Uncommon Descent Contest Question 2: Why does Earth’s unique situation for science discovery threaten many?

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 9, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

This is Contest Question 2 for the Uncommon Descent Earn free stuff contest:

“Iowa Professors Mobilize Against Measure on Teaching Alternatives to Evolution” by Peter Schmidt (February 26, 2009):

More than 200 faculty members at 20 Iowa colleges have signed a statement opposing a proposed state law that would give instructors at public colleges and schools a legal right to teach alternatives to evolution.

Well, these were the folks who drove out gifted astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez. You must pay for the article, and I do not recommend that. We’ve all pretty much heard it all already.

Instead, for a free copy of Gonzalez’s Privileged Planet DVD, go to Uncommon Descent and answer this question: Why does Guillermo Gonzalez’s view that Earth is uniquely situated for science discovery threaten so many people?

Here are the Contest rules (pretty easy, really).

You will not receive any solicitations that come through us.

Comments

The contest is now closed, and if you didn't win, try again. I will post a fourth question shortly. Contest Question 2 : Winner announced The Question 2: Why does Earth's unique situation for science discovery threaten many?" < "Why does Earth's unique situation for science discovery threaten many?" winner is Bruce David. For a free copy of The Privileged Planet DVD, Bruce David needs to send a snail address to me at oleary@sympatico.ca. He will not be added to a mailing list. I do not have a mailing list.O'Leary_{May 24, 2009
May
05
May
24
24
2009
12:14 AM
12
12
14
AM
PDT}

Why does Earth’s unique situation for science discovery threaten many? (348 words) Many have a vested interest in a universe without outside forces. Nature may be more powerful than us, but as long as it takes no notice of us, we can work around it, and we do not have to worry about whether such an entity will search our deepest thoughts and feelings and judge us accordingly. Our actions are all that matter. A God, on the other hand, might not be fooled by basically selfish people. Furthermore, a myth has grown up that the benighted people of the Dark Ages all believed in miracles including the Jewish creation fable, and that science has gradually freed us from having to believe in miracles; that this is the essence of science. Science, in this view, first freed us from belief in a creation event a short time ago and a worldwide flood, using uniformitarian geology, then freed us from the need for a God at all, using evolutionary theory. Thus these people's view of science reinforces their atheology. These people like to argue that the choice is to follow science, reason, and evolution, or to follow creationism, fundamentalism, and intolerance. The Privileged Planet hypothesis threatens them in two ways: First, a Privileged Planet implies a designer of sufficient intelligence to be able to design a planet for the scientific discovery of humans who will come afterwards, and one with sufficient ability to carry out this design. That is beyond our present abilities, and suggests a designer with Godlike qualities. This pushes atheists outside their comfort zones. Second, the usual defenses do not work against the Privileged Planet hypothesis. Nothing in the hypothesis challenges the conventional age of the earth or of life on earth; it's not young earth creationism. The hypothesis doesn't challenge the theory of evolution in even its most atheistic form; it's not anti-evolutionism. And finally, the hypothesis predicts positive correlations that cannot be derived solely from theories that do not allow an intelligent designer, so that the theory cannot be denigrated as the mere negation of naturalism. Thus the only weapon against the theory is sheer prejudice.Paul Giem_{May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

KcOitf @26- "What is unique about Earth’s situation?" Read his book and find out.Bantay_{May 16, 2009
May
05
May
16
16
2009
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

What is unique about Earth's situation? First off, Gonzalez's idea is full of assumptions which he does not justify, merely recites from rote! Not only does this idea touch on Intelligent Design, it also touches on myths present in "mainstream" Astronomy/Cosmology. You think there's disconfirming evidence of evolution/darwinism, wait until you see the disconfirming evidence of the Big Bang!!! What a tangled web we weave! Look up the work of Halton "Chip" Arp, our modern day Galileo! I'll even help you out: http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm However, a fatal assumption in our given loaded question is that we've indeed asked the RIGHT questions!! Is this arrogance and/or ignorance? What of paradigm shifts? An interesting story about such shifts is by Isaac Asimov, "Nightfall". The Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology easily debunks the "Privileged Planet". As remedies for your situation, may I suggest: Cosmology Quest http://www.universe-film.com/ (if all else fails, check YouTube) http://www.plasmaresources.com/essential_eupc.html Not in this for the prize, but to hopefully/maybe open up some eyes so we can get to some REAL science!!! For the record, I support the biological aspects of Intelligent Design, as they don't depend on the secular creation mythology of the Big Bang. Please keep up the good work in that regard... The Sun will indeed come up tomorrow, the real question is will it be on or electrocute us?!kc0itf_{May 15, 2009
May
05
May
15
15
2009
09:42 PM
9
09
42
PM
PDT}

Q: Why does Guillermo Gonzalez’s view that Earth is uniquely situated for science discovery threaten so many people? I'll try to answer this in 400 words or less. A: Because it implies, at the most fundamental, basic level of the exclusively human experience, that we may have meaning and purpose that is not of our own design. The antithesis of this is the worldview of materialism. Materialism is grounded in the subtle desire for pleasure and the elimination of discomfort, regardless of any claimed absolute moral accountability. Materialists believe that all that is, is the result of chance, naturalistic processes. In other words, the earth is suited for scientific discovery because it’s the lucky planet. Rather than face a scientific evidence of earth being uniquely situated for scientific discovery, the materialist values avoidance of the moral accountability that Guillermo’s hypothesis may further imply. To achieve this subtle denial, materialists must control the defining of scientific terms. What was once considered “evidence” is now filtered through a sieve of naturalism. To the materialist, a universe where (at least) one planet is uniquely situated for scientific discovery is one planet too many that could be situated that way by design. A Divine foot cannot be allowed in the door! The door must be shut to all other ideas...except those that bring pleasure and not discomfort. In the end, the materialist critic of Guillermo's work has only his/her own faith to contend with. He/she must have faith that the universe and all that is in it originated by chance and for no reason or purpose. To the materialist, any naturalistic explanation will suffice, no matter how un-testable or unobservable it is. In other words, no matter how un-scientific that explanation is. In conclusion, Guillermo's scientific hypothesis engages those who hold to a pre-supposed materialist world view that imposes itself on science in order to avoid truth if the implications of that truth bring discomfort.Bantay_{May 13, 2009
May
05
May
13
13
2009
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT}

to rvb8: "Are you not SECURE in your own beliefs?" I won't claim that I am not susceptible to the seduction of wanting to be right. But I will say this for myself: I have changed my most basic paradigms at least twice in my life. By the time I reached college, I was a confirmed atheist and materialist who firmly believed that science was the only method of discovering the true nature of reality. (The description in my original post was a description of ME at that time.) In my twenties, based on reading various spiritual books, I completely revamped my position, which eventually evolved into my present belief, which is that physical reality doesn't actually exist as such. All that we experience and much more besides is but a vast play in the mind of God, of which each of us is an intimate (and thoroughly loved) part. Nonetheless, I still believed in the fundamental truth of the neo-Darwinian synthesis (NDS), although I thought that God's hand might be directing many of the "random" changes to the genome. Then about 10 years ago I read Denton, and then Behe, and came to the conclusion that the NDS simply doesn't cut it. "But there in lies ‘the rub’, does it not? Science has no ‘belief’, it only has theory, testing, validation, refutation. ’Belief’, is for the religious, is it not, or am I missing something?" You definitely are missing something. Our beliefs inform everything we do, whether we are scientists or not (or religious or not). No scientist will ever formulate a theory or conduct an experiment that lies outside of the possibilities allowed by his or her fundamental paradigms without at least calling into question their validity. For example, a scientist whose metaphysical assumptions preclude the possibility of psychic phenomena will never formulate a theory of how psychic phenomena work, nor will you find her in a lab dedicated to exploring such phenomena. No one is immune from the logical requirement that in order to think, there has to be something that is taken as true without proof. The best we can do is raise our fundamental paradigms to consciousness so that we at least have some choice about them. Alan Fox: You said, "If you mean some people want to understand the world and the universe as it is, and other people want to understand the world and the universe as they wish it to be, then I agree with you." No, that is not what I meant at all. What I meant was that some people (most, actually) have more stake in being right than in discovering truth, while others value discovering the truth more highly than being right. You find both kinds of people on both sides of nearly any question. They are easily recognizable. In an intellectual discussion, someone whose commitment is to being right will do anything to win the argument. Someone whose commitment is to discovering the truth will listen to what the other person is saying and honestly evaluate its validity as best they can, always prepared to abandon or modify their own position if that is warranted. For me, a classic example of the former is Richard Dawkins, and of the latter is Antony Flew (also, I think, Mike Gene, and certainly Albert Einstein).Bruce David_{May 10, 2009
May
05
May
10
10
2009
11:20 PM
11
11
20
PM
PDT}

Why does Guillermo Gonzalez’s view that Earth is uniquely situated for science discovery threaten so many people?
For the same reason they fight a demagogic war against ID -- they fear and or loath legitimizing religion. Anything which will give scientific legitimacy for proof of a God is attacked by the same people for the same reason. They see belief in God as a bad thing because it can lead to people trying to force their religious beliefs on others, therefore they will either consciously or subconsciously fight against anything which will give aid and comfort to the enemy (religion). Some are consciously opposing any science which will scientifically legitimize belief in God, while others do the same thing but aren't aware that they are doing it for the same reason -- but if they see a good shrink they would (^_^).mentok_{May 10, 2009
May
05
May
10
10
2009
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT}

Yikes. I hope none of those overly verbose answers is given a chance. The real answer is simple: Because it suggests the possibility of the existence of a god, and many atheist scientists don't want to have to deal with the moral ramifications of this.AmerikanInKananaskis_{May 10, 2009
May
05
May
10
10
2009
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

Science has no ‘belief’
Is it simpleton day already?Upright BiPed_{May 10, 2009
May
05
May
10
10
2009
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

So you guys have framed statements that you are right hanging on your walls? That must be an important issue for you. :)CannuckianYankee_{May 10, 2009
May
05
May
10
10
2009
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

That's only fair Alan- after all I did the same when you said I was correct- pertaining to evolution not having a direction.Joseph_{May 10, 2009
May
05
May
10
10
2009
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

16 Joseph 05/10/2009 9:27 am
Alan is right
I'm going to print that out and frame it! :)Alan Fox_{May 10, 2009
May
05
May
10
10
2009
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

Why does Guillermo Gonzalez’s view that Earth is uniquely situated for science discovery threaten so many people?
For the simple reason that those people wish the universe to not be special and therefor our place in it cannot be special.Joseph_{May 10, 2009
May
05
May
10
10
2009
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

Alan is right- most in the scientific community want to understand the world as they wish it to be- that is a universe without a designer. And all of those people misunderstand the alternatives. For example I just started reading "Why Darwin Matters- a case against intelligent design" by Michael Shermer. He makes several mistakes before getting out of the first chapter. The NCSE is just as clueless. What does that "prove"? That they want to understand the universe as they wish it to be.Joseph_{May 10, 2009
May
05
May
10
10
2009
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

To vastly over simplify the actual state of affairs, there are two kinds of people in the world: those whose highest value is truth, and those for whom being right is more important than anything else.
If you mean some people want to understand the world and the universe as it is, and other people want to understand the world and the universe as they wish it to be, then I agree with you. False dichotomies regularly appear in these threads. "If A is wrong, B must be right" overlooks alternatives C, D, E...Alan Fox_{May 10, 2009
May
05
May
10
10
2009
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PDT}

Bruce D, "grown up into a smug atheist, secure in your beliefs,.."? Are you not SECURE in your own beliefs? But there in lies 'the rub', does it not? Science has no 'belief', it only has theory,testing,validation,refutation.'Belief', is for the religious, is it not, or am I missing something?rvb8_{May 10, 2009
May
05
May
10
10
2009
12:55 AM
12
12
55
AM
PDT}

"Antony Flew........ He is one of my heroes." Mine too. It's a study in intellectual courage.CannuckianYankee_{May 10, 2009
May
05
May
10
10
2009
12:28 AM
12
12
28
AM
PDT}

To vastly over simplify the actual state of affairs, there are two kinds of people in the world: those whose highest value is truth, and those for whom being right is more important than anything else. Imagine that you have grown up into a smug atheist, secure in your beliefs, looking down your nose with benign condescension on those benighted souls who, being either ignorant, stupid, insane, or (dare I say it) wicked, persist in believing in that ancient superstition, the existence of a Creator. Now imagine that suddenly, without warning, science itself has begun to turn on you--cosmology has determined that the Universe had a beginning, the fundamental constants of physics and cosmology are turning out to have been incredibly fine tuned to support the existence of life, the stunning complexity and sophistication of the cell beggars any naturalistic explanation of its origin, and the neo-Darwinian synthesis is being called into question by unanswerable attacks on its explanatory power. In such a situation, if you are one of those for whom being right is your highest value, one who has identified yourself as a member of the elite who know the obvious truth of things, all this evidence for the existence of a Creator will not just be a threat to your beliefs, it will be a threat to what you imagine is the very core of your being. And now Guillermo Gonzalez adds fuel to this blaze by providing powerful evidence that the earth itself, the home of and support for human life, is in a highly improbable position perfect for the pursuit of scientific inquiry. Is it any wonder that this is a threat? The great thing about Antony Flew is that his life has been devoted to a genuine search for truth, and he has always respected those with whom he disagreed. Thus, he had no emotional stake in the outcome of his inquiries, and when the evidence became overwhelming for the existence of a Creator, he happily changed his mind. He is one of my heroes. [Contest Question 2 : Winner announced The Question 2: Why does Earth's unique situation for science discovery threaten many?" < "Why does Earth's unique situation for science discovery threaten many?" winner is Bruce David. For a free copy of The Privileged Planet DVD, Bruce David needs to send a snail address to me at oleary@sympatico.ca. He will not be added to a mailing list. I do not have a mailing list. Bruce David_{May 10, 2009
May
05
May
10
10
2009
12:02 AM
12
12
02
AM
PDT}

Nah, your fine... I am just clarifying my view.Frost122585_{May 9, 2009
May
05
May
9
09
2009
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT}

Re: #8 Frost122585 "It is not an issue of empiricism but materialist empiricism that is at issue." Yes I agree. Perhaps I didn't articulate my response clearly enough to show that I agree. :)CannuckianYankee_{May 9, 2009
May
05
May
9
09
2009
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT}

"A problem lies in our failure to separate the limits of our assumptions from the raw data," I must note that we can never separate our assumptions from data. We "are" our assumptions- and the insidious unfounded false premise that always rears its head is that science can possibly be "objective" without the bias of the observer. This is false and if the materialists took the time to read their own physics books they would see that modern quantum mechanics has all but proved that the observer is fully part of the observed. "It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we say about Nature." -Niels Bohr If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet. -Niels Bohr This is not theology or mere philosophy here… this is their very cherished physics in its modern glory.Frost122585_{May 9, 2009
May
05
May
9
09
2009
11:01 PM
11
11
01
PM
PDT}

It is not an issue of empiricism but materialist empiricism that is at issue. You see the apriori adherence is to materialism. Sure one can say there was a big bang and that was it. This obviously does not explain how it got there or how it happened- so what if there was a non-material causation? How can we rule this out? Moreover, how could be make an argument for or against this hypothesis? This is where ID surpasses the mysticism that is materialistic science. We are in basic agreement that this is not the place to win over materialists- but it is a place where we learn form each other- increase our own knowledge, understanding and articulating skills- and better understand what is at hand.Frost122585_{May 9, 2009
May
05
May
9
09
2009
10:54 PM
10
10
54
PM
PDT}

Frost, Re: #6 "Atheist, materialist and some agnostic Physicists long for and make the purpose of their life to find the symmetries and relationships within space and time and of course within a material empirically necessary context. It is therefore there greatest fear that the real game that allows them to search could be beyond their prowess." A key insight that you have captured here appears to be "a material emirically necessary context." I've seen materialists even in this forum refer to empiricism as if it is an end-all of discussion. Empiricism in my understanding (correct me if I am wrong) simply means the best answer so far as we can know through the rigorous discipline of experimentation and evaluation. Now there are certain features of our understanding of the universe that are more empirical than others, that is true. However, we would not have reached those bridges to truth without hypothesizing, which apparently always involves metaphysical assumptions. Metaphysical assumptions are necessary for determining that the world and the cosmos are formed in reason, rather than in raw and unguided chaos. A problem lies in our failure to separate the limits of our assumptions from the raw data, such that we fail to allow the data to speak for itself. And we do so even when the raw data appears to contradict the initial assumptions. This human phenomenon is what I perceive is happening with materialism in a last desperate gasp at life in a cosmos that screams design. Of course, you know Frost and Lock, that we seem to have so far evaded the inevitable protests from the materialists lurking in this forum, but they will come. It will be interesting to examine the nature of their protests, and to see if we can find examples of their desperation. Lock is correct in that we are not about to pursuade them here, in the same way as a few lectures or essays in materialist logic will not pursuade us to abandon our own metaphysical assumptions. But our words here have a certain permanence (so far as they are logged into a blog storage space for later consumption and reference). Words don't necessarily change minds, but God does. God is the author of the constants, which hold the universe together. He is also the author of other general revelations, which cannot be perpetually denied without consequence. And he is furthermore the author of the truth yearnings in our hearts and minds. As such, His power reigns supreme in the seeking of truth. Incidentally, if the empiricism that materialists appeal to is the final word, it's interesting that so many materialists continue to come here to debate with us. I'm only happy to oblige.CannuckianYankee_{May 9, 2009
May
05
May
9
09
2009
10:36 PM
10
10
36
PM
PDT}

The Earth's mysterious, unlikely and advantageous relationship towards science is a reason for concern to many for several reasons. Firstly, the very obvious and manifest reality of this relationship is one that man himself cannot explain. There is nothing about chance, contingency or necessity, the three modes of mechanical explanation, that can explain how the earth and science were matched together so favorably. This is actually one of the oldest and most highly repsected mysteries in all of science and philsopohy as Einstein fmously remarked "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is its comprehensibility." Atheist, materialist and some agnostic Physicists long for and make the purpose of their life to find the symmetries and relationships within space and time and of course within a material empirically necessary context. It is therefore there greatest fear that the real game that allows them to search could be beyond their prowess. This would preset science as a limited and imperfect journey towards understanding and truth. Notice the fear here is not one of personal danger but of the personal infallibility. If there is no explanation for the primary questions then their God (science to themselves) is not perfect. Theists however think they have an answer and a game plan on how to deal with this mystery. The allowance for purpose and non material intelligent causation puts the biggest questions in a partially explained framework. This does however supersede the authority of the materialists and hence the materialist's religion shows reason for concern.Frost122585_{May 9, 2009
May
05
May
9
09
2009
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT}

Lock, For Gonzalez, the earth is a sort of space exploration capsule. It insulates us from the chaos of the outer spheres, so that with the virtue of patience, we can discover the wonders of creation. With this perspective, one can see how God is definitely science friendly. Historically, theology has been greatly concerned with revelation. It's intereting to note that theologians have not restricted revelation to the written word as in "special" revelation, but have allowed the evidence of "general" revelation - as in the language of God in nature and the cosmos. The Judeo-Christian worldview has left us open to discovery in the real world and the real cosmos. It has not restricted truth to the divinely written word, unlike the esoteric-based religions and heretical offshoots of Christianity and Judaeism. It is the Judeo-Christian written word itself, which fosters this perspective. Before I was a beleiver in Jesus, I was not much interested in science. I can offer presonal testimony, that faith fosters interest in the workings of God's wonderous creation (while I readily admit that I do not possess the discipline of a scientist). I can't help but notice that materialism seems to only seek support from science (with its wolf-like metaphysic disguised) merely for a cynical denial of theism. That seems to be quite evident as I debate with materialists and atheists in the virtuality of the internet.CannuckianYankee_{May 9, 2009
May
05
May
9
09
2009
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT}

Lock, Beutifully stated. Thank you. Enchantment can be either a wonder or a trap/mirage. You have wonderously enchanted me. ONLY with God are all things possible - thererore, materialist "mysticism" is a trap. I was trapped once, but now I am truly free. Thanks again.CannuckianYankee_{May 9, 2009
May
05
May
9
09
2009
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT}

CY, if you don't mind me saying, that was a very nice job of capturing 'the enchantment' the comes with the materialists worldview. It is the root of their power and why they fight so vigorously. I am reminded of the wonder that Carl Sagan expressed for the complexity and vastness of the cosmos. As he made clear, it was divine for him in the naturalistic way. Such treasures are not something people give up easily. Such strong and necessary faith is something I think many do not consciously understand. They only know (even though they cannot put their finger on it) that it is everything to them; a kind of natural earthly hope. It is tremendously powerful. I believe this because it was once mine as well. And I do mean... 'mine'! No one was going to tear off my fig leaves and live. Anyone who challenged my anchor was instantly perceived as small minded to me. And I had an infinite barrage of chaotic weapons to disembowl them. I have often read the Gospel parables regarding 'riches', and noticed how much they apply to our philosophies of life, at least as much as (if not more than)material wealth. What is our greatest treasure if not our philosophy; the very anchor and foundation of ones whole life and pride? Such men are incredibly rich and unabashedly wise. And the eye of the needle is quite small. Gonzalez cannot convince them. Nor can you or I. With man (alone) this is impossible. But with God all things are possible.Lock_{May 9, 2009
May
05
May
9
09
2009
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT}

As a child I explored my little world within a certain element of enchantment. I was open to everything and everything was enchanted to my child-like mind. I gather that this experience is shared by others who were once children. This is perhaps why children are so fond of tall and fanciful tales, and why they often unquestioningly accept both the possibility of their outlandish proposals, and their underlying lessons of morality. The philosophy of methodological naturalism "pasteurizes" all life of child-like enchantment, and replaces it with an earthly one, jeopardizing lessons learned and comprehended. Earthly enchantment is devoid of any otherdimensional metaphysic. When materialists speak of a "spirit" they do not literally mean spirit, but a metaphysically supporting ideal, as in the "spirit of Darwin." From my own perspective, I wonder if the use of terms describing otherdimensional reality on the part of materialists, is wishful thinking. Does the materialist yearn to experience a spiritual or enchanting presence without the trappings and moral certitude of religion? Does nature provide such a presence? The Multiverse issue appears to be an attempt to bring upon the materialist a "spiritual" metaphysic without the actual spirituality, while maintaining a sense of enchantment. It's sort of like attempting to squeeze the juice out of orange juice, rather than out of the orange. To materialists, the fine tuning argument robs them of the enchantment of nature, and forces them back into the perspective of child-like enchantment, with the supernatural looming with a poison apple behind the trees in the forrest of reason. It's not a forrest the materialist desires to explore. In the materialist's enchanted world (the multiverse), the apparent "fine tuning" is a fluke that would be expected in an infinite number of possibilities. But the tall tales that come from materialism do not offer any moral lessons for their children. They are futile attempts to find the needle of meaning in the heystack of a billion trillion voids of space; the farther away the better, in order to allow the "heart" and "soul" to be emptied of all trivialities concerned with "oughts" rather than "is's." The fine tuning of the universe is a complication that risks too much exposure and vulnerability. At least in a multiverse one is free to choose another course if the one previously chosen leads to a blunt and painful dead end. But the one and only finely tuned universe demands a narrow path that the materialist would rather not take. Guillermo Gonzales has gone and done it. He has told a tall tale, and he cannot be forgiven for threatening the free-exchange of reality denying speculation. Of course the fine tuning of the universe does no such thing. It does not revert us back to our childhood dimensions at all. Rather, it opens up new dimensions of enchantment about our universe, by showing us that the chaos we see around us has purpose too. Asteroids do not destroy life on Earth in cataclismic rages every few hundred years because of our position in the galaxy. Purpose also implies something much larger than ourselves - a concept for which materialism offers us no perspective: the precious value of life on our planet. The empty void of the multiverse, no matter how infinitely vast, is no less empty and offers no perspective on our value.CannuckianYankee_{May 9, 2009
May
05
May
9
09
2009
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT}

Q: Why does Guillermo Gonzalez’s view that Earth is uniquely situated for science discovery threaten so many people? I believe it is for the same reason the multiverse is so appealing to the very same people. Gonzalez’s idea attempts to harness the possible conclusions in the minds of those who like to keep their options open and their illusions of autonomy alive. Freedom within fences is no freedom at all in their minds. That is unless they are the ones driving the fence posts (such as methodological naturalism). with one hand, they say they want strictly scientific explanations. Since those explanations are currently (and for centuries now) best explained by deity, they insist with the other hand that our observations are not yet adequate or complete. They then offer the multiverse card as the consumate obfuscation and escape. The idea of taking the evidence at face value does not occur to them. And the offering of such evidence is perceived as too simple an answer. It is beneath them to entertain the idea that God is above them. Perhaps I am being absurdly reductionist; but personally, I do not see how to answer this question without adressing the heart of the issue... As long as they do not know who ultimate reality is, they need not submit to Him. The best way to do that is to acknowledge an unseen ultimate reality, but confine it with the posts and barbed wire of materialistic language. In this way, they can have their cake and eat it too. As long as reality is defined as a 'what', then we are implicitly the gods who have evolved to define it in our own image. To these people, who (the personal and observational element of life) is the ends of existance and being, not the means.Lock_{May 9, 2009
May
05
May
9
09
2009
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply