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

[Erik Hoogcarspel]

Jim Peavler schreef:

>
> On Aug 22, 2005, at 8:08 AM, Stanley J. Ziobro II wrote:
>
>
> Hence intelligent design theory has no place in a science class, 
> unless the teacher spends the first day of class describing why 
> intelligent design is not science and will not be discussed further.
>
>> 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.
>
>
> Ockam's entire point was that science should NOT try to explain "why" 
> but focus entirely on "what".  "What" is the subject matter of 
> science; "Why" is the subject matter of religion.
>
> One of the big problems of science in Ockam's day was understanding 
> motion. Why does an arrow continue to fly even though it is clearly 
> not being moved by a "mover"? This problem had been around for 
> centuries and there were several thousand pages of speculation in 
> Greek, Latin, Arabic, and even in the vernacular languages of the 
> western world. Ockam's razor said in effect, "Why doesn't matter. What 
> we care about is where the arrow lands and how much force it lands 
> with. So we will try to understand the strength of the original force 
> that sets the arrow in flight, the mass and shape of the arrow, the 
> angle at which the arrow must be fired in order to hit the target we 
> want to hit, and whether it will arrive with enough force to do the 
> amount of damage we wish to inflict on the target.  Answering these 
> questions is the realm of science. (However, being disciplined in 
> trying to understand the "what" of arrows in flight eventually led to 
> an understanding of the "why" as well. I doubt that that will not 
> happen to such questions "why do we exist" or "why is there evil in 
> the world" and similar questions (many of which the Buddha refused to 
> entertain.))"
>
Thanks Jim for clearing up the concept of theory, I agree. About this 
why I'd like to play the sceptic.
Why does everything exist?
Because of something that exists or something that doesn't exist. The 
first reason is begging the question, the second is tantamount to saying 
there's no reason at all.


Erik


www.xs4all.nl/~jehms