 |
|
 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
dr wu23
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 2297
Location: Indiana
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
graylien
Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 174
Location: UK
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 7:29 am Post subject: |
 |
|
It's an interesting article, but I'm not quite sure what point it's trying to make. (I was equally baffled by Mr Davies original article to which this is the response.) I think it would have been much improved by a brief diversion into the linguistics of the debate.
A 'law' of nature is a very different thing from a 'law' of God, despite the fact we use the same word to describe them both. To pose the question "if nature has laws, then who imposed the laws?" is to confuse two different uses of the word. We might as well ask what breed of dog is used to make hot dogs.
The popular language of science undoubtedly displays a rather patriarchal bias. The universe has 'laws' which everything 'obeys'. But this is a very anthropomorphic way of describing reality. And a description of reality is not the same thing as reality itself. The map is not the territory, after all.
To the question "Why does a rock always fall with the same rate of acceleration" we might simply counter "Well, why wouldn't it?". Would a universe in which the 'laws' of physics were constantly changing really be any more likely than a universe in which such laws were constant?
(Tip: bugmenot.com)
_________________
Gef - the Eighth Wonder of the World
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dr wu23
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 2297
Location: Indiana
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| graylien wrote: |
It's an interesting article, but I'm not quite sure what point it's trying to make. (I was equally baffled by Mr Davies original article to which this is the response.) I think it would have been much improved by a brief diversion into the linguistics of the debate.
A 'law' of nature is a very different thing from a 'law' of God, despite the fact we use the same word to describe them both. To pose the question "if nature has laws, then who imposed the laws?" is to confuse two different uses of the word. We might as well ask what breed of dog is used to make hot dogs.
The popular language of science undoubtedly displays a rather patriarchal bias. The universe has 'laws' which everything 'obeys'. But this is a very anthropomorphic way of describing reality. And a description of reality is not the same thing as reality itself. The map is not the territory, after all.
To the question "Why does a rock always fall with the same rate of acceleration" we might simply counter "Well, why wouldn't it?". Would a universe in which the 'laws' of physics were constantly changing really be any more likely than a universe in which such laws were constant?
(Tip: bugmenot.com) |
I have to agree with everything you said. And btw...some of your remarks about laws and the universe remind me of Dawkins comments in his book the God Delusion.
_________________
"Some say the valley has always been haunted ever since River ran.
The rippling waters fast as the colors conceal the Green Man."
Roy Harpur from The Green Man
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
