The GOD Delusion: Dawkins' Atheist Handbook

[dontdisturbmycircles]

Here is a small example about human psychology. Derren Brown who is sort of a psychological mentalist uses psychology to control people in a mall.

The same Derren Brown that can knock people down to the ground without touching them? Chuck Norris has nothing on this guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBXXA5xhcQ0&feature=related

http://smilies.vidahost.com/otn/realhappy/xxrotflmao.gif

 

[falc39]

What side?

Are they taking their religion out-of-context, or do you have an illusion of harmony? Religious scripture makes specific fact claims about the natural world, which is impossible to fit into your proposed dichotomy. For instance, every Christian who lived before the 17th century has thought, that the Earth is < 10000 years old and affirmed special creation.

43% of the US population does not accept evolution.

Is this out of context? Do these millions of millions of millions of people have an incorrect view of their religion? Do the famous Christian theologians of the past, from Aquinas and Augustine etc. have the wrong view of Christianity? Or is it you that is incapable of understanding that religions actually do make serious fact claims about the world.

I mean by out-of-context, or too literally. I'm making the case that it's more important to get the lessons that are learned from religion than to make fact claims about the physical world. Maybe this is a new way of seeing religion, where it can co-exist with science? I thought it wasn't new what I was thinking, but no one seems to understand what I'm trying to get across. Maybe it is.

Darwin's ideas of evolution did not lead to anything. Darwin did not even use the term "survival of the fittest" and today, it is simply a conversational term to explain evolution to laymen. In modern evolutionary biology, the correct term would be "survival of the most cooperative" or "survival of those who fit best". "Fit" does not means "strong" in this context by the way. Furthermore, in modern biology, Darwin is a nobody. Both racism and Nazism existed before Darwin, so playing the blame game will get you nowhere.

Not only that, they committed the naturalist fallacy. You cannot get an 'ought' from an 'is'. As the coup de grâce, I'll even show how it is scientifically inaccurate. Let us say that we think that selecting for a strong immune system is going to help humanity and that we should sterilize or kill the rest. This will not help the survival of humans, since bacteria and viruses simply will mutate along. Furthermore, disease such as bird flu actually only kills the strong individuals, since it triggers a cytokine storm, a positive-feedback loop that makes the body self-destruct.

I completely agree. I've had to use the exact same argument against people on internet forums and in real life who have completely used these exact fallacies. Although you may understand the sphere in which science sits in, a lot of people don't. They will take things in science, and by the way they see it, make huge assumptions and fallacies on things like you mentioned above. I'm arguing that they are wrong and that it is outside of the sphere of science.

Actually, morality is completely natural and all ethical statements and moral imperatives can be reduced to empirical statements concerning the natural world.

"you ought to do X" is equivalent to "you ought to do X, since X => Y and Y is a normative proposition, that is, everyone will do it provided they have access to all informations and their reasoning is not fallacious. They only time one does not do X is when one either lacks information or has a poor reasoning.

X => Y (empirical statement that can be confirmed or refuted by science)
Y is a normative proposition (empirical statement that can be confirmed or refuted by cognitive science).

Furthermore, all moral propositions that rests on faulty empirical assumptions is necessarily wrong, since you cannot justify a conclusion with incorrect premises or logical fallacies. This is how we explain moral progress. One can either question a persons understanding of facts, or his reasoning. Then it follows that we know that the Nazi is wrong because his justification is that the Jew is not human and that he therefore has no value. But Jews are humans and it does not follow that non-humans lack value. So we can objectively, from science, say that Nazis where morally wrong.

I don't agree with this. Trying to reduce morals to simple mathematical-like statements is not convincing at all. I believe the error is in assuming that "everyone will do it provided they have access to all informations and their reasoning is not fallacious". Okay, but does that ever happen in real life? Does everyone have non-fallacious reasoning? That's why I believe you can't reduce it to that, it is much more complicated. Hitler also cited cultural reasons for doing what he did, it wasn't just that simple statement. It's great if academics want to try to simplify everything like that and make those assumptions, but I don't see that happening in the real world or when I observe people myself. Take a look at it this way. What if Dr. King gave all his speeches in these simple statements that you have proposed? Would that take away meaning or add meaning to it? Understand that I've been focusing on meaning which is what I've italicized in my first post. Reduce something enough and it loses its meaning.

You give numerous examples of religion and it's bad sides, but completely ignore some of its good sides. Take for instance the Golden Rule, which is found in many religions. There are people who twist religion as there is people who have twisted science.

You seem to have an irrational fear of reductionism. It doesn't matter if you are made of cells or paper, what matters is emotion, sentience and consciousness. To say that humans are just cells is stating the obvious. This fact changes nothing in our treatment of others or morality. However, religion does corrupt morality, since he have the true believers and the heretics, who deserve to die and be punished forever and ever.

Say you are listening to Bach. You like Bach. Then you realize that what you are hearing is just sound waves hitting your ear drum from an oscillator that has recorded hammers hitting wires made by a person's nervous system rearranging itself due to blobs on a piece of paper. Then you listen to Bach again. You still like Bach just as much as you did before, despite the fact. You might even like it more.

Interesting how you mention this, since I'm dual-majoring and one of my majors is in music. I guess you and I just have different perspectives on this. Understanding the science behind how the hammers and blobs on paper isn't what get people to the concert halls. Is it wrong to look at it in that way? No, of course not. But that view offers no meaning to the music. The irony is that Bach was deeply religious and there is no way you can ignore the meaning from religion in his works. Good luck on getting science to explain the meaning behind Bach because many have tried in the past. You should even see how some are trying to do that with Shakespeare. That's what I mean by out-of-context or outside of its sphere.

 

[jostpuur]

I've got an impression, that usually Europeans think that Dawkins is nearly a hero, but Americans don't really like him. Anyone agreeing or disagreeing?

From what I saw at his [Dawkins] blog, his thesis is fundamentally flawed: One cannot prove that God does not exist.

Is this or is this not his objective; to prove that God does not exist? If it is then he flunks philosophy 101.

I haven't read the book, but Wikipedia says

In The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that belief in a god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence.

Here are two claims:

"God exists"

"God protects you in traffic if you pray"

The first one is beyond the reach of science, but the second one is not. It suffices to study statistics and see that people who pray die and get injured in traffic accidents just like people who don't pray. I've understood that these are the kind of things that Dawkins is talking about.

 

[Cyrus]

The so called "atheists" that would have a "handbook" are not real atheists, they are more likely people still struggling with religion.

A true atheist simply does not care and has no views or feelings about religion, other than, perhaps, that people that believe in religion are somewhat gullible. To an atheist, religious people are simply people that believe in "make believe", but they have no antagonistic feelings towrds them.

I do know of self proclaimed atheists that are nuts and these are the ones that are the counterparts of religious fanatics. They have an agenda and I don't consider them true atheists. A true atheist doesn't care what people choose to believe as long as no one tries to push their belief system on them.

Thats not true at all. I am an atheist, and I like the idea of atheiests taking a stand against organized religion. Dawkins stats in the first chapter how the Jews and Christians have powerful lobbies in the US, but athiest have no real organization to push their influence. So, I think its correct and appropriate for them to have a handbook and to get rid of religion.

 

[Cyrus]

I mean by out-of-context, or too literally. I'm making the case that it's more important to get the lessons that are learned from religion than to make fact claims about the physical world. Maybe this is a new way of seeing religion, where it can co-exist with science? I thought it wasn't new what I was thinking, but no one seems to understand what I'm trying to get across. Maybe it is.

Lessons learned = story telling. Ignoring the facts made about the physical world means religion is nothing but a book of fairy tales (which it is), and will make funadmentalists mad (which it will). Religion is the surrender of logic, therefore it cannot exist with science.

I don't agree with this. Trying to reduce morals to simple mathematical-like statements is not convincing at all.

No one is trying to do that, or claim that.

You give numerous examples of religion and it's bad sides, but completely ignore some of its good sides. Take for instance the Golden Rule, which is found in many religions. There are people who twist religion as there is people who have twisted science.

Who has 'twisted science'? Id like to know please. Are you going to 'twist' the conservation of energy? If so, your a crackpot.

Understanding the science behind how the hammers and blobs on paper isn't what get people to the concert halls. Is it wrong to look at it in that way? No, of course not. But that view offers no meaning to the music. The irony is that Bach was deeply religious and there is no way you can ignore the meaning from religion in his works. Good luck on getting science to explain the meaning behind Bach because many have tried in the past. You should even see how some are trying to do that with Shakespeare. That's what I mean by out-of-context or outside of its sphere.

I listen to Bach, love it. Never went to church in my life. So clearly, YES you CAN ignore religion in Bach and enjoy it.

No offense, but you have some bad points.

Anyways, my thread is about his BOOK. So, please argue about points in his BOOK. (Otherwise this thread will be locked, and I will be mad). Feel free to argue points in his book that are posted if u have not read the book, otherwise, stay on the side lines.

 

[Moridin]

Just a clarification, after this, I'll stop derailing this thread

I mean by out-of-context, or too literally. I'm making the case that it's more important to get the lessons that are learned from religion than to make fact claims about the physical world. Maybe this is a new way of seeing religion, where it can co-exist with science? I thought it wasn't new what I was thinking, but no one seems to understand what I'm trying to get across. Maybe it is.

Interesting ideas, but how do you explain the massive amount of fact claims about the natural world religion(s) usually makes? To claim that all of that is "not-true-religion" seems somewhat strange to me. It is true religion for those who practice it.

I don't agree with this. Trying to reduce morals to simple mathematical-like statements is not convincing at all. I believe the error is in assuming that "everyone will do it provided they have access to all informations and their reasoning is not fallacious". Okay, but does that ever happen in real life? Does everyone have non-fallacious reasoning?

You see, it does not mean that everyone will have access to all information and reason correctly. It is not an assumption; in fact, it does not even require it to be true. I simply argued that Y is a normative proposition provided they have access to all information and are reasoning correctly. You can certainly disagree with the statement "You ought to do X" but that is not so important, since once can objectively establish that "You ought to do X" as I have shown. Your disagreement with objective empirical data makes little difference, as does not the ideas of a person disagreeing with, say, physics or history. So what I am proposing is an objective, natural theory of morals and ethics.

That's why I believe you can't reduce it to that, it is much more complicated. Hitler also cited cultural reasons for doing what he did, it wasn't just that simple statement.

Be so that it may, however, the empirical justifications he used is provably incorrect. Thus, all moral statements and ethical propositions built on top of invalid premises, must be, per definition, wrong. Think of a house of cards; what happens when you remove a bunch of cards at the bottom? Now if you would say that you think that the house of cards is still standing is of little importance; it is an objective fact that it does not stand.

We can also establish that Hitler caused suffering in sentient humans and show, via the method about that "You ought not cause suffering in sentient humans" is true. Reductionism can be scary sometimes, but it is good to remember that it doesn't change anything on the macro level. It can even be extremely useful at times.

You give numerous examples of religion and it's bad sides, but completely ignore some of its good sides. Take for instance the Golden Rule, which is found in many religions. There are people who twist religion as there is people who have twisted science.

Is the Golden Rule something intrinsically religious? It exists in pretty much all religions and has been around way before the existence of the bible. Even Confucius mentions it, predating the bible. Also, it is not hard to deduce it from first principles. In fact, evolutionary biology predicts that this very principle is hard-wired into our genes as the result of the evolution of cooperation and altruism.

So is the golden rule a result of religion, or a result of reasoning individuals, supported by biological instincts? I would claim that latter.

People can twist science, but we can objectively demonstrate that they are wrong. This is not apparent in religion. How can person A of religion X claim that person B of religion X is wrong? He has nothing objective to go on, just his selective interpretation of scripture?

Understanding the science behind how the hammers and blobs on paper isn't what get people to the concert halls. Is it wrong to look at it in that way? No, of course not. But that view offers no meaning to the music.

I'm not arguing that. What I am arguing is that, even though you know the entire reductionist view of it, it is still great music.

 

[falc39]

Lessons learned = story telling. Ignoring the facts made about the physical world means religion is nothing but a book of fairy tales (which it is), and will make funadmentalists mad (which it will). Religion is the surrender of logic, therefore it cannot exist with science.

Can you not see that you are making a similar mistake to which you say these fundamentalists are making?

Its funny because I'm not religious but I do learn from it (and from other myths and story-telling including shakespeare), and I also learn from science because I'm in undergrad engineering. Apparently they both can co-exist in my world.

No one is trying to do that, or claim that.

Yes, the poster stated:
"Actually, morality is completely natural and all ethical statements and moral imperatives can be reduced to empirical statements concerning the natural world."

Who has 'twisted science'? Id like to know please. Are you going to 'twist' the conservation of energy? If so, your a crackpot.

Darwin's theories have been twisted and used for other purposes. Dawkins has been using science to try to get rid of the belief in God. Totally bad things to do.

I listen to Bach, love it. Never went to church in my life. So clearly, YES you CAN ignore religion in Bach and enjoy it.

No offense, but you have some bad points.

Anyways, my thread is about his BOOK. So, please argue about points in his BOOK. (Otherwise this thread will be locked, and I will be mad). Feel free to argue points in his book that are posted if u have not read the book, otherwise, stay on the side lines.

My points do relate to the book though. Can't you see that people like Dawkins are on their own little 'holy' crusade in the name of science to smear religion? It seems he has convinced quite a few of you that religion is 'bad' just because it doesn't follow 'logic'.

 

[Cyrus]

Can you not see that you are making a similar mistake to which you say these fundamentalists are making?

But I am not. I am saying to live by what we can see and be seen. What we know to be true. Not to live by wish-thinking and fairy tales that have no basis or support for their claims.

Its funny because I'm not religious but I do learn from it (and from other myths and story-telling including shakespeare), and I also learn from science because I'm in undergrad engineering. Apparently they both can co-exist in my world.

Well, of course. Religion is a story, and there are things you can learn from any story. But that's not the crux of the matter. Also, no they cant. When religion tells you the world is x years old, and that x,y,z happend, and science CLEARLY tells you this is NOT the case, then they both CANNOT exist in 'your world'.

Yes, the poster stated:
"Actually, morality is completely natural and all ethical statements and moral imperatives can be reduced to empirical statements concerning the natural world."

I made this thread to go over what the book is about, not what others have said in this thread. Sorry, but I am not going to derail the thread becuase then it will be locked.

Darwin's theories have been twisted and used for other purposes.

I have not heard this before, so Id like to hear examples of how and when.

Dawkins has been using science to try to get rid of the belief in God. Totally bad things to do.

No, its not. In fact, its in chapter 1 of his book, if you take the time to read it - so what's the big deal? To steal from religion, he 'practices what he preaches'.

My points do relate to the book though. Can't you see that people like Dawkins are on their own little 'holy' crusade in the name of science to smear religion? It seems he has convinced quite a few of you that religion is 'bad' just because it doesn't follow 'logic'.

No, perhaps you should see the thread on the NOVA video about the big uproard in PA over Creationism vs. Darwinism. BTW, he did not 'convince' me that religion is bad and does not follow logic. I came to this myself before I heard of his name. So don't speak for others, please.

 

[jostpuur]

Dawkins is the scientist! Those who disagree are crackpots!

(I'm not going to debate about this.)

 

[Cyrus]

Dont troll jostpuur.

This thread is getting way off topic STOP.

 

[jostpuur]

Dont troll jostpuur.

But I had a good point. The mentors of this forum would not openly admit that they disagree with major scientifical authorities, but in reality they do.

 

[Cyrus]

Is that in his book jostpuur? Funny, I don't recall reading about PF and its mentors in his book.

 

[Moridin]

In the chapter on evolution of religion, Dawkins makes some interesting points with the examples of a moth. If you have a light source, the moth will spiral inwards with a ~30 degree angle and fry itself to death. If one wonders how this behavior would have been able to be selected by evolution, one would come up empty-handed. As it turns out, one is asking the wrong question. The moth-flame thing is not the actual behavior promoted by evolution, it is a side-effect of the behavior that has been selected for by evolution, that is, moth navigation system.

Both Boyer and Dennett has written at great length on the evolutionary origin of superstition and to some extent, religious-based thought. I could spew out page after page with such scientific arguments. Reductionist Darwinian fundamentalism according to some, extremely fascinating according to others.

Some people are tempted to argue for group selection, but I am not convinced.

 

[Cyrus]

Man, chapter one is AMAZING, I might scan and post a few pages from it.

The sh!t that Einstein got was eye opening from fellow Jews/christians when he said, "I don't believe in a personal god". He was clearly an athiest.

 

[falc39]

But I am not. I am saying to live by what we can see and be seen. What we know to be true. Not to live by wish-thinking and fairy tales that have no basis or support for their claims.
Well, of course. Religion is a story, and there are things you can learn from any story. But that's not the crux of the matter. Also, no they cant. When religion tells you the world is x years old, and that x,y,z happend, and science CLEARLY tells you this is NOT the case, then they both CANNOT exist in 'your world'.

I made this thread to go over what the book is about, not what others have said in this thread. Sorry, but I am not going to derail the thread becuase then it will be locked.
I have not heard this before, so Id like to hear examples of how and when.
No, its not. In fact, its in chapter 1 of his book, if you take the time to read it - so what's the big deal? To steal from religion, he 'practices what he preaches'.
No, perhaps you should see the thread on the NOVA video about the big uproard in PA over Creationism vs. Darwinism. BTW, he did not 'convince' me that religion is bad and does not follow logic. I came to this myself before I heard of his name. So don't speak for others, please.

It's just sad to see this though. Religion is a lot more than just explanations of our physical worlds that contradict with science. I feel Dawkins is doing more harm than good, even if he has good intentions. Have you read much of Benjamin Franklin? Although not religious, he and his peers understood and praised the importance of religion and the values contained in it.

 

[Cyrus]

HA-HA-HA-HA. Benjamin Franklin went to paris and had sex and gambled. He was NOT a religious man by any stretch of the imagination. The guy was a diest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

Scroll down to the part on religion.

 

[mheslep]

The sh!t that Einstein got was eye opening from fellow Jews/christians when he said, "I don't believe in a personal god". He was clearly an athiest.

No, that's an overstatement. Read Issacson's Einstein bio for good treatment. Einstein said:

I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all being

From Spinoza's Ethica

By God I mean a being absolutely infinite-that is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality

and

Whatever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived

.

 

[falc39]

HA-HA-HA-HA. Benjamin Franklin went to paris and had sex and gambled. He was NOT a religious man by any stretch of the imagination. The guy was a diest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

Scroll down to the part on religion.

I never said he was religious, but anyways I went to the link:

Like most Enlightenment intellectuals, Franklin separated virtue, morality, and faith from organized religion, although he felt that if religion in general grew weaker, morality, virtue, and society in general would also decline. Thus he wrote Thomas Paine, "If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it." According to David Morgan,[32] Franklin was a proponent of all religions. He prayed to "Powerful Goodness" and referred to God as the "INFINITE." John Adams noted that Franklin was a mirror in which people saw their own religion: "The Catholics thought him almost a Catholic. The Church of England claimed him as one of them. The Presbyterians thought him half a Presbyterian, and the Friends believed him a wet Quaker." Whatever else Benjamin Franklin was, concludes Morgan, "he was a true champion of generic religion." Ben Franklin was noted to be "the spirit of the Enlightenment."

That's actually very similar to my views.

This is most telling:

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble...

He seems to say that religion got twisted at some point.

Tying it to the topic. Franklin, although not religious never tried to smear religion. I mean people said he was the "true champion of generic religion". In a way, religion and science did co-exist in his world. He understood the values but kept it separate from science and didn't get too literal with it.

 

[Evo]

But I had a good point. The mentors of this forum would not openly admit that they disagree with major scientifical authorities, but in reality they do.

That's a false statement. Perhaps one does, the majority do not.

 

[Cyrus]

No, that's an overstatement. Read Issacson's Einstein bio for good treatment. Einstein said:

From Spinoza's Ethica
and
.

I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion.

I have never impute to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificient structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticisim.

The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive.

-Albert Einstein

Speaks for itself.

The response from Jewish and Christian community, go back to Germany and burn in a death camp.

 

[Moridin]

I think it is safe to say that Einstein was a agnostic atheistic pantheist in some degree or another. In any case, I think it can be safe to say that he did not really believe in the classical theistic god of the three monotheisms. I seem to remember that Evo had some nice quotes from some volume of letters or such by Einstein?

 

[Cyrus]

Tying it to the topic. Franklin, although not religious never tried to smear religion. I mean people said he was the "true champion of generic religion". In a way, religion and science did co-exist in his world. He understood the values but kept it separate from science and didn't get too literal with it.

Then its no longer religion. If you are going to water down religion to the point that its just a bunch of stories, its NOT religion. Thats not what religion pretends to be. Religion is praies god, wallow for your sins, and maybe he will forgive you and perform a miracle. THATS religion. I understand what you are proposing, and its no longer religion. Thats like reading old greek mythology to learn a story. Sure, you can do it. Thats fine. But your not praising that book as some higher, untestable truth.

 

[Evo]

I think it is safe to say that Einstein was a agnostic atheistic pantheist in some degree or another. In any case, I think it can be safe to say that he did not really believe in the classical theistic god of the three monotheisms. I seem to remember that Evo had some nice quotes from some volume of letters or such by Einstein?

He made it very clear in a number of letters that he was at best an agnostic.

 

[mheslep]

...Have you read much of Benjamin Franklin? Although not religious, he and his peers understood and praised the importance of religion and the values contained in it.

HA-HA-HA-HA. Benjamin Franklin went to paris and had sex and gambled. He was NOT a religious man by any stretch of the imagination.

Its not clear then what you mean by religious here. The disciple Peter lied repeatedly and Judas cashed out. Were they also not religious?

The guy was a diest.

Correct. No one said anything different. So?

 

[Cyrus]

If your a religious guy, you don't go around doing unholy things. Otherwise your just a hack.

Ill give you diest. Thats leaps and bounds better than a thiest.

 

[Cyrus]

Two great pages

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/4493/pg16gq8.jpg

HAAAAHAAA! "fairyologist'.

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/8382/pg19ki8.jpg

Great page, love the Sagan quote.

 

[mheslep]

Then its no longer religion. If you are going to water down religion to the point that its just a bunch of stories, its NOT religion. Thats not what religion pretends to be. Religion is praies god, wallow for your sins, and maybe he will forgive you and perform a miracle. THATS religion.

Yuck. Sounds like something one might hear a snake handlers convention. But one might be a bit skeptical of the source, as one might be of physics definitions at Free Energy conventions.

If your a religious guy, you don't go around doing unholy things. Otherwise your just a hack.

Per my observation and view we all go around doing 'bad' things sometimes, without exception.

 

[Cyrus]

Ok even better and more silly mheslep. Religion is a belief in a god who is always there for you. He holds your hand and guides you. He smiles and beams heavenly light so that you can see through the darkness. He does everything for a reason. He loves you so much, because you are so special to him! He wants only the best for you, like a...father. He even gave up his own son for you, because that's how much he loves you. Now let's all hold hands and sing kumbaiah. To steal again from religion, 'god help me.'

Is this not as 'silly' as the other end of what I wrote?

Per my observation and view we all go around doing 'bad' things sometimes, without exception.

But I say bad people do bad things. Religious people say good people do bad things because of satan (Im not making this up, I know a guy who is an engineer in my class that really REALLY believes this kinda nonsense. Sadly it makes me feel like my science degree is worthless when I have guys like him in my class)

Ooo, better watch out for satan, he's not just doing halloween anymore boys and girls.

 

[Moridin]

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg

 

[mheslep]

"If God does not exist, everything is permitted"
Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov