Mike Halmarack wrote:

I can't of course tell you *why* it works..why the world happens to be
the way it happens to be, though.

Excuse me for not previously making it clear that I also meant *why*.


But 'why' is such a HUMAN word.

Yes, I'll go along with that.

It
already implies design, and purpose..the moment we ASK the question WHY
is the world the way it is, we already IMPLY the existence of a God like
being with Manlike purpose who made it that way...there is indeed the
trap of false logic that leads to God.

Asking why means that I believe in a false god. Nice one! :-)

Yes. It does. Deal a pack of cards. They fall in a particular order. The
chances of them falling in that order are astronomically small. You maye
never ever deal the same hand again in a lifetime of card playing.

Why did they fall that way? Just the luck of the draw.

The had to fall SOME way though.



The world is the way it is because it has to be some way or it wouldn't
be a world, and presumably its the way it is because if it wasn't, it
wouldn't be.

Verging on de Selby-esqe but OK.

If being dismissive and waving your scientist badge didn't work and
you had to come up with the goods you'd resort to quoting from
publications and documents that you don't fully understand.
I have made it a point to try and fully understand everything I have
ever come across that is relevant to what I need to do. Especially
religion and philosophy and science.

So have religious fanatics.


No, they don;t understand in the same way. They start with a
presupposition which is is never questioned, and reduce everything to
that ..

Science, at its most basic level, accepts its presuppositions as ad hoc,
and temporary, and necessary for the purposes of doing science. In the
limit, it does not adduce to them the properties of absolute truth however.


Nothing in science precludes the idea of *A* god, but an awful lot of it
definitely counter-indicates the existence of *THE CHRISTIAN GOD*.

Particularly the one that the literal Christians believe in, who made
the world 5000 years ago in 7 days.

So of all the gods that don't exist, that one doesn't exist most?

Its not a question of whether God exists or not. That is ultimately
(unless you come up with a physically testable proposition as to what
you mean by God - a limited and very bounded definition - not almighty
etc) an undecidable proposition.

What is at issue if you want to appraich God froma scientific
perspective is

- is it a necessary entity to introduce (it isn't)
- does it lead to any better understanding of science, and new models
that can be tested for invalidity (it doesn't).

The fundamentalists god who did the creation bit and managed to stuff
the entire land born ecosystem onto a 300 foot long wooden ark, is
basically a proposition that is bounded enough to be completely refuted
by any science that *does not include the ability to create and change
the laws of nature as we know them to be these days, at some
indeterminate point in the past*.

At that pint you pays yer money and you takes yer choice. Either the
laws of nature can be broken at will and in totally random fashion by a
whimsical god, or they can't be. Scientists shrug and move on
quickly..there is very little point in doing science if a quick prayer
and a miracle invalidates it all. However when dealing with the world,
we have made better progress in many areas by ruthless application of
logic to the presumed immutable natural laws, than by prayer. I've
prayed many times that weeds would vanish from my garden, but somehow
its easier and more effective to pull them up.


Documents
that will leave a lot of questions unanswered because human knowledge
doesn't extend far enough to fill in the blanks. You will accept the
validity of the contents of the documents as a matter of faith because
you are a scientist.
No, *I* won't. Fortuntately, unlike Religion of the Deocentric sort,
Science has a philosophy behind it which is actively pursued and
developed by people whose main purpose is to prevent science from
becoming an act of blind faith. Now faith in the existence of the world
as a valid concept is of course necessary for the pursuit of science,
and faith in the evidence of ones own experience also. In fact Science
is merely the logical examination of that experience insofar as it is
agreed upon by enough people to become reliable. That is all. Science
merely notes at the philosophical level that there is no *need* to
introduce an *anthropic* Power into the philosophical mix, in order to
explain our experience of the world.
And it does not rely on bad logic, or emotional arguments either.

My argument isn't against science, because I have neither the time
inclination or ability to develop, sustain and conclude such an
argument. My argument is against people who use science as a religion
to protect and advance their own interests.

Fair enough. There are plenty of hucksters hiding behind science as
there are plenty hiding behind religion.

However that is not what cutting edge science, and particularly the
philosophy of science is all about.



How does that make you different from some
adherent to a faith based religion?
If it were true, it would not. However it is patently not true.

I hold that it's true, based on rational observation and you haven't
convinced me otherwise.


And I never will, since you have predicated your conclusions on an
assumption that you simply refuse to allow to be challenged.

It is a complete mistake that nearly all Christians make, about science.

Lacking intellectual capacity, they find it inconceivable - literally -
that anyone can see the world through the cold and crystal clear eyes of
logic. They cannot accept that there is no Daddy, that nothing matters a
twopenny **** in any cosmological sense, and that whether they live or
die, sinner or saint, is of absolutely no concern to anyone who is not
directly or indirectly affected by their actions.

Its called emotional immaturity..

You're just a full of **** defective human being like the rest of us.
Come out from behind that badge.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that other people are just like you,
or even remotely like you. You have NO idea how far down other roads it
is possible for a man to go.

So you can make assumptive claims about what is and is not, based upon
your experience and interpretation of reality but caution me against
doing so myself. That makes scientists like yourself a special case,
which is the central problem that I was attempting to draw attention
to.


I am merely saying that a ruthless intellectual honesty is the way
science at its core tries to behave. You have clearly stated that this
is not so, that it is a faith based religion like any other. I have
merely stated that for you to say that, implies to me a certain
intellectual and probably emotional immaturity.

In that it was something I myself, with a struggle, grew out of.

You can't explain sex to a 2 year old adequately..you can't explain
colour to a blind man...you can't explain ruthless intellectual honesty
and philosophy to a Believer.


Either you are after the truth, or you are after an all encompassing
explanation. If you set out to travel to Cork, its no use ME pointing
out the way to Dublin...and explaining why its a better place to go..

YOU are asking *why*..I say its a stupid childish question, and has no
actual meaning. If you make that question all important, you either end
up with a bull**** answer like 'God Wills it' , a silly answer like
'becuase' or with luck, a clip round the earhole from Life, and a
realization that the actual answer is in why on earth you wanted to ask
such a damn fol question in the first place.

YOU need a guru who will pester you with questions like 'what is the
sound of one hand clapping' until you punch him on the nose for giving
you the most important answer in life - that no one actually knows
anything for sure, and looking for absolute answers is a waste of your
time and his.

But you won't go seeking one...the one overriding impression I have had
from all deeply faithful people, is that they have relaxed, stopped
trying, and accepted an Answer to many questions that I still ask,
because the Answer is no answer at all at an intellectual level. Its
merely a way to stop them asking the questions and get on with dong
something more useful.

You have to get out beyond all this religious stuff.."when I became a
man, I put away childish things"..public consumption religion is dumbed
down ****e for intellectual dwarves. Grow up, and start getting to grips
with the REAL mysteries, not simply accept a fairy story and shuffle
through life hoping for something good to happen after death.

Better still study almost any OTHER religion that
Islam/Christianity..they are the dumbest of the lot. Judaism Lite, for
weenies and barbarians.. Even the mystical side of Judaism
(Torah/q'balah) is far more profitable.

But I'd rate Taoism and Buddhism as the most modern, frankly, in their
purest form. They at least take an experimental and sort of scientific
approach to spirituality..