^{page 281 note 1} ‘Science and Religion: Their Logical Similarity’, by Miller, John F., Religious Studies, Vol. 5, number I, October 1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 281 note 2} Miller, , op. cit., p. 50.Google Scholar

^{page 282 note 1} This does not include such conditions as, e.g. psychological shock; for instance, when some personal tragedy prompts one to abandon religious beliefs.

^{page 282 note 2} Miller, , op. cit., p. 50.Google Scholar

^{page 282 note 3} Miller, , Op. cit., p. 51 f., the italics are Miller's.Google Scholar

^{page 282 note 4} Miller, , op. cit., p. 52.Google Scholar

^{page 283 note 1} Miller, , op. cit., p. 52 n.Google Scholar

^{page 283 note 2} ‘Correct’ in physical theory usually means such things as the ability of the theory to predict future empirical events, correlate present events, etc.

^{page 283 note 3} Nagel, Ernest, The Structure of Science; Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., New York, 1961, pp. 65–6.Google Scholar

^{page 283 note 4} Miller, , op. cit., p. 53, the italics are Miller's.Google Scholar

^{page 284 note 1} For a simplified account of the neutrino, see Guillemin's, VictorThe Story of Quantum Mechanics, Charles Scribner's Sons, Inc., New York, 1968, p. 142.Google Scholar

^{page 284 note 2} ‘As they are now used’, because it is probable that once such principles could be falsified, e.g. the contest between Elijah and the prophets of Baal in I Kings 18.

^{page 284 note 3} See Holton, and Roller, , Foundations of Modern Physical Science, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass. 1965, chapters 16–20.Google Scholar

^{page 285 note 1} Whatever is correct about this discussion is due to Karl, Popper'sConjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, Harper and Row, New York, 1963.Google Scholar

^{page 285 note 2} Guillemin, , Op. cit., p. 259, italics mine.Google Scholar

^{page 286 note 1} Miller, , Op. cit., p. 64.Google Scholar

^{page 287 note 1} Miller, , op. cit., p. 51.Google Scholar