James Le Fanu: Why Us? (The limitations of science)

by John Clinch , Friday, July 10, 2009, 10:31 (5397 days ago) @ dhw

In my keenness to respond to dhw's mis-characterization of a theory about a law of nature as being equivalent to "faith", I almost missed this gem from him:- - "From a neutral point of view, therefore, in our present state of ignorance one could argue that your theory is as plausible or implausible as any other, including abiogenesis, God, Amma and Nommo, earth-diver, hero twins, sky-father and earth-mother etc. As usual it simply boils down to what you personally find convincing. That's what all such beliefs boil down to, even if a large number of believers don't believe it!" - Sorry, but this is breathtaking! Are you seriously suggesting that a scientific theory about the origins of life would have the same status, the same plausibility as the mythical mumbo-jumbo referred to above? Are you saying that it's all just a question of take-your-pick, that any is as good as another? That, because there is as yet no coherent theory of the origin of life, that the scientologist's world-view (say) is as valid, for the purposes of this discussion, as the life-scientist's? - Yes, one "could argue" that but you'd be taking a novel direction in this debate straight to relativism, post-modernity and other such latter-day heresies where you start with Derrida and you end up with a school debate when we all shout "well, that's just your opinion!" - So, BBella, I think you're being too easy on dhw. It's not what all such beliefs boil down to. There needs to be plausibility, evidence and reason. - Incidentally, your response to dhw concluded with a simple statement of great profundity:- - "If I were to say what I think God is, if there were such, it would be all that is. No one force, no one thing, just all that is." - I couldn't have put it better myself - and didn't!