Sir, - I write to comment on William Wohlgemuth's letter (January 29th). Mr Wohlgemuth found Richard Dawkins's article on astrology (January 20th) to be offensive and he generalised out from this to attack science and to denounce scientists.
Mr Wohlgemuth accuses scientists of being narrow minded and arrogant. Undoubtedly some scientists are, but the majority are not, or are certainly no more so than the members of any other profession. Mr Wohlgemuth says that scientists deny the existence of God. Undoubtedly some do, as do some lawyers, accountants, medical doctors, engineers, artists, etc. Officially science has nothing to say about God, and denial of God is not a prerequisite if one is to practice science. I am a scientist and I am also a Christian. Many famous scientists, both past and present, believe in God. Einstein said: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Mr Wohlgemuth claims that many scientific discoveries have had bad consequences, e.g., nuclear fission led to nuclear weapons and to Chernobyl. This is true. From time to time scientific discoveries have been applied for bad purposes, and technologies have been run under unsafe conditions leading to accident. But other fields of intellectual endeavour have also been used for bad purposes, e.g., philosophy, and Mr Wohlgemuth has nothing to say about the enormous good that has flowed from scientific advances.
Mr Wohlgemuth charges that science demeans humanity and cheapens and shrivels the universe. This is absolutely untrue and could only be claimed by someone who doesn't understand the nature of science. Science is uplifting and wonderful. It enriches humanity and illuminates the universe by uncovering the laws of nature. Science has discovered so much about how the natural world works, and so completely underpins modern technology, that not to appreciate science is an impoverishment of both the intellect and the spirit.
Unfortunately the opinions expressed by Mr Wohlgemuth are not uncommon. The reason is that there is a communications problem between science and the general public. This gap must be bridged and it is largely up to scientists to explain themselves to the public, something they have been lazy in doing. However, there is also an onus on people like Mr Wohlgemuth to stop needlessly terrifying themselves and others with false visions of emotionless and soulless scientists inexorable dragging the world towards a bleak 1984 like future.
Finally, as to Richard Dawkins, who so irked Mr Wohlgemuth, although he is an excellent and creative writer on evolution, he adopts an unnecessarily aggressive and dismissive tone when discussing some other topics, such as religion. - Yours, etc.,
University College,
Cork.