Re: virus: Repost: Re: Then the fish'll go grrrr...

Lior Golgher (
Tue, 25 Mar 1997 16:29:55 -0800

I wrote:
> They attack each other only when one of them wrongly assume that their
> territories are congruent. For example scientists who believe they can
> empirically prove there's no god, or churches claiming the sun orbits
> Earth.

David wrote:
> You seem to be suggesting that scientists cannot empirically prove that
> there is no god. That is not true (assuming you aren't using an
> extreme 100% certainty version of "prove"). Science has historically
> shown many things do not exist (phlogiston, elan vitale, the ether)
> by offering better explanations.

To which I shall respond:
Due to science we need not Zeus to explain lightnings anymore. We've
built a coherent model of our evolution using empirical tools, solving a
question which was once dominated exclusively by religions. Science
successfully drives religion away of the field of physics. As for the
metaphysics, that's a field science can't enter, period. Science can
explain the causes of our birth, not the purpose we choose for
ourselves. It can explain the psychological needs for faith, the
sociological conditions which shape our gods (with a considerable
contribution of memetics in this part). Does a certain god exist? Do we
have free-will? Those are questions science can't answer. That's why
they have more than one legitimate answer.