Ironically the multiverse concept attempts to smuggle ideas into science that are really theological ideas in disguise. For example, multiverses transcend the observable universe and form an eternally existing ground of being. Is that a logical possibility? Certainly. Is it more logical than the idea that mind or intelligence ontologically precedes our present universe? Is p more logical than ~p? Davies makes a valiant attempt to makes such an argument. In my opinion, however, he fails. His argument in my view is not based reason alone but on his own personal beliefs and preferences. Or, in other words"¦ Faith.

Oddly, I didn't even see his op-ed as particularly "defending" religion, as people seem to think. He just pointed out what he thought was a common point between the two in a particular regard. Apparently that's enough to stir some mild intellectual panic among theist-aggravated scientists. I can't help but think that, if Davies' op-ed was "Did you know scientists have a traditional uniform they wear when conducting certain experiments.. and priests are known to wear certain vestments on particular holy days?", we'd have seen a response like this, ranging from Lee Smolin mentioning how, while that's true, the garb is only worn in the lab while priests wear a uniform outside, to PZ Myers insisting that he conducts his experiments in swim trunks and a sweatshirt most of the time, and traditional uniforms are only for nutters.

LOL. Bare minimum standards of ethical treatment = the right to not have a post deleted on a public message board. HAHAHAHA.
Please don't delete the above post. It's just too funny.

LOL. You can view it in the hole if you like. It is humorous to see someone get this hung up on his blog comments. A little pathetic too.

We are talking about a bare minimum of ethical standards here.

LOL. Bare minimum standards of ethical treatment = the right to not have a post deleted on a public message board. HAHAHAHA.
Please don't delete the above post. It's just too funny.

http://telicthoughts.com/scien...

If you want your guest privilages revoked you can continue to ignore clear requests.

In other words, the laws should have an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency. The specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research. But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.

Referring to the last sentence I had written:

Davies's editorial ends on a note that anti-theists find most discordant.

That's a metaphorical way of stating anti-theists would not like the statement. The same can be said for the entire blocked quote. But it is no longer just an opinion. Rather it is evidenced by the hostility of known anti-theists as witnessed by their own comments on the internet. Start with PZ Meyers at the most trafficked blog and go from there. The two preceeding sentences did not mollify them, proving that it is Davies' statements about faith that they dislike.

So again, by Cartwright's own admission, her argument does not apply if we take natural law to be merely descriptive.

Oh, good grief! How in the world can you pretend that what is essential to the definition of "law" can simply be ignored so as to escape the syntax error? Effects are what we observe, along with a cascade of proximate [descriptive] causes. "Law" prescribes those events, makes them predictable.

I realize biology's currently dying theoretical framework is not predictive (that's why there's some question as to its 'scientific' status). The rest of science IS predictive, and it's predictive because of "laws" that prescribe - govern - the proximate cause-effect chain. [ed.]

In the Memory Hole, we keep all the comments that didn't quit fit in the discussion upstairs.

From the TT Comment Guidelines:

Every public forum has to consider the bounds in which discourse is to take place. At Telic Thoughts, we've chosen a form that will hopefully live up to our vision of "a pleasant and fruitful atmosphere." Inspired by the good folks at The Panda's Thumb, who have a similar system, we're introducing The Memory Hole, into which comments, that we, for one reason or another, find inappropriate, will be dumped. Although its name comes from George Orwell's novel 1984, in which The Party used the memory holes to destroy unwanted documents, a comment in our Memory Hole will still be accessible to anyone caring to wade through the piles. [emphasis mine]

…Of course, any spam, threats, and material of a pornographic or violent nature will be deleted entirely.

Interestingly, Guts is the one making threats:

Like I said, you are not in a position to strongly suggest anything here, so if you like posting here I strongly suggest that the two of you keep your next comments on topic.

Are you going to delete your comment, Guts?