I am writing this because I was asked to send my closing comments on this thread before closing it. All I want to say now is this.
I see a blatant double standard in the first rejoinder of Fr. Ivo in this thread. According to him, an uninformed opinion of a religious person like Nigel Britto that the scientific theory of evolution is an unproven absurdity, which should never have found its way into science books, should not be called scientific ignorance or illiteracy. In contrast, a critical opinion of a scientist like me about his anti-scientific stance, and about why different people hold different kinds of theistic or atheistic beliefs should be attacked as "absolutism", "scientism", "pedantry", and "scientific dogma to negate religion". Nigel, as a religious person, does not have to accept what scientists say about science, whereas I, as a scientist, have to uncritically accept what religious people like Fr. Ivo say about religion and science. My statements about God, religion and miracles are blatant statements deserving of some kind of reaction from readers. Their blatant statements should be accepted without any reaction. It is also disappointing to see how Fr. Ivo has distorted many of my statements, and made a word salad out of my words by taking them out of context and putting new words of his own in my mouth. For instance, I have not used the words "hallucination" or "superstition" in the present context. I have also never concluded anything about "whole Reality", whatever that means. I have only confessed my lack of knowledge about whether anybody, including atheist Kevin, knows the absolute truth or lives in a world of fantasy. I have also implied in this thread, and explicitly stated on many other occasions, that I know absolutely nothing about the supernatural reality. Furthermore, at the end of his rejoinder, Fr. Ivo claims that majority of Goanetters will be believers as opposed to scientists, and that he and they do not want to be deceived. I am not sure what he means by this, and what is implied by the future tense. When will they be believers? Am I deceiving them? Finally, as indicated in my last post, verbatim quotes from the four theologians/priests (three of whom were scientists, in addition) revealed that they were not talking about the role of "faith" or "Faith" in science, or "speaking about faith in scientific experiments". They were merely responding to the following question from correspondents who believed that both evolution and creation were forms of faith: "Q: Several people have written that they have thoroughly studied both creation and evolution and find that both are forms of faith in that they assume events that occurred before the time of man. They both have an element of trust needed to believe that either are correct or incorrect. Please comment." (Please see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/faith/discuss_01.html) Even the non-scientist among them, the evangelical Christian theologian Mark Noll was merely stating that faith and theistic belief were involved at the origin of scientific endeavor from the historical point of view, not in scientific experiments, or in science, as it is practiced today. Cheers, Santosh --- "Fr. Ivo da C. Souza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > *One thing is to be 'indifferent', another is to > attack beliefs in the name > of Science and call it 'hallucination', 'parochial > beliefs', 'world of > fantasy', 'psychological need', 'lifelong habit', > 'some other compulsion'. > Faith can be also reasonable. It is grounded on > motives for credibility. > Every time you come with your 'scientific dogma' to > negate Religion or > relegate it to the 'world of fantasy'. Readers in > this Forum have already > reacted to your blatant statements about Religion, > God, Miracles. ...................... ................................ > *And yet you conclude that this is the whole > Reality... If the scope of > Science is limited, then there are other sources of > knowledge. That is > precisely what I have been saying throughout. I > called this 'scientism', > 'absolutism', 'pedantry'.................... ............................................ > Regarding the posting of Nigel Brito, I did not > agree with him. I only said > that do not call his position "ignorance and > illiteracy", because even if he > studies the theory of Evolution, nobody can impose > it on him... Many do not > accept it. ................................................. >You speak of 'gods' > as a mere scientist and think it is a 'superstition' > or 'habit' or > 'compulsion' or 'psychological need' or 'world of > fantasy'. I am speaking of > God in the light of Science, Philosophy and > Theology, with a holistic > approach. I am not 'believing' in God because of > Science, but because of > Reason and much more because of God's Revelation, as > found in the Bible. God > spoke to humankind through the Prophets and finally > through his own Son, > Jesus Christ (cf.Hb 1:1-3). This should be clear > enough in this Forum which > is secular, that is, destined for all people of all > faiths and 'no-faith'... > I believe that the majority of readers in this Forum > will be 'believers in > God', not scientists. We do not impose our views. We > hope not to be > deceived... >