On 20 Nov 95 18:40:18 EST you wrote:
>S Jones writes:
SJ>One wonders why divine "intelligent causation" is "ruled out",
>considering it is the majority view of everyone else but scientists!
JWB>Reasonable question, of course. But not if "science" is a "game."
>Players in a game of monopoly "know" that there is a real world outside
>the playing board, but they never let their tokens leave the board!
If scientists openly acknowledged that "science is a game", then
perhaps there would be no problem with "intelligent causation" being
"ruled out". Indeed why could there not be another "game" where
"intelligent causation" is *not* "ruled out"?
The fact is that the "game" of science is played with deadly
seriousness, and the taxpayers funds of those who don't subscribe to
its rules are expropriated to help pay for the "game". The players of
the "game" ensure that no other "game" can get started and
pronouncements are regularly made by the key players about the
legitimacy of other "games".
JWB>Anyway, why must "majority opinion" have anything to do with it?
>A majority of mericans (probably) read and "believe in" their
>daily horoscopes; should a scientist also follow?
This now seems to switch beyond the "science is a game" to "science is
true"? Which is it? :-)
JWB>For all I know, a majority of scientists may believe in
>divine causation, but "belief" is not part of the game they play.
Again, this is probably OK in 99% of science that is concerned with
the ongoing *operation* of the universe. But in that 1% that is to do
with the *origin* of things, the rules of the "game" are too
restrictive, in that they rule out the biggest Player of all!
God bless.
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------