Dear George,

I mean by Creationist one who takes the account in Genesis as to the formation of the sun, moon and earth along with the coming of life on the earth including humans as an accurate account. Some Creationists want the findings of evolutionary biology suppressed and replaced by the Genesis account in school science classes. Since there are two accounts of creation in Genesis (Genesis 1:1 – 2:3 and 2:4 – 2:23) and the two accounts differ the Creationists position is obviously untenable. Nevertheless they maintain it and refuse to recognise the account of the development of life worked out by science from fossil and experimental evidence.

I do not equate a believer in a creator God with a Creationist. A believer in a creator God may accept that God has chosen to operate according to scientific principles. One can maintain that a God who could generate a word which saw to his purposes would not need miracles. A miracle would only be required if creation were flawed and needed correction. An omnipotent, omniscient Creator would not create a flawed world.

Religious language is pervasive. Even materialists will refer to life as creation and individuals as creatures. The word, creature, has several meanings. I refers to my children as ‘little creatures.’ A woman hearing that indignantly said, “Your children are not insects.”

I think you would agree with me that the Bible is neither a scientific nor historical text and should not be taken literally.

I agree with you that materialism does not and cannot explain everything. I believe that in some scientific and non-scientific areas we simply will not know all the answers. However, we must make decisions in our lives without being sure of the right answers or even if there are right answers. Some of those decisions are bound to be wrong.

You have religious faith. I don’t. However, you don’t seem unreasonable and do not deny fact. I accept that you view the world differently from the way I do, and that’s it.

George,

Post limits delayed getting back.

I do not accept that Einstein was "more of an authority" on matters of religion, particularly the nature of "god". In so far as his notion of "god" happens to not coincide much with anything any church promotes, he has less chance of being wrong than some.

If Einstein was presented with some current facts of Quantum dynamics rather than the then current uncertainties, he would hould of course hold a different opinion.

Dawkins and Einstein had been contrasted earlier. I put it to you that the hypothetical I presented is about equivalent. Dawkins opens one of his recent books with descriptions of genuine Teachers being deliberately derailed by creationist nonsense, And his response is to clearly inform the reader of just how silly creationist nonsense is. Einstein might not use the same terminology about Flat-earth, But I believe he would be severely disappointed to a similar degree. In any case, Dawkins is well within his rights to criticise "creationism", particularly of the "young earth" type.

A point I would like to make is that "Authority" in physics cannot translate to authority in religion. Religion is as optional as wallpaper, as variable as personal favourite foods. Thompson was too a great physicist, his religious views were woeful and I will dwell briefly on this in another post. Feynman did not consider religious questions relevant, or meaningful.

Rusty

Poirot,

I am very familiar with the little aphorism you quote. I find it trite, tiresome, pompous and inaccurate, and it dissapoints me that Einstein said it. It implies a complementarity and equivalence that is clearly not the case, then or now.

Consider:
Religion has existed for a long time, much of that in the absence of any formalised science, its products and traditions are clearly blind? I am waiting for religionists to say so. Many prominent and politically forceful sects have agendas that ignore and often oppose, obfuscate and de-emphasise scientific findings, even those relevant to religious questions. Religion *is* blind!

"Science" as we know it has struggled to influence our society, to overcome long standing bigotry and ignorance on the simplest of topics and often been nobbled by religious institutions seeking to limit enquiry, subject to their own self interest. Science may well be "lame" without religion, but has managed so far purely on crutches. Anytime religion wants to stop being a millstone would be a good opportunity to find out.

Let me consider here Thompson, later Lord Kelvin. His understanding and contribution to physics in his day was paramount. In his ongoing bitter opposition to evolution, his religion led him to simply misuse his position to hound Darwin, making ever more stringent estimations on the age of the sun to repeatedly "prove" evolution "impossible". Turns out in his zeal he missed the next big thing entirely within his own field and it fell to the next generation to point out that nuclear processes made the possible age of the sun easily sufficient for evolution as originally proposed by Darwin. The greatest physicist of an age was not well served by his religion but hamstrung and hobbled.

Rusty

Dear david f,

Thank you for your extract from E.C. Carpenter in your recent response to Josephus (at 6.47PM on 2 May). This places many things in a new perspective. It seems there is a certain continuity, and I'm not exactly sure what to make of it, but it is certainly a feast for thoughtful evaluation.

I wonder though, in your later response to George, if you may reasonably draw some of your conclusions:

>>A believer in a creator God may accept that God has chosen to operate according to scientific principles. One can maintain that a God who could generate a world which saw to his purposes would not need miracles. A miracle would only be required if creation were flawed and needed correction. An omnipotent, omniscient Creator would not create a flawed world.<<

If God exists/existed, I would have expected the Omnipotent to have created those 'scientific principles' (His plan). As for such 'creation' being flawed - why not? I accept evolution as scientific fact, and therefore the Creator could have provided the crucible and the ingredients, but allowed the cake to bake itself. Miracles then would be to impress 'flawed' and imperfect (by a long margin) humankind, perhaps to dissuade same from viewing themselves as Gods? Have not, and do not some now, so consider themselves - almost?

Please do not misconstrue - I'm not arguing for or against God. Just an observation.

Dear Tony Lavis,

Well, you are certainly the man - you've really outdone yourself - bravo, you should be very pleased with yourself - one in a million.

I did view your youtube link - before my initial response - and it was a giggle, quite clever - but I don't see the relevance to your derogatory and defamatory remark. You obviously carry a severe bias - either of anti-religious or of humorous/frippery persuasion.

You are just too clever by halves; the very soul of extravagant witticism.

Bonne chance.

Dear david f,

Thanks for the kind words. I cannot disagree with anything you wrote in your last post, except that you seem to be offering a third meaning to the term “creationist”, usually referred to as “Six-day creationists” or “Young-Earth creationists”.

I don’t know of a serious Christian scientist who would claim the Bible overruled present day scientific theories and explanations. (I will not speculate on why Dawkins can see only a literal understanding of the Bible.) As for millennia ago - when no concept of science, no possible distinction between scientific theories and mythologies, could have existed - that is a different thing. And still a different thing is to treat these texts as fairy tales simply because one cannot imagine/accept any other insight into reality than what contemporary science can offer; an insight into reality that, if suitably interpreted, can be of timeless relevance.

Thanks also for your reference to the E. C. Carpenter book I didn’t know about. The ten points you list - a have no expertise to judge how valid they are - seems to be an interesting illustration, if not argument, that the “myths” that articulate the tenets of (Judaism and) Christianity arouse somehow naturally, in the sense of being the product of evolution - cultural, and maybe also “pre-cultural”. Here, I do not use the terms myth, mythology in the usual derogatory sense but rather, inspired by the historian of religion Mircea Eliade, as “anthropomorhised” models of those features of reality that science has no access to.

I'd be the last to claim to know how God thinks or should think, but it would be somehow natural (pun unintended) for Him (assuming He existed, of course) to thusly - via evolution - place knowledge of Himself into the awareness of His creation, that on this planet seems to have culminated (so far?) in humanity, without robbing it of what we call free will.

Probably one could extract a similar set of ten points that would place another “higher” religion into such a natural position.

Rusty Catheter,
>>I do not accept that Einstein was "more of an authority" on matters of religion, , particularly the nature of "god"<<
That, of course, is your prerogative. As for the “nature of god” part, neither do e.g. Christians. Nevertheless, those of them who can understand Einstein respect his views on the relation between science and religion as inspirational at least.

>>A point I would like to make is that "Authority" in physics cannot translate to authority in religion.<<
Einstein is dead, so you cannot tell him, but if you replace “physics” with “evolutionary biology”, you can tell Dawkins, however I would suggest you first remove the capitalisation and quotation marks in “Authority”.

As for the rest, instead of repeating myself as well, please read what I wrote in my replies to david f