[Buddha-l] life force vis a vis Xianity & Hinduism

[Richard Hayes]

On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 10:08 -0400, Stanley J. Ziobro II wrote:

> That said, then I think scientists should not attempt to pronounce
> upon spheres of discourse for which their disciplines do not form a
> legitimate basis.  A more direct
> manner of phrasing the point: A scientist is not a theologian, so a
> scientist ceases speaking as a scientist when he or she ventures into the
> realm of philosophy or of theology.

Yes, this principle has been accepted by all philosophers of science
that I know of.  Individual scientists, being only human, occasionally
fail to live up to the high standards of scientific discourse. But when
a science teacher says that intelligent design theory has no place in a
science classroom, she is making a claim about science, not about
theology.

> > Jesus Christ.
> 
> Come, come, Richard.  This is a Buddhist discussion list.

According to many Buddhists, Jesus Christ was a bodhisattva.

> Ockham's razor here explains what something is; it gives no clue as to its
> "why".  When seeking to express the "why" of something simply describing
> emperically random morphologies does not meet the point.

Answering a difficult question with an honest "We don't know yet" is a
scientific option that carries a greater intellectual honesty than
trumping up a pseudo-explanation. The whole concept of intelligent
design is at the very most a pseudo-explanation. It dos no work at all.
It is a myth that perhaps deserves to be taught in a mythology class
alongside Thomas Berry and Brian Swimm's rather clever "Universe story,"
but it has no place in a science classroom. And it has no place on
buddha-l.

-- 
Richard Hayes