By: Hector Plasmic To: Roger Hunter AS fundamental significance. Through conscioius beings

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

By: Hector Plasmic To: Roger Hunter AS>> fundamental significance. Through conscioius beings the universe has AS>> generated self-awareness. THIS CAN BE NO TRIVIAL DETAIL, NO MINOR AS>> BYPRODUCT OF MINDLESS, PURPOSELESS FORCES. WE ARE TRULY MEANT TO BE AS>> HERE." The conclusion and climax of the book, page 232. RH> Perhaps you can explain the logic in the above? It sounds like simple RH> egotism to me. Al's quoting Davies' summary in which he gives his personal opinion on the matter. (In that last paragraph, Davies first tells you what "I cannot believe" and then goes on to tell you what he does believe. Scientists are allowed their opinions, too.) Al attempts to disguise that fact, and it is that misrepresentation that leads to your question above. RH> If the fundamental constants of the universe are exactly what they RH> must be to permit us to exist, that still does not prove design, RH> because if they were anything else, we would not be here to worry RH> about it. Davies is aware of that, and states openly that "such a conclusion can, of course, only be subjective." Al just doesn't want you to think about that part of it, or to realize that Davies knows and acknowledges it, because _Al himself will not._ It's an old fundy trick, and only fundies actually fall for it. For example, one Billy Wolff came into the echo quoting a piece of Sagan's _Cosmos_ out of context, trying to make Sagan sound like he was claiming that the fossil record was evidence of a "designer." But, when the entire text was reviewed, it quickly became obvious that Carl was saying anything but that. Similarly, when you read all of _The Mind of God_ you discover that Davies is saying that _we don't know and probably can't know_ the "ultimate explanation" (the 'why' of the universe) as the very question is inaccessible to "the very rules of reasoning that prompt us to seek such an explanation in the first place." In other words, Al's trying to argue from ignorance again. Al runs "I don't know" through his religious filtering, and it comes out "I know."

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank