Re: FW: RE: MD Calling all atheists

From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Nov 22 2005 - 11:30:26 GMT

  • Next message: Paul Turner: "RE: MD Two Theses in the MOQ"
  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: MD Re: Quality, subjectivity and the 4th level"
  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: MD Two Theses in the MOQ"

    Platt, remaining silent is boring :-) so ...

    I used the same word you used - "naturalism",
    but you threw it back at me as "science".
    I didn't use the word.

    I (an engineer / scientist) admit the existence of "spirit" - but
    science needs to take something like the MoQ on board to be able to
    "explain" spirit. Science is not standing still. (And as I've said
    many times before the method of disproof via repeatable experiments is
    only 20% of science - the rest is 40% intuition - to create hypotheses
    - and 40% explanation.)

    The only thing about you that worries me is that you seem so closed to
    that possibility - being sceptical is fine, but claiming "cannot" is
    just - well, ignorant ?

    Spiritualism needs to be similarly open minded that it can be
    explained without appealing to the supernatural - again nothing wrong
    with being sceptical of that, but please, not closed to the idea.

    As far as dichotomies are concerned - I explained also to Erin - I'm
    not against useful dichotomies, just un-necessary ones - ones that
    exclude useful middles. (I was explicit with the word "un-necessary"
    in my original point, was I not ?)

    Ian

    On 11/21/05, Platt Holden <pholden@sc.rr.com> wrote:
    > Ian:
    >
    > > Platt, you used the phrase
    > > "the crux of the matter -- naturalism vs.spiritualism"
    > >
    > > Can I just say "unnecessary binary dichotomies" again.
    >
    > You can say anything you like. :-) Or you can remain silent, the binary
    > dichotomy of "say." In fact, remaining silent is the only way to avoid
    > binary dichotomies since our language consists of nothing but binary
    > dichotomies, beginning with is/isn't.
    >
    > > I'd say MoQ was the unity of these two things,
    > > a naturalism that includes spiritualism, or
    > > a spiritualism that has no need of the supernatural.
    >
    > When science admits to the existence of spirit, I'll buy your "unity" of
    > naturalism as one half of the binary dichotomy--unity/separation.
    >
    > > Reality if you like.
    > > Miraculous - is simply a matter of perspective and prior knowledge.
    >
    > Miracles are one time events which science cannot explain, and can never
    > explain because by definition they are not repeatable or measurable. The
    > amount of experience (reality if you like) science cannot explain is truly
    > colossal like, just to pull an example out of the air, morals. :-)
    >
    > Platt
    >
    >
    >
    > 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
    >
    >

    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 : Tue Nov 22 2005 - 15:13:02 GMT