[liberallarry]

We all would like to find certainty, meaning, and security in an uncertain, confusing, and frightening world. In some this need is so great that they seize upon an idea or a way of viewing the world as "the truth" and refuse to countenance any challange or contradiction.

It is this mindset that Crichton says cannot be eradicated, which he criticizes as dangerous in the extreme, and which he characterizes as religious.

Of course, there are plenty of believers who are tolerant and open-minded. Of course, there are plenty of non-believers who aren't. Of course, there are plenty of people who treat non-religious ideas in a religious way - that's the point of Crichton's article, isn't it?

Anyway, that's how I read it.

[cornelis]

That's a worthwile discussion, but hardly an excuse to be fallacious.

There is no doubt that even religious people are prone to impose certainty for the sake of banishing the fear of our limited knowledge. And if environmentalists shouldn't make this kind of error, where does Crighton obtain the priviledge to call this error religious? Crighton commits a fault and he should be called on it.