Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!utgpu!pindor
From: pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: Is there a spiritual force etc.?
Message-ID: <Cw4q52.CKt@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCC Public Access
References: <SOSUSER.2.2E731869@sos.net> <1994Sep13.120437.5515@datcon.co.uk> <3546sj$4ef@infosrv.edvz.univie.ac.at> <1994Sep14.084938.6638@datcon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 17:05:25 GMT
Lines: 42

In article <1994Sep14.084938.6638@datcon.co.uk>,
Eddie Edwards <ee@datcon.co.uk> wrote:
.........
>
>In order to build theories, you need to have axioms.  A scientist may claim
>that his axioms are based on large-scale empirical evidence - in fact, so may
>a Christian (in fact, they do).  
>
>For instance, every scientist I have met holds the implicit belief in the
>consistency of the universe, specifically the temporal invariance of the laws
>of physics in one region of space.  You can argue, quite rightly, that if you
>didn't keep to this assumption then science would get nowhere - but that does
>not change the fact that it *is* an assumption.  If you put your hand on your
>heart and said 'Tomorrow, force will be proportional to acceleration' you will
>be making a statement of faith.
>
You will hopefully agree that the consequences of axioms used by scientist
are for all to see (eg. the workstation you are using just now). These
axioms are, so to say, born out by the fact that with their help scientists
have been able to make a lot of progress in dealing with 'reality'. Now, if 
you could give an example of useful practical consequences of religious
axioms, you would have a point in putting them on equal footing. However,
I am afraid that whatever you come up with will have no comparison to 
the consequences of scientific axioms. 

>: One man: "God Bunga ist the only god"
>: Another man: "No, God Bonga is the only one and he is mightier than yours!"
>
>This is anecdotal evidence, and you are now attacking religion because of the
>observed consequences, rather than for any compelling philosophical reason.
>
Here I agree with you. As I have pointed out in another post, track record
of atheism is not much better in this respect.
>--
>Eddie xxx
>
Andrzej
-- 
Andrzej Pindor                        The foolish reject what they see and 
University of Toronto                 not what they think; the wise reject
Instructional and Research Computing  what they think and not what they see.
pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca                           Huang Po
