Dawkins and Pell battle it out in one hell of a debate

[Moonwalk]

49. I didn't say "religionists." I said "religion" and I didn't say "atheists." I said science....

Religion does say "This is the truth, period." If it doesn't, then how is it a religion? All religions, by definition, have tenants of belief, don't they? If you believe them, you belong to that religion. If you don't, then you don't--for example, you can hardly say that you are a christian by religion if you don't believe in the holiness of jesus. And these essential tenants aren't flexible--which is why you end up with schisms. Because those who disagree with the tenants must start their own church based on different tenants. For example, you don't say "god is love, but that's not an absolute..." You say, "god is love," and that's the religion's tenant. It's accepted as a fact, right? No evidence required, no vote taken. And if someone in that religion says, "You're all wrong! god is hate!" then he usually has to leave and start his own religion. The religion isn't going to say, "okay, let's look at the evidence, do some research and tests, and re-assess our tenants on what god is accordingly...." That's not religion.

Science says, "we have theory one, theory two and theory three for what this is. Let's look at the evidence and see if it proves any of them right. If it doesn't then we will reject them all and formulate a new one given what we know...." Science lets the evidence tell us what is the truth. It doesn't state a truth and then ignore any and all evidence to the contrary. It doesn't let tenants of faith dictate what it concludes. Which is why science is more open-minded than religion.

Individual Scientists, however, can certainly be closed-minded. Just as individual religionists may be open-minded. But that's pretty obvious, isn't it?