[MD] Theism and literalism

[david buchanan]

Scott said to dmb:
...I did not ignore what you said about "preferences". My reply was that if 
one does not
want to make non-empirical assumptions, one should not say there is value or 
preferences in the inorganic (once one has rejected a mechanistic view), 
since one has the option of not saying anything -- ...

dmb says:
Yes, I know you replied to what I said, but you did ignore my central point 
about "preferences" in that reply. Let me show you what I mean...

dmb had said:
...causality is taking a real beating in the sub-atomic realm, where events 
may or may not occur, where events may or may not occur in one of several 
ways. I mean, there is real data to support the idea that the so-called laws 
of nature are not strictly followed, the data coming from quantum mechanics 
and such reveals a certain inadequacy in that model. So I think it makes 
sense to replace mechanistic laws with a better set of terms...

Scott replied:
I agree with this except your sentence "So I think it makes sense to replace 
mechanistic laws with a better set of terms". If one wants to be 
uncontroversial, then one should just drop mechanistic terms without 
replacing them. By replacing mechanistic terms with 'value' and 'preference' 
you are saying something about the inorganic for which there is no empirical 
evidence. ...The very same laboratory data would hold if I claimed that what 
electrons are "really" doing is dancing to the music of the spheres. But of 
course to claim that is absurd. Yet the MOQ claims that there is value 
involved in what electrons do. It does so because it has faith in the idea 
that Quality is omnipresent -- and so do I. But I recognize this as faith, 
that is, it is consistent with what mystics say, even though I have no 
empirical evidence for it. There is empirical evidence for Quality, but only 
in humans and higher animals. Not for the inorganic.

dmb now says:
First of all, I don't see how we can possibly conclude that electrons are 
"dancing to the music of the spheres" from the data. The central point, 
which you have ignored, is that the "preferences" conclusion is based on 
empirical data. All you've done is nakedly deny that this lab data counts as 
empirical evidence for that conclusion. Why does it not count? Why does the 
"preference" model not work better than the "causal law" model? Wasn't my 
main point centered on the inadequacy of that model, AS IT IS REVEALED BY 
THAT DATA? Yes. And that's exactly the part you don't address. You act as if 
any silly conclusion can be drawn from this data, as if it doesn't have to 
make sense and be consistant. I don't think the MOQ is making any claims 
about what electrons are "really" doing. The "preference" model is simply 
designed to describe the "behaviour" of subatomic particles as they are 
revealed in scientific experiments.

I can't even imagine how you can deny that this is an empirically based 
assertion.

And yes, I know this issue has nothing to do with the thread name. Just 
wanted to give you a little taste of your own medicine.

As for our discussion about theism and literalism, I shall resume when we 
can agree on the basic meaning of these terms. If we can't do that, then 
what's the point? Unless that happens, we're not even talking about the same 
things.  Funny thing is, you recently admited what I've always suspected; 
that you're a theist. Insofar as your views are based on faith and you're 
asserting a supernatural divinity, you're a theist. And like every other 
theist I've encountered here, you're not making sense.

dmb


>dmb said to Scott:
>Defying the dictionary is dynamic? Oh, please. You're not creatively 
>bending
>the rules. You're just being sloppy, confusing and a bit scatterbrained 
>too.
>(Did you notice that I've deleted your irrelevant tangets on neo-Darwinism
>and the preferences of particles.) If you will recall, this thread began by
>making a case IN FAVOR of those who would creatively break the rules, IN
>FAVOR of those who would defy static dogma of the theists. As in the case 
>of
>the theist who doesn't believe in God, I'm not rejecting these exceptions,
>I'm just rejecting that sort of non-sense and other contradictions. You've
>all but ignored my central point about the dynamic contrarians and seem
>quite willing to avoid any discussion about the neo-Victorians. You've
>ignored my central point about the "preferences of particles", which I made
>despite the fact that it is outside the scope of this thread. You've taken
>my criticisms of the current Republican administration as if they were
>directed at psuedo-Dionysius and Origen. You've defied common sense and
>dictionary definitions in order to make your points and have otherwise
>ignored, evaded, confused or obfuscated the issues at hand. That, my 
>friend,
>is very far away from being a work of art.

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! 
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/