🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov10.183906.4904@sierra.com>, ande@sierra.com (Ande Rychter) writes:
> In <1992Oct30.090305.25085@fs7.ece.cmu.edu> John Snyder writes:
> 
>>>Indeed.  But my "water and fire" comment did not imply any social reality.
>>>It is hardly difficult to understand why 90% of Americans are religious if
>>>you consider that 95% are scientifically illiterate.  Incredible as it may
>>>seem, the equilibrium between science and religion appears to be shifting in
>>>favour of religion. -AR.
> 
>>Then how do you explain the large number of people who are both scientists
>>and are religious?  Surely there is a sizeable number of such people.
>>They apparently feel that science has important things to say about
>>some areas of life, and religion has important things to say about other
>>areas of life.
> 
> I wouldn't try to explain this since I have no idea what the number of 
> religious scientist is, nor do I know of a reputable study of this issue.  
> My own guess (hope) is that the number is small.  I personally consider 
> the phrase "religious scientist" an oxymoron. -AR.

--)) You are a religious scientist!  Your religion is clearly humanism - this
makes man's reasoning autonomous and the ultimate reality.  Humanism states
that there are no god's but those which man invents in his own mind.  In other
words humanists exalt man as god.  
It is very interesting to see how often scientists refer to the wonderful
workings of 'Nature' (capital n!!) in the literature.  So many scientists
refuse to ascribe the observed incredible order and symmetry of nature to an
intelligent Creator God.  I think this is plain stupid and the Bible calls
people who are blind to the genius in creation fools.  Ditto.

James Wanliss

Physicist 
(GRADUATE STUDENT AT THE UNIVERSITY CAPE TOWN, SOUTH AFRICA)