Richard Dawkins is so wrong it hurts: What the science-vs.-religion debate ignores

[RainDog]

11. What conversation does science want to have with religion

other than proving or disproving persistent claims about one thing or another?

I just think the article is weak to claim historical incidences of the convergence of religion and science and act like that has any bearing on today. Yes. every religion can claim members who were not antagonistic to science - but what were the acceptable parameters of discussion for those who were invested in religious belief and held power - that's the issue, to me.

Newton was big on alchemy. Bogus stuff. So what? He was wrong, but he was correct about other things - and his work provided ways to test many things.

We don't care about his religious beliefs because they were not part of what is important about his work.

The move from "all religious were not in conflict" to the idea of power relations regarding how to describe reality doesn't mean religious believers do not constantly attempt to provide apologies for their beliefs as part of the cultural discourse surrounding science.

Because that's exactly what this article does.