On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, J. R. Molloy wrote:
> From: "scerir" <email@example.com>
> > P.C.W. Davies asked: "At one time people used to believe
> > that God explained the universe. It seems now that these laws
> > of physics are almost playing the role of God - that they're
> > omnipotent and omniscent".
> Genetic algorithms + Organic chemistry + Darwinian evolution = G.O.D.
Careful...the great god Asimov is a jealous god. Try to imagine an Asimov
surveying all that is, having finally attained the omniscience he sought
in the name of the religion of Scientism:
"I have faith and belief myself. I believe that the universe is
comprehensible within the bounds of natural law and that the human brain
can discover those natural laws and comprehend the universe. I have not
evidence for this. IT IS SIMPLY WHAT I HAVE FAITH IN AND WHAT I BELIEVE".
(Counting the Eons, p. 10)
Does the Asimov statement make sense? In the final analysis, does it
require a leap of faith to accept that science will yield the answers
humankind has traditionally sought from what it has called religion,
thereby making Scientism a new religion?
And how about "Robocatechism", a little of which you can find in "I,
Robot" re the rogue robot who has apparently become a follower of
Mohammed? Perhaps the religion of Scientism-Extropianism can program a bot
to handle all this in the future. When the smoke goes up the chimney at
the Holy City of Extropianism (established by faith-based grants) will we
see Pope Robopious I in all his glory?
> > R. P. Feynman said: "On the contrary. God was always invented
> > to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things
> > that you do not understand. Now when you finally discover how
> > something works, you get some laws which you're taking away
> > from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the
> > other mysteries ... God is always associated with those things
> > that you do not understand. Therefore I don't think the laws can be
> > considered to be like God because they have been figured out."
> This "God" could impersonate the Inexplicable Supreme Fascist...
> > [P.C.W. Davies and J. Brown,
> > Superstrings: A Theory of Everything?
> > Cambridge U.P., 1988, page 208.]
> Hooray for Superstrings. Every orchestra should have 'em.
> > I like The Unexplained.
> Me too. It ain't science, but it ain't religiosity either.
> Stay hungry,
> --J. R.
> Useless hypotheses, etc.:
> consciousness, phlogiston, philosophy, vitalism, mind, free will, qualia,
> analog computing, cultural relativism, GAC, CYC, and ELIZA
> Everything that can happen has already happened, not just once,
> but an infinite number of times, and will continue to do so forever.
> (Everything that can happen = more than anyone can imagine.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:48 MDT