Ed, et al,
I think we are bobbling the ball on "god", as we did on
memes. Maybe we
should track the practice back to "Pegasus", but let me
address god/God
and memes for a moment.
It is asked, "Can we know there is a god?" The use of the
word "know" is
out of place in this sentence without further
qualification. It is often
used to express the view that god should not be discussed
in science,
and I agree with that view. However, there is a role in
ontology, in the
broadest sense for "god". But it needs to be defined in a
domain other
than "science". If we sanction or embargo the use of the
word "god' in
an ontology, then we have failed in our professional
responsibilities.
Likewise, we do permit the use of "Pegasus" without
censure. We assume
it is part of a Wittgenstein game that begins with "Once
upon a
time...". Without Pegasus and Minnie Mouse we lose our
ability to talk
with, and about the industries that employ these symbols.
Likewise with
the term "god".
With respect to "meme", it seems like there are mixed
opinions about how
it should be treated. One camp believes it is a poor
synonym for
"popularity" or a similar notion. Others, including
myself, believe that
it is sufficiently unique that we humans have adopted a
term for the
concept, albeit, poorly defined.
Are we to assume that those who use the term "meme" are
fadish, overly
poetic or oafish? My approach is to reserve opinion on
this issue and
focus on the use of the term. I do see merit in Dennett's
analogy to
viruses. His metaphor does overlap with "popularity",
which does not
capture the full effect of "meme". I give the group an
adequate, passing
grade in Ontology101 in this case. In my view we still
have a lot to do
in the development of the ontological practice.
-John Bottoms (disclaimer: I studied at Christian
Theological Seminary
in '74)
FirstStar Systems
Concord, MA USA
On 4/25/2013 12:43 PM, Barkmeyer, Edward J wrote:
> I suppose this is what happens when we talk about our
technology as "ontology".
> I am sure I will regret even contributing to this
discussion. But fools rush in ...
>
> Pat Hayes wrote:
>
>> The basic scientific argument against the
existence of God is that there is
>> absolutely no observational evidence for the
existence of a God, nor any
>> reason to hypothesise such an entity in order to
explain anything that is
>> observable.
> I agree that this is the basic scientific argument.
Now, I propose to play "Devil's Advocate".
>
> Assuming we hypothesize the Big Bang to dispense with
creation myths, how did the Big Bang itself come to be?
> "And God said, Let there be light. And there was
light." (Genesis 1: 3)
>
> That one biblical passage associates the prevalent
scientific theory, now based on extensive observation,
with an answer to the question the theory doesn't try to
answer. I don't have to believe that it is true (the
"leap of faith"), in order to recognize something that is
now taken to be observable and is not explained by modern
scientific theory. It is, of course, possible that some
yet less-than-understood phenomenon like "dark energy"
might be the predecessor and explain the Big Bang, but the
question is currently still open.
>
>> A very straightforward application of Occam's
principle then suffices. Of course this is not a *proof*,
but it is a sound *scientific* argument.
> I am merely proposing a possible counterexample to
Pat's basis postulate, which would imply that the
application of Occam's razor is premature (dicto
simpliciter, if you will).
>
> I believe that the existence of God is unknowable.
It can be accepted or rejected without harm to the
soundness of one's arguments for science.
> How the existence of God may relate to human
behaviors is an entirely separate question, not to be
confused (as it often is) with the fundamental question.
>
> -Ed
>
> P.S. One other question that has always intrigued
me: How did a moderately successful pre-Iron Age
agricultural and mercantile civilization come to postulate
the Big Bang? Or (in Genesis 1:2 , out-of-order) describe
the formation of the solar system? It is not hard to
understand how the concept "Divine inspiration" comes into
existence. But it is also not unreasonable to suppose
another source of that knowledge ("Are we alone?"), which
many "hard scientists" also think is nonsense. Underlying
both of these "conjectures" is another observation we
cannot explain.
>
>
> --
> Edward J. Barkmeyer Email:
edbark@xxxxxxxx
> National Institute of Standards & Technology
> Systems Integration Division
> 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Work: +1
301-975-3528
> Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 Mobile: +1
240-672-5800
>
> "The opinions expressed above do not reflect
consensus of NIST,
> and have not been reviewed by any Government
authority."
>
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:
ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J