Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Tuesday, April 24, 2007 | Reason : Backlash | print version Print | Comments

Document The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston

by James Randerson, Guardian

Thanks to Rob Ives for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,2064898,00.html

winstonHis 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.

But Professor Richard Dawkins' strident views, and the way with which they are delivered, came under surprise attack yesterday from an equally eminent scientist, though one better known for his more avuncular style.

Lord Winston condemned Prof Dawkins for what he called his "patronising" and "insulting" attitude to religious faith, and argued that he and others like him were in danger of damaging the public's trust in science. He particularly objected to Prof Dawkins' latest book, The God Delusion, which is an outright attack on religion.

"I find the title of 'The God Delusion' rather insulting," said Lord Winston, "I have a huge respect for Richard Dawkins but I think it is very patronising to call a serious book about other peoples' views of the universe and everything a delusion. I don't think that is helpful and I think it portrays science in a bad light."

Lord Winston, an IVF pioneer well known as the presenter of science documentaries such as The Human Body, Superhuman and Human Instinct, will argue for a more conciliatory approach to religion in a public lecture at the University of Dundee tonight. Entitled The Science Delusion, it is part of the university's Greatest Minds lecture series.

"The reason I've called it the Science Delusion is because I think 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," said Lord Winston. "Some people, both scientists and religious people, deal with uncertainty by being certain. That is dangerous in the fundamentalists and it is dangerous in the fundamentalist scientists."

Lord Winston, who is a practising Jew, said the tone adopted by Prof Dawkins and others was counterproductive. "Unfortunately the neo-Darwinists, and I don't just mean Dawkins, I mean [the philosopher] Daniel Dennett in particular and [neuroscientist] Steven Pinker are extremely arrogant. I think scientific arrogance really does give a great degree of distrust. I think people begin to think that scientists like to believe that they can run the universe.

He added: "I have a huge admiration for Richard Dawkins. But I'm not sure that his way of approaching his view of the universe is wise. Dawkins is not an arrogant man, but I think he does portray certainty in a way that sometimes sounds arrogant".

Prof Dawkins declined to comment on Lord Winston's criticisms until he had seen the full text of the lecture.

However, Prof Dennett at Tufts University in the US, said, the dangers of religion had been "swept under the rug" for centuries and needed to be exposed. "[I] think it is time to risk offence and not mince words. Let's find out just how good, or bad, religion actually is," he said.

The philosopher AC Grayling at Birkbeck College, London, dismissed Lord Winston's arguments as "tiresome guff". "Belief in supernatural entities in the universe ... is false, and in the light of increasing scientific knowledge about nature has definitely come to be delusional," he said.

Religious divide:

Richard Dawkins

The Oxford evolutionary biologist asserts that belief in God is irrational and profoundly harmful to society. In The God Delusion, the bestseller published last year, he concluded that religion is a useless, and sometimes dangerous, evolutionary accident. "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."

Sam Harris

Author of the anti-theistic bestsellers The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation. He wrote last year: "Most scientists are keeping silent when they should be blasting the hideous fantasies of a prior age with all the facts at their disposal."

Steven Weinberg

The physicist, Nobel laureate and prominent public spokesman for science has warned that "the world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief". Last year he argued: "Anything scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilisation."

Daniel Dennett

The philosopher last year published Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, which has helped to push the discussion into the public arena. Dennett believes that within 25 years religion will command little of the awe it seems to command presently but insists that he wants to engage religious readers in a rational discussion, not turn them away.

Edward O Wilson

An evolutionary biologist who last year made US headlines following the publication of his book, The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth. In it he implores America's religious right to join with science to save the planet.

Linda MacDonald

Comments 1 - 50 of 97 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #34688 by GodlessHeathen on April 24, 2007 at 11:29 pm

 avatar"Tiresome guff", indeed. I'm not convinced that a sharp prod now and again isn't going to have a positive effect in the long run. Offended on hearing it, later contemplating it and seeing the point just from the emotional memory.

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

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.

What is his opinion about the religions that view him as a criminal? Is he ok with it?

Other Comments by Zappi

3. Comment #34692 by robives on April 25, 2007 at 12:01 am

 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.

Other Comments by robives

4. Comment #34693 by Veronique on April 25, 2007 at 12:15 am

 avatar1. Comment #34688 by GodlessHeathen

It could well be Glenn. The same cut-off is in the original Guardian article. Don't really know: she's a bio-ethicist, she may well have been part of the 'religious divide', but I wouldn't know where she sits.

As far as I am aware, anyyone who stands up out of the mire has to cop any comment sweet. That's just the way it is, at least while we live in a 'free' world or cyberspace:-)

Robert Winston adds nothing new to anything. His slot called The Story of God is being programmed on our ABC Compass programme and is pretty useless as a reference point.

I love his photo - hand under elbow, sage and winning smile at the camera with just a hint of 'authority'. Sorry mate, go jump. You add nothing of value.

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

5. Comment #34695 by Veronique on April 25, 2007 at 12:21 am

 avatarThanks robives for clearing that up.

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

6. Comment #34696 by alovrin on April 25, 2007 at 12:24 am

 avatarI remember trying to watch some of Lord Winston's documentaries.
I seem to recall Lord Winston as always too overly enthusiastic in his delivery which was very off putting. He came across as kind of unctous and oily, a try hard.
Hes a practicing Jew, so he buy's into the god thing then. No wonder he's a doesnt like criticism of goddyness.

Other Comments by alovrin

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.

Other Comments by StewE17

8. Comment #34702 by mmurray on April 25, 2007 at 12:42 am

 avatarStew17 says `a strange stance for someone who calls himself a scientist.' I agree but he is a serious scientist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Winston

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

9. Comment #34703 by bitbutter on April 25, 2007 at 12:58 am

 avatarI quite enjoyed winston's tv episodes. It's very disappointing to find out that he's a traitor to science and reason (edit) when it comes to religion.

further to stewe17s comment:
"there is a body of scientific opinion from my scientific colleagues who seem to believe that science is the absolute truth"

That tiresome straw man again. I certainly never got that impression that the authors he mentions are talking about absolute truths, most of the time simply 'best guesses'.

"and that religious and spiritual values are to be discounted"

Insofar as these 'values' try to tell people about the way the universe is of course they should be thrown out.

Other Comments by bitbutter

10. Comment #34704 by z8000783 on April 25, 2007 at 1:01 am

Yet another flea jumps onto the dog.

Hey ho

John

Other Comments by z8000783

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.

Anyway, his views according to the lecture he gave are a bit odd really- he seemed to subscribe to the old postmodernist/universalist attitude that there are many routes to the truth, science being only one, and that you're probably allright if you beleive in anything strongly.

In other words, wooly ivory-tower moderate. I asked him if this point of view lent credence to the idea of intelligent design (after all, evolution is only a sub-theory of one kind of truth) and he was unable to give much of a satisfactory answer. It's a shame, really, that he has to pick fights with us rather than the infinitely more threatening Religious Righters invading this country (Peter Vardy springs to mind) but then again when you live and work in Kensington maybe a unified movement for atheism by academics from the Left (and, finally, the Right) seems more threatening to moderate practice.

Whatever his religious views I have immense respect for the man- I just wish he were on our side,

Other Comments by Antialias

12. Comment #34707 by GodlessHeathen on April 25, 2007 at 1:14 am

 avatar
3. Comment #34692 by robives on April 25, 2007 at 12:01 am
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.
Thank you, Robives!

Other Comments by GodlessHeathen

13. Comment #34708 by Corylus on April 25, 2007 at 1:22 am

 avatarSigh, this is dreadfully depressing. Robert Winston is a very clever man, his work on fertility has changed many peoples lives for he better. He is a real champion for healthcare in general.

Apparently he and Dawkins are friends, I do hope this is not evidence of a serious spat.

I think we need to bear in mind that the newspaper 'The Guardian' appears to have a real downer on Dawkins. To the extent that they actually appear to s**tstir.

I am not going to comment on Winston until I am really sure that these quotes from him are in context.

Other Comments by Corylus

14. Comment #34709 by koldito on April 25, 2007 at 1:24 am

Robert Winston says that,

"...it is very patronising to call a serious book about other peoples' views of the universe and everything a delusion."

So, since when does the Bible (or the Quran, or the Talmud, or...) qualify as "serious"? They are about as serious as Lord of the Rings, and about as much as pain in the ass to read.

Other Comments by koldito

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.

Other Comments by petermun

16. Comment #34711 by bitbutter on April 25, 2007 at 1:33 am

 avatar"...it is very patronising to call a serious book about other peoples' views of the universe and everything a delusion."

Also: assuming that we all agree that people can be deluded: is it also very patronising to call a delusion a delusion?

Other Comments by bitbutter

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."

Surely this is what the Bible & religionists do at every opportunity. In fact, to disbelieve the Bible or Koran is punishable by death in the opinion of many of these fools.

Other Comments by Suffolk Blue

18. Comment #34714 by Astroboy on April 25, 2007 at 1:44 am

 avatarIf Lord Winston is indeed an eminent scientist, I think he should use his brain more often.

Other Comments by Astroboy

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.

Sometimes his criticisms seem to be merely of style i.e. Dawkins is too "harsh". Fair enough, everyone's entitled to be a literary critic. There was a bit of that from fellow atheists at the Beyond Belief conference.

But Winston's own views are really vague. At times he says he likes Jewish customs, that science can't answer everything, etc, etc, but it's all very vague what he actually believes and why. I've heard him at a writers' festival and he's 'all over the shop' on religion. He wrote a whole book on the subject but managed to avoid actually explaining what he believes - an astonishing feat of obfuscation.

It's a pity - because he's such a high profile scientist - Lord of Parliament, Professor, BBC Broadcaster, and all round likeable fellow.

There's a Winston talk nearby at UCL London later this month - I'll go and try to actually pin him down in the Q&A.

Other Comments by Rtambree

20. Comment #34717 by scottishgeologist on April 25, 2007 at 1:54 am

 avatarAccording to the web site;

http://www.medicdirect.co.uk/news/news.ihtml?pid=1193&step=2


Winston is going to: "look at the nature of human uncertainty and argues that it is as equally 'deluded' to believe that Science has all the answers as it is to profess a belief in God. Both are critically important in the history of humanity and both religion and science have important and valuable contributions to make about the nature of the world around us."

No self respecting scientist WOULD claim to have all the answers - that position would be clearly ridiculous.

And according to the bit I have just quoted, he says: "equally deluded to profess a belief in god"

So does this mean he DOESNT believe in god as it is just as deluded as thinking that science has all the answers?

This doesnt quite square with what the Guardian article says.

I suppose the only proper way to find out would be to go along.

No doubt, the Wee Flea will be there since his church is in Dundee....

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

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?

And you know what else? When Dawkins insults me, it makes Dawkins look bad! And it makes science look bad! He really ought to think about that. I mean, he's the professor for the public understanding of science, and as a big meany, he's not really doing his job of making people understand science.

Well, I'll show that Dawkins! He calls his book the God Delusion? I'll call my lecture The Science Delusion! Ha! What do you think of that, meany? You know why I'm calling it the Science Delusion? Because there are some scientists who are certain. Yeah! They deal with uncertainty by being certain! They're just as arrogant as religious fundamentalists! Did you ever think of that? Didn't think so!

Arrogant scientists don't know how to deal with uncertainty. I'm not sure they've ever even considered that they don't know everything, or thought that spirituality might even be useful. So who's deluded, you big meany, Mr. Dawkins!

We can't be certain of anything! So we need religious belief! We can't even be certain of gravity.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll be hurling myself off my roof, singing an a capella version of R. Kelly's I Believe I Can Fly with a distinct emphasis on the word "Believe."

Other Comments by Liveliest Crib

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 Winston

Enough said, disqualified yourself from being read as an intelligent person.

Other Comments by alfonso

23. 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.

In addition, although he as done much for fertility treatments, he has done rather less for broadcasting, as anyone who has watched those awful 'Child of our Time' programmes will testify.

Other Comments by rationalteacher

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"

Is this the same public which has kept The God Delusion on the NY Times bestseller list for 30 weeks?

And Dawkins thinks "that religious and spiritual values are to be discounted"

I don't think Dawkins discounts "spiritual" values at all, in the wider sense of the word "spiritual". What he discounts is their claim to be of divine or supernatural origin. And, of course, he also discounts the many bad religious values which are around.

Other Comments by pauliej

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.

None of that takes away the point that there has been too much solicitude towards religious belief and it's time that some heavyweight intellectuals stood up and said so, whether as passionately as Dawkins or more gently like Dennett. I feel like calling what Winston is doing trahison des clercs, but I can't bring myself to say it that unequivocally - I'm too much a fan of this guy. I just wish he'd kept out of this fight.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

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.

Strange.

Other Comments by Rtambree

27. Comment #34736 by BillySands on April 25, 2007 at 3:11 am

 avatarSince Winston is a Jew, I wonder how he explains the religions of those who do not follow his God - a one that proclaims to be the only one. Does he somehow think they are not deluded? or is he just pissed off because his belief in his one true God fits the delusion tag too. I think he is setting up a straw man arguement here that scientists think science is the absolute truth. Most scientists agree that views change with evidence. What is true however is that there is no evidence to believe in the supernatural. By saying some scientists deal with uncertainty with certainty, he is misrepresenting and damaging the public image of science himself. Interestingly, the scientist he seems to have most of a problem with says this in the article
"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."


I have some serious confectionary at stake here on the predictability of wee free's response to this (us godless typs know how to party)- wonder if he is going to the talk. Please dont disappoint us David

Other Comments by BillySands

28. Comment #34737 by Shuggy on April 25, 2007 at 3:14 am

 avatar
Hes a practicing Jew, so he buy's into the god thing then.

Maybe. Some Liberal Jews have quite an Einsteinian God. Einstein, for one.

Other Comments by Shuggy

29. Comment #34740 by Ben Hope on April 25, 2007 at 3:37 am

 avatarIn a recent documentary on UK TV, Winston confused being uncertain about something with the Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Mechanics.

The phrase "not a trivial error" springs to mind.

Other Comments by Ben Hope

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?

This is exactly the privileged hogwash that Dawkin's et al argue against. In all other aspects of our lives we can call a spade a spade, but when it comes to vacuous religion we are somehow not supposed to offend peoples feelings by pointing it out.

Bah! Winston, you have gone down in my estimation.

Mark

Other Comments by mark24

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?"

On the several occasions I have heard Dr. Winston speak on religious matters on the radio, I have wondered about this. He usually seems very reluctant to commit himself on anything, and I get the impression that his being a 'practicing jew' is more out of habit and a social imperative than any belief in a deity.

Speaking only for myself, I find he is usually best ignored (unless you are half of a childless couple, of course, in which case he could be very helpful!).

Other Comments by jaf

32. Comment #34746 by FXR on April 25, 2007 at 4:54 am

 avatarWhich title is the greater insult to humanity The God Delusion or The Science Delusion? If religion attacks science our only hope is that intelligent people will take the responsibility and fight back.
It is the responsibility of the intelligent to oppress the stupid, otherwise they will take over the earth.

Other Comments by FXR

33. Comment #34756 by Ichneumonid on April 25, 2007 at 5:47 am

 avatarBen Hope said

In a recent documentary on UK TV, Winston confused being uncertain about something with the Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Mechanics


Yes, this series just ran on ABC here in Australia and I thought that up until that point (and a preceding interview with Dawkins)that it had been a fairly balance view on the challenge of science to religious beliefs. As I recall, the conclusion was something like 'there is something fundamentally weird at the heart of the universe and science and religion are tow ways of approaching that mystery'. In other words, Winston is a NOMA supporter. Interestingly, in the TGD, Dawkins suggests that Winston is Jewish for the culture, not as a believer in the Jewish God, something that came across reasonably clearly in this series.

The three part TV series is called "The story of God". Bits of it may be on YouTube if you search.

Other Comments by Ichneumonid

34. Comment #34759 by Jack Rawlinson on April 25, 2007 at 6:04 am

 avatarBlah blah blah, whine whine, "insulting", blah blah, "arrogant", whine whine.

Yes, isn't it embarrassing having the innate stupidity of your stupid beliefs held up in the spotlight? TOUGH. Get used to it.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

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.

As a Christian lay preacher (former), I blindly accepted the bible as the literal and inerrant word of God (faith). Once I put aside my preconceived viewpoints and studied the bible critically, (reason) I became aware that it was not what it was what it claimed to be.

As long as Lord Winston is a practicing Jew (faith), he will remain blind to all the fallacies of the Talmud (reason).

Faith and reason cannot co-exist. It's one or the other. The argument that you can have it both ways is the argument of fools.

Other Comments by Dower

36. Comment #34761 by savroD on April 25, 2007 at 6:26 am

 avatarThis guy wants the stage, He's quite obviously jealous of RD. Scientists have been demonized for years by these moderate know-nothings. No wonder why people don't trust scientists.

Other Comments by savroD

37. Comment #34763 by CruciFiction on April 25, 2007 at 6:55 am

Bring on the Fourth Muskateer to battle Winston.

Other Comments by CruciFiction

38. Comment #34764 by Rtambree on April 25, 2007 at 6:57 am

36. Comment #34761 by savroD

>This guy wants the stage, He's quite obviously jealous of RD.

I can't see this being a motivation. Winston has a mantlepiece full of Gongs, is a Member of the House of Lords, has his coconut on the idiot box every other week, has regular exposure in the country's newspapers, and is giving David Attenborough a run for his money of most DVD Box sets.

Just last week there was a program on TV about Robert Winston learning to play the saxophone. Surely he can't be envious of Dawkins.

Other Comments by Rtambree

39. Comment #34766 by PrimeNumbers on April 25, 2007 at 7:06 am

 avatarScience is a great tool for understanding the world around us and has a great track record of producing real results. That's something surely to be proud of!!

Now lets look at Religion - understanding of the world - none, real results - none. To be proud of - no - you can't be proud of it either. Oh dear.....

Other Comments by PrimeNumbers

40. Comment #34767 by Kevin Ronayne on April 25, 2007 at 7:10 am

 avatarFrom the article:

"Prof Dawkins declined to comment on Lord Winston's criticisms until he had seen the full text of the lecture."

Which could mean:

"Prof Dawkins is trying to work out a polite yet scathing response"

or

"Prof Dawkins is contacting his publishers to see if his dedication to Robert Winston can be removed from future editions of 'Climbing Mount Improbable'"

.... nah, it'll never happen!

Other Comments by Kevin Ronayne

41. Comment #34769 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 25, 2007 at 7:14 am

 avatarLord Winston condemned Prof Dawkins for what he called his "patronising" and "insulting" attitude to religious faith, and argued that he and others like him were in danger of damaging the public's trust in science.

The publics trust in science is already under renewed, vigorous and well funded attack. Evolution, stem cell research, vaccines, climatology. By throwing their lot in with the religious right, the Republicans have unleashed a pandoras box of irrationality, where every halfwit who tells people what they want to hear is an "expert". Now this neural pathogen is on the loose, and spilling out into the rest of the world.

Nope, we need to keeping kick the living metaphorical shit out of this beast while it's still on it's knees, if it ever gets to its feet again ..... perish the thought.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

42. Comment #34770 by Sargeist on April 25, 2007 at 7:20 am

 avatarGah! Comment vanished like a god under the spotlight of mild thought.

I'll try again:

Hmmm, I'm not sure I really understand his points.

He says it is "equally deluded to believe that science has all the answers", but no sensible person would claim this, seeing as we obviously do not have *all* the answers. How did life on Earth begin? Why do the fundamental constants have the values they have? Where does consciousness come from? What is the fundamental cause of high-Tc superconductivity? et cetera.

However, I don't think there is anything wrong with the view (which I hold) that "science is the way to find out all the answers". After all, "science" is, surely, just a way of finding things out. And if you want to find answers, you're really just wanting to find things out...

Or am I being an arse-hatter?

Other Comments by Sargeist

43. Comment #34772 by leodavinci on April 25, 2007 at 7:26 am

 avatarWhat a pity,i used to be fairly fond of some of his documentaries,now that i know he is a compartmentaliser,i'll watch them no more.
I like to get my science from real scientists.
How does he sleep at night?

Other Comments by leodavinci

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...

Just picture the next Nature article in which a molecular biologist concludes "the specific formation of the Ubiquitine pathway and the inter-species homology of the Ubiquitine protein can only be explained by my faith in the creative power of the supreme being." Can you imagine an article like that? I can, if we would allow religion and science to merge into an abomination like this.

Other Comments by Dax

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.
If Richard Dawkin's book is a bit insulting, well then its fault then is that it wasn't insulting enough. Religion has been an assault and an abuse on humanity for thousands of years and we cannot linger on debate when 4th Century mentalities are in control of 21st Century weaponry.
It is long past due to be insulting; radical, revolutionary would be more in order.

Other Comments by ghostbuster

46. Comment #34803 by Laurence Boyce on April 25, 2007 at 9:41 am

 avatarThe reason Lord Winston has felt compelled to make these observations is contained in the article: he's a practising Jew. That's it. He simply cannot bring himself to overturn his religious inheritance and so ends up caricaturing Dawkins, Dennett, Pinker, instead. It's sad, especially as I believe Richard dedicated Climbing Mount Improbable to Winston.

Other Comments by Laurence Boyce

47. Comment #34813 by Glacian on April 25, 2007 at 10:44 am

 avatarOf course people are going to be finding these attacks on religion offensive, none of us should be surprised. That doesn't make it any less annoying to hear the same convoluted drivel come from apparently and otherwise intelligent people. We need to keep in mind that religion has convinced humanity for a few millenia now that "belief", insofar as it is religious, is automatically deserving of respect. This is the very first barrier we are confronting, and it is not one we should be surprised to find considerable and persistent resistance from...from all sides, scientists included.

I find the whole notion of consilience between science and religion totally absurd, as the very notion of faith flies in the face of scientific principles. That the moment science doesn't or can't confirm traditionally-held beliefs that were passed down long before science progressed as far as it has indicates that those beliefs must have some other justifiable, yet somehow unidentifiable, mysteries truth-nature is totally bogus, and scientists like Winston should no better. That such well-educated, accomplished scientists can have such facile beliefs is pathetic and shameful....but unsurprising.

Other Comments by Glacian

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.

Other Comments by tamersky

49. Comment #34818 by bruce on April 25, 2007 at 11:15 am

The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science

Agreed, in the very back of the room sitting quietly and taking notes.

Other Comments by bruce

50. Comment #34822 by anotherclinton on April 25, 2007 at 11:19 am

 avatar"equally eminent scientist"? Does Winson have a D.Sc.? Does he hold a chair at a prominent university? Did he have a big hand in killing group selection?

Other Comments by anotherclinton
Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: