In response to Trav's link to Paul Davies [24/05 7:38:11 pm.]

Part 1
Davies seems to be obsessed with and by a question that asks WHY but finds no immediate answer available to him.........therefore we should seek or assume a spiritual source.

He writes; "Over the years I have often asked my physicist colleagues why the laws of physics are what they are. The answers vary from “that’s not a scientific question” to “nobody knows.” The favorite reply is, “There is no reason they are what they are — they just are.” The idea that the laws exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational." And here he is referring to the laws of nature/physics.

He ignores the very reasonable position that man-made laws require not only a reason for their existence, but require a law-maker as well. The laws of physics are in a different category if only because no reason or author has been established.

We have the obligation to adhere to rational paradigms as Davies admonishes us. Therefore we must ask ourselves;

[a] In order that science advances, and in strict adherence to the scientific method, are we obliged to ask WHY the laws of physics are what they are?

[b] Do we have a good scientific reason to question whether there might be a reason and an author?

If we take reasoning to the utmost we ultimatey conclude that something beyond and not of existence as we know it is author and law-maker. And this, given our current state of erudition, is a deliberative absurdity no less absurd than Bobby Henderson's Flying Spaghetti Monster in the religion of Pastafarianism.

Our ability to answer cogently depends to a large extent on our current knowledge and the degree of confidence we entertain in gaining future knowledge

Part 2
We ask ourselves; "What is it that causes the laws of physics to be as they are in a Universe that is as it is?
Here it seems to me that we are asking the same question. The Universe is an outward manifestation, an expression, of the laws of physics. We may with equal legitimacy ask; "Why is there something and not nothing?" And propose that it is the laws of physics that make it so, otherwise there would be no such laws. It can be proposed that the laws of physics are given expression, are manifested by our Universe, our existence, our recognition that cosmos exists. Perhaps our abilities to reason are like our Universe, unbounded but finite and this finity leads to a kind of circularity at the perceived "end" of our reasoning.

We can consternate others and sometimes reduce them to a confused silence with such confronting questions and observations. Then again, if the best intellects in the physical sciences can find no satisfactory explanation it may profit us more in the long run to be patient with our intellectual strivings in the sciences, the better to be able to recognise a stage in our aquisition of knowledge when there is a prospect of finding an answer.

Part 3
The entire thesis from Davies is predicated upon an impatience with his beloved science in not having an answer. Taken in conjunction with his being awarded the Templeton Prize in 1995, it is not so difficult to realise that Davies is not the iconic legendary atheist as posited by Trav, but much more likely a deist with a formidable intellect and an agendum like Trav that square pegs in round holes is the natural order of the Universe.

It should come as no surprise to the atheist and the scientist that it is the theological barbarians who would beseige science to gain the imprimatur and legitimacy they yearn for from that great body of hard-earned knowledge and like parasites pick at its flesh. Science, in fact, eschews such iniquitous intentions and on a sea of troubles and vices sails majestically, inexorably on wherever the wind takes it, steering a line as logic and reason directs.

I should say I have immense respect for Davies and his writings and find much that is intellectually tittilating in his thinking.

Dear Dan,

According to a friend with a Masters in Theology, who researched this very topic for his thesis, the instances you refer are mnemonics(aid memory for story telling, here), not poetry:. The "log in the eye" is another. Think of the exaggerated illustrations in Mad magazine and you would closer to the truth. The idea is to create a memorable visualisation.

Those OT/NT writers, who state the earth is flat, were just plain old fashioned wrong, not playing literary games with a theme.

Hi Vanna,

Not "why", rather "how". Life is a conduit for genes, which fall through time, while hosts navigate obstacles. That's it.

Directed purpose, probably is a localised socio mind-body issue for species, with high cognitive functions, rather than the larger matter of life itself, as a product of ID. We're just one incidental one page, in one book on one shelf in the largest library there is, the universe.

Must fly...

Thanks Oliver, it's been enjoyable - sort of :)

Oliver,
Of those OT/NT writers, who state the earth is flat, you haven’t even mentioned who they are.

There aren’t any.

I suggest you use your time away to go and read the Bible to find out what’s really in it.

Pericles,
You say ID has never been alive. Well, it is here on OLO. I’ve never seen such a lively thread.

But you’re right in saying that talking about something doesn’t make it real.

It’s difficult to argue the scientific complexities here, as this is not a scientific forum, and I’m not a scientist. But I’ve done enough reading to be able to challenge the Zimmerman article. It was very one eyed.

So is ID alive or dead? It’s not really a matter of what certain authorities sitting in ivory towers say. Change often comes from a grass roots movement, and ID is still young.

In biology, something is not dead if it is growing and / or reproducing. In the ID movement, are their numbers growing? Judging by the current angst against ID proponents, they must be ruffling some feathers somewhere.

Bugsy quite impressed me because his post seemed to indicate that he’d actually done some reading on the issue and put some thought into what he said.

One flaw in what Bugsy was saying is that he says ID is dead within the scientific community, before listing the names of certain scientists that are currently working in that area. So ID is dead except among those who are working on it. It’s like saying all fire engines are red except for those which are a different colour.