Hedging your bets

Hedging your bet. The tides of bias. This is my second time listening to "The Moral Landscape" and i definitely missed some things the first time around. When Harris talks about the supposed arrogance of scientist by the religious he says that arrogance is as common as nudity at a scientific conference. No wonder most people are not interested in science. There should be a science based reality show hosted by Tila Tequila, where scientist must out smart their peers to keep from being Ms. Tequila's next love interest. He also states that while scientist will hedge their bets on scientific understanding that falls on either side of the knife edge of their expertise when debating religious fundamentalist, their opponent will insert god at each of the blank spaces that are left open by the formers admission of not being omnipotent. I agree that this is how most of the debates that I have watched go down. I think it's rediculous if the apologist uses scientific theories that they don't understand to support their argument, but not all of them do. I don't agree with Denesh D'souza, but in a few debates he states that his beliefs are faith based and not fact based. He then talks of the universe, the "miracles" in nature, the fact that we are conscious creatures, etc, justify why he has faith in a intelligence that we cannot perceive. He shies away from specific Christian themes like the divinity of Jesus and resurrection, because this complicates his case exponentially. Anyways. I really like Sam Harris and his point about scientific VS religious arrogance is valid, I thought pointing out the exception to the rule was the most I could offer to the discussion.