On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 05:59:50 +0000 (UTC), (david
ford) wrote in news:<b1c67abe.0406212104.26ba0f0@posting.google.com>:
Augray <augray@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<eqldd0p6s06rtvvitdeiffii9kq6lghkms@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 03:06:02 +0000 (UTC),
(david
ford) wrote in news:<b1c67abe.0406201907.731473b2@posting.google.com>:
Augray <augray@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<4h3bd01sbp62fnetrkrpfehcdvu2l4h71o@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 13:01:10 +0000 (UTC),
(david ford) wrote in news:<b1c67abe.0406200502.4e267ff4@posting.google.com>:
Augray <augray@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<tlc9d0526upml2hvftcrvkspbonkhvqluc@4ax.com>...
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 20:15:33 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in
news:<glennsheldon-_a1Bc.42$ET2.34973@news.uswest.net>:
"Augray" <augray@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:br39d0tvdvja2eqc280p8f2lju4o60rg5o@4ax.com...
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 18:32:18 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in
news:<glennsheldon-ZF%Ac.32$ET2.29460@news.uswest.net>:
"david ford" <
> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0406190916.28316b24@posting.google.com...
Augray <augray@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:<9f07d0t280luts15shfa8qo6fq0man4r6i@4ax.com>...
[snip]
Why can't you answer the question? Did Haldane fit your definition of a
materialist?
[snip]
1940 Haldane on materialism
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=s0c890946imhfig6q7uq1cid7hhj68ppbs%404ax.com
"You quote Haldane as stating that:
WHEN I say that I am a materialist I mean that I believe
in the following statements:
1. Events occur which are not perceived by any mind.
2. There were unperceived events before there were any
minds.
And I also believe, though this is not a necessary logical
deduction from the former two, that:
3. When a man has died he is dead.
Further, I think that it is desirable that other people
should believe these statements."
"But Haldane then continues:
I do not mean that I believe that the universe is a machine, nor
that I am a machine; nor yet that consciousness does not exist, or
has a lesser reality (whatever that means) than matter. When I say
"I believe" I do not mean the word in the sense in which a fervent
Christian uses it concerning the Virgin Mary, Pontius Pilate, and
others who figure in the creeds. I mean it in the ordinary sense,
in which, for example, I believe that dinner will be waiting when I
go home, though of course the cook may go on strike or the chimney
may catch fire. That is to say I act, and propose to act, on the
basis that materialism is true. But I am prepared to consider
evidence to the contrary. And I certainly don't get shocked or
angry if someone criticizes or doubts the truth of materialism.
[Haldane, J. B. S. 1940. Adventures of a Biologist. New York:
Harper & Brothers Publishers, page 225.]
This gives quite a different slant on Haldane's views than the excerpt
you posted. You're not quote mining, are you?"
To gen2rev
That's "Augray".
- no it doesn't and no.
Obviously, I disagree. David finds Haldane's points 1 and 2 to be
significant.
Frankly, I do not know what David finds significant, but apparently these
points were significant enough for Haldane to have included them.
But Haldane included stuff that David *didn't* include.
Haldane included stuff that you *didn't* include-- there's more to the
chapter than what you and I quoted. There's more to the book than
that one chapter.
I never said otherwise.
Haldane felt
that information that David didn't include was significant. How can you
reach an accurate understanding of someone else's point of view if
relevant information is missing?
Let's review them:
1. Events occur which are not perceived by any mind.
2. There were unperceived events before there were any
minds.
Haldane would seem to be arguing against the existence of God. Do you
agree or disagree with this interpretation of his points?
No. Or perhaps to some version of God. But you appear to be accusing David
of incorrectly painting Haldane as a materialist. He admits he is, and your
more complete quote does not
contradict this fact.
So when Haldane writes that:
I do not mean that I believe that the universe is a machine, nor
that I am a machine; nor yet that consciousness does not exist, or
has a lesser reality (whatever that means) than matter.
it doesn't change your understanding of Haldane's beliefs?
No. Haldane believed in materialism, and his comments that he and the
universe aren't machines, and that there is such a thing as
consciousness, doesn't affect his public embrace of materialism.
But he was open to other possibilities, and wasn't what one might call a
"strong" materialist. Didn't you find it important to note that?
I don't know what is meant by [A]"a 'strong' materialist," and don't
know what you think is so [A]"important to note."
I would suggest that a 'strong' materialist would subscribe to the
following definition (taken from
http://courses.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entries/93/m0149300.html
):
The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that
everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be
explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.
A 'strong' materialist would state that this defintion is absolute, that
there is no possibility of God, whereas a 'weak' materialist would allow
that there may be a god, but know of no evidence for it. This is the
catagory that Haldane fell into.
[A]"a 'weak' materialist would allow that there may be a god, but know
of no evidence for it. This is the catagory that Haldane fell into."
What leads you to think that Haldane was in this category?
Haldane professed his adherence to Marxism in 1936.
So what? What does economic theory have to do with Materialism?
Do Marxists in
general [A]"allow that there may be a god, but know of no evidence for
it"?
I would imagine that it depends on the Marxist. One might as well as if
plumbers in general "allow that there may be a god, but know of no
evidence for it".
[A]"he was open to other possibilities" How do you know? Simply
because he says he is?
Yes.
Interesting.
I tend to have an open mind about these things unless there's evidence
to the contrary.
Was Sagan or T.H. Huxley similarly [A]"open to other possibilities"?
Yes, Huxley was, but I don't know about Sagan.
T.H. Huxley once set an awfully and unreasonably high bar for the
creation hypothesis to meet. IMO, he was not [A]"open to other
possibilities," his advocating holding favored theories lightly
notwithstanding.
1860 T.H. Huxley on all possible combinations
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402142040.31d13e07%40posting.google.com
But Huxley was talking about creationism, and not materialism. People
tend to be more open about some possibilities than others.
Statement: I, David Ford, am open to possibilities other than
Christian theism.
Question: Do you think that I am [A]"open to other possibilities"?
Given your recent trolling, I don't know.
Suppose a non-trolling Christian theist individual states, "I am open
to possibilities other than Christian theism."
Do you think that that individual is [A]"open to other possibilities"?
It depends upon who states it.
.
