NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/callahan/13668

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-16 | 2.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!news.claremont.edu!nntp-server.caltech.edu!SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU!LYDICK
From: [e-mail] (Speaker-to-Minerals)
Newsgroups: alt.callahans
Subject: Re: Science and god:  Are they incompatible?  If so, why?
Date: 16 Nov 1992 15:35:58 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Lines: 33
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>,<[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Paul Echeverri) writes:
="Speaker, you're letting your Kzin blood get the better of you...we seem to
=have a semantics mixup here (my specialty ;).  A scientist has a model; those
=are the 'rules of the universe' as sie conceives them.  They may of course be
=updated; that's only sensible. Essentially, what I believe Randolph meant was
='Scientists constantly change their [conception (tacitly implied)] of the rules
=for [of is probably a better choice] the universe.  As for the rules being
=immutable, see below...I'm firmly on the fence there.
="Randolph, would you agree that's basically what you meant?"
="Speaker, would you agree that if that is what Randolph meant, this particular
=disagreement you have with him would'nt apply?"

If that's what he meant, I'd agree.  However, given the rest of his statement,
I find it difficult to believe that's what he meant.  Remember, the full text
of the question to which I was responding was ""Scientists constantly change
their rules for the universe--why shouldn't god?"  That question makes sense
only if the phrase "rules for the universe" means the same thing when you're
talking about scientists' "rules for the universe" and god's "rules for the
universe."  I was pointing out that the phrase means two entirely different
things in those two applications.  The map is NOT the territory. (btw, I think
the phrase might be from Korzybsky).

=]there have been MANY claims both of paranormal abilities and miracles; neither
=]have held up under close scrutiny, to the best of my knowledge.
=
="Well, Speaker...some would say that 'faith' and 'vibes' do affect the matter;
=while that certainly makes proof hell, that's what the concept of faith is all
=about."

I know some would say that.  I pointed out in one of the paragraphs you deleted
that many DO say that.  I merely pointed out that if a god who works miracles
exists, then he seems to exhibit the shyness effect so beloved by paranormalists
as an explanation of why they can't do anything a stage magician couldn't.