Re: virus: RE: Future of Man
James T. Martin (martinj@theriver.com)
Sun, 7 Apr 1996 20:41:59 -0700
At 04:52 PM 4/6/96 +0500, you wrote:
>At 06:25 PM 3/29/96 -0600, John A wrote:
>
>>I do not believe that god is a spritual entity. When I use the term
>>"god", I mean it in the most abstract way. I believe that humans can
>>understand the workings of god just as we understand chemical processes
>>and laws of physics.(Which I ultimately would describe as the "god" of
>>the universe) What I acknowledge as "god" is completely different than
>>that of any spiritual or religious viewpoint that I am aware of. God is
>>the ultimate statement or Theory of Everything that encompasses all
>>physical goings on. If no such theory is possible, (what do you think?)
>>then no god exists, at least by my definition.
>
>I like this, but prefer something a little more minimalist (which also
>eliminates the concern you expressed about there being no god if no Theory
>of Everything is possible):
>
>god is the source of all natural phenomena
>
>This definition is from Dr. A. J. Galambos, Free Enterprise Institute, and
>its simplicity appeals to me greatly. I'd be interested to hear what others
>think of it.
>
>James Martin refered you to the philosophy of "The Way" (that can not be
>described) or the Tao of ancient Chinese philosophy. I learned back in
>symbolic logic that "if P and -P, then Q." That is, if you have two
>contradictory propositions, then you can prove any other proposition. I've
>always felt that eastern philosophies can be used to prove anything for
>exactly this reason. We have a proliferation of people claiming that
>ancient eastern philosophies had a deep understanding of the world (at least
>that's what's presented to westerners in books like Capra's "The Tao of
>Physics," and others of that ilk). I'm skeptical.
>
>Dan
>
>
Dan M.,
Absolutely, we should all be skeptical, that's partly the reason we're in
this forum. But, like another response to your well taken comments, I'd
have to say that all religions and most philosophies do not fare well under
strict logical analysis. That is not the realm of these human endeavours; to
be absolutely logical. A solid philosophy of science would be an
understandable exception. The Tao (the philosophy) certainly does not try
to "prove" anything. It is a "nature" philosophy that fits really well into
the human experience. After all, what we all really see and experience is
"nature". Like nature - it has few absolutes and it's nature is to evolve.
Like the Greeks - the ancients were capable of seeing the world as
consisting of ever smaller particles. No person seriously proposes (with the
possible exception of Capra) that they could understand Atomic Physics as it
is known today. Interesting that I have heard recently, that scientists are
now beginning to ponder the constituents of our "smallest" particles.
------------------------------------------------------------
|| Come ride The River ------- http://www.theriver.com/ ||
------------------------------------------------------------