Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A Modest Thought Experiment

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Here’s a thought experiment for our materialist friends.

Suppose you have a table, and on that table you place three cylinders, one each of oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen. Beside these cylinders you place a lump of carbon, a lump of calcium, and a jar of phosphorus. These chemicals make up over 98% of the human body by mass. Suppose further that you place on the table containers of each of the trace chemicals found in the human body so that at the end you have on your table all of the chemicals found in the human body in the same amount by mass and in the same proportion as those chemicals occur in the human body.

Now ask yourself some questions:

1. Do you owe any moral duty to any of the individual chemicals? I presume you will say the answer is “no.”

2. Does your answer change if instead of the individual chemicals, you consider all of them setting there on your table together? I presume the answer is still “no.”

3. Now suppose you mix all of the chemicals together? Does your answer change? I presume the answer is still “no.”

I presume by your answer to these three questions that you believe that there is nothing special about the chemicals in the human body – whether considered in isolation or in combination – that causes you to owe any moral duty to those chemicals. On materialist premises, a human being is nothing more than a somewhat sophisticated mixture of its constituent chemicals. I presume you will say that you owe moral duties to other human beings. So my final question is this:

4. What is it about the mixture of chemicals we call “human being” that makes it the repository of moral rights (i.e., the converse of the moral duty you owe it)?

201_Elements_of_the_Human_Body-01

Chart courtesy of Wikipedia.

Comments
Barry Arrington:
On materialist premises, a human being is nothing more than a somewhat sophisticated mixture of its constituent chemicals.
Let's not pretend that this describes our position. However, in case you've been living under a rock, Barry, I will quote Nobel laureate Phil Anderson's 1972 essay "More is different."
The ability to reduce everything to simple fundamental laws does not imply the ability to start from those laws and reconstruct the universe. The constructionist hypothesis breaks down when confronted with the twin difficulties of scale and complexity. At each level of complexity entirely new properties appear. Psychology is not applied biology, nor is biology applied chemistry. We can now see that the whole becomes not merely more, but very different from the sum of its parts.
The essay can be easily found on the web. Until Barry and his friends read it and at least try to understand the main points, there is no reason to engage them. UD Editors: Until skram and his friends admit that emergence (which is what is described in the quote) is nothing more than materialist mysticism trying to pass itself off as an intellectually respectable scientific account, there is no need to deal with them. Skram, you can run off and comfort yourself with your little stories. Do not expect those who demand plausible accounts to be impressed.skram
February 2, 2015
February
02
Feb
2
02
2015
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT
Petrushka
Why would you say it’s just a bag of chemicals? I would never say that.
Of course you wouldn't. Because most materialist I find are scared to death to confront the logical conclusions compelled by their premises.Barry Arrington
February 2, 2015
February
02
Feb
2
02
2015
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT
Petrushka:
And the answer is the arrangement or configuration.
Non-answer trying to masquerade as an answer.Barry Arrington
February 2, 2015
February
02
Feb
2
02
2015
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT
Why would you say it's just a bag of chemicals? I would never say that.Petrushka
February 2, 2015
February
02
Feb
2
02
2015
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT
goodusername:
I would say it’s the qualities that we associate with personhood – intelligence, feelings, sentience, etc.
So it's still nothing but a bag of chemicals, but certain qualities of the bag of chemicals makes it a repository of moral rights when the identical chemicals without those qualities would not? Sounds arbitrary to me. Says who? You've given me no reason that a bag of chemicals with those qualities is morally any different from a bag of chemicals without those qualities.Barry Arrington
February 2, 2015
February
02
Feb
2
02
2015
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT
It is interesting to point out that the materialistic philosophy has an extremely difficult time assigning any proper value to humans in the first place, i.e. Just how do you derive value for a person from a philosophy that maintains transcendent values are illusory?:
How much is my body worth? Excerpt: The U.S. Bureau of Chemistry and Soils invested many a hard-earned tax dollar in calculating the chemical and mineral composition of the human body,,,,Together, all of the above (chemicals and minerals) amounts to less than one dollar! http://www.coolquiz.com/trivia/explain/docs/worth.asp
I would like to think, despite the atrocities of Nazism and Communism, that most people intuitively know that they are worth far more value than a dollar?!? Yet, as pointed out, on materialism you have the ‘resale value’ of less than one dollar! Of course, in the marketplace some arrangements of matter carry much more value than other arrangements of matter because of the craftsmanship inherent within how the matter is arranged. But materialists deny that there is any true craftsmanship within humans. We are merely the happenstance product of a lucky series of accidents! Thus, why should any person’s particular arrangement of material carry any more value than any other particular arrangement of matter since any person’s arrangement of matter is just a happenstance accident and was not the work of a craftsman (i.e. was not fearfully and wonderfully made)?
The Heretic – Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? – March 25, 2013 Excerpt: Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3
Whereas in Theism, particularly in Christianity, there is no trouble whatsoever figuring out how much humans are really worth, since infinite Almighty God has shown us how much we mean to him, since he was willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice so as to redeem us:
1 Corinthians 6:20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s. John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. MercyMe – Beautiful - music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vh7-RSPuAA
To try to answer Mr. Arrington's question, I would say that we have our foundational moral rights and value because we have souls that are made in the image of God (i.e. endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights):
Matthew 16:26 And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul? Is anything worth more than your soul? “You don’t have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.” George MacDonald - Annals of a Quiet Neighborhood - 1892 empirical evidence to that effect: https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/1-dawkins-wants-to-land-porn-on-muslim-world-2-dawkins-yawnfest-has-just-got-to-stop/#comment-545518 The supposed evidence for human evolution is far weaker than many people seem to realize: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/christians-should-be-eradicated/#comment-545788
There is simply no way to derive any true meaning and value for human life without God, as Dr. Craig makes clear in the following video:
The absurdity of life without God (1 of 3) by William Lane Craig – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJqkpI1W75c
bornagain77
February 2, 2015
February
02
Feb
2
02
2015
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT
SNIP UD Editors: Transparent attempt to derail a thread that obviously makes Petrushka uncomfortable deleted.Petrushka
February 2, 2015
February
02
Feb
2
02
2015
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT
The question was, what is about the mixture. And the answer is the arrangement or configuration.Petrushka
February 2, 2015
February
02
Feb
2
02
2015
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT
Rhamptwn7, your thought expirement is interesting, but why is it better than Barry's? Barry's was quite interesting.ppolish
February 2, 2015
February
02
Feb
2
02
2015
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT
Petrushka:
Same thing that makes a diamond worth more than the equivalent amount of carbon in the form of coal.
Next time you're freezing to death try tossing diamonds into your coal burning stove rather than coal.Mung
February 2, 2015
February
02
Feb
2
02
2015
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT
I would say it's the qualities that we associate with personhood - intelligence, feelings, sentience, etc.goodusername
February 2, 2015
February
02
Feb
2
02
2015
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT
A better thought experiment. On a table before you is a recently deceased person. What moral duty you owe the corpse? Please explain:rhampton7
February 2, 2015
February
02
Feb
2
02
2015
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT
This is what Intelligent Design has come to ... dumb questions. UD Editors: Graham, no need to expose the poverty of your intellect like this. You can just not post if you've got nothing.Graham2
February 2, 2015
February
02
Feb
2
02
2015
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT
There is something special. The arrangement.Petrushka
February 2, 2015
February
02
Feb
2
02
2015
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT
OK; ppolish, Moose Dr and Petrushka have got nothing. Anyone else care to answer?Barry Arrington
February 2, 2015
February
02
Feb
2
02
2015
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT
Same thing that makes a diamond worth more than the equivalent amount of carbon in the form of coal.Petrushka
February 2, 2015
February
02
Feb
2
02
2015
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT
"Now suppose you mix all of the chemicals together? Does your answer change?" Um, yup it does. Mix hydrogen and oxygen together and you have a very volatile mix. I would presume moral responsibility to make sure the boom doesn't hurt anyone. Just sayin.Moose Dr
February 2, 2015
February
02
Feb
2
02
2015
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT
I'm going to go with molybdenum. It's the Mo in CroMo. Steel bicycles have soul:)ppolish
February 2, 2015
February
02
Feb
2
02
2015
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT
1 3 4 5

Leave a Reply