Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!bbncca!sdyer
From: sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Scientific vs religious "belief"
Message-ID: <462@bbncca.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 10-Jan-84 01:05:13 EST
Article-I.D.: bbncca.462
Posted: Tue Jan 10 01:05:13 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 10-Jan-84 05:40:49 EST
References: <1118@uvacs.UUCP> <1138@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 16

Oh, come off it!  The inconsistency in your analogies with the Bohr
atom are exposed as soon as you identify it as a "model".  A model
is by definition not the object itself, but rather a way of formalizing
a particular view of reality.  A scientist does not "believe" in a model
in the same way as people "believe" in God.  A scientific model is a useful
tool for examining the world, but it is conveniently discarded if further
evidence contradicts it, or if another model can explain the same situation
more simply.

Religious belief simply does NOT depend on physical evidence analogous to
scientific inquiry.  And if anyone thinks it DOES, they're talking about
PHYSICS, not religion.
-- 
/Steve Dyer
decvax!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca