From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Oct 08 2004 - 16:04:59 BST
Hi Horse,
> I think Dawkins main point is that the in the struggle for the dominance of
> science the main weapon has been argument and not violence. The history of
> religion shows just the opposite. Something to be proud of and not
> denigrated.
Since science's "victories" over religious belief were restricted pretty
much to the inorganic and biological levels, there wasn't a need to resort
to violence on a national scale. But the Cold War that pitted the Judeo-
Christian West against Godless communism was a battle of social values
where violence and/or the threat of violence was very much in play. In
that war, science played a major role in the competition for weapons
superiority. Let's not forget that science includes scientists in the
former Soviet Union as well as in China, Iran and North Korea, not to
mention Saddam's chemical/biological warfare specialists.
Don't get me wrong. I'm indebted to scientists for many wonderful things,
including my being alive today. But, to paint them as holier-than-thou as
Dawkins would have us believe isn't the whole story by a long shot.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Oct 08 2004 - 16:33:22 BST