Dear Squeer,

Immediately after reading your post about misrepresenting you I wrote - and thought I also sent - a post with explanations containing my apology. Next day when I realised it did not go I wanted to resend it, but was told I had to wait another 7 hours. So I am resending it now, before reading your other posts that I shall have to come to later.

>>Deliberate misrepresentations are of course another matter and should be jumped on<<
I very much agree, and when I said “I never wrote that, and you know it" I suspected you mostly of sarcasm certainly not deliberate misrepresentation, and I apologise if I sounded the way you described it.

Let me repeat my observation that “people who try to shove down your throat their “certitude” act so because of their own insecurities”. Of course, there are “certitudes” of all kinds, religious, anti-religious, political, ideological, ecological, now also concerning Global Warming (pro or against), or whatever.

In all cases there are SOME people who act as described. Others, - again in all cases, and I hope the majority - keep their personal “certitudes“ (beliefs) to themselves, trying to explain them to you (usually only if asked to), without wanting to convert you. If I understood you properly, you agree with this.

>>But now look how many words I've wasted defending this point.<<
Yes, but I think it was caused by the above misunderstanding.

Dear david f,

>>I would be involved with mathematics and the natural sciences rather than mathematics and the physical sciences<<
Do you mean to say you would give a young person wanting to do research in physics the same advice Max Planck was given by his teacher? Well, I can see your point, I am also inclined to think that for a foreseeable future mathematical (not only statistics) application in biology, notably genetics, seems to be more fruitful, at least as far as practical implementations are concerned. The difference is that abstract mathematics developed on the body of physics, and still feels alien in biology.

I am certainly going to read your article.

Dear Oliver,

Yes, what you describe as (a) and (b) are more or less my EITHER-OR alternatives [except that (b) corresponds to my EITHER, and (a) to my OR]. Nevertheless, I still do not see that you can “reconcile” belief in (b), Sagan’s maxim, with (a), belief in God irreducible to the physical. Viewed solely from a (natural) scientific point of view, (a) seems to be a superfluous assumption - that is all what I meant by Occam’s razor.

I appreciate that you - like me - are trying to define and understand BOTH the alternatives, before looking for arguments in favour of the one or the other, although our sympathies and world-view choices are (for whatever reasons) on different sides of the (a)-(b) or EITHER-OR divide.

I tried to follow your speculations about the Universe (or theories thereof) and God. However, I think this God is in fact only the gradually receding (in our understanding of the world) “God-of-the-gaps“, not the God e.g. I - and other 21st century theists - believe in. Nevertheless, God-of-the-gaps is a good approximation, acceptable to many believers.

>>Thank you for your interesting insights and challenges<<
As usual, this is more than reciprocated.

Severin,

I am not sure how you know what “caused me any thought”. I did not react to the bulk of your previous post because I did not find anything there I would disagree with.

There are many things that people (ordinary or not) have less to gain from than from a “comprehensive education in general science“. You are right about theology (that I know little about, remember I never even had RE at school). I often have heard this said about abstract mathematics, but other examples abound.

>>science is the never-ending story and provides a foundation for understanding of the world around us, whereas religion only can vary by interpretation<<

I agree, but only to a point. There were times when the role of religion as ersatz-science was needed and justified. Those times are (or should be) over; and I believe that the role of science as ersatz-religion is also temporary. Nevertheless I am aware that some people see science as supplanting what used to be the function of religion. Of course, I do not claim this is true about all atheists.

I would not be that straightforward (as you know by now I do not like the word condescending) in describing as “ignorant“ people who wrote - and for whom were written - ancient texts, unless wisdom is measured as knowledge in natural science. For instance, I myself have learned a lot from Lao Tsu’s Tao Te Ching, to mention just one writing from outside the cultural environment a grew up in. And many atheists find wisdom also in the Bible as one of the foundational ancient texts that shaped Western culture. Of course, there are those who can understand its narratives only verbatim, and their acceptance or rejection - of the Bible and the religion(s) built on it - is shaped by this understanding.

Dear George,

" (b), Sagan’s maxim, with (a), belief in God irreducible to the physical."

Neither can I :-). I must have expressed myself poorly. I will go back and have a look.

Dear George,
Squeers has also been prevented from posting due to outstaying his welcome, but asks me to convey his thanks for the unnecessary apology and his best regards :-)

Dear George

Thanks for your response to my question. This form of communication is not conducive to a smile or raised eye-brow, therefore sometimes it is necessary to be glaringly obvious - I had no idea that you agreed with the bulk of my post.

>> Nevertheless I am aware that some people see science as supplanting what used to be the function of religion. <<

And some people see feminism as a movement to supplant men.

If religion's place was to inform people about the world around them, then yes, science should supplant that function.

As an aid to good mental health, I would never suggest that science replace religion, rather a better alternative would be philosophy - take the supernatural out of religion and in an ideal world that is what we would find. Better that the bible be treated as analogy than gospel. For these reasons I find Buddhism more accessible and practical than any of the Abrahamic religions. For example, meditation brings far more positive benefits to the human condition than prayer. (And science has already confirmed this :))

Where I have a great and justifiable fear of religion, is it is taken too literally by too many. That it is afforded a place in human culture that is above criticism, accountability (and taxation). Religion has been a wonderful creation for authoritarians through to con-men and remains as such today.

That religion has and is attempting to supplant science is clearly demonstrable from the Creation Museum unsurprisingly located in America's deep south (founded by an Australian no less), through to enforced teaching of Intelligent Design in schools.

My wish is for more people like the Spongs, Father Bobs, Father Kennedys to speak out against both the excesses and the elitism that even moderate religion is granted. On OLO alone, only rarely do Christians criticise other Christians.