Re: constructs, science and religion

W Ramsay (
Mon, 17 Jun 1996 13:00:42 +0100

Lois Shawver writes:


>You said:
>> .. I continue to be amazed that some people find it
>> invalid to distinguish between gravity and God.


>What is so unclear here?

>> I don't get it. Gravity IS, and everything works in concert with its
>> predictable presence. 'God' is a term that is meaningful to some people
>> and not to others, but can be shown not to have the same status as the
>> gravity principle.
>> That's all I'm saying. If you disagree, then I guess you're the kind of
>> person who creates their own private standards and universe, and lives
>> according to them, with proof assumed.
>I think your way of putting it makes it sound like Newtonian science
>wasn't challenged by relativity theory, quantum mechanics. The fact that
>it was leaves us thinking that science not not establish fact in the
>unambiguous way we use to think. Bohr's concept of the planetary atom,
>with electrons in orbit, no longer seems right.


Before you ask, go to somewhere where there's an ocean and watch the tides.
What you see ain't the effects of gravity, it's space-time distortion.
Incredible, ain't it?

Gravity IS .. Good God!

Kind regards,


Bill Ramsay,
Dept. of Educational Studies,
University of Strathclyde,
Jordanhill Campus,
G13 1PP,

'phone: +44 (0)141 950 3364
'fax: +44 (0)141 950 3367