ubj: Re: Marxism and Darwinism
From: hadley@reliant.yxi.com (Tedd Hadley)
Ted:
> What do you mean by non-definable? I know many people
> who argue that "free will", "creativity" and "God"
>can be well-defined.
Bertvan:
Hi Ted. Does science claim to define them? Does Science admit the
possibility that "free will", "creativity" or "God" are a part of the real
world of molecules, atoms and physical forces? Does materialistic science
admit the possibility that "free will", "creativity" or "God" might have any
power to interact with the real world of molecules, atoms or physical forces?
I was under the impression that since Descartes, science has declared them
to occupy two different realms, with no possible interaction between the two.
I can't ask you to speak for "science", but how do you think 20th century
science, or more specifically Neo Darwinist biology, would generally answer?
Bertvan
>> Non materialists are skeptical of materialistic confidence that
>>all of nature will eventually be explained by science.
Ted:
> If they have a reason for this skepticism, that reason can be
>examined with the tools of science. In principle, I can think
>of no way to know anything with confidence without being able
>to verify it in ways approaching the scientific method.
Bertvan:
Are you saying "the tools of science" can examine all questions? Even those
they have declared to be "outside the realm of science"? I agree that
materialists "know a lot of things with confidence". The list of things we
agnostics "know with confidence" is much smaller. We would argue what we
know is more significant, but admittedly covers less ground.
Bertvan:
>> 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.
Ted:
> Maybe, maybe not, depending on what you mean by design.
>Did Thor create the Earth? Not likely.
Bertvan:
It is generally the agnostic position that humans are incapable of
understanding whatever created life, the Earth or the universe. That doesn't
prevent us from acknowledging it was apparently created (or sprang
spontaneously into existence) and the evidence convinces me that creation
was the result of a rational design. A rational design might well include
teleology.
Bertvan:
>> Materialism assumes the "laws of nature" are absolute. Non
>> materialism is comfortable with the probabilistic nature of
>> quantum physics.
Ted:
>Materialists are perfectly comfortable with quantum physics.
>I don't know what you mean, here.
Bertvan:
Have you really reconciled Bells Theorem with a separation of the material
and the spiritual into two different realms?
Bertvan:
> > Non materialists might regard mathematical formulas as crude
>> way to describe reality, while a materialist would consider them
>> precise.
Ted:
> Depends on what you mean by "describing reality". I know of no
> single mathematical formula that describes reality.
Bertvan:
Do you believe the laws of nature are absolute, and apparent mathematical
deviations are due to our imprecise measurements? What if our measurements
are pretty good, and it is the laws of nature that are imprecise? Especially
when dealing with life.
Am enjoying the discussion Ted. Hope you don't get angry.
Bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 13 2000 - 18:11:20 EST