Quote:
Originally Posted by Over43
I think he is fundementally wrong also. I do think he does have a valid point about the violence of religion in the past (and present), but I do not think he is being intellectually honest when he plays one hand against religion, and then ignores the scientific communities culpability in many scientific "disasters". Whether it be a purposeful "attack" on mankind (Hiroshima) or accidental (Chernobol). I think, bottom line, Dawkins suffers from a fundemantal lack of honesty.
O43
|
Lets not forget that fantastic science of Eugenics! Perhaps I will live to see the day when Eugenics advocate John Maynard Keynes is completely laid to the dustbin of folly with his phony theories of economics too. I can't forget W. K. Kellogg who also supported Eugenics and whose brother publicly advocated circumcision as a cure to masturbation, at least they gave us the corn flake.
-a-train