🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec19.015057.28603@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <1gttdfINNhk0@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> ST202194@brownvm.brown.edu () writes:
>>physicists are really saying, I believe, is that the laws of physics
>>equate to God."  - G. Burbridge, in paper called Modern Cosmology: the
>>Harmonious and the Discordant Facts.
>
>     I hope this was made in a poetical rather than a serious vein.
>     Otherwise, I suspect that large numbers of physicists would
>     disagree with Mr. Burbridge, God apparently being unnecessary
>     within physics in particular and science in general.

They might disagree that physicists are really saying this,
but on reflection they might actually say it, since God is
better suited as such a metaphor than as some extraphysical
director of some suprareality.

God "exists" as a metaphor in all religions that don't
actually still believe in the anthropomorphistic deities in
the mode of the Greeks, Christians, etc.  Using God here to
encompass the totality of logic both discovered and
undiscovered tends to make science a religion of rigid
bounds; and religion a science of dubious quality.  God
isn't necessarily unnecessary as much as it is an
energetic, but not political or philosophical, nonentity.

				--Blair
				  "I even spelled it rihgt."