a powerful engine
of human civilization, the religios systems have been=20
known throughout history and in modern time as causes and=20
catalists of many wars.
Having said all this, I remain totally open for any=20
critical discussions, for instance, whether it is really=20
good that science has developed such a formiddable=20
technology that has put future of all mankind under=20
question. And I remain totally aware of the invaluable
fundamental breakthroughs made by religious thought in=20
the domain of human ethics, such as "You shall not kill"=20
and many others.
Moreover, I consider myself a religios person.=20
I am a religious person because I (using Einstein's words)
"...stand in awe" before the wonders of Nature. I am a=20
religious person precisely because I am not adherent to=20
any religious system. I think there is difference between
being religious and being adherent to that or this=20
religion.
Therefore I think that messages like Dawkins' letter
are totally relevant for this forum, since many of us=20
may be interested not only in the Ohm's law, but also
in big picture including phylosophical questions.=20
I do not see any reason why anyone claiming to be=20
religious should feel offended by such letter.=20
Why is it OK to question any scientific issue, including
the moral status of science itself, but it is not OK to
question anything about religion?
Why should such questions be offensive?
Is it not precisely because a feeling that such questions
cannot be answered within the framework of any religious
system?
Sorry, I am afraid the last question may offend some=20
people even more. I apologize in advance.=20
No offense is meant.
I am just asking a question because I am curious, and I do=20
not see the line where curiousity must stop.