have some respect and do not resort to name calling. — Tom Storm

I didn't say anything about you. Didn't name call. I only commented on your response, which was disrespectful to Wayfarer and anyone with religious beliefs. I responded snippily.

I only commented on your response, which was disrespectful to Wayfarer and anyone with religious beliefs. I responded snippily. — T Clark

We are having a debate about complex and personal things. Look out someone might get hurt! That's how it works and I was only responding to something Wayfarer said about views like mine which was an equally robust jibe. Wayfarer and I get on just fine - I like him a great deal and we are simply talking shop.

You may notice that people who do not accept supernatural beliefs and assert methodological naturalism as the only reliable tool for knowledge tend to fall victim to a lot of pretty demeaning feedback about being narrow minded, unimaginative, blind, short sighted, judgmental, fundamentalist and dogmatic.

Everyone here has a right to disagree. But @Tom Storms response doesn't recognise the argument it's responding to. What I am calling out with reference to the quote by Richard Lewontin, is the sense in which scientific materialism has become as dogmatic as the religion it has purportedly displaced, and because it has become the 'arbiter of truth' in the sense that religion used to be. It is indeed the case that for many of the secular intelligentsia, science, and particularly evolutionary science, has become a secular religion. This is undeniable. That is why I say it is descended from monotheism.

And an even more important point, is that the materialist view is not more 'proven' than any other worldview. It can't be proven, because it is not a specific, testable claim about a specific thing, or class of things, but a claim about the nature of the world. As such, it's a philosophical attitude, not an empirical argument. And besides, if the conundrums of quantum physics have not shot down materialism yet, then it shows that no scientific discovery is likely to.

The view that the theistic outlook 'lacks evidence' doesn't see what 'evidence' would be required to support such a view. For the religious, the order of nature *is* evidence. And science itself has no explanation for that order. It discovers the order of nature, and learns to make predictions on that basis, the very power which has yielded all the many devices, discoveries and inventions that we use day to day. But it doesn't explain that order. There's 'the order of nature' as we all acknowledge. But the question of 'the nature of the order' is an entirely different matter and not necessarily a scientific matter.

Neither does theistic belief necessarily explain the order of nature, but it *is not* a scientific hypothesis. In Christian terms, it is a command 'to love one another as I have loved you', etc. So the idea that this can be at odds with 'science' is actually something like a category mistake.

But how all of this relates back to the OP, is the insistence, not on the part of science, but on the part of scientific ideologues, like the 'new atheists', that science proves or shows that life is the result of chance occurence, that humans are 'really no different' to animals, and other such philosophical judgements which are not scientifically grounded at all. I maintain, and this is where I tend towards the religious end of the spectrum, that because all living beings exhibit in some sense intentionality, that this introduces a basic distinction, an ontological distinction, between the living and non-living realms. And where you have an ontological distinction, you have (at least) a duality, which undermines the argument that there is a single substance, namely, matter-energy. It is that insistence on my part, not adherence to a religious creed, that marks me out as an opponent of the view that I'm criticizing. And it's certainly not 'name-calling'. :rage:

But Tom Storms response doesn't recognise the argument it's responding to. What I am calling out with reference to the quote by Richard Lewontin, — Wayfarer

Lewontin is just one of many people who have proposed this kind of response and I think I responded to it fine.

And an even more important point, is that the materialist view is not more 'proven' than any other worldview. It can't be proven, because it is not a specific, testable claim about a specific thing, or class of things, but a claim about the nature of the world. — Wayfarer

This is a disingenuous line of reasoning. I have repeatedly said we don't have capital T truth. We don't have access to ultimate reality. We don't even know if there is an ultimate reality. There's no doubt that ideas about materialism may come to be more complex and interesting than we currently understand it to be. But if it can be identified and measured, it is still materialism.

Worldviews are not all alike they are not equally valid, which is what your comments might lead some people to think. We currently do have access to propositions and approaches and models which provide consistent and reliable results and knowledge in the only world we can claim to know. Outside of methodological materialism and the scientific method, no one else has been able to do this.

Look at the Templeton Foundation's study on the effect of prayer on patient outcomes in the mid naughties. This particular worldview (Christianity) failed to provide any results and in fact some people fared worse when prayed for. Naturally enough, the worldview of scientific medicine saves lives every day and this can approach can be demonstrated empirically and repeatedly.

There are lots of games we can play about what we really know. As people boringly point out, you can't disprove that you are a brain in a vat and everything is an illusion. The problem of hard solipsism cannot be readily overcome. But is anyone here going to walk into the path of traffic on the basis that everything is an illusion?

If someone can provide good evidence of just one robust example of a supernatural claim being true, let's hear it. I'd love to be wrong.

I have become boring and repetitive, I think i need to move on from this issue until there are some new ideas to respond to.

I have repeatedly said we don't have capital T truth. — Tom Storm

Who is 'we'?

Who is 'we'? — Wayfarer

Who are you?

I'm simply commenting on the declaration that 'we' - presumably all of humanity - doesn't know Capital T truth - is presumptious.

If someone can provide good evidence of just one robust example of a supernatural claim being true, let's hear it. I'd love to be wrong. — Tom Storm

I could - but from long experience, I bet it would become a 'coconut shy'.

A coconut shy is a traditional game frequently found as a sidestall at funfairs and fêtes. The game consists of throwing wooden balls at a row of coconuts balanced on posts. Typically a player buys three balls and wins when each coconut is successfully dislodged. In some cases other prizes may be won instead of the coconuts. — Wikipedia

Where 'the evidence' is a coconut :-)

Hello Gary
I had left this thread but return now to respond to your reply to me and others listed:

I have watched with interest and awe at the passionate exchanges which you have conducted on theoretical and principled grounds, but I feel that you have largely strayed from the original topic. — Gary Enfield

Your debates were intriguing to watch but they were also the reason why I stayed out of the fray until now. — Gary Enfield

Straying from an OP is not unusual in a thread. I mentioned that I didn't want to go off track and also referenced the OP in my posts. At no point did you engage until now.

The discussion has been a valuable one and yes 'intriguing' but that is no reason to 'stay out of the fray'.
It has always been my understanding that whoever starts a thread has the responsibility to manage it. You must be willing to engage those who engage.

Instead of leaving the thread unattended and simply observing, there are options open to you:

1. Reply to posts which you don't consider relevant and request a return to the specifics of the OP.
2. Flag and report any such posts to the moderators.
3. If there is a significant but valuable move to another topic, then another thread can be started.
However, sometimes this disrupts the flow of a fascinating conversation; as such it may be tolerated.

I agree with @T Clark when he said that the thread was 'surprisingly on target with the OP given 142 posts. You abandoned the thread, not participating after the first couple. That is generally considered inconsiderate behavior.'

I hope that my response is seen as useful and constructive advice.

Tom Storms response doesn't recognise the argument it's responding to. — Wayfarer

As usual you're confusing 'agreeing with' with 'recognising'.

It is indeed the case that for many of the secular intelligentsia, science, and particularly evolutionary science, has become a secular religion. This is undeniable. — Wayfarer

Are you serious? You're in a philosophy forum and you're seriously just going to outright say that some judgement which you know full-well is highly contested, by intelligent academics, is 'undeniable'?

the materialist view is not more 'proven' than any other worldview. It can't be proven, because it is not a specific, testable claim about a specific thing, or class of things, but a claim about the nature of the world. — Wayfarer

As usual, you've deliberately misrepresented the claim of materialists. If you can find me a single quote from a single materialist claiming that their position is the 'way the world is' I'd be very surprised. It's certainly not a majority view. Materialism works better than other approaches. It's testable (so we can find common ground more easily) it give useful predictions (we all interact with matter) and it doesn't introduce more elements than are required (so, again maximising common ground).

The view that the theistic outlook 'lacks evidence' doesn't see what 'evidence' would be required to support such a view. For the religious, the order of nature *is* evidence. — Wayfarer

Thus misunderstanding what 'evidence' is. Evidence is that which convinces a person of a position they were not convinced of prior to seeing it (either by doubt or by being of an opposing conviction). If you have to already believe in a position in order to count matters as 'evidence', then the 'evidence' is not doing any work is it?

science itself has no explanation for that order. — Wayfarer

It has dozens. again you're confusing 'explanations I don't like/agree with' and 'lack of explanation'.

theistic belief necessarily explain the order of nature, but it *is not* a scientific hypothesis. In Christian terms, it is a command 'to love one another as I have loved you', etc. So the idea that this can be at odds with 'science' is actually something like a category mistake. — Wayfarer

Come on! That's bullshit and you know it. Theistic belief (in Christian term) is not a command to "love one another as I have loved you". It's a very specific and detailed set of instructions. It includes specific dates you can and can't eat meat for fuck's sake. when you can and can't have sex. Who you can marry.... It's a bullshit argument to try and whitewash all that with a vague "it's all about loving your neighbour"... people loved their neighbours to no lesser or greater degree before Christianity than they did after.

I maintain, and this is where I tend towards the religious end of the spectrum, that because all living beings exhibit in some sense intentionality, that this introduces a basic distinction, an ontological distinction, between the living and non-living realms. And where you have an ontological distinction, you have (at least) a duality, which undermines the argument that there is a single substance, namely, matter-energy. — Wayfarer

What you 'maintain' doesn't 'undermine' anything. The former is your personal belief, the latter is a public argument. You don't undermine a public argument by holding a belief that it isn't valid. The public argument doesn't give a shit about what you happen to reckon. That's why we use 'evidence' - because it's shared - it's something we all believe in.

If you claim there's three apples in the bowl, me 'maintaining' that there's two doesn't have any bearing on your argument at all, but If I upend the bowl and count them "one, two", it does. Why? Because you do not necessarily share that which I 'maintain', but you do share my object recognition and my methods of counting.

We all share materialism. You believe in physics, the billiard-ball predictability of macro-scale matter. So do I. So anything from that realm counts as 'evidence' between us. You might additionally believe in all sorts of woo, but that doesn't count as evidence between us in the same way because I don't.

If someone can provide good evidence of just one robust example of a supernatural claim being true, let's hear it. I'd love to be wrong. — Tom Storm


I could - but from long experience, I bet it would become a 'coconut shy'. — Wayfarer

You do realise that being able to easily knock them down is pretty much the definition of not robust? So your answer is "No, I couldn't"

I'm simply commenting on the declaration that 'we' - presumably all of humanity - doesn't know Capital T truth - is presumptious. — Wayfarer

The reason I said who are you is presumably you might have felt not part of 'we'. You were speaking for others, perhaps 'enlightened' parties.

I think I can stand by this claim. What evidence do you have that someone knows capital T truth? What evidence do you have there is a capital T truth. I am presumptuous, but for the Left.... Sorry, old Woody Allen joke.

You're in a philosophy forum and you're seriously just going to outright say that some judgement which you know full-well is highly contested, by intelligent academics, is 'undeniable'? — Isaac

Sure, evolution is like a secular religion. No question.

There is professional evolutionary biology: mathematical, experimental, not laden with value statements. But, you are not going to find the answer to the world's mysteries or to societal problems if you open the pages of Evolution or Animal Behaviour. Then, sometimes from the same person, you have evolution as secular religion, generally working from an explicitly materialist background and solving all of the world's major problems, from racism to education to conservation. Consider Edward O. Wilson, rightfully regarded as one of the most outstanding professional evolutionary biologists of our time, and the author of major works of straight science. In his On Human Nature, he calmly assures us that evolution is a myth that is now ready to take over Christianity. And, if this is so, “the final decisive edge enjoyed by scientific naturalism will come from its capacity to explain traditional religion, its chief competition, as a wholly material phenomenon. Theology is not likely to survive as an independent intellectual discipline” — Michael Ruse

That is why when the likes of Thomas Nagel published his book on what was wrong with it, he was treated as a heretic. But then, I recognise that you think

Nagel is a dick. — Isaac

If you can find me a single quote from a single materialist claiming that their position is the 'way the world is' I'd be very surprised. — Isaac

Materialism is simply 'the theory or belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.' Many people believe it, it is the de facto belief system in secular culture.

Theistic belief (in Christian term) is not a command to "love one another as I have loved you". It's a very specific and detailed set of instructions. — Isaac

But love is the important point. As it culturally manifests, it is thousands of things including rules and strictures and the like. There’s no single ‘Christian religion’, but agape - unconditional compassion - is the central point in my view. ‘If I have not love....’ etc.

I don’t buy efforts by Christian apologists to prove that God exists with reference to science. That is the kind of reverse error to materialism.

Evidence is that which convinces a person of a position they were not convinced of prior to seeing it (either by doubt or by being of an opposing conviction). — Isaac

Fair point. But when it comes to the question at hand, what would constitute evidence? People have an inclination to believe, or not to believe, according to which they’ll make their judgements. And the will not to believe is just as strong as the opposite. But usually, the kind of evidence that is called for, is empirical evidence which isn’t relevant in this case.

You were speaking for others, perhaps 'enlightened' parties. — Tom Storm

How could I answer. There are texts in the corpus of world literature that I think speak legitimately of Capital T Truth. But you’re not going to find the kind of evidence you’re looking for.

You're in a philosophy forum and you're seriously just going to outright say that some judgement which you know full-well is highly contested, by intelligent academics, is 'undeniable'? — Isaac


Sure, evolution is like a secular religion. No question. — Wayfarer

Oh right. No you've said it twice it's definitely a fact. Let me try that "I have a hundred pounds in my pocket ", "I have a hundred pounds in my pocket". Damn,..it doesn't seem to be working...am I not saying it right?

Materialism is simply 'the theory or belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.' Many people believe it, it is the de facto belief system in secular culture. — Wayfarer

Find me a quote claiming that from a prominent materialist.

But love is the important point. As it culturally manifests, it is thousands of things including rules and strictures and the like. — Wayfarer

What the hell has 'loving one's neighbour' got to do with not eating meat on a Friday? Or mutilating your own child's genitals?

when it comes to the question at hand, what would constitute evidence? — Wayfarer

Nothing. If by "question at hand" you mean something like your "why is there order in nature" then what counts as evidence is not yet defined. The question 'why' does not contain within it the definition of what constitutes and answer. It's one of the main tactics of sophistry used by woo merchants like yourself. "Ah, but that doesn't explain why..." as if 'why' had a defined answer.

The point you're missing is that we're talking to each other. Your personal beliefs about things are of no consequence to me whatsoever. All we can talk about is that which we share. The very act of language necessitates that.

It's not that materialism is all that anyone thinks. It's that it all we share. The table, the cup, you me, that fact that keys I'm hitting will make the words appear on your screen. So that is all we can talk about when it comes to matters we don't already all believe in. What you think is evidence of nothing other than what you think. that you 'feel' there's something more to life than just chemicals is fine and dandy, but it's not evidence of anything other than that your feel some way. It has not bearing on how I do or should feel.

Contrarily, how a shared object interacts with another shared object does relate to how I do or should feel. We share those objects. What I believe about them you also believe about them, we work to keep our beliefs similar enough to get on. Life just falls apart if you go about believing gravity causes objects to rise and I believe it causes them to fall. We need to check and agree.

Empirical evidence is not just 'one type of evidence among others' It is the only type of evidence we are compelled to agree on (as a class, not the specific evidence at hand). Any other types have no normative force at all, because we do not share a world made of them.

It's not that materialism is all that anyone thinks. It's that it all we share. — Isaac

I don't think you know what I'm getting at, but regrettably having to explain a philosophical position to someone in order to show what is wrong with it never works out.

f by "question at hand" you mean something like your "why is there order in nature" then what counts as evidence is not yet defined. The question 'why' does not contain within it the definition of what constitutes and answer. It's one of the main tactics of sophistry used by woo merchants like yourself. "Ah, but that doesn't explain why..." as if 'why' had a defined answer. — Isaac

Science does not explain the order of nature. As one well-known scientist put it, 'I'm not an atheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written these books. It does not know-how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.'

Einstein, his Life and Universe, Walter Isaacson, p 386.

Empirical evidence is not just 'one type of evidence among others' It is the only type of evidence we are compelled to agree on (as a class, not the specific evidence at hand).... — Isaac

...given that only what the kind of evidence empiricism can consider is counted as evidence. Empiricism subjects everything to the tribunal of 'what can be sense and quantified'. What cannot be quantified is discounted a priori. But, as Einstein also said, 'not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted, counts.'

How could I answer. There are texts in the corpus of world literature that I think speak legitimately of Capital T Truth. But you’re not going to find the kind of evidence you’re looking for. — Wayfarer

Appreciate this perspective, thanks. Yep, we may be stuck here in the badlands forever. As you would no doubt expect from me, I would say texts are not evidence, they are claims. Claims need to be examined and tested to determine if they are sound.

How can you tell which text has capital T truth and which text is false? Surely the whole problem inherent in this worldview is the notion that telling good from bad, true from false rests on no sound epistemological basis.

Etc, etc.

Any particular texts you consider to be profound in this way?

As mentioned in other posts, it is also clearly demonstrated that some of the activities of enzyme molecules undertaking DNA repair, do seem to display the characteristics of awareness without any known chemical or computational mechanism, even in theory, to explain it.

That doesn’t mean that a materialist solution won’t be found, but as things stand after decades of research, the evidence shows that these molecules do seem to break known principles that we apply to Matter/Energy. — Gary Enfield

I try to be open minded and certainly do not define myself as a materialist, but the above is just incorrect. Nothing in biochemistry breaks the laws of physics, not even DNA repair enzymes. Those critters are not self-aware, they are just very sophisticated molecular machines.

As to how life could have appeared from inanimate matter, it must be through some intermediary stage between life as we know it and carbon-based chemistry as we know it. A stage were not yet cells but far simpler macromolecules (RNA, proteins) are the basic element of replication. A soup of self-replicating macromolecules, competing with one another (so to speak) through chemical reactions. The winners are the molecules that become more frequent than others in the soup.

texts are not evidence, they are claims. Claims need to be examined and tested to determine if they are sound. ....Any particular texts you consider to be profound in this way? — Tom Storm

It's an interesting question and I would like to respond to it, but I think it belongs to a different thread.

A soup of self-replicating macromolecules, competing with one another (so to speak) through chemical reactions. The winners are the molecules that become more frequent than others in the soup. — Olivier5

I might ask you, are you aware of the work of Marcello Barbieri, who is the originator of 'code biology'? I have referred to his paper What is Information?. I find it very interesting. He describes what is required in distinguishing organisms from minerals.

I'm sorry but are you trying to argue that life predates the the big bang?

In fact it feels like you're saying that the universe outdates the big bang??

I must explain that nothing outdates the big bang as it is the first event in any history, present or future.

Carbon based life forms, as you can tell from the name, evolve from carbon, which was only created after the big bang.

Here here!

Those scare quotes immediately put us in the territory of metaphysics, like or not. I said Enrique's suggestion seemed like pseudo-science to me, perhaps it's not, but to be convinced I would have to se reference to something published, other than a Forum contributor's opinion as I'm in no position to judge it. — Wayfarer

That information is drawn from a great book called Life on the Edge: The Coming of Age of Quantum Biology by Johnjoe McFadden. It talks about much of the recent research into quantum phenomena in nature and is a good general introduction to quantum physics for the layman. That's the best reference I can come up with.

I have referred to his paper What is Information? — Wayfarer

Excellent primer. I struggle to find anything I would disagree with in this text, though if I may, I also don't find it so original and new. It sounds more like standard biology to me... You cannot understand modern biology if you treat molecules in an organism as just physical objects. The concept of feedback loop for instance becomes meaningless.

One aspect which I see as fundamental to the whole shebang is folding. I have talked about it in the "Emergence" thread. An organic protein is not just a linear sequence of amino acids, it is that sequence correctly folded into a functional molecular machine. Most of times the folding happens spontaneously. The sequence will fold naturally a certain correct, functional way, at least if temperature is within a certain range. In other cases, a chaperon protein (a protein that 'cares' for other proteins) is needed to fold a linear sequence of amino acids into a functional protein.

In Barbieri's terms, folding is what gives a meaning to the information that a linear sequence of aminoacids provides. In my terminology, the 1 dimensional information of the latter is translated (or interpreted) into a 3D functional form via protein folding. But folding is a more general process: a growing embryo is folding sheets after sheets of cells into a functional 3D machine called a body. It's the same general idea: folding is what you need to move from the one dimensional genetic information to a 3 dimensional organism.

A bit like an origami if you will. My intuition is that it's an important piece of the puzzle.

The meaning of any biological information can be equated to "What's in it for me?" What is the potential significance of the info for the organism? It is therefore context-dependent, emerging, and inherently subjective, in my opinion. In the literal sense that without a biological subject (a living organism with some inclination for survival and reproduction), information has no meaning.

I don't think you know what I'm getting at, but regrettably having to explain a philosophical position to someone in order to show what is wrong with it never works out. — Wayfarer

Ah yes, a Wayfarer classic. "You don't agree with me, therefore there must be something you're not understanding". Have you even considered the possibility that it might be you who doesn't understand? That I cannot know what you're getting at because it is incoherent?

Science does not explain the order of nature. — Wayfarer

What would constitute an 'explanation', and why? That you personally don't find the explanation satisfactory does not mean science doesn't explain it.

Empiricism subjects everything to the tribunal of 'what can be sense and quantified'. What cannot be quantified is discounted a priori. — Wayfarer

Yes. As I just explained, this is not mindless dogma. There's a fundamental and very compelling reason why that's the case. It's because we're talking to one another, two humans. The thing we share is the material world. Anything else is not shared, so there's no fact of the matter about it to be discussed. You might feel there's a purpose to life. I might not. It's irrelevant to any discussion because there's no shared content. If you feel the cup is on the table and I don't, we can both reach for it and find out.

Hi Amity / T Clark

I had hardly abandoned the discussion when the original post had been just 5 days earlier!

I don’t mind people pursuing their interests, and couldn't stop them doing so anyway, but it is still permitted for me to say when things are off topic – when I believe they are – having set the OP.

In terms of my standing back – you have clearly been posing questions to each other rather than me. Looking back on the posts there have been some disagreements with what I said – responses which were made as statements rather than questions, and which were responded to by others.

Looking back - nobody has directly addressed any question to me - other than as a means of posing a question which they seemed to want to answer themselves. Almost all were concerned with method rather than ideas to resolve.

This is a discussion group - so let's discuss.
Do you have any comments on the evidential subject matter?

Hi Oliver 5

Nothing in biochemistry breaks the laws of physics, not even DNA repair enzymes. Those critters are not self-aware, they are just very sophisticated molecular machines. — Olivier5

Nothing which the chemistry describes in chemical terms breaks the laws of physics and chemistry -but those descriptions don't explain how things do what they do - which was the purpose of the exercise.

Until those chemical mechanisms do explain what is observed, you cannot claim that your statements are correct.

Enzymes, proteins, RNA, DNA and the rest, are all just single molecules - all be it complex ones.

The energy analysis of the chemistry has only shown that these things are able to fold naturally in a shape that acts like a key, (for one other component that it will be able to react with). It does nothing to explain the behaviour that is witnessed by researchers over and over again.

The variable series of activities which these things deploy to achieve a predictable complex outcome, (eg. DNA repair) rather than an arbitrary outcome has yet to be explained, and until materialism can do this - it cannot claim to have proven its case by any means.

Hi Adughep

I agree that water does have special properties in relation to the development of life and as NASA will tell you, the search for water is the first step in the search for life as we know it.

The question is whether the contribution made by water is mechanical, or something more - akin to the essence of life which was a key feature of Vitalism.

Finipolscie provided a very good and comprehensive list of these positive contributions by water in his 2nd book, but none represented any sort of life force or even any ability to carry and transfer information.

Until further evidence arises to the contrary I am therefore inclined to believe that water's contribution is largely as a chemical/mechanical enabler.

What would an explanation consist of that's missing from the materialist account?

Let's say (for the sake of argument alone) that the materialist explanation was "it just happened to turn out that way".

What's wrong there? Are you saying it's somehow impossible for things to just turn out some way? Because if not, then all the while there continues to be a complete absence of any indication to the contrary, "it just happened to turn out that way" is the best explanation we have.

Hi Wayfarer

But materialism is a form of monism. To admit that there’s something real other than matter-energy us to reject materialism and open the door to all manner of speculations. — Wayfarer

I agree - monism is very different to Dualism. For the benefit of others, we can also say that there are also very different forms of monism from materialism to idealism and beyond.

The underlying question for each of these perspectives is - what do the different concepts of 'underlying stuff' represent, and is there anything in the evidence which conflicts with any of those notions - which would either render that concept inaccurate, or at least, not the complete story.

Dualism arose from the simple notion that if we can establish characteristics which break the mould of a single type of stuff, why not have both? We then have to ask what each type of stuff might bring to the party - it doesn't have to be God or even Thought - it could simply be randomness, or something even more down to earth. What Dualism can potentially offer determinists is a way to maintain their principle of strict cause and effect when no other such factor can be found in Matter/Energy.... but that other stuff certainly doesn't have to be God.

If Dualism isn't accepted, the other monist or even Pluralistic beliefs have to provide an explanation for the factors/evidence which challenged their understanding.

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.... — Richard Lewontin

And this single-mindedness is because scientific materialism is a direct descendant of the belief in the 'jealous God'. — Wayfarer

Again - it is a lot simpler if we confine science to the facts that it establishes. The interpretations of scientists are philosophy - even if they tend to prefer materialist views and not consider others.

Is it against common sense to talk of multiple parallel universes? It is not illogical, but it is 'unbalanced' and unfair if this type of speculation is allowed to stand, but not Dualism, which is a lot simpler.

Materialism is a belief or faith because it cannot prove its case in those areas where its principles are demonstrated, at face value, to be broken.

Again - if materialism is to gain the upper ground, it needs to acknowledge the evidence that challenges it and not just sweep it aside in the hope that something will deal with those examples later.

Nobody here is going to solve this problem, but we can discuss the philosophical implications, which is what we're doing. — Wayfarer

I'm sorry but I disagree. The whole purpose of philosophy is to speculate about possible solutions, while framing them in some logical parameters. We are all capable of valid speculation when we know the criteria that we have to work within.

We are also reasonably familiar with what the capabilities of Matter/Energy are. So we can try to narrow in on the factors that Matter/Energy or anything else would have to overcome in order to produce (say) a mechanism based on codes.

Hi Isaac

The whole purpose of a materialist/chemical process is to show that the Laws of Physics and Chemistry apply when explaining a situation.

If many processes in life - and particularly within a cell - are shown not to be arbitrary or by chance, then an answer based on chance is not addressing the issue and is certainly not a solution. We have to be given a process that can inevitably lead to every outcome - because that is how the laws of Physics and Chemistry are formulated - using traditional mathematics with just one outcome for every scenario.

Even in concept, can you suggest any mechanism by which these molecules adapt their behaviour to different circumstances to produce the perfect, predictable, end outcome - such as a fully repaired section of DNA with a double break and pieces missing?

When anyone is able to suggest any credible way in which this, (and the other undeniable examples) could be achieved, (even before it is proven), then materialists can claim that their philopsohy is valid in these circumstances.

But they can't - and that is equally true of the steps necessary to form the first living cell. They are not even close - especially on matters of principle.

And there are many such examples across the full scope of scientific research, (although the field of biochemistry has a greater concentration than most), so materialism cannot say that its principles apply everywhere. There are too many examples which break materialist notions.