I have enjoyed many of PG's essays, but I am somewhat upset by this one. I'm not too keen on his throwing theology into the same pot as alchemy, labeling it an

I have enjoyed many of PG's essays, but I am somewhat upset by this one. I'm not too keen on his throwing theology into the same pot as alchemy, labeling it an "obvious waste of time", and implying that only crazy people would have anything to do with it. For one, theology is not a science and doesn't claim to be a science (at least not in the sense that physics is and alchemy claimed to be). Secondly, Newton's theology was actually a driving force behind the science he did - like many scholars of his time, he was deeply religious and did science with the explicit intent of exploring God's creation. And thirdly, discarding all theologians as "crazy" seems gratuitously anti-religious. PG's point about the "risk of discovery" is valid, but his example is unfortunately chosen and worded.