If only matter exists, then there can be nothing but matter or that which is grounded in matter. A mind (not the brain labled as mind [as in epiphenominlism]) cannot be grounded in matter because we know from experience that it can resist and even reverse an impulse from the brain, which is, itself, a slave to matter and can resist nothing. We can, in fact, exercise self control through the use of an immaterial mind and will.

In such instances, the mind and will refuse to accept the animalistic, law-like, materialist promptings of the brain and either redirect matter or choose something different than what the brain is bidding one to do. If there was no immaterial mind or will, the brain would simply obey natures laws and we would have no free choice. That is why all materialists are committed to reject any notion of fre will. To have a brain and no mind is to be an animal, and to not believe in minds is to countenance humans acting like animals.

Sorry for taking so long to respond. I’m not even sure I you’re going to be checking this thread any more. Anyways:

If everything is matter, then obviously there can be no such thing as minds, souls, justice, truth, purpose, goodness, morality or any other type of non- material reality. Remember, materialism claims that matter is the ONLY reality.

Well yes, these things can exist if matter (e.g your brain) creates the perception of these things existing. Computer programs can have purposes even though they are purely material (I doubt that they are aware of the purpose, however). Of course, these immaterial entities don’t exist in any absoulte terms (which I suspect is what you’re after).

Both dualism and monism are philosophical rather than scientific paradigms. ID can fit inside the dualistic paradigm, while it cannot fit in the monistic paradigm. Dualism, (two realms) argues for two realms, i.e, Creator/creation, mind/brain, spirit/matter, soul/body. Monism reduces everything to one realm, cutting out the top layer ie. No creator, brain only, matter only, body only. Materialism is one kind of monism. There is another kind of monism called “Idealism” which is not too popular these days but used to be the rage. In any case, Darwinism fits in with monism, because it acknowledges only matter.

Does ID require dualism? From a scientific perspective, the answer is no. In that respect, the designer need not be a Divine creator, a superhuman, or a person at all. For them, it can be a “law” or a principle in nature. From a scientific standpoint, I can’t dispute the point. From a philosophical perspective, however, it makes no sense. Why? All of empirical reality is changing. If the “law,” as designer, is part of nature, then it is also a part of that changing reality, which means that it could not be its designer. An unchanging law cannot also be a changing law. This, by the way, is why we discuss things other than ID science.

—-“Your claim that materialism militates against purpose and meaning is simply wrong.”

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it leaves no room for it. If everything is matter, then obviously there can be no such thing as minds, souls, justice, truth, purpose, goodness, morality or any other type of non- material reality. Remember, materialism claims that matter is the ONLY reality. Also, materialism rules out free will, so even if there was a purpose, the creature could not choose to fulfill it. The best it could do is to follow its own nature. What good would purpose be without choice?

—-“There are more than one type of philosophical materialism and while some would say that there is no such thing as purpose (as we use the term) others do allow for such an abstract term. Now, we could always argue whether or not such purposes are ultimate or not…”

Yes, you are right, there is such a thing as “epiphenomilism.” Materialism says everything is matter, while epephenomilism says everything is “grounded” in matter. The second claim is not quite as strong as the first, but, as it turns out, the difference doesn’t count for much. In the end, matter is still calling the shots.

—-“I never had the intention of engaging in a debate about morality. I will also refrain from starting now.”

OK.

On the other hand, ID cannot provide meaning,

I’m glad we agree. I brought this up in the beginning because GilDodgen’s post was filed under “Intelligent Design”.

The two counterparts are [A] Monistic Materialism and [B] Dualistic Theism. Both are philosophical world views and each can logically be compared to the another.

Theistic Dualism does indeed provide purpose and meaning, while Materialistic monism militates against purpose and meaning.

Now, why is it in all of a sudden theism? I would agree that ID requires some sort of dualism, but it would not have to be theistic. So, your statement should be that “immaterialism” CAN provide purpose. You could also say that it allows you to to assign any conceivable sort of purpose to yourself (and others).

Your claim that materialism militates against purpose and meaning is simply wrong. There are more than one type of philosophical materialism and while some would say that there is no such thing as purpose (as we use the term) others do allow for such an abstract term. Now, we could always argue whether or not such purposes are ultimate or not…

Do you acknowledge the natural moral law as an objective standard of morality?

I never had the intention of engaging in a debate about morality. I will also refrain from starting now.

I have re-read my two stanza limerick at 20 and think that that about sums up what I meant when considering initial origins, “ends” (on which I do believe ID can comment, if in a severely contracted way), panspermia, the supernatural, and bien sur alien soap!

So, my apologies to Hoki and thanks and praises to StephenB (see 32!!), but I’d say this thread is done — done for me, at any rate.

You are correct on both counts. Let me do it for you. How about this: StephenB was a pin head @64 for failing to realize that he had pulled out Hoki’s quote to Tim and jumped on in and then forgot what he did.