Dear George,

I was motivated by emotion. Josephus does not treat the pronouncements of the Catholic Church with the same respect that he treats the pronouncements of his own brand of Christianity. He wrote: " All the things you mention are syncronistic inclusions by the Roman Catholic Church from its pagan civilization and not New Testament doctrine."

When I pointed that Catholics did not invent the virgin birth. There was other tortuous reasoning to justify his beliefs. His statement putting all the items that I mentioned on Catholicism was false, but he did not admit it was false.

In stating your preferences you do not find it necessary to denigrate other branches of Christianity, other religions or even those who reject religion entirely.

He is a bigot. You are not a bigot.

I do not have the same feeling toward you even though our religious views coincide no more closely than mine coincide with those of Josephus.

Your father's view that "many respectable physicists accept Einstein’s theory so we should not dismiss it ... just because we cannot understand it hence think it goes against common sense." is legitimate. Physicists have the knowledge to examine Einstein's theory. Most people's religious views do not come from reason or evidence like the views of the physicists. The religion of most people is simply that of their parents. I respect the fact that people find comfort in fellowship of a religious community and respect the people themselves as human beings. However, there are many conflicting religious beliefs, and there is no objective standard to differentiate among them. That is not analogous to a scientific theory. If Einstein's theory is valid then a theory which describes the same phenomena in a way that contradicts Einstein's theory is invalid. The analogy between respect for the views of physicists to Einstein's theory and respect for different religious views is not valid. I respect the right to have any beliefs one chooses. That does not mean that those beliefs are valid or that I have to respect those beliefs. I could be kinder.

Re: many conflicting religious beliefs.
In my family, only my grandmother was particularly religious, but under her influence I went to Sunday school and church as a child (CofE). Well before I was 10, as early as 7-8 (based on where we lived at the time) I became aware of different religions. I can remember thinking (even where I was at the time): that's odd, they all think they are right but all the others are wrong. Then the eureka moment: does that means they may all be wrong?

I hung in at church etc (they had fun kids camp-outs) but my scepticism grew. Perhaps not surprisingly, I became a scientist, but I've retained a fascination with how people think, and I remain puzzled why people can be so adamant that they are the ones in possession of the truth, in the face of other people being equally adamant that they are the ones who have it.

I've asked religious people this over the years and have never received a satisfactory answer. Maybe someone here can enlighten me?

Dear Cossomby,

<<I've asked religious people this over the years and have never received a satisfactory answer. Maybe someone here can enlighten me?>>

Please let me try:

As science believes in facts and evidence, the cult of science believes that all beliefs ought be factual and based on evidence.

If you, like most of us who were born in the 20th century, myself included, grew up under the influence of science, then you learned from early age to take that requirement of factuality for granted and reject beliefs that are not based on fact or have no evidence. This requirement that seems so obvious in our age, was not always there, but only in the last few centuries post the so-called "enlightenment" where "right" and "wrong" became associated with "factual" or otherwise.

Religion is not interested in facts: unlike science, it does not ask for example "what is" or "how is it done", but rather it asks "what is good". What is good is "right" and what is bad is "wrong".

Thus if two people entertain two different beliefs that are good for both respectively, then they are both right and not in conflict and it does not matter if those beliefs happen to factually contradict each other and/or objective evidence, so long as they are both good to believe in, for those two people respectively.

Only science has the facts, but truth is not about facts.

Thank you Yuyutsu, but your reply still doesn't quite resolve the issue.

I recognise that people can have different beliefs which may be good for them. We would be all better off if it really did not matter "if those beliefs happen to factually contradict each other and/or objective evidence, so long as they are both good to believe in, for those two people respectively."

The problem is it does matter. People get very uptight and protective about their beliefs being 'the' truth. They try and change other people's views (convert them), they discriminate against people with other truths, they kill them, they go to war against them. They don't seem to recognise that the others are also entitled to believe their 'truth' is the only one. Maybe because to recognise the existence of other 'truths' would mean they had to be doubtful that their own was 'the' truth.

H Yuyutsu,

"Only science has the facts, but truth is not about facts."

That's an amazing statement. "Truth is NOT ONLY about facts but more about their interpretation" - is that what you meant ?

Surely the truth has to include, and account for, "facts" ?

To get BTT, gravity is "true", it's a fact of life throughout the universe, it works, but it took Newton to interpret how and why it worked, and how it was "true", what where the physical principles that explained it.

Or did you mean "belief" - that "belief is not about facts" ?

Joe

George,

"Let me finish with the story I already told you about my physics teacher (when I was about twelve years old) who argued against Einstein’s relativity theory claiming it was against common sense. He was very convincing but when I told this to my father he did not offer counterarguments (he was not a physicist, and I am sure he did not understand Einstein either) but only said something like: many respectable physicists accept Einstein’s theory so we should not dismiss it (he might not have used the word nonsense) just because we cannot understand it hence think it goes against common sense."

Of course, for those who are not physicists, it doesn't seem to make sense...which is why Einstein's epiphany led to such a startling advancement.

He was sitting in his patent office when all of sudden he had a "moment". He realised that if a person saw someone fall from the top a building, that the person falling was "not" the one being affected by gravity - and that the person witnessing their fall was.

The person falling would be weightless - and the person watching him fall - attached to the earth - would be accelerating. Acceleration and gravity being two sides of the same coin, etc.

That insight led to the General Theory of Relativity.

Of course, that could all be confirmed mathematically...which is helpful.