--- In [email protected], "delia555" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Judy wrote: > >> >> the question is, *why* is the universe > >> >> apparently orderly? Religionists say, > >> >> "That's just how God designed it." > >> >> Science says, "That's just how it is." > > "Religionists"?? No, that's just monotheists. > Let's not confuse monotheism with all religion.
Tell ya what, why don't we just substitute the term "Divinity" as a generic and say it refers to mono-, poly-, pan-, and all the various -theisms? (We could use "God" the same way, of course, but I understand that it makes you feel excluded.) <snip> [I wrote:] > >> "Just how it is" and "Just how God designed it" > >> are synonymous, when you think about it: how it > >> is is how God designed it; how God designed it > >> is how it is. There's no information content in > >> either statement. > > You could say that from *one* perspective -- > namely, the perspective of science -- those > two statements are similar (not identical) > in that either answer takes the question out > of the realm of science. In that way, both > make it clear that the question has now become > irrelevant to science. Yes, that's the perspective of Davies's piece. That's what I was referring to, don'cha know. <snip> > The difference between cosmology by accident > versus cosmology by intelligent design is > obviously similar. It would make a huge > difference to most people. The only sense in > which it makes no difference is that either > possibility removes the question from the > proper domain of science. (Something that > more scientists need to realize; as they are > all too prone to invade the turf of religion.) Exactly Davies's point. <snip> > But from any other viewpoint -- say, that > of philosophy or religion or psychology -- > there is obviously a *huge* difference > between a universe that happened by accident, > or by some unknown physical causation, or > by the conscious intent of a divine creator, > or by the unconscious actions of a deity, or > by some other metaphysical mode of causation. Um, yes, obviously so. But that isn't the perspective we were examining; we were examining *Davies's* perspective. <snip> > The area of quantum mechanics is also the > area that is most interesting to me personally; > because that is what destroyed the idea and > even the possibility of a deterministic universe. > (Unless one buys into some "alternative" > QM theories that are not very plausible.) > > That leaves room not only for free will to > enter into the physical universe, via our > own brains; but it also leaves room for > divine will to "spin the dice" as it were, > and thus can explain how the Gods can be > active causative agents in what Nature does. > And finally, it also leaves room for the > God behaving playfully and capriciously, > and enjoying a good dice game once in a while. > > All of that, in my view, makes for a much > more appealing metaphysical vision of reality > than the dreary old materialist determinism > or the equally dreary old biblical monotheism. You should be very much interested in pursuing Davies's work, then because this--unless I'm very much mistaken--is precisely the direction he wants to take (not necessarily including personalized divinities, but there might be some kind of accommodation possible in that area). And he's a quantum physicist as well as a cosmologist, so he'd be pretty reliable in terms of the requirements for rigorously reconciling the micro with the macro.
