Re: MD On Faith

From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Wed Oct 27 2004 - 22:38:50 BST

  • Next message: Horse: "Re: MD John Peel, DJ"

    Me again.

    I was distinguishing real empirical evidence from reports of
    experience presented as empirical evidence. Sorry for the
    confusion.

    BTW, science requires no apology from me or anyone else. It is an
    incredibly powerful and useful system of thought and investigation.
    Anyone who denies this is simply not paying attention to the world
    around them. My only quibble with science is its lack of interest in
    making value judgements. But that's why we have ethical philosophies
    like the Metaphysics of Quality.

    Best again,
    Mark

    On 27 Oct 2004 at 13:01, Erin wrote:

    Your phrase "REALempirical evidence" of what happens to humans
    after death further confirms my gutinstinct this is all an apology
    to the materialistic viewpoints of science (i.e., in my mind the
    empirical world)
    So when you use the word in the philosophical sense is that fake
    empirical evidence ;-)

    Erin

    M: So, say, when someone tells you they've witnessed a resurrection,
    this doesn't mean that it's possible to bring dead people back to
    life, and a rational empiricist philosophy is by no means committed
    to such an idea. The report of a resurrection does not constitute
    empirical evidence of a resurrection. Rather, it might be a starting
    point for further rational and empirical investigation, which would
    include the real empirical evidence of of what happens to human
    bodies after death, and the logical argument, supported by empirical
    evidence, that its impossible to reactivate a human brain after the
    brain has physically disintegrated.
    So, say, when someone tells you they've witnessed a resurrection,
    this doesn't mean that it's possible to bring dead people back to
    life, and a rational empiricist philosophy is by no means committed
    to such an idea. The report of a resurrection does not constitute
    em! pirical evidence of a resurrection. Rather, it might be a
    starting
    point for further rational and empirical investigation, which would
    include the real empirical evidence of of what happens to human
    bodies after death, and the logical argument, supported by empirical
    evidence, that its impossible to reactivate a human brain after the
    brain has physically disintegrated.

    --
    InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
    Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
    Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com

    "Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is
    everything." -- Henri Poincare'

    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 : Thu Oct 28 2004 - 00:31:25 BST