Re: [ontolog-forum] Dennett on the Darwinism of Memes

[Pavithra <pavithra_kenjige@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Mathew West, Pay Hayes, Dr. Sowa and John Bottoms:

 

There are many things in the universe that are beyond humans or Scientists ability at present.

 

You can invent electricity and a light bulb and light a room, but you can not light the whole world without Sun.   

Considering the fact, that Sun is 92,960,000 miles away from earth, Sun controls life on earth, just like wind.   The fact that most grass does no grow without direct Sun rays is mind boggling.   It takes one small tree that cast the shadow above the grass, which stops the growth or life of that tiny grass. 

 

Scientists can use scientific reasoning to show the dependency, but can not recreate something that huge as Sun.  Such  huge natural  phenomenon is explained using  philosophy  because science, humans have not done it yet.   ( a capacity problem)!

 

In Hindu philosophy, there is soul (human or life on earth) and then there is Supersoul,  ( God represents the universe, Cosmos and natural forces of the universe).   It is referred as Athma and Paramathma in Sanskrit.   Soul is a minute representation of Supersoul.  That analogy explains the relationship between life on earth and God.

 

For example, Universe has wind, a natural force, humans have breath.  The moment, humans stop interacting with the universal wind and stop breathing, life cease to exist.   Wind is invisible, so is light.  But you can use sensory organs to feel it.  Even though you are born with eyes, without light you can not see a thing, it is as good as being blind.     Light has to fall on something for the eyes to see it. Light is as necessary as eyes for vision.   (In  Hindu Philosophy, so is the relationship between human and God)!

Science can prove life, and the necessary dependency on natural forces of the universe,     Science has not proven, that
-"God" reaches life thru universal forces, 
-or makes his presence felt as universal forces,  and you can use your sensory organs to sense such presence
-or "God" is natural forces.
 Scientists do not presume that.  Hindu Philosophy uses such analogy to prove or assume the presence of God.   Will scientists ever bridge that gap, and how is the big question??

 

We accept that electricity and bulbs are created by someone, (a narrow focus because we know it)  but we do not accept Sun is created by God or Sun is God ( It is unknown to us).   Scientists assume that it is there by itself?????  It is a natural existence.   Isn't that an assumption too??

Should we be questioning that too??

 

Thanks for reading,
Pavithra

 

---

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
To: Matthew West <dr.matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: [ontolog-forum] <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 9:53 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Dennett on the Darwinism of Memes

On Apr 25, 2013, at 3:47 AM, Matthew West wrote:

> Dear Pat,
>
>> The basic scientific argument against the existence of God is that there
> is
>> absolutely no observational evidence for the existence of a God, nor any
>> reason to hypothesise such an entity in order to explain anything that is
>> observable.
>> A very straightforward application of Occam's principle then
>> suffices. Of course this is not a *proof*, but it is a sound *scientific*
>> argument.
>
> MW: That is not a scientific argument. If it were, we should not have
> thought the Higgs Boson was a possibility until very recently, and we should
> not be talking about dark matter.

The HIggs boson was hypothesised for a very convincing reason: it was the only way, within the (highly) confirmed framework of current quantum particle physics, to explain why some particles have mass. If it had not been found, it would have been necessary to completely revise the entire framework of physics. Similarly, dark matter has been proposed to explain otherwise incomprehensible observations about the distribution of matter in spiral galaxies. The hypothesis of a God (indeed, of anything supernatural at all) is not analogous in the slightest. Such a hypothesis not only is not needed to explain anything; it would, if confirmed, require the entire apparatus of phsyical science to be abandoned.

>
> MW: All one can say scientifically is that the existence of God is a
> hypothesis that it is unlikely that we will ever be able to prove or
> disprove scientifically, because there is no experiment that we can conduct
> (or at least I cannot think of any) that would prove or disprove the
> hypothesis. (Of course you can always set up God hypothesises that you can
> disprove, but they are not generally ones the "faithful" actually believe
> in).

No, this makes the situation seem symmetrical. But scienve is not symmetrical in this way: one only has a burden to show something that is hypothesised in order to explain something else. God does not explain anything that cannot be explained better without using that hypothesis. Every attempt throughout history to offer an argument for the existence of God (eg to explain the cosmos, to explain life, to explain morality) has turned out to be wrong. Every one, without exception. I would say that this was pretty convincing argument, myself.

As for experiments, how about the recent empirical tests of the efficacy of prayer? (In sum: it has zero effect.)

>
>> Proofs are irrelevant here. There is no proof that the flying
>> spaghetti monster does not exist, but that does not shake the faith of the
>> true Pastafarian.
>
> MW: And that is the essence. It is a matter of faith, not science. So any
> scientific argument is irrelevant. Irritating though that may be to those
> who believe only in science.

The hypothesis of there being a god is a scientific hypthesis, no matter how much the faithful would like to protect it from the rigorous gaze of actual scientific practice.

Pat


>
> Regards
>
> Matthew West                           
> Information  Junction
> Tel: +44 1489 880185
> Mobile: +44 750 3385279
> Skype: dr.matthew.west
> matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
> https://sites.google.com/site/drmatthewwest/
> This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
> and Wales No. 6632177.
> Registered office: 8 Ennismore Close, Letchworth Garden City, Hertfordshire,
> SG6 2SU.
>
>
>>
>> Pat
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> IHMC                                    (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
>> 40 South Alcaniz St.          (850)202 4416  office
>> Pensacola                            (850)202 4440  fax
>> FL 32502                              (850)291 0667  mobile
>> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us      http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki:
>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
>> bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
>>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                    (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 
40 South Alcaniz St.          (850)202 4416  office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440  fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667  mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us      http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes






_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J    (01)