Must science declare a holy war on religion? — latimes.com.
As with most controversial, cable-news-type questions, I’m not dogmatic enough in either direction to please the folks whose fight this really is.? Nonetheless, I thought that the ending of this little article was interesting–it does give one pause to think that old Chuck himself was inclined to irenic rather than caustic interactions.
Oh, and don’t tell me it was “just the way that time was.”? Three words.? Schopenhauer.? Marx.? Nietzsche.? That should be enough.? But the quote is nice anyway:
In this context, the New Atheists have chosen their course: confrontation. And groups like the NCSE have chosen the opposite route: Work with all who support the teaching of evolution regardless of their beliefs, and attempt to sway those who are uncertain but perhaps convincible.
Despite the resultant bitterness, however, there is at least one figure both sides respect — the man who started it all: Charles Darwin. What would he have done in this situation?
It turns out that late in life, when an atheist author asked permission to dedicate a book to Darwin, the great scientist wrote back his apologies and declined. For as Darwin put it, “Though I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds, which follows from the advance of science.”
Darwin and Dawkins differ by much more than a few letters, then — something the New Atheists ought to deeply consider.
I’ve still not had time to get beyond the preface of the second edition of Dawkins, but rest assured that when I do, I’ll write about it here.
