Re: Patriarchy: Re: What Matriarchy?
Gerold Firl (geroldf@sdd.hp.com)
9 Aug 1996 23:55:51 GMT
In article <woody-0908961523090001@192.0.2.1>, woody@alumni.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) writes:
|> And who isn't to say that there isn't a God who planted the evidence
|> in order to test our faith? While I do not accept this answer, the
|> scientific paradigm rejects this answer not because it's not possible,
|> but because if this were true, then it would be impossible to explain
|> *anything* using science.
It's more than just that. If there was a god who created the universe a
split-second previous to now, and planted all our memories in our
heads, and fossils in the ground, and a 3 degrees K cosmic background
radiation in free space, rational people would continue living their
lives just as they do presently, using logic, hypothesis testing, and
the evidence of their senses to reach their best-guess conclusions.
God is going to have to come across with the punch line before the
cosmic-joke theory gets taken seriously. Until then, we'll just have to
make do with logic and intuition.
|> For example, I have seen scientists deny the existance of God or the
|> validity of any spiritual pursuit, because it couldn't be quantified
|> in scientific experimentation.
I prefer the retort of laplace, when asked by napolean how he could
have written _celestial mechanique_ without once mentioning God: "I had
no need of that hypothesis". Many scientists feel that way. It's not
that god can't be "quantified in scientific experimentation", it's just
that there is no evidence supporting the existance of god, and plenty
of evidence against it. Anthropology examines the enormous range of
spiritual systems invented by humans, and the most sophisticated
religious/spiritual systems are found to be the evolutionary outgrowth
of rudimentary misunderstandings about how the world works, coupled
with society-wide organizational/motivational techniques and even
disengeneous exploitation.
As you point out, there *could* be a god who set-up the whole thing
this way, for whatever reason, but until we find some evidence to
support such a view that hypothesis must remain an amusing mental
exercise, with no relation to our daily lives.
And one final note: people around here are way too ready to take
offense. It seems like plenty of the readers of these newsgroups
immediately assume the worst of people, often without making much of an
effort to understand what the other is saying. I find that it's much
more productive to assume that others are well-intentioned, and largely
share much the same goals and desires, and try to understand where they
are coming from using that perspective. There are viewpoints that
should be condemned, but we should be sure we understand what they are
before wading in with the flames.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Disclaimer claims dat de claims claimed in dis are de claims of meself,
me, and me alone, so sue us god. I won't tell Bill & Dave if you won't.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=---- Gerold Firl @ ..hplabs!hp-sdd!geroldf
|