Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!harpo!floyd!whuxle!pyuxll!abnjh!u1100a!pyuxn!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: M-U-C-H S-H-O-R-T-E-R response to David Norris
Message-ID: <406@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 10-Jan-84 10:22:50 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.406
Posted: Tue Jan 10 10:22:50 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Jan-84 08:16:11 EST
References: <402@pyuxn.UUCP> <1137@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Organization: Central Services Org., Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 11

Greg Skinner has a problem with one particular point in my previous article,
the point regarding faith in things borne out by evidence and faith in one's
god.  "Faith in science" (or whatever I said) was a poor choice of words, but
I did not mean to imply "faith that what science says today is fact".  "Faith"
in science implies that science as a quest for knowledge LEADS us toward
truth and fact.  Acceptance of any doctrine as the be-all-and-end-all,
scientific OR religious, is blind faith.  I would think that religious
doctrines are far more guilty of this notion, and in fact seek to reinforce
it (that is, the notion of blind acceptance).
-- 
					Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr