In a comment to Glen [Fri, 18 Jun 1999 16:03:57 EDT]
[...]
> I know generalizations are wrong, but my generalization was that
> geologists are generally LESS dogmatic about materialism than
> Darwinists.
In a letter to Pim [Sat, 19 Jun 1999 17:13:57 EDT]
[...]
> All were the result of Materialism--the belief that the universe is
> the result of an accident--without design, plan, meaning or purpose.
> Who gets to decide which is "real science"? or "good science"? I
> suggest Materialists are also looking for answers which support their
> faith in an accidental universe.
In my reading, I've mostly encountered "materialism" as the opinion
that everything in the universe can be explained by physical laws,
or that everything has a physical basis (including such things as
thought & feelings).
In that respect, geologists (physical scientists by definition),
tend to be hardcore materialists, just like any biologist -- and
possibly more so. I think one could be a materialist (at least with
respect to how things function in this particular universe) and also
believe that the universe was neither accidental nor without purpose.
For example, a wind-up toy is an object with a material basis and
a "purpose".
Philosophical naturalism is the term I think you're searching for.
Personally, I don't like the use of "materialism" by Johnson et al.
because 1) Philosophical naturalism is a better description, and
2) "Materialism" has another meaning attached to it, eg. the
idea that having wordly possessions are what makes you happy.
These are different things.
Regards,
Tim Ikeda
tikeda@sprintmail.hormel.com (despam address before use)