From: "Santosh Helekar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
...Since Fr.Ivo is not a scientist, he is not able to recognize what
is nonsense in science. He is not able to understand
that there is no such thing as absolutizing science,
because science does not claim to know the absolute
truth.
*Being a scientist, Dr.Santosh is treating vacuum fluctuation as "creation
from nothing",
which is an absurd. It is a change, not a creation...
Scientific agnosticism means
lack of knowledge. Therefore, a scientific agnostic
can never be an absolutist.
*Being a scientist, Dr.Santosh proclaims that nothing exists outside
empirical verification.
In other words, one cannot know about the existence of God, because his
existence cannot be proved empirically.
Therefore, he absolutizes Science as the only source of knowledge.
...since he is also not able
to comprehend the meaning of scientific skepticism...
*Being a scientist, Dr.Santosh doubts about anything that cannot be
empirically verified. Therefore, he
doubts about the reality of God, miracles, Resurrection of Christ,
resurrection of body.
With this myopic vision, he attacks all the postings dealing with
'supernatural realities'.
Finally, not being a scientist Fr. Ivo fails to
recognize when religious views amount to nonsense in
science, e. g. the anti-evolutionary views of Nigel
Britto. That is also why he mistakenly believes that I
have attacked the Christian religion.
*Nobody is bound to accept evolution, although all of us study it.
This is not a 'religious view' or a 'nonsense in science',
because Bible does not teach us creation as a scientific hypothesis.
Creation is a theological concept,
therefore not empirical, but transcendental. Being a scientist, Dr.Santosh
is forced to accept evolution, not creation. This is not 'double '.
<<In a previous posting, Dr.Santosh accused me of attributing to him the
idea that Religion is a superstition.
Answer: <>When I said in one of my postings: "Many have a positivistic
tendency to
emphasize science and reduce
>religion to a superstition", Dr.Santosh retorted: "This is by and large a
>good strategy, as long as you exhibit
tolerance and congeniality towards people who disagree with you, and
respect their right to believe". Did I "create from nothing" his idea of
treating Religion as 'superstition'?
<<Also Dr.Santosh accused me of reading more than Prof.Francisco Ayala said
in his interview.
I reproduce here the e-mail of Professor Francisco Ayala in answer to my
question:
"Dear Professor Francisco Ayala,
I would like to know whether we can say that
'belief/faith' has a role to play in scientific experiments.
Thanks!
Regards.
Fr.Ivo"
"Dear Fr. Ivo:
Religious faith and beliefs may motivate and inspire scientific research (as
well as any other activities). Scientific research and knowledge concern
natural phenomena explained by natural processes. Science cannot prove the
existence or non-existence of God.
And: surely we use Popper's "falsification criteria" to test evolutionary
hypotheses".
Best wishes,
Francisco Ayala"
Regards.
Fr.Ivo
