Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.origins,net.religion,net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Materialism
Message-ID: <1248@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19-Jul-85 08:15:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1248
Posted: Fri Jul 19 08:15:21 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jul-85 12:10:34 EDT
References: <2156@ut-sally.UUCP> <347@scgvaxd.UUCP> <368@spar.UUCP> <1148@pyuxd.UUCP> <405@spar.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 173
Keywords: Souls, Shoos, Leather Uppers
Xref: watmath net.origins:1880 net.religion:7255 net.philosophy:2072

>>>    Please note that, if evolution is true [I believe it has much essential
>>>    truth], then the present complexity was there from the beginning, only
>>>    it was dormant -- exactly like a seed. [ELLIS]

>>That's not strictly true either, unless you once again define some "planning
>>force" that designed the complexity.  [ROSEN]

>     I refer you to the much debated `Design Implies Designer' argument. Both
>     sides have been adequately presented, and I have nothing new to add on
>     this point.
>     Incidentally, it is peculiar to hear the watchmaker argument coming from
>     you, Rich. 

You miss the point.  I was saying that the position above only has meaning if
you assume a creator who "designed" the complexity.

>>>    Science only describes objective mechanisms, not subjective things like
>>>    `purpose' or `meaning'. As such, it will always be soulless, and its
>>>    descriptions incomplete. But that does not mean that is wrong --
>>>    except when science declares itself to be All That Is.

>>Pardon me for thinking, Mike, but my gut response is "What a load of crap!"
>>(Or, to quote a famous philosopher:  Ingest excrement and self-terminate! :-)
>>Is it "soulless" to avoid wishful thinking presumption of intended meanings
>>and purposes, ...

>     How are we in disagreement here? Why such invective -:O
>     We both agree that science tells only How and not Why. Purpose and
>     meaning are metaphysical concerns, yes?
>     Likewise, we both agree that souls, if they exist, have minimal
>     scientific existence -- they are supposed to be, after all, supernatural
>     entities.  Do you agree that science ought not to be concerned with
>     souls?
    
No, of course not, though apparently you seem to.  I just love the way some
people choose to divide the world arbitrarily into these physical and
non-physical categories based solely on their limits of observation, and
then seek to cage science (that awful thing!) into examining only the
"physical", claiming that their pet "nonphysical" ideas should be free of
the shackles of science, which really means "let's not examine these things
rigorously because such thinking might debunk these notions the way they
got rid of geocentrism hundreds of years ago".

>     If so, we agree that science is soulless -- soul-free, if you prefer.

And then they use deceptive debasing terminology to describe science like
"it's soulless".  What is it that you have against rigorous objectified
examination using verifiable evidence?  That's all the heinous science is
after all.  Why should such examination have "limits"?

>>...or to avoid presuming their existence at all in the absence of
>>evidence for them?     

>     In the absence of OBJECTIVE evidence, such things MAY lack OBJECTIVE
>     existence. We agree. 
>     But is that the only kind of existence that is meaningful?
    
Since other so-called evidence is rife with the flaws of preconception,
presumption, faulty patterning of the mind imposed on events, it ain't
worthwhile evidence.

>     Most people attribute existence to at least a few kinds of nonobjective
>     things -- like beauty, meaning, awareness, causality, science,
>     schroedinger probability waves, probably `physical objects', and maybe
>     music, time, space...  Clearly SOME meaningful things exist that have
>     little or no objective existence whatsoever. 
    
We're talking about constructs and patterns designed by the mind to REPRESENT
reality, not reality.

>>Is it (science) "incomplete" in any sense other than that *you*,
>>my friend, like so many others, wish for something more that that which is?

>     Like it or not, Rich, some, perhaps MOST of us cannot cease perceiving
>     such nonobjective phantoms as {purpose, meaning, awareness..} -- the
>     damn things simply have equal or greater reality than any objective
>     entities described second-hand by science.

See above.

>     Again and again, you offer the accusation `wishful thinking' when you
>     really ought to be demolishing the idea presented, by means of logical
>     argument.  If you think a statement is false, please demonstrate its
>     fallacy -- you might even shut me up! If you cannot, your estimation of
>     my motives, witty as it may be, is a cheap substitute for real
>     discourse.

Since the idea presented has no supporting evidence, one can assume that you
must believe in it for a reason.  If not factual evidence, and if not just
because it fits notions of the world as you might like to see it (wishful
thinking) then what???

>     Another thing, Rich. You seem to believe that most people have a great
>     deal invested in their point of view, and you are apparently dedicated to
>     the beliefs below:
>         The universe of science is All That Is.
>         Science will somehow be able to describe everything.

Here we go again with science-hating.  The universe of things that are are the
things that are.  That's my position.  What is a "universe of science"?
Furthermore, whether or not science is able to describe "everything",
does it mean that, if science cannot describe something, someone's wishful
speculation have a bearing on the truth?

>      Wishful Thinking?

Unfortunately, my "wishful thinking" is backed up by evidence.  (See above.)

>>All the "purposes" and "meanings" ever proposed have no basis in reasoning
>>or fact or evidence, only in wishful thinking and presumption, never backed
>>by anything more than that.  If I'm wrong, show me a counterexample.

>     Uncle!
    
Thank you.  I didn't think you could.  Really.

>     Of course I cannot offer objective evidence of `purpose' or `meaning',
>     since these are SUBJECTIVE phantoms, which, along with others like {love,
>     beauty, awareness...} recur in every natural language and in every human
>     being that I've ever encountered.

Just as subjective as one's biased feelings that occur on a daily basis,
like when you might assume that someone (by their words/actions) feels a
certain way (based on your own preconceptions about the person and about
people in general) when they don't.  With that sort of track record for
subjectivity, I don't think it worthwhile as a descriptor of the real world
in a realistic physical sense.  It works for you as the way you experience
the world, and in that sense it is real, but beyond that it does not
accurately (necessarily) describe the real world.

>>...The tone of the beginning of the paragraph may be harsh, but I've grown
>>to become literally offended by that sort of "fuzzy thinking".

>     Sorry, most subjective terms like {purpose, meaning, awareness} are very
>     difficult to define. Notice that interest in these ideas is not
>     restricted to religion, mysticism, metaphysics, philosophy, etc., but
>     also encompasses modern disciplines like artificial intelligence,
>     cognitive psychology, linguistics, etc. Apparently I'm not alone in
>     attributing great importance to such chimaera.
      
Attribute all the personal importance to them that you like.  That doesn't
mean that such things describe the physical world outside the mind.

>     I suppose someday we'll know more about these fuzzy concepts. For now,
>     all we can do is grope about under the foggy subjective light of
>     introspection.
      
Given how inaccurate the light has been at casting real illumination on
reality, it's best not taken literally.

>>>   Why evolution cannot be seen, by Christians, as a description of part
>>>   of the mechanism God used to make the present complexity, is beyond me. 
>>>   Fundamentalist Christians and Scientific Materialists are so much alike.
>>>   Tweedledum or Tweedledee?       SMASH CAUSALITY!!!

>>On the other hand, religionists of all sorts, neo-mystics, and hopeful
>>causality smashers are so much alike, too.  (Three blind mice?  Or three
>>something-elses?)

>     Hopeful causality smashers? Sorry to disturb your slumber, but causality
>     is limping badly this century:
> 	Is it possible to provide causal explanations of QM phenomena?  I do
> 	not know. Van Fraassen argues cogently, on the basis of Bell's
> 	inequality and relevant experimental results, that "there are well
> 	attested phenomena which cannot be embedded in any common-cause
> 	model" (1982). It appears that causal explanations are possible only
> 	if the concept of causality is fundamentally revised.

This still sounds a good deal like anthropocentrism to me.  Because WE can't
attribute a cause to something, it's "acausal".
-- 
"iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!"
	Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr