From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sun Apr 10 2005 - 17:20:41 BST
MSH writes:
> Hear's the deal. No one knows if the laws of physics apply in every
> corner of the universe. Scientists assume they do in order to land
> spacecraft on distant moons. The fact they are able to land
> spacecraft on distant moons is, in turn, very strong evidence of the
> validity of their principles. If making these assumptions resulted
> in constant failure, the assumptions would quickly be changed. This
> is what is meant by the pragmatic acceptance of scientific
> principles.
>
> Is one's belief in God or Heaven arrived at in the same manner? Are
> such beliefs altered, or dropped, in light of contradictory
> evidence?
> platt:
> Your assumption is that the physical world is the entire world and
> that no evidence is permitted other than the materially measurable.
> msh says:
> Anyone who is able to actually register what I say knows that I make
> no such assumption. I've written about my knowledge of reality's non-
> physical aspects numerous times.
Anyone who reads your first paragraph above about scientists landing
spacecraft on moons giving "very strong evidence for the validity of their
principles" would reasonably conclude that your objection to principles
based on religious faith is precisely their lack of such physical
evidence. To expect one to review your entire body of writings to unearth
a contrary view is asking a bit much don't you think?
> platt:
> You are an acolyte in the faith-based religion called scientism.
> msh says:
> Since our argument involves the question of whether or not science is
> faith-based, your comment, as usual, does nothing more than assume your
> conclusion.
Perhaps so. But, I've yet to find convincing "evidence" to conclude
otherwise.
> platt:
> If anything, secular demonization of religious belief is fear-based
> and fear-driven by those who desperately wish to claim the moral
> high ground for themselves.
> < snip some name calling and off-point distractions re how some
> governments, for reasons of prower, not religion, brutalize large
> portions of their citizenry...>
Well, you brought up the notion that religious beliefs are fear-based and fear-
driven in response to Ham's question about the belief systems.
So it's not off point at all. It goes to the question of motive. Do you doubt that
dictators brutalize large portions of thier citizenry in the name of
morality?
> platt:
> Finally, given science's faith in the principle that the whole
> universe arose from nothing, resurrection seems infinitely
> reasonable.
> msh says:
> Please name a scientist who has expressed his or her faith in this
> principle. A verifiable quote in context would be nice.
> "Well, I didn't promise to provide the answers to life, the universe,
> and everything, but I have at least given a plausible answer to the
> question I started out with: What happened before the big bang? The
> answer is: Nothing." - Paul Davies, physicist, "What Happened Before
> the Big Bang."
> msh:
> This is your idea of a quote in context? Anyone who actually reads
> Davies' essay will see that one of his his arguments, based on
> quantum physics and cosmology, is that there is nothing unscientific
> about the idea that the universe arose from nothing. He writes:
> "Even if we don't have a precise idea of exactly what took place at
> the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe
> from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific. In
> short, it need not have been a supernatural event."
> Since Davies' belief stems from his understanding of physics, and is
> supported by math, logical argument, and evidence, it is not a faith- based
> belief. Here's a link, for anyone who wants to read more than a quote out
> of context.
> http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html
If you read the entire article you'll notice the explanation Davies offers
depends on events which are "emergent," "spontaneous, "uncaused,"and
"uncertain" which is tantamount to saying, "We don't know." He even admits
that the whole idea of a Big Bang depends on the "loophole" provided by
quantum physics. All this he calls "scientific." I, like DMB's old friend,
Ken Wilber, call it "oops," i.e., a leap of faith just like the leap
taken by religious believers.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 10 2005 - 18:16:16 BST