On Saturday in Melbourne, I’m going to be giving a talk on the incompatibility of science and religion. Now what happens? Another eruption of those accommodation arguments, and I’ve got this big pile of stuff I could say right now, but I’m going to hold it in, so it’s at least a little bit fresh for the end of this week. Until then, read Larry Moran, who has it covered.
I am particularly appalled that Larry’s comments contain that hoary old chestnut, “science can’t explain love,” with the bizarre claim that “No scientist that is also a decent human being subjects all her/his beliefs to scientific scrutiny.” I think otherwise. There is a naive notion implicit in that statement that scientific scrutiny is somehow different from critical, rational examination. I’d argue the other way: no decent human being should live an unexamined life.