From: jma@milton.u.washington.edu (Marty Anderson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Science and Religion
Date: 22 Nov 92 00:25:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov22.002529.25659
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix

> Okay, science can't tell us anything about religion; a God you can subject
> to scientific study is not a God but a part of nature. The other way
> around is possible; because if God knows everything, He could tell us
> something we don't know, and if he is all-powerfull, the He can show his
> powers, doing the impossible. And most religions tell us He did...
> However, then we COULD make a scientific study about His existence,
> implying that God is part of nature, and thus cannot act against nature's
> laws. So all this logic adds up to nothing. My hasty conclusion: whether
> you believe God exists or not, logic won't help you to convince anyone.

I haven't had the time to read every response on this topic but I
would like to make a few reasonable comments.  First, the claim that
"science can't tell us anything about religion" is simply false, unless
one uses a inadequate definition of "religion".  That is to say, if one's
religion makes scientific claims, then science may offer evidence regarding
the truth of those claims.  Second, it is possible that God could choose
to submit Himself in part to scientific investigation without actually
being a part of nature.  It is completely erroneous to say that if God
chooses to reach into nature, He must submit completely to so-called
natural laws.  In my opinion, your "hasty conclusion" is exactly that;
hasty and prone to making a terrible mistake concerning science, religion,
and, most importantly, God.

> More important: Science can't accept religion as a part of its structure -
> nor superstition of prejudice.  But religion has to accept logic and
> science, and many religious people have no trouble with that - what the
> pope tried to show when he apologized for the Galilei trial. Theology is
> based on faith but is not a purely mystical affair. As G.K. Chesterton
> made father Brown say when caught fake priest: attacking Logic is bad
> theology. People can't (at least not forever) believe in something that is
> clearly not true. Thus mixing religion into science is *impossible*, but
> mixing science into religion is an *inevitability*.

Again, the loose definition of "religion" is a big problem with these
assertions.  If a religion is scientifically sound, science (scientists)
*can* accept it and "mixing religion into science is NOT *impossible*".
Also, "mixing science into religion is an *inevitability*" only if the
religion hopes to be logically sound (reasonable) *and* the "science"
is too.  If "science" is whatever the "scientists" say it is, then "science"
isn't necessarily reasonable because "scientists" aren't necessarily
reasonable.  In my opinion, the bottom line is that *true* religion must
be compatible with *true* science - and I think that most reasonable
people will agree.

> Yes, I know there are lots of people who refuse to mix some science in
> their religion - creationists and others. But don't blame religion for
> this; it's bad science AND bad theology. It is true that religion is
> conservative by nature and evolves slower than science, because religious
> people find it hard to admit that their beliefs are not THE thruth - maybe
> because they are more important to them than Schrodingers equation to a
> scientist, even an 'elderly' scientist.

I have three degrees in science and am a Bible believing creationist.
Of course, what *you* mean by "creationist" may be a lot different than
what *I* mean by the term.  I take it to refer to someone who believes that
God created the universe and the world out of nothing.  Has science proven
that God did not create the world or the universe out of nothing?  Hardly!
It is my opinion that the creationist position is, in fact, the *only*
reasonable position after an examination of the historical and scientific
facts.  (I won't present the evidence here although I'm willing to continue
at another time.)

You'll notice that I included historical evidence along with scientific
evidence.  It's sad to see so many modern scientists in the careless
position of thinking that scientific evidence in the *only* evidence.
If this was a reasonable thing to do then only scientific evidence would
be permitted in a court of law - one place where the search for truth is
supposed to reign.  In reality, evidence does not necessarily only come
from scientific investigation.  (Most people reasonably believe that
George Washington was the 1st president of the United States in spite
of the fact that science cannot prove that he was.)

Concerning the issue at hand, if God expects us to reasonably believe in
Him, a preponderance of the evidence, from all sources, must be in His
favor.  And, if God does exist, we, if we're reasonable, should be prepared
to accept evidence of Him *wherever* He supplies it.  Science is not the
mother of all evidence.  (Those who unfortunately equate "logic" and
"science" need to realize that logic is a prerequisite to *all* thought -
not just scientific investigation.)

In conclusion, I would just like to submit that those would presume to be
logical should be willing to examine all of the evidence in the search for
truth.  It is my opinion that the historical evidence abundantly shows
that the Bible is historical, reliable, and the very Word of God.  The
Bible says that the primary proof for God comes through Jesus Christ who
provided sufficient evidence for people to reasonably put their faith in
Him.  But, those who are *unwilling* to face historical evidence as well as
the evidence provided by science and other sources cannot reasonably expect
to find truth, or God.

 - Ty Anderson
Newsgroups: sci.physics