Literary Discussions

Alan, I respect and understand your use of the phrase "the illusion of religion" BUT from my perspective the disputes between Einstein who said "God does not play dice" (now I know Einstein was speaking figuratively and he leans towards Spinoza) but his objection to the statistical/quantum probability cloud of Bohr and others, and then someone like Freeman Dyson who says that reality would be too boring if there could be a G.U.T. grand unifying THEORY OF EVERYTHING... certainly you must concede that there is equally illusion or delusion in the mathematical models that mathematical physicists use to explain reality. I mean, in a way, when we study Ptolemy's epicycles, we are not actually DELUDED into believing such things exist but rather we are looking at one early stage of model theory which "sodzain ta phainomena" (saves the phenomena) and it is a tool with limits of accuracy, just as Newtonian mechanics is still useful for canon ball trajectories, but in sub-atomic quantum events or intergalactic events then euclidean models break down and one must have Reimannian space.  We certainly have more palpable repeatable certainty in our world of mathematical models, but there is just as much FAITH involved in the sense that Karl Popper talks about scientific faith, and we have, I would say, a more PRECISE form of illusion, or delusion, but it is still illusional. And people can do puja and chant mantras and do everyday science and math. This business that only "pure atheists" can do it is pure rubbish and prejudice.