Bad science? If there is such a thing, what makes for good science?
If science can be good, and/or bad, why does Richard Dawkins not point this out is his book,
The God Delusion?In HARPER'S excellent review of the book, Marilynne Robinson, points out that RD makes all religion The arch enemy of humanity and science the only hope for its salvation--whatever that means for those who believe that the end of all life is death. Here is the complete review.
http://darwiniana.com/2006/10/23/marilynne-robinson-on-dawkins/Here is a quote
"There is no doubt in Dawkins’s mind that the evils of the world are to be laid at the doorstep of the church, mosque, and synagogue, and that science must be our salvation.
It is the “God delusion,” which has afflicted almost everyone almost anywhere through the whole of recorded time, that has made us behave so badly.
And Science (by which he really means his version of Darwinism) is our potential rescuer from this vale of tears. We need only to become more Dawkins-like in our thinking. This is a fairly cheery view of things beside others on offer, at least as regards the ongoing life of the planet, which he seems to assume....
Dawkins implicitly defines science as a clear-eyed quest for truth, chaste as an algorithm, while religion is atavistic, mad, and mired in crime."
As one who values good science--as a partner of good religion--may I suggest that it, in the form of pneumatology, psychology and theology--be used to research and uncover what makes for good religion.
