Interestingly enough, a scientist I know very well studies and practices astrology. Mind you, she *is* a very Leonine Leo, and if she finds something works, will then politely ignore whatever orthodoxy says it does not. I think part of the problem are dogmatic scientists as much as dogmatic priests, conflating their interpretations with *the* truth/*the* law/whatever. One scientific writer I have found very congenial is Benjamin Franklin, who was careful to preface his assertions with "It seems to me that..." I reckon that the Dawkins tendency owes something to the saw about 'becoming the thing that we fear', from who was it? - Nietzsche or Freud? With the exemplar of Galileo in mind, they sought to prevent religious orthodoxy strangling free enquiry, but in doing so, they eventually became an orthodoxy themselves. Always had a problem with 'belief' myself, so when confronted with dogmatism of whatever stripe, I try to avoid condemnation and perhaps respond in the spirit of Robert Anton Wilsonesque 'third-level agnosticism'.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2004-06-22 02:30 am (UTC)I think part of the problem are dogmatic scientists as much as dogmatic priests, conflating their interpretations with *the* truth/*the* law/whatever. One scientific writer I have found very congenial is Benjamin Franklin, who was careful to preface his assertions with "It seems to me that..."
I reckon that the Dawkins tendency owes something to the saw about 'becoming the thing that we fear', from who was it? - Nietzsche or Freud? With the exemplar of Galileo in mind, they sought to prevent religious orthodoxy strangling free enquiry, but in doing so, they eventually became an orthodoxy themselves. Always had a problem with 'belief' myself, so when confronted with dogmatism of whatever stripe, I try to avoid condemnation and perhaps respond in the spirit of Robert Anton Wilsonesque 'third-level agnosticism'.