LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY allisburning)

From the recent Richard Dawkins interview on Salon, which you will have heard about - http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/04/30/dawkins/print.html -

On using the word "delusion" to label religion, interviewer asks Dawkins,
"What are its negative connotations?"


"A delusion that encourages belief where there is no evidence is asking for trouble. Disagreements between incompatible beliefs cannot be settled by reasoned argument, because reasoned argument is drummed out of those trained in religion from the cradle. Instead, disagreements are settled by other means which, in extreme cases, inevitably become violent.

Scientists disagree among themselves but they never fight over their disagreements. They argue about evidence or go out and seek new evidence. Much the same is true of philosophers, historians and literary critics."


-- I definitely agree with Dawkins in general, but in the spirit of fairness, does anybody care to offer any counterexamples among scientists, philosophers, historians, and literary critics? (I'm not talking "argue" here, I'm talking "fight", "use physical violence")



-- xposted around