From: Ted Davis (TDavis@messiah.edu)
Date: Fri Oct 10 2003 - 07:41:59 EDT
Please note below, marked ***, where I obviously erred when typing.
>>> "Howard J. Van Till" <hvantill@chartermi.net> 10/10/03 07:35AM >>>
>From: "Ted Davis" <tdavis@messiah.edu>
> He [Johnson] simply believes, rightly or wrongly, that MN
> leads inevitably to PN. He does not mean by this, that the acceptance of
MN
> leads to PN for every individual thinker who accepts MN; he knows full
well
> that there are people like me in the universe. Phil wants to know what
*my
> children* and their children will believe, if I live out my life
accepting
> MN. He believes in historical inevitability on this (and probably also
some
> other matters), that unless people right now make a strong stand against
MN,
> that PN will indeed make strong headway in future generations.
Ultimately,
> he believes that one cannot *consistently* believe in MN without also
> believing in PN.
Then he needs to have the courage and courtesy to state that as a personal
belief that is not necessarily (logically) required.
> In his favor, there is the following point. If one rejects MN, one
can't
> consistently accept PN.
OK
> And, if one accepts PN, one can't consistently
> accept MN.
***Cleary I erred here. I meant to say: "if one accepts PN, one can't
consistently reject MN"
Wrong. PN (better labeled Materialism) is a statement about the nature of
reality. MN is only a statement about current scientific practice. MN is
consistent with materialism, but does not require it.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 10 2003 - 07:42:26 EDT