Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: donh
...material only means excluding immaterial explanations...

That sounds pretty circular. For my part energy and eletric fields, let alone quantum probability amplitudes, are no more material concepts than God. Every theory must have undefined terms. It seems reasonable to call them immaterial.

The difference that most deevos don't grasp is the structure in which these immaterial terms are embedded. Their behaviors are described and constrained by theory and connected to reality in a tangible way. To most deevos, doing such with God would be blasphemy and, since it's all about feelings, missing the point.

2,963 posted on 01/05/2003 1:57:40 PM PST by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2881 | View Replies ]


To: edsheppa
That sounds pretty circular. For my part energy and eletric fields, let alone quantum probability amplitudes, are no more material concepts than God. Every theory must have undefined terms. It seems reasonable to call them immaterial.

This use of the word "material" has a longstanding philosophical tradition behind it. If you firmly insist that mere passive baryonic and fermionic stuff is all there is, you've flattened the world to the point where you can't talk about it or manipulate it. It is not circular, but it is difficult. Science affirms some issues as well and firmly connected to reality, others not. No formal means exists for differentiating. Faith in scientific theories, like faith in God, is still just faith, you pays your money, and you takes your choice. Scientists just choose with more cynical, experimentation-oriented, concensus-seeking rigorous critical discression than most.

3,332 posted on 01/06/2003 3:43:22 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2963 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson