[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[Micah]

Platt,

But you do have evidence of termites existing in reality and their nature.
Yet you do not have evidence of reality existing without humans - so why do
you assume it does, without evidence? Is it wishful thinking?

On the horns of a dilemma, take the third option. I believe that is what
Pirsig said in ZMM about the choices of western philosophy - mystical
(Plato) vs. Scientific (Aristotle) - when he hit upon the quality event and
the nature of reality. Which is the foundation for Lila.

ZMM, the most unread bestseller of all-time.


Micah


-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org]On Behalf Of pholden at davtv.com
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 11:07 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)


Quoting Micah <micah at roarkplumbing.com>:

> Platt,
>
> That is not the prevailing view of science. Both science and religion
begin
> with the unproven assumption that reality exists independent of humans.

Well a lot of scientists do buy that assumption, but some of the quantum
guys
say observation collapses the wave function to create the world we know.
So science in general seems to be of two minds. I'm not sure about religion.

> Which is an assumption Pirsig does not make.

He doesn't?

> Why do you make that assumption?

Because I find no evidence that the termites who may be feasting on the
foundation
of my house depend on my observation for their existence.

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
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/