Letters to the Editor
-
JohnPotter - Hedgeing your bets
Mr. Potter, please understand that for the vast majority of people philosophy is a method for interpreting life and the universe, and science is a tool for observing reality. If you seek to make science a philosophy you hinder science, and philosophy.
Yes many people believe in a creator because the philosophy aids in their interpretation of the world around them. Science makes no mention, nor offers an opinion on the existence or lack there of for a creator. If you believe it does, as many creationists believe it does not, you are making science a philosophy and that is wrong.
There is no more evidence that God does exist than that God does not exist. There are no bablefish. As such, questions of God or Zeus, or superstring theory, are best used as philosophical interpretations of the world we see, and not as final judgments about the absolute reality of which we have no evidence.
The existence of an intelligent super force may not be something which you find can exist in your philosophy, but you shouldn't act as if this notion is any more upheld by scientific discovery than the notion of one existing.
The argument that our existence is the result of a million lucky coincidences is no more scientifically viable than the notion that the outcome was altered by an intelligent super force. You can only roll a seven so many times before you start to wonder if the dice are rigged. But that question is unknowable, and is for philosophy not science to debate.