From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 92 03:31:49 GMT

In article <jon.taylor.47.722538813@uuserv.cc.utah.edu> jon.taylor@uuserv.cc.utah.edu (JON M. TAYLOR) writes:
>	These are the things Asimov definitely was:
>
>1: At least an agnostic, if not an out-and-out atheist,

The following is an excerpt from _Isaac Asimov on Science and the Bible_
which is an interview conducted by Paul Kurtz  in the spring of 1982.
It first appeared in _Free Inquiry_ magazine somewhere around that time,
and is reprinted in _On the Barricades: Religion and Free Inquiry in Conflict_
published by Prometheus Books.

 Kurtz:  Isaac, how would you describe your own position?  Agnostic, atheist,
         rational humanist?
 Asimov: I am an atheist, out and out.  It took me a long time to say it.
         I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it
         was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because
         it assumed knowledge that one didn't have.  Somehow, it was better
         to say one was a humanist or an agnostic.  I finally decided that
         I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason.  Emotionally I
         am an atheist.  I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't
         exist, but I so strongly suspect that he doesn't that I don't want
         to waste my time.
 Kurtz:  But the burden of proof is on the person who claims God exists.
         You don't believe in Santa Claus, but you can't disprove his
         existence.  The burden of proof is upon those who maintain the
         claim.
 Asimov: Yes.  In any case, I am an atheist.

>2: DEFINITELY an evolutionist (many of his essays rip on creationism),

Yes, to say that Asimov sympathized with the creationists is utterly laughable:

 Kurtz:  Earlier you said that the Bible contained fallible writings.  What
         would some of these be?
 Asimov: In my opinion, the biblical account of the creation of the universe
         and of the earth and humanity is wrong in almost every respect.  I
         believe that those cases where it can be argued that the Bible is
         wrong are, if not trivial, then coincidental.  And I think that the
         account of a worldwide flood, as opposed say, to a flood limited
         to the Tigris-Euphrates region, is certainly wrong.
...
 Kurtz:  It's not simply biology that they are questioning, but geology,
         astronomy, and the whole basis of the physical sciences.
 Asimov: If we insist on the Bible's being literally true, then we must
         abandon the scientific method totally and completely.  There's
         no way that we can at the same time try to discover the truth by
         means of observation and reason and also accept the Bible as true.
 Kurtz:  So what is at stake in this debate between evolution and creationism
         is not simply the principle of evolution in regard to living things
         but the whole status of the sciences themselves.
 Asimov: That is what I believe.
--
Should the human race not be extinguished by a nuclear war, it will degenerate
into a flock of stupid, dumb creatures under the tyranny of dictators who rule
them with the help of machines and electronic computers.  This is no prophecy,
just a nightmare.  -- Max Born.   **** dgraham@bnr.ca    My own opinions. ****
Organization: Freshman, Art, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA