I don't think you understand the point he is making. He is not endorsing religion among scientists, he is saying the number of religious scientists should be zero. While he does encourage taking a more tactful approach to the subject than Dawkins ([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik]even tells Dawkins directly[/url]), he often belittles religious ideas ([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oxTMUTOz0w]my fave[/url]) in his own talks, and calls any scientist content with religion explanations of the physical world [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5dSyT50Cs8]useless[/url].
English
-
He did NOT say that. He said some of the most ELITE SCIENTISTS are religous, and they know more science than most atheist do. So ignorance isn't the reason religion is still around.
-
He's just pointing out why he doesn't agree to Dawkins' approach to theists. He is still advocating getting those numbers down to zero, if possible.
-
You and I have different interpretations of his words. Both seem like valid possibilities to the meaning of his words. I'll leave it at that.
-
Look at the links Achilles posted...