Anti-religion fervor in 'Religulous' is over the top

Sandi Dolbee ^ | October 3, 2008 | Sandi Dolbee

[nickcarraway]

She laughed.

I had invited Cheryl Hall to the screening of “Religulous” to get a faith-based reaction to comedian Bill Maher's diatribe on the divine. Hall's credentials: longtime member of the United Methodist Women and faithful San Diego churchgoer whose husband teaches a weekly Bible study class.

Surely, she would be offended at roasting religion as if it were a Hollywood has-been.

But she laughed. Several times.

Her defense: “I think God has a sense of humor.” And then she added: “If his point was to make religion look ridiculous, then he did a very good job.”

It did not, however, make her lose her religion. Nor did it leave her feeling educated, which isn't exactly high praise for a documentary.

Maher's “Religulous” isn't really a documentary so much as it's propaganda. Funny at times. Mocking often. Certainly clever. But in the end, his fervor unravels into a fire-and-brimstone conversion message for the other team.

“The plain fact is, religion must die for mankind to live,” Maher says in a melodramatic finish that is as smarmy as any late-night cable TV evangelist.

Anyone familiar with Maher's take-no-prisoners style – his stand-up work, the defunct “Politically Incorrect” TV show and currently HBO's “Real Time with Bill Maher” – knows what to expect. It's comedy by cannibalism: He eats their lunch while the hapless victims struggle for a comeback.

Maher tells us in “Religulous” that he was a church dropout as a young teenager, drifting from doubt to dismissal. But there's a zeal in this movie that goes beyond his deadpan style. It's as if this film is his personal crusade to out religion as, in his words, “detrimental to the progress of humanity.”

With the help of “Borat” director Larry Charles, Maher seeks out the least among them, coming up mostly with caricatures of religion – like the Bible theme park in Florida or the television preacher who wears lizard-skin shoes and gold bling. Then the comic lampoons, guts and serves his prey up for the world's snickers.

“The people want you to look well,” says the preacher in the pin-striped finery.

“That's what pimps say about their women,” says Maher.

The preacher tells of counseling a love-struck man to channel that passion toward religion. “ 'Turn that to God and see what happens,' ” he says he told the man.

Maher follows up with footage of a suicide bomber ramming another vehicle and blowing them both up in a fiery ball.

When the head of a ministry that tries to change homosexuals tells him that nobody is born gay, Maher retorts: “Have you met Little Richard?”

He pushes and pushes. How can anyone possibly believe the Bible? A talking snake? A man swallowed by a big fish? “Complete bull----,” he says.

Absent from “Religulous” are the charities, hospitals, soup kitchens and shelters spawned by faith. Absent, too, for the most part, are the best and the brightest of the standard bearers. They wouldn't suit his purposes.

In the final minutes of the film, when he launches into his sermon on the mound of dirt in Israel, the manipulation is blatant. “Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking,” he rants. It is a call to arms for anti-religion forces to “come out of the closet and assert themselves.”

Suddenly, whatever meaningful points he made – from the divisions created by fundamentalism to the shocking violence of extremism – are overtaken by the realization that Maher has an agenda beyond entertainment.

“That's it,” Maher tells us. “Grow up or die.”

God, apparently, doesn't have a lock on fanatics.

[airborne]

I simple choose to not go with any of them.

That's fine with me. We all have to decide for ourselves.

[ndt]

"If you are an atheist - I need to ask a question.

Just what do atheists believe in?"

By definition, atheists believe that there is no god or gods. I'm assuming you knew that already. Atheists aren't a group and so there is no required dogma beyond that required by the Websters definition.

"What do they think happens after death?"

What do I personally believe (IOW I'm not the spokesman for any imaginary atheist organization)? My wife and family will morn for a while. My company will restructure without me. Life goes on for the living and I rot.

"Is this it - this life and nothing else?"

Yup.

[ndt]

"Bet you 1000 to 1 the creep didn’t attack muzzies."

You would be wrong. By my rough estimate, it was about 25% Catholicism, 25% mixed Protestant, 5% Mormonism, 20% Judaism, 20% Islam, 5% Scientology.

So how much did you loose at 1000 to 1? Stay out of Vegas.

[tflabo]

I won’t spend $$ to see it in the theatre....maybe when it is released on DVD.

[ndt]

"Look, I have a doctorate level education, ... the more education I had ... the more clear it became that there is a Creator..."

There is, as I'm sure you are aware, a strong negative correlation with level of education and religiosity. It is exactly for this reason, that anecdotes are not to be trusted.

If we were to accept your "The more I lean the more I believe" anecdote as having any weight as an argument, then a larger sample of educated people would show you to be the exception and not the rule and therefore instead offer an argument against religion and not for it.

[bdeaner]

Let me qualify: the more I learned about theology and philosophy of science and physics and psychology and neuroscience, etc., together, and worked to integrate them, the more I learned there was a Creator.

Most highly educated people don't think like that, and they don't have the background in theology or philosophy to do it. So, yes, I am an exception rather than the rule. But not because my education led me to religion, but because of the KIND of education I received, which was interdisciplinary and rooted in an integration of faith and reason (12 years of Catholic School, thank you).

[bdeaner]

...nobody's come back (as far as I reliably know) to tell us.

Actually, yes, they have. Near death experiences happen all the time, and there is a lot of evidence that has mounted up over the years. Even an entire peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the topic. Although it is very difficult to completely control for all confounding variables for naturalistic explanations -- but the research is close to achieving that.

[bdeaner]

Just saw from an earlier post that you are an atheist. Are you an atheist atheist, or an agnostic?

Sorry, but I think it is intellectually dishonest to be an atheist. Either you have no evidence or you have evidence. If there is no evidence, you go with agnosticism. You remain open. If have you evidence there is no God, then let me have it. I'd like to hear. If you can demonstrate that evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt, I will renounce my faith right here right now. Go for it. Otherwise, what gives with the atheism?

I can make an extremely compelling case for a Creator, and one that is completely consistent with the scientific evidence. But I am only willing to engage people who are sincerely interested in listening. I don't have time to play head games. But that means I listen closely and generously too.

For a different perspective, you might also consider doing some reading from an alternative point of view, and if you can debunk it from an atheist or agnostic perspective, then good for you. I'd like to hear your argument, in that case. I like to recommend Stephen M. Barr's "Modern Physics and Ancient Faith," because that book helped me synthesize a lot of ideas I had been working out, and ultimately led me back to a belief in God. It's very clear that, within the realm of physics, understanding God as the First Cause is the most parsimonious and sensible answer, when you consider the alternatives.

[ndt]

"Just saw from an earlier post that you are an atheist. Are you an atheist atheist, or an agnostic?"

atheist

"I think it is intellectually dishonest to be an atheist. Either you have no evidence or you have evidence."

I used to go by the agnostic label but I'm no more agnostic about the existence of god(s) then I am about Xenu or the Easter Bunny.

I doubt you would refer to yourself as agnostic regarding the existence of the Easter Bunny even though it is technically impossible to disprove his existence.

If there were compelling circumstantial evidence in favor of the existence of God (or even Xenu and the Easter Bunny for that matter) then I would be willing to shift my position back to agnostic in regards to those entities.

To hold on to an agnostic position in regards to one entity (say god) while positively affirming your disbelief in another (say the Easter Bunny) when both share a common degree of confirming evidence (read none) that is true intellectual dishonesty.

"I can make an extremely compelling case for a Creator, and one that is completely consistent with the scientific evidence. But I am only willing to engage people who are sincerely interested in listening. ..."

I appreciate your willingness but it was not my intention to convert anyone nor to enter into a lengthy debate for the sake of debate.

If you think you have a deal killer, that is, an irrefutable body of evidence that affirms the existence of whichever entity you want to argue in favor of I will give it an honest review.

[bdeaner]

I appreciate your willingness but it was not my intention to convert anyone nor to enter into a lengthy debate for the sake of debate.

If you think you have a deal killer, that is, an irrefutable body of evidence that affirms the existence of whichever entity you want to argue in favor of I will give it an honest review.

Respectfully, I don't think you have a very compelling reason for rejecting God. God is not in the same category as the Easter Bunny. The Judao-Christian God has qualities that are fundamentally different than finite beings like Easter Bunnies or flying spaghetti monsters. I've read Dawkins, and he is an amateur. He should stick to biology.

Unfortunately, it would take a somewhat lengthy discussion about physics to make the case for God, and in that case, it would require that you probably change how you are thinking about "God."

When you talk about God as an "entity," then you are thinking about the notion of God in a pagan way, which is not consistent with the Judao-Christian God, who exists outside of His creation. This is fundamentally important to the argument. The Judao-Christian God has certain qualities that do not belong to finite entities. And it is these qualities that can be demonstrated to exist via physics.

If you follow the argument in Stephen M. Barr's book, "Moder Physics and Ancient Faith," you will see a very compelling argument, by a physicist, that it would literally require you to draw completely absurd conclusions about the origins of the universe -- including multiple universes that go on infinitely and which would have to include in principle the reality of, literally, every possibility. You would see -- and I am not kidding you -- that to NOT believe in God, you would HAVE TO believe in the Easter Bunny -- if not in this Universe than in an alternative one. Read the book.

[ndt]

"Respectfully, I don't think you have a very compelling reason for rejecting God. "

One doesn't need a reason to reject something that has no evidence in it's favor. We don't reject leprechauns because we can disprove them, we reject them because there is no evidence not to.

"The Judao-Christian God has qualities that are fundamentally different than finite beings..."

If an infinite being interacts with the physical world in meaningful ways then those points of interaction become the purview of scientific investigation. Example: a global flood would leave certain tell-tale signs that one could search for.

"This is fundamentally important to the argument. The Judao-Christian God has certain qualities that do not belong to finite entities. And it is these qualities that can be demonstrated to exist via physics."

By all means have at it. I'm sufficiently competent in physics that I should at least be able to keep up.

"If you follow the argument in Stephen M. Barr's book, ... you will see a very compelling argument, by a physicist, that it would literally require you to draw completely absurd conclusions about the origins of the universe"

I have not read the book but I did look up several long reviews after you mentioned it so I have a general idea of the points of the book.

Mr. Barr appears to be in the minority of physicists. Therefore if I were to go with an appleal to authority, then I would be inclined to go with the much larger body of physicists, most of whom currently accept that one or more of those "absurd conclusions" are in fact the best current explanation of the universe we see.

[bdeaner]

One doesn't need a reason to reject something that has no evidence in it's favor. We don't reject leprechauns because we can disprove them, we reject them because there is no evidence not to.

But there is evidence for God, as I will demonstrate. There are many empirical and logical arguments for God's existence. And, on top of that, the belief in God is cross-cultural and trans-historical, and for that reason alone, demands a refutation beyond an appeal to ignorance. This latter fact alone is no proof of God, but it demands in response more than an appeal to ignorance, that's for sure.

The appeal to ignorance is of course a logical fallacy:

There is no evidence for p. (God)
Therefore, not-p. (not-God)

And I will hold you to that, as I am sure you will hold me to a similar fallacious appeal to ignorance:

There is no evidence for p. (God)
Therefore, p. (God).

Let's be fair, after all.

If an infinite being interacts with the physical world in meaningful ways then those points of interaction become the purview of scientific investigation.

I would go at least one step further than you. One should demonstrate, logically, not so much that there are points of interaction between God and creation -- because this assumes God interacts with creation, which is not necessarily my claim -- but rather that God is the origin of existence. The case here is that God must be presumed in order for existence to have intelligibility in the first place and, therefore, God is (or more exactly, the qualities of the Judao-Christian God are) implicitly endorsed and presumed by any scientific investigation, if it is to be meaningful and intelligible. This is a more radical argument than the one you have framed. I won't be arguing on your terms, but on the terms I put forth, and you can attempt to refute those claims and/or my basis for making those claims -- challenges that I fully expect and welcome graciously. In any case, the argument I make combines empirical and ontological lines of argument at the same time, which is why it takes effort to articulate clearly within a limited format.

But more on this later, as I will explain below...

Mr. Barr appears to be in the minority of physicists. Therefore if I were to go with an appleal to authority, then I would be inclined to go with the much larger body of physicists, most of whom currently accept that one or more of those "absurd conclusions" are in fact the best current explanation of the universe we see.

I will get back to you with the argument from physics (combined with ontological arguments) -- and will need some time to formulate a clear and simple explanation of the physics I aim to convey.

For now, though, just a quick comment. Again, with regard to fallacious arguments: I am sure you are aware that appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. When I refer to Barr's book, I am not appealing to authority, but rather to what I perceive to be the soundness of his argument from the evidence. The fact that he is a physicist simply lends weight to the validity of his arguments grounded in the science of physics. A graduate in physics from Princeton, now a Professor of Physics at University of Delaware can be presumed to be competent in physics, to say the least. He is not a dilettante.

In any case, the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source. That's why I recommend that you read the book.

Second, you fall prey to another logical fallacy when, by default, you appeal to the "much larger body of physicists" in order to reject Barr's thesis a priori, without considering his case. The fallacy here is called argumentum ad populum -- sometimes called "appeal to the majority" -- which is when a proposition is claimd to be true solely because many people believe it to be true. The fact of the matter is, most physicists don't think very much about theological issues and usually think of these issues as 'above their pay grade,' so to speak. I know, because I talk to a lot of physicists, and most won't touch this issues with a ten foot pole. Maybe they are smart to avoid these issues! They might not like what they find!

But I will get back to you with a summary of the argument from physics -- which combined with the ontological argument, converges on a very compelling, even if perhaps not full-proof, argument for the existence of a God. Note: there are alternative conclusions to be drawn from the evidence, but, I would appeal, they are less parsimonious and less satisfying even from a purely empirical perspective. Until then, cheers.

[ClancyJ]

Again thank you for your replies.

So very sad. May God open your eyes so you can see the gift He sent of His Son to die for you and all others to pay for our sins. Only through Jesus will we be able to be perfect enough to dwell with God for eternity.

The most valuable gift in this world and people mock it, stomp on it and claim in their little human voice - “I do not believe that”. How very hurtful to God I am sure.

If you have opened your eyes and refused to believe, then I am so very sorry for there is nothing else that God will do - man has free will. And, then man has chosen not to follow God, not to accept the salvation offered by Jesus. There is then no eternal life with God because you refused God’s grace.

Man should not be fooled into thinking that whatever he believes is what will be required for a life in Heaven. Man is not giving eternal life and has no say in what is required. God is giving salvation, Jesus is paying for it and man accepts and does what God says is required or not.
We each should stop a minute and realize that.

We go through life saying I believe this, don’t believe that, rationalize our views and fully expect God to set it up as we command.

Which shows that we do not understand the hierachy at all. God is God, man is merely man. So if man wants salvation, he had better listen to what God said to do about it.

Of course all of us have the same opportunity to seek God and the same opportunity to believe, repent of sins and to be baptised for the remission of those sins and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. We then belong to God and follow Him throughout our lives.

We don’t all have to have God open our eyes. The gift is in full view of all.

It is not the drudgery many believe - there are so many wonderful things in that life here as well as in eternity. Some do not want to give up their freedom to partake of any pleasure that they can grab. They want no guilt. Yet those following Jesus look on other things and find wonderful joy and fullness of life there. The prior goals look more and more pitiful and superficial and even disgusting.

It is really amazing. When you come to love Jesus, you want to serve Him and His efforts in this world. Your eyes come to see the truly beautiful things in life and appreciate them. You come to be awed by God’s creations and the love shown in how each of those creations is made for its own survival.

Take care and I hope that someday you will see that this life has far much more to offer than a few years followed by “rot”.

[ClancyJ]

My best advice for your search and investigations of religions is to read the Bible. I suggest the New International Version (easier to understand).

If you truly want to know about religion - you go to God’s word for the truth. Man interprets, adds/takes away and creates a church to his liking. The only way to see the real “church” is to go to the New Testament and start reading. If a belief is not shown there - it is of man.

[ClancyJ]

You are so correct. I also refer you to the John Clayton website. doesgodexist.com.

An atheist that started out with a pad and pencil to prove the bible wrong with science. He read all the way through and found no discrepancies. Did so again, and his pad was empty.

He then started looking for a church teaching what he had read in the bible. That led him to many, many that he rejected. Then he finally found a little church with “Church” on the building, so went in and stayed. After three years he came to find out that the rest of the sign had fallen off in a storm and it was really “Church of Christ”. (not the international coc)

Anyway, his seminars on science proving the bible history are so interesting.

[ClancyJ]

I’m not seeing it at all. Why in the world would I want to give Bill Maher money, or access to my house with his trash?

There is not one thing Bill Maher says or believes that I know has any credibility at all - he is merely anti-God and seeking to feed off his hatred of religion.

I do not enjoy watching those that mock the Jesus who was crucified to pay for my sins and bring me salvation. Time is too short to waste it on scum.

[ClancyJ]

correction - http://www.doesgodexist.org/doesgodexist.org

[ClancyJ]

http://www.doesgodexist.org/

Good grief. Somebody or something does not want me to put that link in here.

[ndt]

"the belief in God is cross-cultural and trans-historical, and for that reason alone, demands a refutation beyond an appeal to ignorance."

Not at all. The Big Three have common historical roots and therefore share a common, but still rather diverse, idea of the nature of god. Once you begin to compare other religions outside of the Big Three, the idea of "god" is not only not even remotely consistent, it's not even close to being universal.

"The appeal to ignorance is of course a logical fallacy:"

As I said, I would be willing to change my personal label to agnostic in the face of compelling evidence. To accept in any meaningful way, absolutely everything, because it's impossible to truly disprove something is a ridiculous proposition. Smurfs, vampires, Frankenstein, gnomes and fairies, these are all things I would assume you are willing to say do not exist.

Are you telling me you are in fact agnostic to the existence of smurfs? If your child asks if there are monsters under his bed, would you tell them it is a distinct possibility?

"The case here is that God must be presumed in order for existence to have intelligibility in the first place and, therefore, God is (or more exactly, the qualities of the Judao-Christian God are) implicitly endorsed and presumed by any scientific investigation, if it is to be meaningful and intelligible."

1) you assume that existence must be intelligible

2) you assume that existence is intelligible

3) you assume that any scientific investigation that does not include the qualities of a Judeo-Christian God is unintelligible

These are large and wholly unsubstantiated claims that are at best a loose hypothesis in need of supporting evidence.

I would counter that:

1) existence is not necessarily intelligible

2) there is no inherent reason that existence must be intelligible

3) no scientific investigation that I am aware of (feel free to cite examples) that ever tried to include a Judeo-Christian god or any other god has ever produced an intelligible result outside of sociology

"When I refer to Barr's book, I am not appealing to authority, but rather to what I perceive to be the soundness of his argument from the evidence. ... Second, you fall prey to another logical fallacy when, by default, you appeal to the "much larger body of physicists" in order to reject Barr's thesis a priori, without considering his case"

As I noted, I have not read his book and am only passingly familiar with his points. You noted his credentials but not his arguments, that is an appeal to authority. If you wish to argue his points, then the onerous is on you to present them to me.

"... I talk to a lot of physicists, and most won't touch this issues with a ten foot pole. Maybe they are smart to avoid these issues! They might not like what they find!"

Another possible explanation is that physicists work with facts and formulas. In the history of modern physics, and despite the unquestionable devoutness of some notable physicists, not a single discovery in physics has ever flowed from the inclusion of god in a formula. Out of thousands upon thousands, not one.

In other words, the existence or nonexistence of god has had the same impact on physics at the existence or nonexistence of smurfs. Why would a physicist touch the subject?

[bdeaner]

Not at all. The Big Three have common historical roots and therefore share a common, but still rather diverse, idea of the nature of god. Once you begin to compare other religions outside of the Big Three, the idea of "god" is not only not even remotely consistent, it's not even close to being universal.

I agree with you that the Judao-Christian, and also the Islamic versions of God share qualities that pagan religions do not share. HOWEVER, all pagan religions, at some way or another, tend to point in the direction of a similar notion of the Godhead. In Hinduism, for example, Brahman is a gesture in the direction of the deity that has qualities quite similar to the Judao-Christian deity. Neo-African pagan religions, like Haitian Voodoo, point to a God as a creator of all other gods.

Even if the above was not true, 5000 years of Judao-Christian religion, and the global reach of the "Big Three" as you call them demand a reasonable reply greater than an appeal to ignorance. And frankly Atheism deserves better arguments from believes than appeals to ignorance.

As I said, I would be willing to change my personal label to agnostic in the face of compelling evidence. To accept in any meaningful way, absolutely everything, because it's impossible to truly disprove something is a ridiculous proposition. Smurfs, vampires, Frankenstein, gnomes and fairies, these are all things I would assume you are willing to say do not exist.

Yes, if the notion of God were the equivalent of Smurfs, vampires, Frankenstein, and other such products of the imgination, then my argument would not have a leg to stand on. Obviously, I believe I have more to often in my line of argument -- enough that I think it would be compelling for a reasonable person to at least make the shift from atheism to agnosticism, if not a full-fledged believer.

Sorry that I keep promising the argument but not yet delivering, but I am working on a clear, economical formulation -- and even that will be somewhat lengthy. Apologies in advance. I haven't yet tried to do this on something like an online forum.

Are you telling me you are in fact agnostic to the existence of smurfs? If your child asks if there are monsters under his bed, would you tell them it is a distinct possibility?

I believe I already addressed this issue. Of course I am a disbeliever in Smurfs. If you think of God as something equivalent to Smurfs, then I can't blame you for rejecting the idea! But I am here to tell you, the notion of God is in a different category than Smurfs and flying spaghetti monsters. Those things are finite, God is infinite. Smurfs exist within creation, God exists outside of and is the origin of creation. Etc. Very different!

1) you assume that existence must be intelligible

No, I don't assume that existence must be intelligible. But I believe that qualities attributed to God within the Judao-Christian tradition (but not limited to that tradition) are necessarily a priori grounds for the belief in an intelligible universe. Therefore, if you throw out a God with those qualities, you must, by default, give up on any promise of an intelligible universe, which in turn places the very grounds of science in doubt. The grounds of science become subject to a very legitimate skepticism. Some people are willing to live with this consequence, and they have a right to their opinion.

2) you assume that existence is intelligible

No, again, I did not say so. But I think if one does assume existence is intelligible, at the same time as they assert an atheist doctrine of non-belief in God, then they are living a contradictory set of beliefs. I say this because I am led to believe that God is the ontological precondition for intelligibility, the Logos so to speak of Being. Without that promise, there is really no point in going about doing natural science, because naturalism assumes that the end of science is to arrive at Truth. At best, you'd have something like pragmatism, where science is just about making things happen that we want to happen -- a kind of proto-technology.

3) you assume that any scientific investigation that does not include the qualities of a Judeo-Christian God is unintelligible

Yes! But, remember, the qualities of this God are not necessarily limited to the God of the Jewish and Christian traditions, but can be glimpsed in other traditions, even pagan traditions, but not in a pure form.

These are large and wholly unsubstantiated claims that are at best a loose hypothesis in need of supporting evidence.

Yes, of course they are -- because I haven't yet made the argument. I'm just giving you the preview. But remember which assertions are really mine and which ones are not mine. Hopefully, my responses above have clarified my thesis. I will try to put it succintly in my argument as I work it out.

I would counter that:

1) existence is not necessarily intelligible

And I agree! As I mentioned, I think there are alternative viewpoints to the belief in God, but I just don't think they are as parsimonious nor as satisfying as the God thesis. Belief in an unintelligible, or even a potentially unintelligible universe is a big sacrifice in exchange for giving up on God. There are major, major implications here.

2) there is no inherent reason that existence must be intelligible

Again, I agree, for the same reasons as above.

3) no scientific investigation that I am aware of (feel free to cite examples) that ever tried to include a Judeo-Christian god or any other god has ever produced an intelligible result outside of sociology.

Hm, not sure what you mean. Please elaborate.

I am suggesting, on the contrary, that ANY scientific investigation presupposes as its ontological ground of Being the existence of God, the Logos that is the ground of Being.

I know this statement in itself will probably not be very convincing to you. But for now suffice it for me to say that this is basically the story physics will tell. The facts will repeat empirically what I have stated above ontologically. Enough so that it becomes (arguably) more credible to believe in God than to reject God.

As I noted, I have not read his book and am only passingly familiar with his points. You noted his credentials but not his arguments, that is an appeal to authority. If you wish to argue his points, then the onerous is on you to present them to me.

As I said, I was not appealing to authority. I was recommending that you read the book and judge the arguments on their own merits. I was also giving credit where credit is due, because while I said this is "my argument," I have borrowed these ideas and synthesized them based on many sources. Barr's argument was extremely compelling to me, and helped me synthesize many of my own ideas, so I give credit to him for that. I wouldn't want to be accused of plagiarism.

Another possible explanation is that physicists work with facts and formulas.

That's right. Theology and science are different. But they have implications for one another. Most physicists do not have training in theology. They have training in physics. Few can think the two together, and Barr is one of the few.