From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Religion and Physics
Date: 23 Nov 92 22:59:00 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

I have so far managed to avoid getting entangled in this thread.  But I 
think it's time for me to make my statement on the issue.  It's a little
long winded (what's new?), for which I apologize. 

In article <1992Nov23.202741.21304@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes...
> 
>>	One last thing. I have done LOTS of thinking about my religion and 
>>LOTS of thinking about physics, and I personally have to confess that I see
>>absolutely no conflict. I see no contradiction. I see how my faith and my
> 
>     Why should there be a conflict?  Science must necessarily stay out
>     of nonscientific pursuits.

I have no argument on this point.  However, there is more to the question
than whether science can address theological issues.  The question to ask
is whether what we observe about the success of the scientific method
and our scientific description of the world has any bearing on the rest
of our philosophy.  I personally answer this in the affirmative.  
I cannot answer the ultimate question about the existence of God.  But
I can, with my knowledge of the history of science and religion, make the
following defensible argument:

All the major organized religions draw heavily on the history and
ana of their cultures to construct the lives of their heros.  The story
of God dying in winter and being reborn in spring is too old in the 
Middle East for me to be surprised that Jesus is reborn as well.  The
story of virgin birth, tripartite deity, and many others have a long
history before becoming parts of Christianity.  

And of course, each religion makes a claim to the truth, to the 
exclusion of all others.  

These observations lead me to discount any *organized* religion as 
having any particular truth value or credibility.  But this still
leaves room for personal belief, unencumbered by centuries of religous
history and politics.  To judge this issue, I look at the history 
of science.  

Does Thor, the God of Thunder, exist?  I can never prove that he does
not.  Belief in Thor and our Lord Jesus require exactly the same 
suspension of disbelief.  This is not an issue for science to decide.
And yet, even Christians will acknowledge that we have no longer a need
for Thor - science has given us the tools to understand lightning.  
What about Apollo?  The same argument applies.  Science has not disproven
the existence of Apollo, but *has* given us the tools to understand
the movement and other properties of the Moon without him.

With a similar line of reasoning, I argue that science has provided
us the tool to understand, at least in principle, all aspects of 
our physical Universe, obviating the need for a God that has any active
role in any of it.  It seems to me that the only personal God for which
there is still room is one which created the Universe and has done
nothing since.  But with all the other Gods which have disappeared under
the intense light of reason, how can I be so foolish as to now decide
that *this* God is not also just a figment of our imaginations?  

My conclusion is that, painful as it is to accept, I am just a conscious
lump of matter destined to vanish from existence when I die.  The pantheon
of dieties we have created are failed attempts at confronting the ultimate
truth of our existence - that it is limited to a brief moment of time.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		 although I have no right to say so, having
				 been a single cell so long ago myself that I 
				 have no memory at all of that stage of my 
				 life." - Lewis Thomas
Newsgroups: sci.physics