The problem centers around
the fact that experiments and hypothesis are, in science, dynamically
altered in relation to one another and the paradigm. I might
argue that a "ghost" which each of us can see but no insturment
can detect or record is a "dream" or your "imagination".
QED, right? But then you will say "not fair: when I said 'ghost'
I meant..." and follow with a list of qualifications. Since the
definition of "ghost" is (and always will be) in flux you have
an out of redefining the target. This is more difficult to do
with physical phenomena...which is why there are such advances
in physical sciences. But ephemera and philosophical entities
like God, love, happiness, peace, soul etc. take up a lot of
significance in our minds...and the meaning of these words is
highly fluxional.
>>Who cares? I'm not playing games. Perhaps I should rephrase the
>>question:
>>
>>To what end? For what purpose? Why?
>
>Are you going to ask why to every purpose until we arrive at
>some core values that are their own respective reason?
Do you know of an alternative?
[Hints at the purpose of CoV:]
>- - to promote critical thinking
>- - to see if it is possible to base a religion on memetics
>- - to have conversations with people around the world
>- - to collaborate on a piece of conceptual art
>- - to help create an interesting future
>- - to convince the world that everyone can be a scientist and an artist
>- - to experiment with memes and meme-propagation
>- - to send our fave memes and genes off world to ensure long term survival
Which of these is in conflict with faith?
Reed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------