I take your point, Steve, but I am not seeking to excuse or justify anyone. [And certainly not the racism, homophobia and the rest of the past and present, but talking about that will take this thread even further from the original topic.]

Pete raised the point that Newton had some very unscientific ideas alongside the very scientific ones. To which my answer is: yes, he did. That's not surprising given when and where he lived. We can recognise and (should we so choose) praise the scientific work despite this. Similarly, we can praise an artist for his paintings or sculptures even if he was a reprobate in his personal life. These things are separable, and praise of one does not imply praise of the other.

And, though I'm sure you won't like it, it is a common idea in religion that earlier forms are less complete revelations, and anyone who genuinely tried to follow that earlier understanding can be praised for it. It is absurd to think 'if you had lived then you would believe that' is a sensible criticism because the believer's answer should be exactly the same as for Newton: Yes I would. That's how it was then.


There are certainly people throughout history we were prepared to speak 'outside the box', were in a tiny minority, and were prepared to suffer for making their views known. Many of them were most admirable; some were decidedly not. I greatly admire Thomas Paine, for example, who was one hardly feted in the UK, and who took immense risks throughout his life to express his views. I do not see Dawkins and Hitchens as anything remotely similar, somehow.