Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cadre.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxj!mhuxr!ulysses!unc!mcnc!idis!cadre!geb
From: geb@cadre.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.flame
Subject: Re: A Conversation With Sir John Eccles (tired of Rosen!)
Message-ID: <127@cadre.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 1-Jan-85 15:03:38 EST
Article-I.D.: cadre.127
Posted: Tue Jan  1 15:03:38 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 4-Jan-85 04:51:26 EST
References: <79@decwrl.UUCP>, <345@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: Decision Systems Lab., Univ. of Pgh.
Lines: 16
Xref: watmath net.religion:5203 net.flame:7456

It seems like extended quotes from authorities such as
Sir John Eccles concerning subjects about which they
are not authorities serve little.  If Sir John is
on the net, and would like to enter his own arguments
it would be interesting to hear them, but second hand quotes
out of some journalist's interview can hardly be authoratative.
Of course some scientists are religious, so what?
A scientist is just a man like anyone else and is entitled
to his beliefs.  Unless he is making a claim that he
has used his special skill in science to discover something
about the nature of God, (and I don't see that in Sir John's
words) why should his opinions carry any more weight than those 
of anyone else?  Sir John is a well known opponent of the
idea that man can create a truly intelligent machine.  We
probably will find out within the next century whether he
is right or not.