Hi Ted. Thanks for a refreshingly thought provoking response.
> Bertvan:
>> Surely you aren't suggesting God can be explained with natural
>> laws.
>Ted:
>And why not? Every single manifestation or affect of God seems to
>have a corresponding natural explanation. (That doesn't disprove
>God, however.)
>Has anyone proved that Purpose, free will and consciousness
>*can't* be explained by natural laws? Only then would
>search for a natural explanation be irrational.
Bertvan:
> > (Materialists tend to know things with absolute certainty.)
Ted:
>Not true of any materialists I know. A logical conclusion of
>materialistic assumptions is that human knowledge can only
>approach actual reality but never quite attain it. Absolute
>truth exists only in religion (or at least, many, there, think
>they have it).
Ted:
>If you label people "materialists"
> and they don't agree with your definition, you might as
>well label them "pzarqlists" for all the good it does.
Bertvan:
>> A materialist believes the "real world" consists of matter and
>> energy, and forces which can be measured and manipulated.
Ted:
> This is not a belief, it's an observation. It is also an
> observation that forces that are traditional thought to be
>aobve matter and energy are increasingly shown to be
>rooted in them.
> But is there good evidence that consciousness can *not* be
>completely explained by matter and energy?
Bertvan
I was trying to define differences between people who call themselves
materialists and those calling themselves as non materialists. I regard most
of those differences as legitimate differences of opinion, although I haven't
had much success persuading materialists any difference of opinion with them
is legitimate. I have no disagreement with your positions. God, free will
and consciousness MIGHT be explained with natural laws. (So long as we agree
they haven't yet been explained.) Phenomena that was once regarded as
supernatural was later discovered to have natural explanations. Like
materialists, I find naturalistic explanations more satisfying than
supernatural ones. If what you describe is materialism, I wouldn't object
to characterizing myself as a materialist. However most people I've
regarded as materialists didn't object to the popular definition of the term.
There was nothing tentative about their assertion that "everything real"
can be explained as consisting of matter and energy.
Ted:
>Well, in any case, I see what you're getting at. You define
>materialists as those people that are unreasonably biased
>towards materialistic explanations.
Bertvan;
Or, in the case of Darwinism, trying to force everyone to accept a simplistic
explanation, merely because no other naturalistic explanation has been
proposed.
>Here's an observation for you: there are very few materialists
>out there, by your definition. The vast majority of your
>materialists are actually empiricists -- they simply make tentantive
>conclusions from what they observe. As an empiricist myself,
>I've never seen materialism disproved, so I must assume that
>the possibility exists that all of observable reality can be
> explained with known or unknown natural laws. As an empiricist,
>I haven't yet seen good evidence that some forces *require*
>non-materialistic assumptions at all. (If some forces *require*
>non-materialistic assumptions, well then by golly, materialism
>has just been disproved, QED.). An an empiricist, I observe
>that there has never been utterly convincing evidence in all
>of history that non-natural forces are or were at work. I do,
>however, observe that people *thought* non-natural forces were
>at work all the time and were consistently wrong, and so I conclude
>that human thoughts, dreams and hopes appears to be a significant
>source of empirical error that must be carefully accounted for.
>How reasonable is this view, in your opinion?
Beertvan:
I never had much need for a definition of materialism until participating in
this evolution/creationism controversy. Many of those "defending evolution"
are merely involved in some silly anti religion crusade, and discussion with
them is futile. Discussion is also futile with those who quote the bible as
scientific evidence. (I see nothing wrong with quoting the bible to
illustrate personal beliefs - so long as it isn't offered as scientific
evidence.) It has been my experience that people questioning Darwinism
(random mutation and natural selection as an explanation for macro
evolution), or suggesting design as either an inescapable conclusion or a
valid scientific assumption, are more willing to debate facts than those
defending Darwinism. (Merely my personal experience.) If reasonable people
like you are willing to defend Darwinism (random mutation and natural
selection as an explanation of macro evolution), the discussion might become
more interesting.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 23 2000 - 12:41:56 EST