> > Jason wrote:
> > > Xeno, it's not clear what Nagel exactly means by
> > > "materialist".
>
> Judy wrote:
> > Yes, it is. It's one who believes "that everything can
> > be accounted for at the most basic level by the physical
> > sciences, extended to include biology."
>
> > Jason wrote:
> > > In fact, many religionists and intelligent
> > > design advocates, think that evolution is 100% percent
> > >random. That is incorrect and not the case.
>
> Judy wrote:
> > I could have sworn I told you that Nagel was neither a
> > religionist (he's an atheist) nor an intelligent design
> > advocate.
> >
--- "compost1uk" <compost1uk@> wrote:
>
> Whilst I agree with the point you are making to Jason, it
> seems to me that you could go along with all of the above,
> but still deny 'materialism'. For example, in what sense
> is a quantum field "material"? Or, what is the material
> reality of a "scientific law"? Or what is the material
> reality of a mathematical truth such as "some infinities
> are greater than others"?
>
> In other words, there may be a worthwhile difference to be
> made between "naturalism" (to which I'm inclined) and
> "materialism" (to which I am not inclined)
>
> {Jeez - no "preview" option that I can see in this
> NEO-crap-shit. Heaven knows how this will come out in the
> wash).
'Quantum field', 'Scientific principles' and mathematical
principles are in fact, abstract, intangible aspects of
nature.
You are correct in saying that there is a worthwhile
difference, between 'materialism' and 'naturalism'.
> > > After a carefull study of evolution, you will notice
that
> > > evolution is partially deterministic and partially
random.
> > >
> > > There seems to be a deterministic pattern, and yet
within
> > > that deterministic pattern a lot of randomness plays
out.
> > >
> > > The anology given is that of a football game, where
there is
> > > a broad set of rules and yet every player can express
his
> > > creativity in his own unique way.
> > >
> > > Researchers state that 50,000 basic organic molecules,
each
> > > can combine with each other in thousands of different
ways.
> > > So there are thousands of different ways to create
life.
> > > Thus the chances of life forming is quite probable.
> > >
> > > A lot of Scientists now also say that "the emergence
of life
> > > might be a natural consequence of the laws of physics,
and
> > > the laws of chemistry."
> > >
