🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <30OCT199219335753@comet.nscl.msu.edu> burtt@comet.nscl.msu.edu (BRIAN BURTT) writes:
>2.  Of those people that I know who are atheists, almost all of them are
>scientists.

Atheism has a long history, and the scientists are relative latecomers. It
would seem to me that in the absence of the appropriate experiment, scientists
should either hold that the result of science is agnosticism, or that science
is not equipped to decide the question of God. Atheism is not a result of
science - yet, _and it shares this status exactly equally with Theism_.

The usual problems of science vs. religion seem to result when people who
hold the one do not seriously consider the other, and misunderstand what
it means to be involved in these human pursuits. 'Science vs. Religion' is
about as sensible a contest as 'Cooking vs. Linguistics' or 'Sportsmanship
vs. Geology' - the obvious question to ask is why anyone who is interested
in one of these should be opposed to the other? Needless to say there are
historical examples where these things have been in direct conflict, and
some dramatic consequences, but it is pretty clear to us (in the advanced
future) that these are aberrations.

Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt