Science is beginning to come up against its limitations. The most recent New Scientist cover headline was "WE have run out of explanation for the Universe", a frank admission of current bafflement combined with a lack of really good new directions in which to search for one. Kurt Godel had already admitted the fundamental ignorance of mathematics with his 'incompleteness theorem', and Heisenberg dispelled all hope that scientific observation could be used to obtain compete knowledge of any quantum system. Richard Feynman even questioned whether there could be a single definite 'past' or histort for the path of any quantum 'particle'. Those who would explain the Universe without recourse to a creating and sustain God have eventually resorted to a physical theory so profligate in its invention of new unobservable realities [infinite numbers of 'branching' universes in an inconveivable vast multiverse, for instance...] that belief in God seems like a modest proposal in comparison. Rewligions go out of date because people accept eventually that 'primitive' or naive religions are unlucky to be true. Myths are eventually accepted as 'convenient fictions' whose origins have been lost in the mists of time. Wise men have always known that we need a more sophisticated approach. The danger os of throwing the baby out withthe bath water and rejecting all notions of God altogether.

If there is oneliteral 'mythic' truth I do believe in it is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. We have four 'canonical' written accounts of the life and death of Jesus which all insist that he rose again. The 'legend' of doubting Thomas insists that He was palpaple, audible and visible, conversed at length with at least two of his follwers, sat dow to a meal, etc. Unfortunately the subsequent account of His being 'taken up out of their site' is not very illuminating when it comes to what we should believe about Jesus now. What I do believe in is someything like 'theprovidence of God'. If the evolution of embodied consciousness was 'deliberate' instead of totally accidental, as Dawkins et al keep telling us, then there is somewhere for it to go, some transcendental truth it can rightfully aspire to, disoveries still to be made, possibilities for life still unexplore, endless potential, and above all hope that we are not all headed for some tewrminal disaster after having led a temporary and largely miserable and pointless existence.

If we are to believe in reason it must be used reasonably. To deny God is to deny that there IS a reason for ANYTHING. Existentialists may say that we can invent our own purposes and reasons and can live 'authentically' even if the large schem of things is not a 'scheme' as such and has no end point towards which progress is being made. The notion that creation has a purpose is called 'teleology' and denied by science, not because there definitely is no purpose, but because, form the inside, we cannot know the purpose and so science regards such speculation as futile and unscientific. Life proceeds as if there were no purpose beyond survival and reproduction. And so reason digs away its own foundations and becomes unreasonable for fear of going beyond its evidence. When the great atheistic philospher Bertrand Russel was asked what he would say to God about his lack of belief if he turned out to survive death and stand in God's presence he replied, "You did not give me enough evidence!" What would he have accepted as proof? There can be no proof this side of the grave. How much evidence to we need, anyway? We have the created universe and the words and deeds of Jesus Christ that have been believed in by the faithful for 2,000 years. Biblical literalism is obviously wrong. Read The Book of The Book' by Kahlil Gibran [link] and you will see why for yourself.

This reply has been long because the subject is ultimately serious.Our religion used to be a main source of beauty, awe inspiring ceremony, 'smells and bells', and spiritual uplift and inspiration that the people came to get a 'fix' of every Sunday in magnificent ecclesiastical buildings. This is what ytour deviation refers to; the need, and what used to be and still, for some people, is the supply. If the drug is wearing off or causing habituation then we may need a new formulation, but the genuine joy seen in Rome on the election of a new Pope seems to indicate that many still have a use an need for the 'old time religion. As Beefheart sings in 'Moonlight On Vermont' [link] [link in artist's notes], "Gimme that Ole time religion. It's good enough for me... it's good enough you."