dhw: Paul Davies is also an agnostic. Why do you think that is? DAVID: He is protecting his scientific career. dhw: Purely out of interest, do you have any evidence of this, or is it just conjecture on your part?-DAVID: Conjecture, but scientists live by grant money. I still remember the email I got after my first book come out. A doctoral student in physics had seen my book and wanted guidance as to where he could find more material like mine, so he could surreptitiously review it, as he was a believer, and could not let others in his department know it. Required consensus, as in global warming, is in strong evidence in science, currently and stupidly.-You say Davies is agnostic. This article on Davies strongly suggests he is agnostic: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/mar/16/god-new-physics-paul-davies-review1-QUOTE: “This is not a book that will comfort unquestioning believers. Why should it? For them, blind belief is its own comfort. For the rest of us, Davies provides a richness of patient reasoning, and yet another chance to marvel at the universe in which we seem so lucky to maintain precarious and limited leasehold.”-Many thanks for this. I appreciate the fact that if you find evidence contrary to your own beliefs, you do not hesitate to share it with us. You are a scholar and a gentleman. The article leaves one in no doubt that he is an agnostic. It is always a cause of disbelief among theists and atheists that someone might see both sides of the argument! Your comment, which impugns his integrity, could be regarded as libellous.