The two atheistic speakers at the forum Oct. 18, “Where was God on Sept. 11?” were obviously grounded in the philosophy of logical positivism that carries with it certain presuppositions about what constitutes knowledge. These presuppositions should not simply be accepted out of hand. Science is unable to answer ultimate questions that are metaphysical in nature.

Yet because the human mind inevitably raises such questions, often based on phenomena observed in physical reality, the pursuit of metaphysical knowledge cannot be discredited. Philosophy and theology have legitimate roles to play.

It was contended that no authentic scientist can be a believer in God. Several outstanding scientists can be cited who have related scientific knowledge to belief in God. Among them are contemporary writers like Paul Davies, Arthur Peacocke, and John Polkinghorne. The crux of the matter lies in not allowing dogma to dictate in the field of scientific inquiry. Rather, attention has to be given to metaphysical considerations arising from observation of physical reality. Such considerations don’t rule out the existence of God.

The work of Dr. Sabin and Dr. Salk, who discovered of the polio vaccine, was cited as an example of the necessary practice of atheism in scientific research. It is true that in order to employ the scientific method it is not necessary to make reference to God. But it is a mistake to assert that scientific research requires an atheistic stance on the part of scientists.

The question still stands, but the atheistic solution is not the uncontestable answer.

Vernon H. Naffier

Ankeny