In article <IUph$1BPMrjDFwfZ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jonathan Silverlight
>In message <lOujf.50$45.3634@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>In article <1133408861.796609.247250@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>"PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>That is a blanket overgeneralization that is completely unwarranted.
>>>You are maintaining that those with faith cannot be scientists because
>>>their faith would cloud their vision of evidence. In so doing, you are
>>>dismissing any scientist who is not also an atheist. Is this really
>>>what you would claim?
>>I happen to know some excellent, religious physicists. Never noticed
>>their faith interfering with their science in any way.
>Or vice versa?
Same thing. What science interferes with (and vice versa) is naive
literalism and zeal. But nothing special about faith here. I've
seen zealous theists objecting to evolution based on scripture, and
I've seen zealous atheists objecting to the Big Bang model because it
sounds to much like "creation". The difference between the two? None
that I can see. Worth mentioning that in the early days of Soviet
union the communist government objected to both relativity and QM,
based on "disagreement with dialectical materialism".
So it is such blatant assurance in having the perfect model and
knowing all the answers that is in inherent disagreement with science.
Faith per se, isn't.
>In one of his stories Arthur Clarke asks "why are medical men such
>I've already posted a reason why that might be true, but is it really?
Since I don't know what reason you posted, I can't answer this.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | chances are he is doing just the same"