Materialism — the belief that everything that happens is the result of the action of the basic laws of physics on the basic particles of physics — leads its adherents to some conclusions that most do not really believe but are obliged to assert.  For example, they often claim there is no real free will, that everything we do is determined by the laws of physics.   But if they really believed this, why would they bother trying to convince the rest of us?  Whether or not we will accept their conclusion is completely beyond our control.   Certainly our behavior is influenced, maybe to a large degree, by our heredity and environment but no one would possibly conclude that he has Read More ›

In my previous post, I demonstrated that materialism refutes itself because the very act of affirming belief in materialism depends on a denial of materialism. Why? Because purely physical things do not exhibit “intentionality” (the “aboutness” between believer and that which is believed). A liver cannot have any relationship to a proposition. So, for example, it would be absurd to say “my liver believes materialism is true.” And, of course, the problem for the materialist is that materialism claims that brains and livers are essentially the same in that they are purely physical. Here is the key point: If the amalgamation of chemicals called “liver” and the amalgamation of chemicals called “brain,” are essentially the same, the materialist cannot logically Read More ›

Consider the following statement:  “My liver believes materialism is true.” Sheer lunacy, right? But on materialism, there is no fundamental difference between the brain and the liver. They are both just meat. Therefore, for the materialist, the phrase “my brain believes materialism is true” is equivalent to the phrase “my liver believes materialism is true.” The materialist really is stuck. Objects like the liver do not have belief states. Philosophers say they do not exhibit “intentionality” (the “aboutness” a subject has towards an object). A rock cannot have a belief about the proposition “materialism is true.” Neither can a liver. Neither can a brain. Thus, the very act of affirming materialism denies one of its fundamental tenants because the act Read More ›

Over at the Reasons.org post (see here), UB and JVL are having an exchange that illustrates perfectly how materialism blinds its proponents. UB summarizes: In 1948 did John Von Neumann take a page from Alan Turing’s 1933 Machine and give a series of lectures predicting that a quiescent symbol system and a set of independent constraints would be required for autonomous open-ended self replication? Yes. In 1953 did Francis Crick, along with Watson, discover the sequence structure of that symbol system, calling it a code? Yes. And in 1955 did he further predict that an unknown set of protein constraints would be found working in the system, establishing the necessary code relationships? Yes. In 1956-1958 did Mahlon Hoagland and Paul Read More ›

Now that the six blind men and the elephant paradigm is broken, we may look at Plato with fresh eyes. Here, 92 in LF&P 48a: >>Plato . . . is highly relevant to our own mutiny on the good ship civilisation. For, the lessons of sound history were bought with blood and tears; those who neglect, forget, dismiss or disdain those lessons doom themselves to pay in the same coin over and over again. Let’s therefore listen to Plato, as he lays out how ancient evolutionary materialism on the part of the sophists and others of the avant garde of c 430 BC led to radical relativism, amorality, nihilistic factionalism and chaos — and we will also trace the like Read More ›