williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402) (09/12/84)
> Omnipotence does imply omniscience but the determination of > either is beyond the abilities of one who lacks both: consider > the problem of time and evidence: how are we to say that an > omnipotent being did not create us exactly 5 minutes ago, > including this message? including the geological evidence? > including our memories? Yes Virginia, there is the unknowable > (as opposed to the unknown). > Rick This deals with the principle of uncertainty. The underlying consistency of reality points to some things having more validity than others. To say that it is possible that the earth and universe was created by GOD or any other omnipotent being within a foreshortened time scale is in fact misleading. We have to assume that the laws of physics hold some form of consistency throughout time. The underlying laws of evolution also must hold consistency. What this means is that the evidence we find serves to enforce our theories, and if it doesn't, we must change our theories in order to maintain the truth. A million different religions could formulate a million different times the universe was fabricated, and all of them would be inconsistent. Scientists, on the other hand, all agree to some measure of resolution on the time of origin, namely, the BIG BANG. Popular opinion has historically been wrong on many occasions. Great men have been tortured and executed for believing that the universe was not centered around MAN. Can you imagine a communications satellite revolving around a flat earth? Creationists are an example of self righteousness in action. They are unwilling to accept reality and justify this in their own minds by assigning evil symbols to anything contrary to their own meager opinions. I do not believe this is what god intended. This discussion seems to be taking on somewhat of a religious flavor to it, which was not my intention. I will say something about it that I feel is important, however. Religious leaders and clergy earn (?) their living in this manner. I feel that to an extent, they perform valuable work, but their unwillingness to cooperate with science is a very dangerous situation. They are alienating themselves from the community by presenting unrealistic views. This has the potential for one or the other to eventually win out. THIS TIME IT COULD BE SCIENCE! I feel that science without some form of divine direction is inherently catastrophic. If it is true that these religious sects will hold to their face value acceptance of the Bible, then it is entirely possible that they have correctly prophesized the end of the world after all forms of religion have become extinct. This something which I call self prophesy, the belief in a certain outcome so strong that it is actually willed to happen. It is clear that religion is becoming less able to control the truth. My suggestion is that religion adapt as an alternative to becoming extinct. There is no afterlife for a dead race. The Bible is full of meaning, rich with metaphor, and can serve as a valid source of inspiration, ( much like star wars ), but in the wrong hands, it becomes a means of exploiting the ignorant. With the media available to us, ignorance is becoming a historical reference rather than a present fact. The need for divine direction is clear, the alterative being mutual self annihilation, but it would be better if the religious leaders would simply admit their sins and change to accommodate reality. The closest I've seen is Unitarian, but it is still in it's early stages of development. They appear willing to let go of ancient ideals documented over centuries by exaggerative fanatics. The amount of culture that has been developed by religion has been crucial to the survival of the human species as a whole, and it seems a waste to simply throw the whole thing away on technicalities, but the basic differences are there, and they can not be ignored. If the universe is inherently alive, is it not possible that we were meant to make it even more so? Is providing a barrier of isolation between religion and reality really the way in which salvation is achieved? I can not accept this. Does this mean I have no common ground with any else regarding spiritual matters? Are rape and plunder simply alternative lifestyles? Where is the GOOD in this? I am a scientist. This does not mean I believe only what I see, it means that what I believe has to agree with what I see. We are the eyes of the universe, we have the potential for becoming the mind of the universe. The problems and conflicts we face together as a species are complex, but resolvable. I refuse to take the stance that the world will end in self destruction, for I consider this a negligence of responsibilities for the welfare of mankind. And furthermore, I refuse to support in any way any such claims that might allow us to create our own destruction. This fatalistic attitude is in direct contradiction to what is necessary for us to survive beyond this little planet. There is no return except in death. Our direction is clear, but we don't have forever. We have to get off this stinking planet. Passive acceptance of death is death itself. I am now imagining the influx of mail reminding me that this is indeed net.philosophy and not net.religion, but I felt that it was an important statement to make and possibly for other philosophers might help clarify the conflict that exists between science and religion. Is it possible that both are extremes? It appears that one is full of intention without method, and the other is full of method without intention. The ultimate objective is, of course, to survive. Lest I threaten anyone's livelihood, the changes, if they occur, will come from more than just one man. Hopefully this will give the clergy sufficient time to change careers. By invalidating evidence, they only turn the whole thing into a farce. People will recognize this. Sooner or later. Decisively. < in the mud slinging contest, we all get splattered > ----{ john williams }---- (DEC E-NET) KIRK::WILLIAMS (UUCP) {decvax, ucbvax, allegra}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-kirk!williams (ARPA) williams%kirk.DEC@decwrl.ARPA williams%kirk.DEC@Purdue-Merlin.ARPA