Google| Subject | Re: Queen mother (of Britain) has died |
| From | Annatar |
| Date | 2002-04-10 21:16 (2002-04-10 21:16) |
| Message-ID | <a9230a$rbdit$1@ID-39038.news.dfncis.de> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | alt.fan.tolkien |
| Follows | Graeme |
| Followups | Graeme (41m) |
Seg?n informa nuestro corresponsal en Ulan Bator, Graeme ha declarado que:
GraemeI disagree. While I admit that a poll between scientist doesn't have any real significance, it has some interest, when the points in discussion has some relation to their fields.
I'm only interested in what they have to say *as scientists*. Their opinions on other things don't necessarily interest me. I've always found that Carl Sagan really knew his stuff when he was talking about astronomy, but when he stepped outside his field and began working in philosophy and religion, he was as much of a duffer as most of us.
I don't buy the theory that religion has nothing to do with science and they can coexist happily (but then, I have a PhD in Physics and I am an atheist). The history of the religious explanation of the world is the chronicle of a constant retreat pushed by the science. The Earth is no longer flat, it is not in the center of the Universe, the planets are not moved by angels, the Universe was not created in seven days, God did not create the man directly, diseases are not a punishment... Today, many religious pepole are content believing in a God that created the Universe and created life. What is surprising is that they can argue that these are the same beliefs that had some goat herders in Palestina 2000 years ago.
And, with respect of Carl Sagan, I am a big admirer of him. I think that "The Demon-haunted World" is a splendid book and shows us the attitude that, we the scientists, should have: explain the science to non-scientists, make the science part of our lives and our culture, and fight the irrationalism.
Annatar
2002-03-30-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
