boneyard bill

excreationist writes:

You got that right. Of course I meant to say that he must prove that statement 5 MUST be true. Or that he must provide a logical proof to support statement 5.

Vorkosigan

Does the possession of "best possible" knowledge always certainly result in an ethical action?

No, where did you get that? I am simply stating that it is highly unethical to make moral choices without taking into account the best knowledge you have. Outcomes, alas, are more problematic.

(If individuals want to believe in some corny belief system, let them by all means, until unless it doesnt affect you, might sound very selfish, but doesnt natural selection help those who can adapt to changing conditions in their environment?)

I have no trouble with most belief systems.

And regarding the supernatural angle, why should the antithesis of materialism always result in something "supernatural"?

It shouldn't -- parapsychology is also non-materialistic.

Regarding religion, god and all that crap we both are on the same side, except for the question - is the definition of "natural" static?

Hell no. That's what science is for.

Michael

crocodile deathroll

Materialism, as it was practiced in the 19th century by the Marxists of the day is by 21st century standards is far too simplistic, because since new physics and chaos theory has been factored in it has become a far more complex philosophy than Marx (living in his space time continuum) could ever possibly dream of.
But I also must stress the new physics and chaos theory does not reimpose supernatural systems. If anything it just keeps explaining them away

crocodile deathroll

crocodile deathroll

I do not believe no religion is higher than truth, and at times we have to work very hard to find it . One of my favorite lines



If feel science emphasizes frankness any honesty with the natural world and that put ethics more on the side of science than dogmatic religions.

Supernaturalism is at the antithesis of materialism but the new physics is not the antithesis of Newtonian physics. In fact it compliments it.

crocodile deathroll

phaedrus

Michael

No, where did you get that?

I didnt get anything. It was a question.

I am simply stating that it is highly unethical to make moral choices without taking into account the best knowledge you have. Outcomes, alas, are more problematic.

Exactly, so how do you judge something to be ethical? Based on the decision making process or the result of the process?

It shouldn't -- parapsychology is also non-materialistic.

Good It was sort of getting a lil out of hand in most of the thread here that when an individual takes a position against materialism, there seems to be an immediate inference of "supernatural" or "religion" or "spiritual" or "mystical"...et al

Hell no. That's what science is for.

And science constantly relearns. So what is not "natural" today could become "natural" tomorrow because there is a scientific explanation/discovery. (Ofcourse this doesnt mean any religious mumbo jumbo can take refuge in this arguement)


Btw want to take a shot at my earlier question ? - Does your best picture of reality offer a framework of values? And again "best" according to whom? When people talk about a materialistic culture, what would they be referring to?

JP

[ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: phaedrus ]</p>

phaedrus

C D

I do not believe 'no religion is higher than truth', and at times we have to work very hard to find it . One of my favorite lines

How is this connected to what i was saying to Michael? Anyhows you stated that you dont believe that "no religion is higher than truth". Based on your phrasing of that sentence, it translated into - "i believe religion is higher than truth", is that what you wanted to say?

If feel science emphasizes frankness any honesty with the natural world and that put ethics more on the side of science than dogmatic religions.

What does this line mean? My question was - Does the possession of "best possible" knowledge always certainly result in an ethical action?

Supernaturalism is at the antithesis of materialism but the new physics is not the antithesis of Newtonian physics. In fact it compliments it.

Care to elaborate your assertion ?

crocodile deathroll

What I mean is no religion is higher the truth; period!. If I am wrong than name one the is. Unless that religion is truth itself but one has to be very pragmatic and not dogmatic about it.
You may often be familiar with the assertion then because matter does not necessarily behave like little pool balls hitting each other on a subatomic level that this discredits materialism. It does not discredit it, it only makes it all the more interesting in my mind.
Supernaturalism however is very much at the antithesis of materialism you only have to take Heaven as an example. I have never been able believe in a heaven no matter how hard try. Church people just keep talking about it a lot but they have not come up with any evidence or even formulated a decent theory in an attempt to verify its existence. They can't even tell us whether it is a sphere like the Earth or flat like some of them believe or imagine the Earth to be. I do not have a problem with non-locality relativity, or wave particle duality.

crocodile deathroll

excreationist

I think that pure matter can build up belief systems or a framework for reasoning about the world. Examples would be bees or mice... unless you believe that they possess a supernatural "life-force" rather than just being a collection of atoms.

phaedrus

CD

What I mean is no religion is higher the truth; period!. If I am wrong than name one the is. Unless that religion is truth itself but one has to be very pragmatic and not dogmatic about it.

Good that you clarified, the phrasing was indicating something else. Why should i name anything when i havent taken any stand?

And regarding the remainder of your post - adios and peace...

boneyard bill

excreationist writes:

But then doesn't your claim, that matter can build up "belief systems" imply something about the nature of matter itself? Unless you can show that these "belief systems" are "nothing but" material processes, you have to follow through on the implications of your claim. And so far, no one has been able to show that belief systems and physical processes can be reduced to the same thing. So if you say, "but someday science will be able to prove this," you are assuming that your claim is true in the first place. You are discounting the possibility that science will someday dis-prove it. And you are assuming that the scientific method is limitless in its ability to answer our questions. But can you support any of these assumptions? I very much doubt it.

So what do you base your claims on? On faith? The rational answer is that, based on the present state of scientific evidence, we must conclude that mind is a fundamental characteristic of matter and material processes, or it is supernatural in its origins.

Either way, materialism is not supported by the evidence. This doesn't refute materialism logically. It just shows that the "best evidence" argument is against it.