From: 69jpil69@gmail.com   
      
   On Tue, 06 Jan 2026 14:35:02 +0000, Martin Harran   
    wrote:   
      
   >On Mon, 05 Jan 2026 15:37:42 -0800, Vincent Maycock   
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Mon, 05 Jan 2026 14:11:04 +0000, Martin Harran   
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>>They also do quote their 100 scientists which you suspected of being   
   >>>quote-mining. I don't think they are quote-mined as they are all fully   
   >>>referenced; here are a few that I have checked out and seem valid  -   
   >>>YMMV.   
   >>>   
   >>>Robert Millikan (1868- 1953), the physicist who calculated the charge   
   >>>of the electron and the Planck constant, winner of the 1923 Nobel   
   >>>Prize in Physics: "A lifetime of scientific research has convinced   
   >>>[me] that there is a divinity who is shaping the destiny of man."[333]   
   >>>   
   >>>George Thomson (1892- 1975), British physicist, Nobel co-laureate   
   >>>1937: "Probably every physicist would believe in a creation [of the   
   >>>Universe] if the Bible had not unfortunately said something about it   
   >>>many years ago and made it seem old-fashioned. [334]   
   >>>   
   >>>Shoichi Yoshikawa (1935- 2010), Professor of Astrophysics at   
   >>>Princeton: "I think that God originated the universe and life. Homo   
   >>>sapiens was created by God using a process which does not violate any   
   >>>of the physical laws of the Universe in any significant way." [366]   
   >>>   
   >>>Max Planck (1858- 1947), one of the founders of quantum mechanics,   
   >>>1918 Nobel Laureate in Physics, and discoverer of the quantum   
   >>>structure of radiation: "Metaphysical reality does not stand spatially   
   >>>behind what is given in experience, but lies fully within it." [373]   
   >>>Again: "Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of   
   >>>any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of   
   >>>science are written the words: You must have faith. It is a quality   
   >>>which the scientists cannot dispense with." [374] Also: "All matter   
   >>>originates and exists only by virtue of a force [. . .]. We must   
   >>>assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent   
   >>>spirit." [375]   
   >>>   
   >>>Stephen Hawking (1942- 2018), Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge   
   >>>(who, despite the following words, was an atheist all the same): " …   
   >>>The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like   
   >>>the Big Bang are enormous... I think clearly there are religious   
   >>>implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the   
   >>>universe. But I think that most scientists prefer to shy away from the   
   >>>religious side of it."[393]   
   >>>   
   >>>John Eccles (1903- 1997), neurologist, electrophysiologist, winner of   
   >>>the 1963 Nobel Prize in Medicine: "I maintain that the human mystery   
   >>>is incredibly demeaned by scientific reductionism, with its claim in   
   >>>promissory materialism to account eventually for all of the spiritual   
   >>>world in terms of patterns of neuronal activity. This belief must be   
   >>>classed as a superstition."[408] Again: "I am constrained to attribute   
   >>>the uniqueness of the Self or Soul to a supernatural spiritual   
   >>>creation." [409]   
   >>   
   >>The upshot of all these quotes seems to be that it's possible to be   
   >>religious and be a scientist at the same time.     
   >   
   >I think, however, the significant thing in the quotes in this book is   
   >that many of them come from scientists who were not driven by   
   >religious beliefs, in some cases vehemently opposed to religious   
   >belief, but arrived at belief in "something" beyond materialism as a   
   >result of the scientific work. Whether that "something" equates, for   
   >example to the Judeo-Christian God is. of course, a separate argument.   
   >   
   >>There's nothing wrong   
   >>with that, as long as the religion doesn't begin to creep into the   
   >>science.  For example, we don't consider a "spiritual world" to be   
   >>something that's addressable by science.  Or at least that's something   
   >>theists can tell themselves if they want to keep up with atheists   
   >>intellectually.     
   >   
   >There are issues on both sides of the fence there. Just as there are   
   >Creationists and ID'ers who reject science where it seems to conflict   
   >with their religious beliefs, there are scientists who dismiss ideas   
   >just because they think those ideas might let religion in the door;   
   >the authors of this book make a very strong case that the virulent   
   >opposition to the Big Bang was largely driven by ideological   
   >opposition to religious belief which is not a good way to do science.   
   >   
   >John Polkinghorne uses the lovely analogy of kettle boiling on a stove   
   >and someone asks "Why is that kettle boiling?" The scientific answer   
   >is that the burning gas is creating heat which is conducted through   
   >the metal to the water inside the kettle and causes it also to heat.   
   >The non-scientific answer is that he is expecting a good friend to   
   >arrive shortly and wants to have a nice cup of tea ready for him.   
   >   
   >Both answers relate to the same kettle and are both equally valid   
   >answers. In a similar way, I believe that religion and science are   
   >both seeking answers about the same things and one ruling out the   
   >other loses out.   
      
      
   You make the same mistake above as MarkE, specifically to assert a   
   nonexistent equivalence.  Even though your non-scientific answer says   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)