Re: SSM Plebiscite
Reply #599 –
why do you think it wasn’t investigated ?
The answer is that it was investigated but without a satisfactory conclusion. The models keep building upon the previous editions to explain the observed world.
Sheldrake talks about a chat he had with Lord Rees (aka Martin Rees, the current Astronomer Royal) regarding the multiverse. As an aside, most western world cosmologists now believe in the multiverse, for which there is no evidence. Anyway, Sheldrake made the point that this was a good example of Ockham's Razor, and that the science community was making a rod for its own back, by creating an infinite number of entities that it cannot and may never be able to explain. Rees said something like "wellI agree it's a bit of a problem, but this way, we can get rid of God !" Sheldrake then asked "so you would prefer to have quadrillions of unexplained universes to God ?" To which Rees replied "yes, it's much better, it's more scientific."
And there you have it.
That statement is incomplete and you cannot possibly draw any logical conclusion from it (ooo, there's another one to add to science, spirituality and philosophy - logic!). Why? It begs the question, 'What is Rees' definition/understanding of what God is?"
If Rees was talking about an Old Testament fire and brimstone malevolent man in the sky with a long white beard, well, then you can understand his comment. Better complex, mind-boggling options than that God. However, if he was talking about God as a metaphor for some mysterious, omnipotent, intelligent energy of some sort, then he's a goose. We just don't know until he clarifies what God is to him... didn't Sheldrake or someone else think to ask him this question?