Well, let’s look at the negatives of Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. Science is about being open-minded. Everything is a tentative hypothesis, and you have to know that a hypothesis you hug and cherish might be disproven later and it may be your job to be the one to disprove it. Even if you are the one who came up with it. When scientists commit themselves to a hypothesis as an absolute truth, they don’t realize it but they often set up a church-like structure, and Dawkins has set up a church-like structure in which he is the Pope and in which there are heresies and if you believe in those heresies you’re out of the church. Well, that’s not tolerance, pluralism or science. Dawkins is brilliant and an extraordinary communicator, his ideas are extremely useful, his books are well worth reading, but the fact is he’s become intolerant. He has been what St. Augustine was—another brilliant mind. And St. Augustine took off on a heresy hunt and it made him less than human. It made him cruel, vicious and intolerant. Well, Richard Dawkins and the crew are not putting people to death, which is something that St. Augustine did, but it is not science to say that something is absolutely wrong and should be wiped out of the human vocabulary of concepts.. That is not science—that is dogma. Dogma is not science, dogma is religion. I think I’m an evangelist, but I am an evangelist on behalf of an open-minded science and an amazingly creative cosmos.
/Mailintervju med Dan Schneider 20/8 2012, länk.