From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Tue Apr 12 2005 - 15:23:19 BST
Hi Platt,
On 10 Apr 2005 at 22:38, Platt Holden wrote:
msh said:
It goes to the question of motive? Do I have to come over there and
hide your TV clicker?
platt:
Do I have to bear the brunt of your non-sequitors?
msh says:
Sorry. I guess I was being too subtle. I meant you're watching too
much television, especially of the Dick Wolfe variety, you know
CourtTV, Law and Order.
msh:
Dictators (as well as plutocrats like Bush and company) often act
in the NAME of morality, but the real reason is fear of losing their
power. But what does the behavior of dictators have to do with the
assumptions made by scientists? This conversation is becoming quite
surreal, not that there's anything wrong with that...
platt:
Your assigned fear as the motive for religious faith and thus found
religious faith useless. I'm merely pointing out that it's fear of
those who profess religious faith that motivates godless dictators to
assume moral superiority, at the point of a gun, and that it was your
"useless" religious faith that has helped to bring them down. In
other words, religious assumptions can be as "pragmatic" as
scientific ones, for nations as well as individuals.
msh says:
This is actually a tenable counter-argument. I'm impressed.
However, unless you are claiming that people choose to believe in God
in order to bring down brutal dictators, and other such pragmatic
reasons, you're still off-point. How many religious people would say
they believe in God for reasons like this? I'm not claiming that
faith-based beliefs never contribute to practical outcomes, only that
people don't make the leap of fath for practical reasons.
msh says:
Who doesn't know? Maybe you don't know, but Davies quite clearly
DOES understand the nature of such events.
And he presents scientific evidence for his belief, including data
and mathematics that can be evaluated by others. So, whether he's
right or wrong, his belief rests on logical proof and material
evidence.
platt:
To say something happens "spontaneously" is hardly logical proof
based on material evidence.
msh says:
The concepts of spontaneity and uncertainty are mathematically
derived and can be empirically verified. If you can't see that this
is different from a fath-based understanding then I guess we're just
gonna have to let it go.
Thanks,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com "The shadows that a swinging lamp will throw, We come from nowhere and to nothing go." 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 : Tue Apr 12 2005 - 16:05:09 BST