Date: Mar 19, 2014 12:02 PM
Author: Joe Niederberger
Subject: Re: How science  shaped modern 'rejection of religion'

R Hansen:
- ----------------------------------------------
Davies appears to be saying that science is founded on faith just like religion is founded on faith. What am I missing here?

"Therefore, to be a scientist, you had to have faith that the universe is governed by dependable, immutable, absolute, universal, mathematical laws of an unspecified origin. You've got to believe that these laws won't fail, that we won't wake up tomorrow to find heat flowing from cold to hot, or the speed of light changing by the hour.?

That isn?t faith. It is just the way things are. We don?t need ?faith? to accept the way things are. You need faith to accept the way things aren?t.
- ----------------------------------------

It is not obvious that the world is governed by immutable, universal, mathematical laws. It took a long time and lots of work to come to that view. The people who advanced that view had certain beliefs, belief's they couldn't prove deductively but sought and found evidence for. They were very successful, except for explaining the origin and precise form of those laws that were discovered.

The laws themselves turn out to be exquisitely crafted - tiny changes would make life impossible.

Saying "that's just the way it is" is a pure cop out. You might as well says "its an impenetrable mystery". Some poeple's view of God is that God is the ultimate impenetrable mystery that stands at the center of the mystery of existence. Nothing new here. You can deny that's your meaning but a rose is a rose etc.

Today, a lot of people who are bothered by that state of affairs like to seek refuge in some version of the multi-verse hypothesis. But I think Davies is correct in saying that is just a dodge - what laws govern the multi-verse? Where did they come from?

That's what you are missing, but its also obvious your brain shuts down at the very question that Davies is talking about. Its no wonder you think "there's nothing there" or accuse him of "pivoting" or whatever. Its a very unthinking response.

Cheers,
Joe N