Episode 78. Ian Barbour's first science and religion relationship in his module is Conflict Relationship. This is a never ending conflict between science and religion, and it is fueled by two groups. First, the scientific materialist and second the biblical literalist. First, let's consider the Scientific Materialists. Their foundational principle is that reality is nothing but energy and matter. As a consequence, there is no spiritual reality. Their foundational method is reductionism. Scientific materialists believe that everything is explainable by reduction into physical laws. For example, they would say that love and religion are nothing but energy and matter. A marvelous aspect of Ian Barbour's book is that he gives numerous examples for each of his categories. And there's no better example of a scientific materialist than Carl Sagan. He was an astronomer and hosted the most popular science TV series in the 1980s. Sagan had a huge impact promoting the conflict relationship between science and religion. And also the idea that science is based atheism. Quote 24 is the first sentence of his book, Cosmos. And the capital letters are original. Sagan boldly proclaims, the cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be. But I have some questions. Is Quote 24 a scientific or religious statement? Regarding Sagan's proclamation, is it not the same as when Jesus said, in Quote 25, I am the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End? I think, it is very clear that Sagan is making a metaphysical statement, which in effect, is no different than a religious proclamation. I also have to ask another rather blunt question. Did Sagan, with his brash atheism and dysteleological world view, in his TV program, alienate 90% of theologists in Canada and the United States? Or to state it another way, Did Sagan do a disservice to science by discouraging them to be scientists? Nobel Prize winning molecular biologist, Jacques Monod, is another scientific materialist. In quote 26, he confidently claims, man knows, at the last, that he is alone in the universes unfeeling immensity, out of which, he emerged only by chance. But I have to ask the question, is this not an overstatement, man knows? Because 90% of Canadians and Americans are teleologists and they would firmly disagree with Monod. Jacques Monod leads us to Excursus, God, Chance and Christians. Regrettably, Christians had demonized chance, randomness and indeterminacy. The result is another false dichotomy, this time between God and Chance. But could chance, randomness, and indeterminacy be part of God's good creation? And could there be some freedom and flexibility in nature? Take, for example, video gambling machines. The computer program in these machines are set up for them to win over time. A randomness generating chip is ultimately directed by the overriding computer program. Therefore, randomness is used by the machine for the purpose of winning. In light of this example of video gambling machines, consider chance and creation. God sets up the laws of nature to create the world over time. Chance processes in nature are ultimately directed by the overriding laws of nature. Therefore, chance is used by God to create the world. End of Episode.