










The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston
His nickname is Darwin's Rottweiler and he earned it - and a reputation that spans the globe - with his pugnacious defence of the theory of evolution.2. Comment #34691 by Zappi on April 25, 2007 at 12:01 am
"His" religion certainly does not treat the disposal of embryos as a heinous crime. He works with IVF - In Vitro Fertilization and he certainly had to destroy thousands of human embryos through his career.3. Comment #34692 by robives on April 25, 2007 at 12:01 am
4. Comment #34693 by Veronique on April 25, 2007 at 12:15 am
5. Comment #34695 by Veronique on April 25, 2007 at 12:21 am
6. Comment #34696 by alovrin on April 25, 2007 at 12:24 am
7. Comment #34698 by StewE17 on April 25, 2007 at 12:27 am
Lord Winston thinks, "there is a body of scientific opinion from my scientific colleagues who seem to believe that science is the absolute truth and that religious and spiritual values are to be discounted". He doesn't seem to have confidence that the scientific method is a better way of finding out about the world than religion: a strange stance for someone who calls himself a scientist.8. Comment #34702 by mmurray on April 25, 2007 at 12:42 am
9. Comment #34703 by bitbutter on April 25, 2007 at 12:58 am
10. Comment #34704 by z8000783 on April 25, 2007 at 1:01 am
Yet another flea jumps onto the dog.11. Comment #34706 by Antialias on April 25, 2007 at 1:10 am
I went to a lecture by Winston at Imperial College some months ago, where he outlined his views on the whole thing with much less anger. I suspect in the intervening time the success of the New Atheism movement has spurned him to more passionate (Dawkinsean?) polemic on the subject.12. Comment #34707 by GodlessHeathen on April 25, 2007 at 1:14 am
3. Comment #34692 by robives on April 25, 2007 at 12:01 amThank you, Robives!
avatarIn the newspaper hard copy the list of authors at the end of the article is a box out. Linda MacDonald is the byline for the box.
13. Comment #34708 by Corylus on April 25, 2007 at 1:22 am
14. Comment #34709 by koldito on April 25, 2007 at 1:24 am
Robert Winston says that,15. Comment #34710 by petermun on April 25, 2007 at 1:32 am
He was better on "the Archers" where presumably the scripts weren't his - this is off target.16. Comment #34711 by bitbutter on April 25, 2007 at 1:33 am
17. Comment #34713 by Suffolk Blue on April 25, 2007 at 1:37 am
"...it is very patronising to call a serious book about other peoples' views of the universe and everything a delusion."18. Comment #34714 by Astroboy on April 25, 2007 at 1:44 am
19. Comment #34716 by Rtambree on April 25, 2007 at 1:52 am
I've always struggled to understand exactly what Robert Winston is (1) criticising and (2) advocating.20. Comment #34717 by scottishgeologist on April 25, 2007 at 1:54 am
21. Comment #34724 by Liveliest Crib on April 25, 2007 at 2:08 am
Hi. I'm Lord Winston. I'm a scientist and a religious man. You know what Richard Dawkins called me and all other religious people? He said we're all "deluded!" I respect Dawkins' work in science, but he's just a big meany! I mean, how dare he call my beliefs the God Delusion?22. Comment #34725 by alfonso on April 25, 2007 at 2:12 am
"I find the title of 'The God Delusion' rather insulting," said Lord Winston23. Comment #34726 by rationalteacher on April 25, 2007 at 2:18 am
Indeed, Professor Winston has done huge amounts for childless couples everywhere, for which he should be commended. But his religious beliefs really are a major issue, one which makes him look rather foolish. It is confusing how one man so seemingly clever can entertain such buffoonery.24. Comment #34731 by pauliej on April 25, 2007 at 2:45 am
Dawkins et al are "... in danger of damaging the public's trust in science"25. Comment #34732 by Russell Blackford on April 25, 2007 at 2:47 am
Sigh. I have a lot of time for Lord Winston. From here, he looks to me like yet another intelligent person who probably has no supernaturalist beliefs of his own but admires and likes lots of nice, moderate folks who do have such beliefs (in whatever gentle watered-down form). I can understand that - we all know such people and don't want to offend them or see them upset. I can kind of sympathise with them. Then again, I'm not going to go out of my way to advocate their interests.26. Comment #34733 by Rtambree on April 25, 2007 at 2:47 am
Compartmentisation is an interesting psychological phenonomen. For most people, science literacy correlates with atheism, but for a few people (such as Collins, Winston), they can embrace two incompatible worldviews simultaneously without the brain shortcuiting.27. Comment #34736 by BillySands on April 25, 2007 at 3:11 am
"I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches scientific enterprise. It teaches us not to change our minds, and not to want to know exciting things that are available to be known."
28. Comment #34737 by Shuggy on April 25, 2007 at 3:14 am
Hes a practicing Jew, so he buy's into the god thing then.
29. Comment #34740 by Ben Hope on April 25, 2007 at 3:37 am
30. Comment #34743 by mark24 on April 25, 2007 at 4:15 am
Why is pointing out that peoples beliefs are the evidentiary equivalent to the tooth fairy arrogant?31. Comment #34745 by jaf on April 25, 2007 at 4:35 am
Scottishgeologist - "So does this mean he DOESN'T believe in god as it is just as deluded as thinking that science has all the answers?"32. Comment #34746 by FXR on April 25, 2007 at 4:54 am
33. Comment #34756 by Ichneumonid on April 25, 2007 at 5:47 am
In a recent documentary on UK TV, Winston confused being uncertain about something with the Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Mechanics
34. Comment #34759 by Jack Rawlinson on April 25, 2007 at 6:04 am
35. Comment #34760 by Dower on April 25, 2007 at 6:17 am
Judaism, Islamism and Christianity are all religions "of the book." Take away "the book," and they are nothing.36. Comment #34761 by savroD on April 25, 2007 at 6:26 am
37. Comment #34763 by CruciFiction on April 25, 2007 at 6:55 am
Bring on the Fourth Muskateer to battle Winston.38. Comment #34764 by Rtambree on April 25, 2007 at 6:57 am
36. Comment #34761 by savroD39. Comment #34766 by PrimeNumbers on April 25, 2007 at 7:06 am
40. Comment #34767 by Kevin Ronayne on April 25, 2007 at 7:10 am
41. Comment #34769 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 25, 2007 at 7:14 am
42. Comment #34770 by Sargeist on April 25, 2007 at 7:20 am
43. Comment #34772 by leodavinci on April 25, 2007 at 7:26 am
44. Comment #34789 by Dax on April 25, 2007 at 8:45 am
If we would allow faith a place in science, then science would be no more...45. Comment #34797 by ghostbuster on April 25, 2007 at 9:06 am
The god delusion, which I like to refer to as a monothematic delusion even though it is not medically correct, has managed to kill millions of people. People died because they believed something that was a fact (world went around the sun), volumes of great scientific literature were destroyed because of the god delusion-(indeed, the Jewish holocaust was too), literature that could have benefited mankind but that, due to the god delusion, sent humanbeings into the abyss of imbecility for 1000 years or so and in doing so, probably sent more people to an early grave. Is it possible that had rationality ruled the day rather than superstition, that the great plague may not have taken a third of the world's population? What about all the religiously inspired wars? And would the men and WOMEN have been allowed freer expression of their talents, thus increasing the pool of knowledge thousands of fold? I think of the famous Greek astronomer, a female, the flesh shredded from her bones because she dared to question religion. How much did we truly lose because of the god delusion? I'll hazard a guess that it was far more than we ever gained. And still, in this day of Martian probes, genetic engineering, technological advances that the average person cannot master the simplest of explanation for, we still are fighting over ghosts that were fought over eons ago and always about the same reason--mine's better than yours.46. Comment #34803 by Laurence Boyce on April 25, 2007 at 9:41 am
47. Comment #34813 by Glacian on April 25, 2007 at 10:44 am
48. Comment #34816 by tamersky on April 25, 2007 at 11:00 am
their views "extremely arrogant"? sir, it's called intellectual honesty. i bet lord winston won't hesitate to call the scientologists delusional... so what's with this stench of political correctness.49. Comment #34818 by bruce on April 25, 2007 at 11:15 am
The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science50. Comment #34822 by anotherclinton on April 25, 2007 at 11:19 am
1. Comment #34688 by GodlessHeathen on April 24, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Is it just me, or does the article seem cut off? The name "Linda MacDonald" seems to sit there looking to be attached to a paragraph as the names above. Could this be "Linda MacDonald Glenn", just cut off?
Other Comments by GodlessHeathen