[lbo-talk] Appeal to Ignorance

ravi gadfly at exitleft.org
Tue Jun 14 11:20:15 PDT 2005


On 06/13/05 22:07, Miles Jackson wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, ravi wrote:
>
>> a tangential thought: is the god hypothesis (which i do not subscribe
>> to, btw) any sillier than a "lawful universe" hypothesis? because there
>> is some (though not sufficient) "proof" for the latter?
>
> A pragmatic argument: look what we've been able to accomplish with this
> "lawful universe" hypothesis! Perhaps you could buy Nietzsche's
> argument that it's a useful fiction?
>

indeed i could. but what is its use? would any less have been achieved (given sufficient discipline) without a 'lawful universe' hypothesis, especially in a sort of thorough-going platonic sense? i can predict and shape the world and its behaviour using a particular theory or practice. to say that that is so *because there are universal laws that the world obeys* -- what does that gain me *technically*? i can see its motivational value... it helps to believe that the universe is lawful...

but that leads me back to 'god'. the 'god' hypothesis may also be shown to have "helped" (in quotes because of the ambiguity of what sort of "help" it is) various accomplishments. in fact, IIRC, edward wilson, the biologist, has argued that it (the "god meme" as dawkins might call it) has a significant evolutionary fitness advantage.

--ravi



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list