From: platootje@netscape.net
Date: Wed Sep 14 2005 - 16:03:36 BST
Hello Ham:
This is just a response to a few, non-topic related issues in this post, to hopefully clarify them.
I will respond to your more recent post about 'creation'. Unless there are still topics you want to discuss from this post after you've read this answer.
I wrote:
>> Then I believe you incorrectly quote me, while in fact you're
>> quoting yourself:
You reply with:
>How so? Please explain.
This has to do with your post from 9/9/2005 where you write:
<begin quote post 9/9/2005>
In theology, creation and evolution are regarded as a "Divine process" that
propels and molds the universe in accordance with God's plan. Biologists
like Sinnott, along with the philosophers Schopenhauer and Chardin, defined
the process as Teleology which, according to Wilipedia, is:
"...the supposition that there is design, purpose, directive principle, or
finality in the works and processes of nature, and the philosophical study
of that purpose. Teleology stands in contrast to philosophical naturalism,
and both ask questions separate from the questions of science. While science
investigates natural laws and phenomena, Philosophical naturalism and
teleology investigate the existence or non-existence of an organizing
principle behind those natural laws and phenonema. Philosophical naturalism
asserts that there are no such principles. Teleology asserts that there are.
"Thus, within philosophical naturalism, man sees because he has eyes. Within
teleology, however, man both sees because he has eyes, and has eyes so he
can see. As Aristotle wrote in support of teleology, 'Nature adapts the
organ to the function, and not the function to the organ'. Lucretius replied
in support of philosophical naturalism: 'Nothing in the body is made in
order that we may use it. What happens to exist is the cause of its use.'
I think Robert Pirsig wanted to gain the acceptance of both factions,
suggesting a doctrine whereby his Quality not only replaces a deity as the
primary source (i.e., Creator) but is also the causal force behind
evolution. In order to make this theory plausible, he had to grant Quality
a "mind of its own", as it were. This became the "Collective" Intellect
that is categorized as Level Four in his MoQ heirarchy, a kind of *Deus ex
machina* that he hoped would not be considered theistic.
<end quote 9/9/2005>
In my post on 12/9 I pretty much copy that piece of text, with some <snip>'s and then start my own comment with the line:
"A couple of thoughts:"
So I don't react to a specific sentence, but rather to the entire text with an emphasize on the pieces I copied.
Then you reply on 12/9 with:
<begin quote post 12/9/2005>
I also disagree with the comparison you attempt to draw between
(philosophical?) Naturalism and Teleology:
> Philosophical naturalism and teleology investigate the existence
> or non-existence of an organizing principle behind those
> natural laws and phenonema. Philosophical naturalism
> asserts that there are no such principles. Teleology asserts
> that there are.
Your reference to "principles" here is somewhat ambiguous, since Newton's
laws and Darwin's evolutionary principles are certainly recognized by and
applied to the investigations of naturalists. I'm not sure what
"philosophical naturalism" means, but the common notion of naturalism in
Science involves the logical positivist approach -- i.e., developing
experimentally provable principles from empirical observations of the
physical world. Teleology does not "investigate"; it is a belief system
based on reductive logic and intuitive concepts.
<end quote 12/9/2005>
The part that starts with ">" seems to come from me but has its origin in your post of 9/9/2005.
My comment in my post on 13/9/2005 being:
"Then I believe you incorrectly quote me, while in fact you're quoting yourself:"
and
"Ehm... I'm lost here.... are you attacking your own previously made statements here?"
thus have to do with the above mentioned.
You finish your post the following way:
Reinier:
>> I'm more then willing to participate in the continuation of this
>> thread in the suggested direction.
>
Ham:
>Are you sure?
>
>Essentially still yours (I hope),
>Ham.
To which I can only say, yes I'm sure, and still with kind regards.
Hopefully things are clarified, if not I'll give it another try.
Kind regards,
Reinier.
__________________________________________________________________
Switch to Netscape Internet Service.
As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register
Netscape. Just the Net You Need.
New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer
Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups.
Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 14 2005 - 16:14:02 BST