Your response is an interesting mixture of reason and emotion. The reasoning part, I have heard many times before, but I shall respond to it anyway.
Science involves observing, measuring and predicting. But beyond this pure and objective exercise, it is also about understanding. Mathematics itself is more than about merely accounting. Geometry is more than measuring spans from a distance. And physics has always evoked in its most esteemed scientists a question of, as Einstein famously put it, knowing the mind of God. Astronomers routinely report a sense of awe and wonderment in their studies. Science is nothing if it does not improve our lives, not merely in the technology it spawns, but in addressing the vital questions about who we are, where we are going. Nor does science stand alone in addressing those issues, but must ally itself with the "soft" compartments of life as well. Science extends far beyond the laboratory. One cannot disconnect the institution of science from the other institutions of society. They are all interrelated. But the naturalist-materialist philosophy, which underlies the current practice of science, has led to a practice of science that not only portrays a dismal world view, but one which objectivity and reason does not justify. . It is that philosophy which I was referring to, not the ideals of science itself. It is that philosophy which, when confronted with the pervasive observations of consciousness and free will, dismisses them as either outside the boundaries of science, or else, the domain of people who have nothing important to do. Ignorant people, to be blunt. Excuse me for saying so, but I detect a bit of that institutional arrogance in writings such as yours. The standard model of physics is well known, by physicists, to contain some serious defects. Physicists are searching in earnest for a reconciliation. But they are hindered in that quest by a worldview that flies in the face of some of the most pervasive evidence we have concerning life, awareness, and the obviously ordered structure of reality. It is that worldview which I challenge. --------------------------------------------------------------------- On May 1, 3:41 pm, Georges Metanomski <[email protected]> wrote: > --- On Sat, 5/1/10, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: > > Few ideas are so readily ridiculed among materialist scientists > than the suggestion that the universe is intelligently designed > by a supreme being. > ============= > G: > > 1.There are no "materialist scientists" for the simple reason that > there ain't no such term as "matter" in science. > > 2.Science is entirely immanent, endeavors to create abstract models > coordinating experienced events and thus doesn't bother with any > transcendental, phantasmal "universes", whatever they may mean and > whether intelligently or stupidly designed or fucked up. > > 3."Being" is an illegitimate and meaningless inflection of the copula > "be". > > So nobody having a bit of sens would lose his time to ridicule a > mis-inflected copula supposed to design phantasmal "universes". > > Rather than ridiculed, it should be considered most seriously, > but only by loony doctors, as a particularly noxious delusion. > > Georges. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Epistemology" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
