From: Mark Steven Heyman (MarkHeyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Wed Apr 27 2005 - 02:37:31 BST
On 26 Apr 2005 at 11:34, Platt Holden wrote:
"Dharma is Quality itself, the principle of 'rightness' which gives
structure and purpose to the evolution of all life and to the evolving
understanding of the universe which life has created." (Lila, 30)
msh says:
I see no mention here of a supernatural designer and creator. Do
you?
platt continues?
Pirsig's conclusion fits nicely with the view of physicist Paul Davies
regarding intelligent design::
"The universe looks as if it is unfolding according to some plan or
blueprint. The input is the cosmic initial conditions, and the output is
organized complexity, or depth. The essential feature is that something of
value emerges as the result of processing according to some ingenious pre-
existing rules. The rules look as if they are the product of intelligent
design. My own inclination is to suppose that qualities such as ingenuity,
economy, beauty and so on have a genuine transcendent reality -- they are
not merely the product of human experience -- and that these qualities are
reflected in the structure of the natural world."
msh says:
I think Davies is well aware of the difference between the appearance
of design, and the existence of a supernatural designer. What we
perceive to be design may very well be us looking at the back of our
own heads, as if we were to gaze long enough through a telescope
powerful enough to circumnavigate the curvature of space. (Didn't
RMP say something like this in ZMM?)
And isn't Davies the guy you were mocking a few posts ago, when I
pointed out that he clearly believes that the Big Bang requires no
supernatural explanation?
platt:
Principles, values, and plans all suggest that consciousness, not matter,
is foundational, a concept science is forbidden to accept because of its
blind faith in natural causes.
msh says:
Principles, values, plans, suggest no such thing. Some human beings
see that they themselves have principles, values, plans, and
consciousness, and therefore project these qualities onto the
universe. For some, this is just more comforting than saying "I
don't know." This is a very old story.
And exactly how is science "forbidden" to accept or reject any idea?
Michael Behe is a scientist, and his rendition of the design argument
is a logical argument backed by scientific evidence. But because it
has not held up to scientific investigation, it is making no headway
in scientific circles. No one has forbidden science to consider it;
and no one could even if they wanted to.
People with religious beliefs have a problem with science only when
they claim their beliefs have a scientific basis. I've never been
able to understand why it is they so desperately crave science's
stamp of approval, since they have so little respect for the
scientific method.
Best,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
--
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
"Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is everything." --
Henri Poincare'
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 27 2005 - 03:14:03 BST