[MD] Dawkins a Materialist

[Case]

David M,

It is true that one can not use the laws of physics to explain the rules of
chess. But it is also true that the rules of chess can not exist if the laws
of physics are tampered with. The reverse is not true. It is also true that
the rules of chess, the game of chess can be studied systematically.
Acknowledgement of role of abstract ideas does not change the fact that the
foundation is built from the ground up. 

Case

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of David M
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 3:53 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Dawkins a Materialist

Hi Case

Let me try. Divide experience into subjective
aspects and objective/extended aspects. Forget all
about the former aspects and try to explain
all of reality in terms of the concepts that can be
applied to extended objects.

Alternatives: MOQ, romanticism, idealism,
phenomenology, loads of non-western thinking,
common sense, poetry, post-modernism, etc.

David M


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Case" <Case at iSpots.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Dawkins a Materialist


> Could you define materialism?
> Case
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of ian glendinning
> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 12:32 PM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: [MD] Dawkins a Materialist
> 
> Hi folks,
> 
> This news story on a $27m Museum of Creation in "Middle America"
> (Kentucky) perhaps shows the ludicrous excess of faith-based world
> views. Frightening that visitors might actually value this kind of
> misinformation.
> 
> The telling issue for me though is the quote from the organisation,
> justifying literal belief in Genesis, as just as valid an "a priori"
> assumption as Dawkins belief in materialism.
> 
> I'd have to say I agree. Thank god it's not a matter of choice between
> the two for MoQ'ers. Literal materialism is as dead as literal gods.
> Neither a priori assumption is valid.
> 
> Ian
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> 
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>

moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/