Bertvan@aol.com writes
in message <e2.2545a8c.260143e9@aol.com>:
> Ted:
> > I know that it is human nature to want to believe that we are
> > much greater than atoms & energy but I'm not convinced that
> > is true.
> Hi Ted, We have finally identified our area of disagreement.
> You don't believe "free will" is really free, nor that "creativity"
> exists as an unknown or unknowable force.
No, that's a bit of caricature of my view. I believe free will
is as free as it can be. Beyond that I have heard no coherent
or unconfused descriptions of what it must entail. Explanations
of free will and creativity that reject materialistic explanations
must be coherent, first, and provide evidence, second, that
demonstrate them to be superior. Wishful thinking should not
be the basis for truth!
> Can you agree that ours is a philosophical difference? Can you
> understand that your particular philosophical view is required
> in order to accept "random mutation and natural selection" as
> the explanation for macro evolution? Can you acknowledge that
> anyone who believes organisms are more than atoms & energy
> will be skeptical of such an explanation?
No to each. If your beliefs are based on more than a simple
fallacy of wishful thinking, then they have the power to persuade
others. On the other hand, if your beliefs are based on a
fallacy, I believe it is quite possible that you can come to
understand that eventually. Likewise, if my beliefs are based
on a fallacy I hope others are not simply content to 'agree to
disagree' with me. Such an attitude does me a disservice.
> It may well be that it is "human nature" to believe that we are
> much greater than atoms and energy, but can you prove otherwise?
> Can you prove that human nature in this case is wrong?
The issue is never one of proving anything, but of establishing
a fact to a certain degree of confidence. Taking refuge under
the tiny possibility that a particular thing is true can be
a formula for disaster: "Well, maybe drugs won't damage my
brain". I find it best to go with the preponderance of the
evidence.
> Your own personal conviction on the matter is certainly legitimate
> grounds for your belief, but would you impose upon others? Would
> you impose it upon all scientists? Would you impose a science
> based upon you philosophical belief upon society as "fact"?
Imposing a belief, as I explained, is not the issue. People
can only be persuaded by learning new truths or having old
falsehoods exposed. And that's what science does admirably.
> Should we debate the merits of "natural selection" versus
> "design" on the basis of whether organisms, and especially
> people, are more than atoms & energy?
I'm not sure what that would entail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 15 2000 - 16:41:50 EST