Harry Veeder wrote:
Did Dawkins say exactly that? [about child abuse]
Dawkins says a lot of things. Some, taken out of context, sound
pretty extreme. But mainly he is a typical witty, British academic
intellectual -- nothing to be afraid of.
I saw him interviewed on the BBC late last year and he said he
objected to the religious labelling of children, as in "My child is
Catholic" or "That child is Jewish".
He said they should be free to self-identify with a particular
religion when they are old enough.
He says that more often, more seriously, and he has a good point.
Dawkins has a misplaced belief in the open mindedness of science. He
thinks that scientists are easily willing to give up beliefs in the
fact of evidence that contradicts them. He obviously does not know
the history of cold fusion. Brian Josephson has a link to a document
showing that Dawkins is not as dispassionate and objective as he
thinks himself to be:
http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/Dawkins.html
This is a common failing among scientists. No doubt all of us are
guilty of it, but I think it is better for a person to admit his
failings, and to agree that he is dogmatic about some ideas, and
incapable of objectivity. For example, I admit that no amount of
historical or sociological proof (such as the book "Collapse") would
convince me that the human race cannot overcome global warming and
prevent a catastrophe. I know how bad things are. I know that we
might destroy ourselves. But I cannot believe catastrophe is
inevitable. I cannot believe that we are automatons without free
will, doomed to keep repeating stupid, wasteful, destructive acts
until we kill ourselves. We do seem that way at times! Perhaps free
will is an illusion, but it is one that I cannot free myself from believing.
- Jed
