[net.religion] open letter on science and religion

hutch (02/21/83)

This is an open letter to Don Chan, Lew Mammel, and anyone who cares
to read it, about the recent spate of high-and-mighty censure that
has appeared in response to my public commentary on Lew Mammel's
articles in this newsgroup.

ENOUGH ALREADY!

The science/religion discussion has left the area of polite discussion
and has degenerated into name-calling.

Don Chan:  You are off base when you imply that I am not a scientist.  You
are also off base when you take my remarks about the political processes
that are common to science and religion and convert them into an attack
on science.  I am fully aware of the processes involved in gaining acceptance
for a theory, providing evidence to support such theories, and providing
counterevidence.  I said "dogmas" deliberately.  You may take issue with my
choice of the word, but I think it still applies to any theory which is taken
as truth while ignoring, deliberately and with personal malice towards the
originators, other theories and evidence which might disagree.

My personal remarks to (and about) Lew Mammel are not intended as more than
sarcasm.  I have a great deal of respect for Lew as a person and a growing
admiration for his ability to reason.  I still disagree with his analogies
at times, as well as with some of his conclusions.  This is my right, and
this group formed as a place to isolate such discussions.  We are not all
anti-science, nor anti-religion.

Lew, if you found my snide remarks personally offensive, I apologise for
them.  Sometimes I fail to make myself clear when I am deliberately
exaggerating for effect, and I refuse to use obscure little :-* symbols
when I prefer to rely on speakable text.

As an aside, Don, is there any reason why you found my claim that "Science"
is not immune to human foibles, to be so offensive?  I assure you that I
was not aiming any kind of a personal attack on you.  Did you, or anyone
else, try to find the article I quoted (CoEvolution Quarterly) as a source?
I really am interested in finding out the names of the principals in that
particular instance of censure.

Aside to Lew Mammel re:  your latest quote of my flames:

No, Lew, I wasn't asserting secular humanism on your part or anyone
elses, nor was I really trying to make an effort to show science as
an opponent to religion.  Actually, I must confess that I was flaming
for the sake of flaming, something I am sure you will recognize in
almost anything I have written to the net.

This bad habit comes from the notion that you can always find out more about
a person by provoking them with relatively neutral ideas phrased as outrageously
as possible.  It works, too.


Publicly corresponding where private mail seems not to work,

Steve Hutchison
... decvax!tektronix!tekmdp!dadla!hutch