From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Date: 10 Nov 1992 19:53:20 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfalfa.intel.com

In article <Nov.9.19.53.57.1992.11917@ruhets.rutgers.edu> bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes:
>sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner) writes:
>>	I doubt I've ever thumped a Bible, and I can't imagine a reason for 
>>thumping a bible

I thumped a bible just the other day; it was in a box in my
garage, on top of some other random junk I was sorting
through, and I was just trying to scare any scorpions that
might have been hiding under it.

>Of course, this quotation isn't from the Bible; it's from "The 
>Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy."  One wonders if this is where
>Kochanowsky, Houghton, et al. get all their information about
>religion

A book is no place from which to get one's spirituality.

>Since they seem unable to imagine the existence of any
>kind of humane, tolerant religion

Some of us prefer regarding the evidence to revering the
scripture.

>in which doubt is regarded as an
>adjunct of faith,

Then I am utterly guilty of worshipping science; for I am
an inveterate empiricist.

>and unable to get their minds around the idea that
>one can hold in one's head both science and religion (go read Pais's
>life of Einstein, OK?),

I've read Whitman's (or was it Frost's) descriptions of the
facets of the process of maturation in which one grows by
learning to consider ideas from a multitude of sides
without becoming unglued.  (This is not the same thing as
tolerating fools, Corky.)  Einstein's beliefs seem
strangely sociological, as though he were afraid that being
both physically and spiritually revolutionary at the same
time would be too much for his society, or at least very
impolitic at a time when his stature was needed as much as
his theories.  He joins with many here who think, "I want
it to exist; I try to prove it exists; I cannot prove it
doesn't exist; *therefore it can exist; therefore it
exists as much as I want."  In the end the only reality is
that God existed for Einstein to suit his needs for a God.
God does not exist for me and I have no need for a god.

[*] There is a fallacy in crossing this point.

>and bent on filling up space with their intolerance

I defy you to prove my intolerance.  (I might as well try
this cheap argumentative trick once or twice in my life...)

>disguised as liberal atheism (don't try to out-liberal me,
>Houghton ;-),

;-> right back.  I entered this net through talk.politics.misc,
in the early days of the Dukakis campaign, defending the
swarthy, little person from the likes of Ted Kaldis and
Al Thompson.  I could out-liberal you without raising a
tax.

And, my atheism is entirely independent of my politics
(which at the moment are scattered across the board, since
I'm still compassionate to a fault and the world is in a
world of hurt, but now I've got a lucrative job and a
serious portfolio and some beautiful real estate to
protect; if you think this God v. Science thing is
important, try arguing Justice v. Economy with yourself
in the middle of the night...)

>I figure the best thing is to ignore them.  Just like
>I ignore street preachers.

The worst thing is to ignore anyone, if you have nothing
better to do.  The best thing about street preachers is
their foundation is narrow so they're easy to tip over.
Tripping them up impresses intelligent women, too ;-).

				--Blair
				  "Anyone need a description of
				   the morals of atomic decay?"