Subj: Re: Marxism and Darwinism
> Bertvan
> >Hi Ted. I, personally, don't "fear" belief in astrology,
>>witchcraft or anything else. I can't believe such ideas are
>>much of a threat to anyone at the moment. I never "feared"
>>belief in communism. Beliefs damage no one. Actions, including
>>attempts to suppress freedom of ideas, do.
Ted:
>No. As James eloquently puts it "faith without works is dead".
>Belief inexorably leads to action or it is empty and meaningless.
> Suppression of beliefs is, of course, a red herring. The kinds
>of beliefs that materialists don't like thrive in ignorance and
>disappear in the light of knowledge. (I don't mean to characterize
>all ID as that kind of belief, though.)
Bertvan:
Hi Ted. "Belief inexorably leads to action". Is that a law of nature?
I'll ask again, do you believe people should be punished or harassed for
their "ignorant" beliefs to prevent some undefined future action? Do you see
any danger in allowing advocates of one belief or philosophy, even if a
majority opinion, to define "ignorance" and harass anyone who disagrees? I'm
glad you don't characterize all ID as ignorance. Perhaps non materialism is
gaining acceptance.
> > Bertvan:
>> The "evidence" is available to us all. We interpret it differently.
Ted
> Then why hint that any agreement is possible? You seem to
>be calling for some kind of... truce (?) between materialists
>and non-materalists but want materialists to first adopt
>non-materialistic assumptions?
Bertvan:
I doubt agreement is possible at the present time between materialists and
non materialists. Tolerance might be a possibility. The last thing I want
is for materialists to adopt non materialists assumptions. An
acknowledgement that differences are based upon assumptions might be nice.
Bertvan
> > Materialists are entitled to their interpretation. Anything I
>> say is merely in support of those expressing what I see as a
>> minority view, not any attempt to change the beliefs of some
>> materialist. Conflict of ideas is part of a healthy culture.
>> Lack of conflict would ensure stagnation.
Ted:
> I can't understand what you're saying in any meaningful sense
> without knowing what you mean by non-materialism. Most people
>agree that science can only work under materialistic assumptions.
Bertvan:
I agree that naturalistic explanations are all science can provide, but
dispute that materialism is necessary, or even helpful, to do science. Quite
a lot of science was achieved by people who worked under the assumptions of
Christianity. (In case you missed it, I am an not an agnostic, not a
Christian.)
It's easier to give examples of non materialist assumptions than to attempt
definitions. (As I tried to do with Marxism and materialistic psychology.)
Science deals in definitions; non materialism includes the undefinable.
(such as free will, creativity or an undefinable "God") Non materialists
regard the non definable as part of reality, and capable of influencing
reality. Non materialists are skeptical of materialistic confidence that all
of nature will eventually be explained by science. Apparently, most
materialists believe the universe is the result of accidental, impersonal
processes, without plan, purpose, meaning or design. Non materialists
entertain the possibility of design and teleology. Materialism assumes the
"laws of nature" are absolute. Non materialism is comfortable with the
probabilistic nature of quantum physics. Non materialists might regard
mathematical formulas as crude way to describe reality, while a materialist
would consider them precise. Those are off the top of my head, and I'm ready
to rethink any of them. Whatever the differences, people rarely seem to have
trouble sorting themselves out, and deciding whether they are a materialist
and non materialist.
Ted:
>The issue of legitimate differences of opinion leads to a big
>question. What is legitimate and who decides?
Bertvan:
Precisely. Who gets to decide? You? Me? Or someone with whom neither of
us agree?
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 11 2000 - 11:19:04 EST