This letter is associated with the following article:
Letters
Wednesday, November 19, 2008 12:00 AM

God enough

We should see the ceaseless creativity of nature as sacred, argues biologist Stuart Kauffman, despite what Richard Dawkins might say.

Read other letters about this article

  • Wednesday, November 19, 2008 03:42 PM

    @Xrandadu Hutman

    What does he mean by reductionist?

    Well "reductionism" is a philosophical model closely related to positivism. It "reduces" all explanations to exclude all conceptual/extra-physical reality causes.

    New atheists like Dawkins appear to have been surepticiously pushing this, although without making it explicit because Dawkins knows how much ire it will invite from the scientific community at large (who unlike Bigguns suggested, are not so confident that science dismisses questions of the divine).

    Dawkins often appears to imply certain beliefs without making them explicit, which may be why he's often accused of things he hasn't explicitly promoted. What specifically were you alluding to in the interview?

Most Active Letters Threads

434

The crazy, irrational beliefs of Muslims

Tom Friedman explains the real problem: stupid Muslims think the U.S. is about war and aggression.
426

A key British official reminds us of the forgotten anthrax attack

A vast array of establishment and expert sources do not believe this episode was really resolved.
210

Is Obama's civil liberties record understandable?

Was it unreasonable to expect him to adhere to his commitments regarding the Constitution?
111

How dare you criticize wasteful defense spending!

So you think it's only terrorist-appeasing lefties who are down on Pentagon profligacy? Think again
61

Police to talk to Woods

Early morning crash raises questions, and revives tabloid speculation

View all »

Letters Help

Currently in Salon