…cont’d
The absolutism, as represented for example in the classic traditions of Judaism and Christianity argue God dictated every word and religious symbol/message in the canonical sources. Consequently, their authority is absolute and unlimited. These claims extended without limit, meaning other religions were of no validity. In Christianity, Judaism is superseded; the Jews were rejected for their blindness; there is no salvation outside the church. In Judaism Christianity is idolatrous and irrational; Jesus is a false messiah; the righteous of the nations are saved only through Jewish revelation. The symbolic tradition of washing someone’s dirty, grubby feet does I believe remind all people of a genuine significance in humility, cutting through the pretence of all religion.

On the subject of Einstein, his genius relates also to his simple approach to life. Many of his quotes abound and should perhaps be more widely read, “Although I am a typical loner in daily life, my consciousness of belonging to the invisible community of those who strive for truth, beauty, and justice has preserved me from feeling isolated.” In an interview, Einstein admitted to being “enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene” (”What Life Means to Einstein: An Interview by George Sylvester Viereck), “Unquestionably. No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. How different, for instance, is the impression which we receive from an account of legendary heroes of antiquity like Theseus. Theseus and other heroes of his type lack the authentic vitality of Jesus….. No man can deny the fact that Jesus existed, nor that his sayings are beautiful. Even if some them have been said before, no one has expressed them so divinely as he.” – Einstein.

I’ve read some of the many well constructed and well reasoned denials of Jesus' very existence, but in the final analysis, I find (as I’m in no doubt you do also) they simply do not stack up. The genius of Einstein is not needed to recognise this – nor, for Einstein, was this genius necessary.

Something as big, and as old, and as monolithic as the Catholic Church will inevitably be an easy target, and Brian has definitely taken aim. And as I am not a Catholic, I do not wish to point my finger at errors, nor offer a defense. But I would say that Brian and others seem more than willing to ignore the enormous amount of good done by the church around the world. It couldn't have lasted this long without something good going for it, could it? Maybe, but many in history have predicted the church's demise, and the church has outlived them all.

I would like to address a theme that has come up in the article as well as the posts, and that is the supposed conflict between science and faith. Such a conflict exists only in the minds of some. It definitely does not exist in the minds of countless thousands of practising scientists around the world, who also happen to be Bible believing Christians. Science flourished most in the countries with strong Bible believing traditions.

At the end, Brian talks of scientific advances providing compelling evidence for the evolution concept. Unfortunately for atheists, this just isn't the trend. In recent decades, belief in evolution amongst the general population has waned, despite its emphasis in education curricula, and despite its main proponents (RD. etc.) getting louder and bit more frantic.

Brian speaks of molecular biology coming to support the evolution concept. I suppose he is forgetting or is willingly ignorant that the founder of microbiology, the man alleged to have saved more lives in the 20th Century than any other, Louis Pasteur, spoke openly about his Christian faith, and didn't have much time for Darwin. The same could be said of Gregor Mendel, the one considered the father of modern genetics. If I started a list of leading lights from the history of Western science who were also men of faith, it could grow very long.

(continued...)

Harry G.
I know when NASA selected its Apollo astronauts, it only selected from the cream of those it considered the most clear thinking, rational, and scientific (especially in the engineering sense). When you speak of those men who walked on the moon, I'm not sure if you are referring to James Irwin or Charles Duke. Both of these men spoke openly about their faith after their return to Earth.

Also, I'd also like to ask Brian (or anyone else, as this is a regularly made comment) about science proving things such as the virgin birth to be impossible. We all know where babies come from. And we know input from a male is necessary. But with science helping to define what is possible, when God does the impossible, does that not help us to define a miracle? Is that not the point?

Dan S de Merengue:
The moonwalker I was referring to was Edgar Mitchell. The article I was referring to was from the Sydney Morning Herald dated 28 July. You can read the full artice at
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/the-aliens-arent-coming-theyve-already-been-says-moon-walker/2008/07/27/1217097059914.html

It begins:
"NEW YORK: The list of those who subscribe to the theory that aliens and UFOs have visited Earth amid a huge government cover-up is long and varied.

It includes cranks, paranoid delusionals and the odd tabloid editor, but a NASA astronaut who has walked on the moon?"

Edgar Mitchell holds two bachelor's degrees in science and a doctorate in aeronautics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He shares the record for the longest moon walk; nine hours on February 9, 1971 as part of the Apollo 14 mission.

Put all that together and it is no wonder that a British radio interviewer almost fell off his seat when he lobbed Dr Mitchell what he thought was a throwaway question: did he believe in life on other planets?"

[end quote]

So when NASA selected its "cream" did it make a mistake with this man, though he clearly did his job very well. What has the faith of a person got to do with whether he makes a good astronaut?

My request was for someone to explain to me why "intelligent" people hold some of these nonsensical (a subjective term, of course). After a solar eclipse in Western China, the feng shui experts said that it could forebode a catastrophe, and we know about China's earthquake. But people who believe there is a causal relationship between these events know more than the rest of us do, are superstitious, or maybe selected by NASA as astronauts. At least the feng shui experts have some runs on the board.

What was your point, Sam?
Harry G

relda,
Thanks for your snippets about Raman and Einstein. I have known Raman from his regular columns in The Global Spiral (http://www.metanexus.net/Magazine/Columns/VVRaman/tabid/139/Default.aspx). He is a good populariser of the relation between science and religion, neither hostile to either of them nor with a Christian point of departure as the three scientist-theologians I mentioned above. He is a physicist, I am not sure to what extent is he a “devout Hindu“. I liked his recent paper because he does not so much study parallels bewteen science and theology (as e.g. the three mostly do) but rather those between mystical and scientific knowledge or experience.

Of course, i agree with your observation that there are no teachings of a founder in Hinduism, nevertheless I like very much the reassurance that in Bhagavat Gita the ‘incarnate god’ Krishna gave Arjuna: “Whatever God a man worships, it is I who answer the prayer”. It juxtaposes so nicely with the OT Yahvweh’s “You shall have no other gods before me” and I think it could be ascribed, at leat indirectly, also to our NT’s incarnate God.

As for Einstein, his ideas about God and religion followed those of Spinoza, so he has been claimed by both atheists and theists as one of their own. I think one of his deepest philosophical insights is the aphorism “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality” which, I think, could be paralleled by: “As far as religious symbols (and norms) refer to observable reality (and rules that can be enforced) they are not certain; as far as they are certain they do not refer to observable reality (and rules that can be enforced).“

HarryG,
One person’s logic is another person’s Looney-tunes.

I’m guessing we all agree that the Apollo astronauts were intelligent, and at least somewhat scientifically literate. Your question then is why do intelligent people perform mental gymnastics so as to arrive at strange conclusions?

I suppose it all comes down to your definition of intelligence, and opinion as to which are the nonsensical conclusions, and also the psychological capacity in humans for self deception. Or perhaps there are those things which are still mysterious and yet beyond our ability to investigate scientifically or otherwise.

You seem to agree with Brian that Christian faith is in conflict with evidence for evolution. This supposes that there is much evidence for evolution. So far on this thread, there have been those who have commented from both sides of that fence, as well the alleged ‘mental gymnasts’ who say there is such evidence but they’re not in conflict.

Could I ask whether you believe there is life on other planets? (I didn’t catch what your position was here.) There are those who say it is logically inevitable that there is intelligent life on other planets, with this being directly linked with the idea of evolution. Life evolved in this solar system simply through natural processes, and there must be millions of other comparable solar systems out there. Therefore, chances are, intelligent life must abundantly exist out there as well. Or so the thinking goes.

Are these people intelligent? Carl Sagan was intelligent enough to convince governments to spend millions on radio telescopes to listen for signs of intelligent life. There was a lot more tax money spent on this than on World Youth Day.