I wasn't going to post, though I have studied zen for many years and have a degree in mathematics. But so many angry letters!

1) I suspect that randomness and order are categories that we fit experience into, not intrinsic properties. No one has successfully defined randomness except in the negative. Surely this is not satisfactory?

2) Science is a way of trying to think about the nature of existence. To me, this is a fundamentally religious quest. For that matter, I see no conflict between atheism and religion. The author of Ecclesiastes does not credit life after death. The vedic traditions are unquestionably religious but they allow for the notion that there is no transcendent deity. It is an honest position, not necessarily anti-faith. The Buddha said to Malunkyapata, I have not said there is life after death. I have not said there is not. I have not said there is a God. I have not said there is not. Ramakrishna observed that in the highest form of samadhi even the gods are seen to be dreams. The question of the existence of a god is primarily a matter of definition. Why should the universe be compelled to match our definitions?

3) The more important question is whether you believe that ultimate truth is discoverable. It is a tenet of my faith that the "truth" about the nature of existence must always be vaster and more complex than any conception we can entertain. This does not mean we shouldn't strive to make our conceptions more accurate. It is just something to keep in mind, to prevent the hubris of thinking we mortals can figure it all out.

First it was atoms, then subatomic particles, then quarks. Now some think that quarks are composite. Does anyone suspect that the process may not end, that there IS no "fundamental" level, that the idea is just another one of our conceptions?

4) Science as religion: No doubt there are differing philosophical origins. But FUNCTIONALLY science works for a great many people exactly the way religion used to. It is an esoteric discipline practiced by a cadre of specialists speaking a jargon very few can follow. A discipline, moreover, which many of its adherents claim is the only way to think. If one questions any assertion of a scientist--points out say that our theories of the Big Bang are computer models and not observation (and yes, I am aware of the CBR, which is cited quite frequently as evidence of a big bang, but does not change the fact that the Big Bang is a model of how things MIGHT have occurred)--then one is told, in effect, It's too complicated, you wouldn't understand. Priestly cant.

5) The evils of one do not justify the evils of the other. Nevertheless. Fundamentalism is intolerant and cruel, on the whole. The Inquistion was evil of the highest order. But what are we to say of the many scientists who work to develop more and more powerful weapons? Depleted uranium, anyone?

6) Haught correctly observes that most atheists (and actually many idiot fundamentalists) define faith as believing in things there is no evidence for. A person who does that is a fool. I have faith because I have considered existence, and to me faith seems reasonable. You may argue I am wrong. Regardless, my conclusions are the result of thought and observation.

There is only one faith--the belief that all this beautiful and dangerous and vast universe means something. One cannot prove this belief. Neither can one disprove it. Choice.

7) OF COURSE science can consider the question of whether the holy exists. Nothing is off-limits. The difficulty is in being sufficiently precise. Dawkins, as reported in Discover magazine, tried a helmet supposed to induce, by means of applied electrical currents, experiences of the transcendent . Dawkins had no transcendent experience. His conclusion? There is no god. This is extremely sloppy thinking. Are there not many other possible conclusions--for example, that the helmet does not function the way it is claimed to?

Scientists may (and should) examine the concept of the holy and test it. But for crying out loud, bring your best stuff. If scientists somehow missed 96% of the mass of the universe, are we supposed to assume they can do better at god?

8) Honesty is the only science.

Science is a discipline, not a personal possession. The fundamentalists do not own god, and those who describe themselves as scientists do not own science.

9) The tenor of the many many letters recieved in answer to this article is primarily emotional. Those who self-describe as atheists appear to be reacting with outrage. Where is the objectivity in that? If your embrace of atheism is an emotional reaction to what you see as an attempted imposition of authoritarianism, how solid is your grasp of reason? How are you in a more knowledgeable state than a teener rebelling against his or her parents?

Surely creationist ideology is stupid and foolish. But why should we allow the stupid and foolish to define, by reaction, our own thinking? There are better things to do than to argue against outright idiocy.

It behooves us to remember that there are many more approaches to faith--infinitely many more--than the simple yes/no of "science versus religion."

10) There has never been a more accurate summation of what we can observe about existence than the four noble truths of Buddhism (also known as the four seals of zen). Try to argue against these propositions: Everything is passing, transitory. Life is suffering. No phenomenon exists independently, in isolation from all other phenomena. Things are what they are.

These observations are about 2500 years old. They are extremely difficult to improve.

11) The point of faith to some of us is kindness and self-mastery, not proselytizing. What matters is the calmness, self-mastery, and satisfaction you are able to attain. There's no way to fake that, because you would simply be faking it to yourself. You and you alone must be the arbiter.