Editing Freeman Dyson (section)

==Views==
===Climate change===
Dyson agreed that technically humans and additional CO{{sub|2}} emissions contribute to warming. However, he felt that the benefits of additional CO{{sub|2}} outweighed any associated negative effects.<ref name=CTM27 /> He said that in many ways increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is beneficial,{{sfn|Ridley|2015}} and that it is increasing biological growth, agricultural yields and forests.<ref name=CTM27 /> He believed that existing [[Scientific modelling|simulation models]] of [[climate change]] fail to account for some important factors, and that the results thus contain too great a margin of error to reliably predict trends.{{sfn|Orlowski|2007}}<ref name=heretic /> He argued that political efforts to reduce the causes of climate change distract from other global problems that should take priority,<ref name=um /> and viewed the acceptance of climate change as comparable to religion.<ref name=CTM27 />

In 2009, Dyson criticised [[James Hansen]]'s climate-change activism. "The person who is really responsible for this overestimate of global warming is Jim Hansen. He consistently exaggerates all the dangers... Hansen has turned his science into ideology."{{sfn|Dawidoff|2009}} Hansen responded that Dyson "doesn't know what he's talking about... If he's going to wander into something with major consequences for humanity and other life on the planet, then he should first do his homework- which he obviously has not done on global warming".{{sfn|Dawidoff|2009}} Dyson replied that "[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it's rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."{{sfn|Lemonick|2009}} Dyson stated in an interview that the argument with Hansen was exaggerated by ''[[The New York Times]]'', stating that he and Hansen are "friends, but we don't agree on everything."<ref>{{Cite video
 |url         = http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10560
 |title       = A conversation with theoretical physicist and mathematician Freeman Dyson
 |publisher   = [[Charlie Rose]]
 |access-date  = November 21, 2010
 |date        = August 14, 2009
 |url-status     = dead
 |archive-url  = https://web.archive.org/web/20101117012635/http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10560
 |archive-date = November 17, 2010
}}</ref>

Since originally taking an interest in climate studies in the 1970s, Dyson suggested that [[carbon dioxide]] levels in the atmosphere could be controlled by planting fast-growing trees. He calculated that it would take a trillion trees to remove all carbon from the atmosphere.{{sfn|Dyson|1977|pp=287–91}}{{sfn|Dawidoff|2009}} In a 2014 interview he said, "What I'm convinced of is that we don't understand climate… It will take a lot of very hard work before that question is settled."{{sfn|Lin|2014}}

Dyson was a member of the academic advisory council of the [[Global Warming Policy Foundation]].{{sfn|Orlowski|2015}}

===Warfare and weapons===
At RAF Bomber Command, Dyson and colleagues proposed removing two gun turrets from [[Avro Lancaster]] bombers, to cut the catastrophic losses due to German fighters in the [[Bombing of Berlin in World War II|Battle of Berlin]]. A Lancaster without turrets could fly {{convert|50|mph|-1|abbr=on}} faster and be much more manoeuvrable.

{{Blockquote | style=font-size:100% | All our advice to the commander in chief [went] through the chief of our section, who was a career civil servant. His guiding principle was to tell the commander in chief things that the commander in chief liked to hear…  To push the idea of ripping out gun turrets, against the official mythology of the gallant gunner defending his crew mates… was not the kind of suggestion the commander in chief liked to hear. |source={{harvnb|Dyson|1979|loc=The Children's Crusade}} }}

On hearing the news of the bombing of [[Hiroshima]]:

{{Blockquote | style=font-size:100% | I agreed emphatically with [[Henry Stimson]]. Once we had got ourselves into the business of bombing cities, we might as well do the job competently and get it over with. I felt better that morning than I had felt for years…  Those fellows who had built the atomic bombs obviously knew their stuff…  Later, much later, I would remember [the downside]. |source={{harvnb|Dyson|1979|loc=The Blood of a Poet}} }}

{{Blockquote | style=font-size:100% | I am convinced that to avoid nuclear war it is not sufficient to be afraid of it. It is necessary to be afraid, but it is equally necessary to understand. And the first step in understanding is to recognize that the problem of nuclear war is basically not technical but human and historical. If we are to avoid destruction we must first of all understand the human and historical context out of which destruction arises. |source={{harvnb|Dyson|1984}} }}

In 1967, in his capacity as a military adviser, Dyson wrote an influential paper on the issue of possible US use of tactical nuclear weapons in the [[Vietnam War]]. When a general said in a meeting, "I think it might be a good idea to throw in a nuke now and then, just to keep the other side guessing…"{{sfn |Dyson|1979|p=149|loc=The Ethics of Defense}} Dyson became alarmed and obtained permission to write a report on the pros and cons of using such weapons from a purely military point of view. (This report, ''Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Southeast Asia'', published by the [[Institute for Defense Analyses]], was obtained, with some redactions, by the [[Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainability]] under the [[Freedom of Information Act (United States)|Freedom of Information act]] in 2002.){{sfn|Dyson|Gomer|Weinberg|Wright|1967}} It was sufficiently objective that both sides of the debate based their arguments on it. Dyson says that the report showed that, even from a narrow military point of view, the US was better off not using nuclear weapons.{{sfn|Schewe|2014|pp=169–70}}

Dyson opposed the [[Vietnam War]], the [[Gulf War]] and the [[invasion of Iraq]]. He supported [[Barack Obama]] in the [[2008 US presidential election]] and ''[[The New York Times]]'' described him as a [[Modern liberalism in the United States|political liberal]].{{sfn|Dawidoff|2009}} He was one of 29 leading US scientists who wrote Obama a strongly supportive letter about his administration's [[Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action|2015 nuclear deal with Iran]].{{sfn|Broad|2015}}

===Science and religion===
Dyson was raised in what he described as a "watered-down [[Church of England]] Christianity".{{sfn|Dawidoff|2009}} He was a [[Nondenominational Christianity|nondenominational Christian]] and attended various churches, from [[Presbyterian]] to [[Roman Catholic]]. Regarding doctrinal or [[Christological]] issues, he said, "I am neither a saint nor a theologian. To me, good works are more important than theology."<ref name=edge68 />

{{Blockquote | style=font-size:100% | Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here. The two windows give different views, but they look out at the same universe. Both views are one-sided, and neither is complete. Both leave out essential features of the real world. And both are worthy of respect.

Trouble arises when either science or religion claims universal jurisdiction when either religious or scientific dogma claims to be infallible. Religious creationists and scientific materialists are equally dogmatic and insensitive. By their arrogance, they bring both science and religion into disrepute. The media exaggerate their numbers and importance. The media rarely mention the fact that the great majority of religious people belong to moderate denominations that treat science with respect or the fact that the great majority of scientists treat religion with respect so long as religion does not claim jurisdiction over scientific questions.<ref name=edge68 />}}

Dyson partially disagreed with the remark by his fellow physicist [[Steven Weinberg]] that "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil – that takes religion."{{sfn|Dyson|2006c}}

{{Blockquote | style=font-size:100% | Weinberg's statement is true as far as it goes, but it is not the whole truth. To make it the whole truth, we must add an additional clause: "And for bad people to do good things – that [also] takes religion." The main point of Christianity is that it is a religion for sinners. Jesus made that very clear. When the Pharisees asked his disciples, "Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?" he said, "I come to call not the righteous but sinners to repentance." Only a small fraction of sinners repent and do good things but only a small fraction of good people are led by their religion to do bad things. |source= {{harvnb|Dyson|2006c}}}}

Dyson identified himself as agnostic about some of the specifics of his faith.{{sfn|Gbenu|2003|p=110}}{{sfn|Giberson|Yerxa|2002|p=141}} For example, in reviewing ''The God of Hope and the End of the World'' by [[John Polkinghorne]], Dyson wrote:

{{Blockquote | style=font-size:100% | I am myself a Christian, a member of a community that preserves an ancient heritage of great literature and great music, provides help and counsel to young and old when they are in trouble, educates children in moral responsibility, and worships God in its own fashion. But I find Polkinghorne's theology altogether too narrow for my taste. I have no use for a theology that claims to know the answers to deep questions but bases its arguments on the beliefs of a single tribe. I am a practicing Christian but not a believing Christian. To me, to worship God means to recognize that mind and intelligence are woven into the fabric of our universe in a way that altogether surpasses our comprehension. |source= {{harvnb|Dyson|2002a}} }}

In ''[[The God Delusion]]'' (2006), evolutionary biologist and atheist activist [[Richard Dawkins]] singled out Dyson for accepting the [[Templeton Prize]] in 2000: "It would be taken as an endorsement of religion by one of the world's most distinguished physicists."{{sfn|Dawkins|2006|p=152}} In 2000, Dyson declared that he was a (non-denominational) Christian,<ref name= edge68 /> and he disagreed with Dawkins on several subjects, such as that group selection is less important than individual selection on the subject of [[evolution]].<ref name=dawkins_dyson />