Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site hpfcms.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!hpfcdc!hpfcla!bill
From: bill@hpfcla.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: More on Science "Attack"
Message-ID: <45200020@hpfcms.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 8-Oct-85 16:59:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: hpfcms.45200020
Posted: Tue Oct  8 16:59:00 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Oct-85 19:37:57 EDT
Organization: 08 Oct 85 14:59:00 MDT
Lines: 60



This is mainly written in response to Rich Rosen's repeated assertions
that religion wants science stamped out (a paraphrase), and to clarify
(hopefully) Rich's misunderstanding that my initial "attacks" on science
are intended to discredit that discipline.

First, religion vs. science:

I guess I'm "religious" - I've come to hate that label.  I'm a Christian,
and I believe in a set of things that science has not validated.  However,
nothing in my belief system (and I adhere pretty much to what the Bible says)
causes me to want science taken out of the way so that I no longer encounter
hinderances in my faith.  During my schooling while I was earning my BSEE, I
was taught nothing that conflicted with my faith.  Someone has already made
the point that perhaps 97% of science can approach a certain degree
of neutrality, simply because there are no opposing viewpoints (electrical
theory, physics, sound/optics, mechanics, fluids, particle theory, and on
and on...).  However, there are small areas (compared to science as a whole)
where my viewpoints differ with accepted scientific theories.  This in no
way constitutes a desire on my part to stamp out those portions of science
with which I disagree, simply because those areas still remain theoretical.
If there were cold, hard facts, I would be forced to re-evaluate my position.

Therefore:

I can't speak for "religion" in general.  However, as far as Biblical
Christianity goes, neither Christianity nor science has anything to fear
from each other.  It is perhaps an unfortunate result of various forms
of anti-science teaching from the pulpit (or from misinformation) that has
caused many Christians to "fear" or "hate" science for the sake of what it
might do to their faith.  In truth, there is nothing that science has PROVED
(note the emphasis) to date that in any way impacts Biblical reliability.

Nor is there any reason to refer to those people who deny "religion" as
"logical", "thinking", "strong", "truth-seekers", etc., while those that
believe in some form of "religion" are "weak", "wishful-thinkers", "easily-
swayed", etc.  Why?  It would be ridiculous for me to believe that the sun
revolves around the earth.  It has been convincingly proven that this is not
the case.  It would also be ridiculous to believe that unicorns exist
(somewhere other than the Ringling Bros Circus) because convincing proof has
been offered to the contrary.  However, to scoff at a belief in a supreme
being because you adhere to science is bogus.  Show me the proof of God's
non-existence.  If you rely only on proven facts, then you cannot say that
science is on your side in your denial of God.  There is no proof.  Why is
belief in God a "notion" or "wishful thinking", when as yet unproven
scientific notions are called "theories"? Is it because you can't reproduce
God in the laboratory?  Just like you can't reproduce spontaneous generation
of life in the laboratory under conditions that are anything close to those
occuring naturally?  Yet you believe in evolution.

So, please don't be so condescending toward those of us who believe in some
form of supreme being.  Factually speaking, you've got no proof of your
disbelief.  My original postings on science, neutrality, fallibility, etc.
were posted not to try to silence scientific inquiry or to discredit its
value, but simply to point out that it often is as much a "walk of faith"
as "religion".  Please keep things in perspective.

Bill Gates
ihnp4!hpfcla!bill-g