Party of Citizens wrote:
> 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:
Please give your definition of "scientism". I don't consider
what I call by that term to be a religion per se. It is more of
an anti-religion. And this is both its attraction and its
> "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)
I don't believe that much is gained by grouping all beliefs that
cannot be validated by science under the term "religion". That
is unfair both to the varieties of such beliefs and to religion.
> 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?
As a great deal of the most important answers are not givens, we
will certainly not find them out there somewhere using science
or some other means. They must come from within us.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:48 MDT