I’ve just finished reading a book ‘by’ (posthumously, from notes or a
transcript of a lecture series) Richard Feynman. It’s billed as philosophical
questions – What is science and what is its true value? for example. It’s not that
great a read, I’m afraid, but one topic was of note.

He addresses the issue of the reconciliation of science and religion, and makes some
assertions to the effect of a scientist will have a less strong religion than a
non-scientist. Specifically, he maintains that religion has three aspects: metaphysical –
what things are, where they come from, what man is ethical inspirational

Feynman asserts that science frequently conflicts with religion on metaphysical aspects
(creation stories, for example). The iffy bit, imo, is that he says that a religious
person will get only reduced benefit from aspects 2 and 3 if they find that aspect 1
contradicts something they believe to be true.

That is (and fractionally overstating his case) – if the creation story is not
literally true, the metaphysical reports in the bible are wrong, and if they are wrong,
then the justification for the moral teaching, and the inspiration from working for god
could be wrong. If they could be wrong then obviously it’s not so important to follow
them.

This is riddled with things I don’t like, but wonder how others feel?

regards, Ian SMith