I'm surprised that you think this view is dead. Let's break it
down into separate propositions:
(1) Nothing exists except matter and energy.
I've seen at least one philosopher claim that abstract things like
propositions exist, thus falsifying this statement, but I contend that
this is an equivocation on the word "exists". Matter and energy exist
in a different *way* than abstract things.
The real point of (1) is that immaterial spirits and vital forces
don't exist. That's my opinion, anyway. Seen in this light, (1)
is far from dead.
(2) Everything is humanly understandable.
I don't know why this should be part of the definition of materialism.
It seems very likely to me that there are some things that are just
too complex for our finite brains to understand.
(3) Everything is understandable in terms of matter and energy.
I was going to say that in *principle* I think everything can be
explained in terms of physical law. But I changed my mind.
I think it's logically impossible to understand everything. In
response to any explanation, one can always ask, "But *why* is it
that way?" Why does the universe obey this particular set of laws
and not some other? Even if the answer is that there are an infinite
number of universes, all with different laws, one can ask, "Why is it
that way?" Even if the answer is, "God did it," one can ask, "Why
did God do it that way? And where did God come from? How did God
exist forever?"
Since this problem exists for both materialists and theists, (2) and
(3) should be deleted from the definition of materialism.
(4) The universe is the result of a series of accidents.
I take this to refer to current conditions within our universe,
rather than the origin of the universe. For example, it means that
the evolution of intelligent life on Earth was partly a matter of
chance.
Whether you want to say that chance or physical law is more important
is perhaps a matter of taste, but certainly the universe is not
*completely* the result of a series of accidents. Perhaps what
Bertvan really means by (4) is that there is no intelligence
in control of the universe. *That* is certainly something all
materialists woulld agree with.
(5) There is no plan, meaning, or purpose in the universe.
Materialists would agree that the universe as a *whole* has no
purpose, but that does *not* mean that purposes cannot exist *within*
the universe. People have purposes. Even animals have purposes.
There is no comprehensive meaning of life, but people can invent
individual meanings for parts of their lives.
Rich Daniel rwdaniel@dnaco.net http://www.dnaco.net/~rwdaniel/