A robust defense of intelligent design in a liberal Catholic mag?

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 8, 2015

Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

From National Catholic Register:

The Half-Truths of Materialist Evolution

COMMENTARY: Scientific study of the brain’s evolution exposes the non sequitur of mind-less evolution.

“The thing from which the world suffers just now more than any other evil,” wrote author and Catholic convert G.K. Chesterton, “is not the assertion of falsehood, but the endless and irrepressible repetition of half-truths.”

Jean-Paul Sartre emphasized freedom, but denied morality. Sigmund Freud stressed instinct, but suppressed the spiritual. Friedrich Nietzsche glorified the individual, but disdained the community. Karl Marx celebrated the community, but rejected the individual. Charles Darwin was enamored of empirical science, but excluded metaphysics.

It is an all-too common theme. Chesterton, himself, I am happy to note, was not speaking in half-truths. More.

…

The notion of intelligent design is the logical complement of scientific research. It offers a truth that has the salutary merit of not being a half-truth.

I hope the Catholic casuistry for naturalism crowd doesn’t get their hands on Donald Demarco.

Incidentally, Chesterton wrote an anti-Darwinism book as well.

Update: A friend advises that the Register is actually a fairly conservative Catholic newspaper, by comparison with the liberal National Catholic Reporter, but that said, conservative Catholic papers have hardly been very sympathetic to ID either. This is an unusually robust defense for any Catholic venue.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Hi Barry,
RDF: but nobody I’ve ever read has ever claimed that their mind does not exist. BA: For someone who purports to be qualified to comment on these issues, you don’t get out much. Here’s Daniel Dennett:
I actually have corresponded with Dennett on a number of occasions. I disagree with his philosophy, but he's a great writer.
DENNETT: There is only one sort of stuff, namely, matter-the physical stuff of physics, chemistry, and physiology-and the mind is somehow nothing but a physical phenomenon. In short, the mind is the brain.
That's right, Barry. Where does he say the mind does not exist? Well, he doesn't of course. He says the mind is the brain, which I explained to poor ba77 here was called "identity theory". Brains exist, Barry, and so if somebody believes the mind is the brain, they ipso facto believe that the mind exists. Likewise Garziano of course.
Let me anticipate your next ploy. You will say that neither Dennett nor Graziano said the mind does not exist. If you do go there, that will be a semantic dodge, not an apt response.
Since when is the truth a ploy or a dodge, Barry? You are pretending the these people (who I don't happen to agree with by the way) say something that they do not say, and when I point that out, you accuse me of dodging? That's rich.
If one defines the mind as anything other than the physical stuff that makes up the brain, then Dennett would most certainly say that the mind, as defined, does not exist.
OF COURSE! These people deny dualism (as do I). Why don't you just say it truthfully, instead of pretending they are saying something else? (The reason you do this is to try and make their philosophy sound stupid. You shouldn't do that.)
If one defines the mind in terms of consciousness, Graziano would most certainly insist that the mind does not exist, because, in his view, what we feel as consciousness/subjective self awareness is nothing but an error committed by the brain’s information processing systems.
He does not deny we feel phenomenological consciousness; he denies that consciousness is a causal thing. I also believe that consciousness per se is not causal, and that neural processes are necessary for consciousness, but I do not believe that it is explanatory to say that consciousness is the same thing as neural processes, nor that it emerges from neural processes.
Yes, Fish, they deny the mind exists under any meaningful definition of the term “mind.” This really is non-controversial elementary stuff in this field. You should read more widely before presuming to fisk on it.
Of you, me, and ba77, I am the only one who appears to have an understanding of these fundamental issues.
ba: Atheists, of course, hold mind to ‘emergent’ from material. RDF: No, ba, this is completely mistaken. BA: Are you insane?
No, are you?
Have you ever read Dennett.
Pretty much everything he's written. Have you ever taken a single course in philosophy of mind? You don't need to - just spend a few minutes on Wiki and you'll discover that, just as I explained to ba77, emergentism is only one of a large number of theories of mind that atheists might adhere to. I am not a theist, and I am not an emergentist, so I myself directly contradict your naive belief.
Fish, atheism has entailments. One of those entailments is that matter, energy and space are all there are.
Everything you say is wrong. I am not a theist nor an atheist; my view is more nuanced than that, so in your naive view I look like an atheist to you - that's fine. Yet I do not believe that matter, energy, and space are all there are, because I believe our understanding of ontology is incomplete, and that is the reason we can't resolve deep problems of metaphysics (mind/body problem, problem of free will, etc).
If, for an atheist, mind does not emerge from the electro-chemical properties of the brain, what in God’s name (if you will pardon the expression) does it emerge from?
Instead of "mind", let's talk about "conscious experience". I think saying that conscious experience "emerges" from the electro-chemical properties of the brain is nothing but hand-waving - nobody has any idea what that means.
For the atheist, “electro-chemical process of the brain” exhausts the possibilities.
Everything you say is wrong, including this. Really, Barry, you just don't know what you're talking about.
An atheist cannot logically say at one and the same time that the mind is the material brain and that the mind controls the material brain as if it were somehow separate from it.
Good grief. Identity theorists do indeed say the mind controls the brain, meaning not that it is separate, but rather that the brain controls itself. There is nothing incoherent or illogical about it (although I don't happen to think it is correct).
Sorry Fish. Atheism entails materialism. That should be obvious.
What is obvious is that you feel like philosophy of mind is simple and basically consists of two opposing positions. All I can say is you've revealed a deep ignorance here. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{February 11, 2015
February
02
Feb
11
11
2015
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

Hi ba77,
RDFish, you falsely state: “You have not provided one single quote that said that (atheists hold that mind is illusory).”
What I said was true. What you say is false. I've patiently explained this to you already. "The mind" is not the same as "free will" or "conscious self". What is wrong with you? Nobody thinks that they have no mind, ba77, and you have provided exactly ZERO quotes from anyone who says otherwise... as if mining quotes from people on the internet is somehow a worthwhile endeavor in the first place.
If you want to define mind as separate from consciousness, go for it.
Thanks, I will! When people say that the conscious self is an illusion, do you imagine they are saying they do not experience conscious awareness? (hint: no). Rather, they mean that the intuitive feeling that we have of inhabiting out bodies and existing a few inches behind our eyeballs is an illusion - there is no immaterial soul or humunculus that operates our bodies.
Let me know when you have ANY experimental evidence of mind apart from consciousness.
Oh good grief, you are making no sense at all. This is not a matter of discovery, it is a matter of definition of course. Honestly, since you are obviously unaware of the most rudimentary aspects of philosophy of mind it really doesn't make sense to continue this with you.
Most people, save for apparently overly educated idiots who think they know better than common people...
Yes, you've got to watch out for people who have read books and learned things... they really are dangerous :-)
as to your “chosen’ philosophy,,, (or did your philosophy choose you since you deny free will? :) )
You are now graduating from misunderstanding to lying, simply lying. Here is from my last post:
RDF: As for free will (and I assume you are talking about libertarianism), I am agnostic on the matter: Nobody knows if our minds transcend processes underlying all other phenomena.
You turn around in the very next post and lie about what I said. What is wrong with you???
Indeed, your philosophy seems to be anti-knowledge to me at first blush.
Since the entire subject of philosophy of mind appears to be "first blush" to you, I wouldn't expect you to have anything knowledgeable to say about any of this. And my expectations have been exceeded. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{February 11, 2015
February
02
Feb
11
11
2015
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

Thanks Mr. Arrington. I will take a closer look at your post this afternoon.bornagain77_{February 11, 2015
February
02
Feb
11
11
2015
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

RDFish: There are certainly folks who believe that libertarian free will is an illusion (I’m one of them), and there are folks who call our sense of being an immaterial conscious “self” an illusion (which I don’t really understand) The simplest expression of the idea is to consider mind a sensation of the brain. It's no more an 'illusion per se' than a pain in the foot is an illusion.Zachriel_{February 11, 2015
February
02
Feb
11
11
2015
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

Barry Arrington: Atheism entails materialism. That should be obvious. One counterexample should suffice. Many forms of Buddhism are atheistic, but are hardly materialistic.Zachriel_{February 11, 2015
February
02
Feb
11
11
2015
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

I will fisk Red Fish’s fisk:
but nobody I’ve ever read has ever claimed that their mind does not exist.
For someone who purports to be qualified to comment on these issues, you don’t get out much. Here’s Daniel Dennett:
There is only one sort of stuff, namely, matter-the physical stuff of physics, chemistry, and physiology-and the mind is somehow nothing but a physical phenomenon. In short, the mind is the brain.
Here’s Michael S. A. Graziano:
How does the brain go beyond processing information to become subjectively aware of information? The answer is: It doesn’t. The brain has arrived at a conclusion that is not correct. When we introspect and seem to find that ghostly thing — awareness, consciousness, the way green looks or pain feels — our cognitive machinery is accessing internal models and those models are providing information that is wrong
Let me anticipate your next ploy. You will say that neither Dennett nor Graziano said the mind does not exist. If you do go there, that will be a semantic dodge, not an apt response. If one defines the mind as anything other than the physical stuff that makes up the brain, then Dennett would most certainly say that the mind, as defined, does not exist. If one defines the mind in terms of consciousness, Graziano would most certainly insist that the mind does not exist, because, in his view, what we feel as consciousness/subjective self awareness is nothing but an error committed by the brain’s information processing systems. Yes, Fish, they deny the mind exists under any meaningful definition of the term “mind.” This really is non-controversial elementary stuff in this field. You should read more widely before presuming to fisk on it.
This is generally true, although I’ve many theists who have a much more nuanced view of dualism than the Cartesian interactionist substance dualism that you espouse.
Here we agree. There are a number of nuanced views of dualism.
Atheists, of course, hold mind to ‘emergent’ from material. No, ba, this is completely mistaken.
Are you insane? Have you ever read Dennett. You don’t even have to read his whole book, Consciousness Explained. Just read the excerpt above. Fish, atheism has entailments. One of those entailments is that matter, energy and space are all there are. If, for an atheist, mind does not emerge from the electro-chemical properties of the brain, what in God’s name (if you will pardon the expression) does it emerge from? For the atheist, “electro-chemical process of the brain” exhausts the possibilities.
BA: Atheists hold . . . that the mind has no causal power over the brain (they are wrong on both counts). Paraphrasing Fish: Wong; consider “identity theory” for example.
Fish, I am sure BA meant that atheists cannot both be logically coherent and also say that the mind has control over the brain. Identity theory is logically incoherent. An atheist cannot logically say at one and the same time that the mind is the material brain and that the mind controls the material brain as if it were somehow separate from it. The identify theory you describe rests on a massive equivocation. The theorists hope we won’t notice when they use the word “mind” in two different senses.
BA: that firmly puts you in the atheistic/materialistic camp. Fish: There is no such camp
Sorry Fish. Atheism entails materialism. That should be obvious.Barry Arrington_{February 11, 2015
February
02
Feb
11
11
2015
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

RDFish, you falsely state:
"You have not provided one single quote that said that (atheists hold that mind is illusory)."
and yet I provided several, for instance this one:
“We have so much confidence in our materialist assumptions (which are assumptions, not facts) that something like free will is denied in principle. Maybe it doesn’t exist, but I don’t really know that. Either way, it doesn’t matter because if free will and consciousness are just an illusion, they are the most seamless illusions ever created. Film maker James Cameron wishes he had special effects that good.” Matthew D. Lieberman – neuroscientist – materialist – UCLA professor
English not your first language RDFish? Illusion, in case you don't know, means NOT REAL. If you want to define mind as separate from consciousness, go for it. Let me know when you have ANY experimental evidence of mind apart from consciousness. Most people, save for apparently overly educated idiots who think they know better than common people, know perfectly well what people mean when they say mind as opposed to brain:
The mind–body problem in philosophy examines the relationship between mind and matter, and in particular the relationship between consciousness and the brain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem
as to your "chosen' philosophy,,, (or did your philosophy choose you since you deny free will? :) )
"Neutral monism is a monistic metaphysics. It holds that ultimate reality is all of one kind. To this extent neutral monism is in agreement with idealism and materialism What distinguishes neutral monism from its better known monistic rivals is the claim that the intrinsic nature of ultimate reality is neither mental nor physical. This negative claim also captures the idea of neutrality: being intrinsically neither mental nor physical in nature ultimate reality is said to be neutral between the two."
No wonder you are so hopelessly wish-washy in your thinking and are saying such incoherent things as you are, everything is smoke and mirrors, nothing is really clearly defined, in your chosen (minus free will or course) philosophy. No wonder you state such things as 'you really don't know'. Your philosophy precludes such surety of knowledge from the get go. Indeed, your philosophy seems to be anti-knowledge to me at first blush. My personal opinion is that somebody has sold you a lame horse. Good luck with all that. I suggest you sell it as glue and count it as a loss: Not that you will care, or that I hold any more hope that you will ever be rigorously honest, (in fact I now consider you a hopeless case of anti-theistic dogmatism), but here are few videos that may help you out of your intellectual quagmire if, by some miracle of God, you feel so inclined as to actually be honest someday,,, (at least the videos will helpful for the unbiased reader):
The Case for the Soul - InspiringPhilosophy - (4:03 minute mark, Brain Plasticity including Schwartz's work) - Oct. 2014 - video The Mind is able to modify the brain (brain plasticity). Moreover, Idealism explains all anomalous evidence of personality changes due to brain injury, whereas physicalism cannot explain mind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBsI_ay8K70 Christianity and Panentheism - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xki03G_TO4
bornagain77_{February 11, 2015
February
02
Feb
11
11
2015
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

ba77,
RDFish, that you would try to play games with the word ‘mind’ and say that atheists believe in the reality of their own mind is disingenuous to put it mildly.
You declare that anyone who doesn't share your own particular position on the mind/body problem (which, if you are not aware of it, is called "substance dualism") must not believe in their own minds! That's a novel debating strategy, I must say :-)
Especially after I listed quotes by atheists stating that they believe their mind is ‘illusory’.
Can't you even read the quotes that you plaster all over this board? You have not provided one single quote that said that. There are certainly folks who believe that libertarian free will is an illusion (I'm one of them), and there are folks who call our sense of being an immaterial conscious "self" an illusion (which I don't really understand), but nobody I've ever read has ever claimed that their mind does not exist.
Theists hold mind/consciousness to be distinct from material.
This is generally true, although I've many theists who have a much more nuanced view of dualism than the Cartesian interactionist substance dualism that you espouse.
Atheists, of course, hold mind to ‘emergent’ from material.
No, ba, this is completely mistaken. There are literally dozens of different theories of mind that philosophers have come up with, and emergentism is only one of them. Just curious: Have you ever actually read a book on any of this? Or are you too busy copying and pasting quotes without bothering to understand them?
In other words, Atheists hold their mind to be ‘illusory’ to the material brain and also hold that the mind has no causal power over the brain (they are wrong on both counts).
One theory of mind is called "identity theory", which holds that words describing the mind are describing the operation of the brain. For identity theorists (I am not one of them), saying "the mind has no causal power over the brain" is false, since the brain demonstrably does have causal power over itself, and there is nothing illusory about it. That's just one example of a physicalist theory that defies your characterization - there are many, many more.
You state that I have no clue what your position is, but since you clearly are (angrily) defending atheism,
Wrong again: I am not defending atheism. Everything is black-and-white for you, isn't it? One one side is atheist-materialist-emergentist-reductivist-Darwinist-relativist... and on the other side is theist-dualist-objectivist-. If you'd like to know what my position on theology is, it is not atheism - it is called theological non-cognitivism.
and since you deny that consciousness is separate from matter
Wrong again: I have not said that either. Rather, I have taken you to task for assuming dualist metaphysics and pretending that QM supports your views. My own metaphysics is neither physicalism nor dualism - it is neutral monism.
and also deny the causal power of mind over matter (i.e. free will),
Here you've conflated two separate issues. I don't believe in "the causal power of mind over matter" because I don't think we understand either category in a coherent way, and it makes no sense to treat them as separate interacting ontological categories. As for free will (and I assume you are talking about libertarianism), I am agnostic on the matter: Nobody knows if our minds transcend processes underlying all other phenomena.
then that firmly puts you in the atheistic/materialistic camp.
There is no such camp - that is your delusion. There are dozens of different theories, you just lump them all together because you don't understand them. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{February 11, 2015
February
02
Feb
11
11
2015
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

"Hawking’s entire argument is built upon theism. He is, as Cornelius Van Til put it, like the child who must climb up onto his father’s lap into order to slap his face. Take that part about the “human mind” for example. Under atheism there is no such thing as a mind. There is no such thing as understanding and no such thing as truth. All Hawking is left with is a box, called a skull, which contains a bunch of molecules. Hawking needs God In order to deny Him." - Cornelius Hunter photo - an atheist contemplating his mind http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-H-kjiGN_9Fw/URkPboX5l2I/AAAAAAAAATw/yN18NZgMJ-4/s1600/rob4.jpgbornagain77_{February 11, 2015
February
02
Feb
11
11
2015
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT}

rdfish That’s Penrose and Hameroff, not me. Yup, that’s woo too I say, sorry about that I was confounding your opinions with those of your fellow traveler Thought Provoker. Apparently you all sound alike to me ;-) peacefifthmonarchyman_{February 11, 2015
February
02
Feb
11
11
2015
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT}

RDFish, that you would try to play games with the word 'mind' and say that atheists believe in the reality of their own mind is disingenuous to put it mildly. Especially after I listed quotes by atheists stating that they believe their mind is 'illusory'. Theists hold mind/consciousness to be distinct from material. Atheists, of course, hold mind to 'emergent' from material. In other words, Atheists hold their mind to be 'illusory' to the material brain and also hold that the mind has no causal power over the brain (they are wrong on both counts). You state that I have no clue what your position is, but since you clearly are (angrily) defending atheism, and since you deny that consciousness is separate from matter and also deny the causal power of mind over matter (i.e. free will), then that firmly puts you in the atheistic/materialistic camp. I would be happy for you to deny that is your position since it would defeat you arguments from within, so please do deny that is your position if it is not your position. In the rest of your post, you basically claim ignorance once again and try to project that ignorance onto everybody else. I concur that you are ignorant on the issue (as well as being purposely deceptive). There are many studies I could list contradicting your position/claims but you will just ignore them and be purposely disingenuous to the evidence once again, and moreover, YAWN, you are boring me with your inane argumentation.bornagain77_{February 11, 2015
February
02
Feb
11
11
2015
03:27 AM
3
03
27
AM
PDT}

Hi ba77,
Which is a pretty interesting claim for you to make since I can think of many atheists/agnostics right off the top of my head who deny the reality of their own mind and free will:
Just more confusion on your part I'm afraid. Nobody denies the reality of their own mind - that's just another of your (infinite supply of) silly strawmen. Lots of people deny that mind is ontologically distinct from the rest of the universe. You have no idea what my position is on the matter, but that never makes any difference to you, because you'd rather tell people what they think than ask them.
For instance Alan Turing, who invented computers, infamously thought that his mind was a ‘Turing Machine’.
I already know who Alan Turing was, but thanks for the clarification ;-) So you've just proved yourself wrong in this very post: First you claim that folks like Turing deny the reality of their own minds, then you turn around and contradict yourself by explaining that Turing thought his mind was a deterministic physical mechanism, which obviously is part of reality. Your confusion on these matters knows no bounds. As for free will, that's a different question, and neither you nor me nor anyone else knows if our mentality transcends physical cause (nor what sorts of physical cause may exist). The only difference is that you pretend that you do.
I could go on and on quoting various atheists denying the reality of their own mind and free will, but you knew all of this already, so why did you make the false claim in the first place?
I could go on and on explaining that none of these people have denied that their mind is real; the problem is that you equate the word "mind" with "immaterial res cogitans" or some such term that entails dualism. Of course people deny dualism! That doesn't mean they deny they have minds! So the reason I made my claim is because I was right, and you were wrong.
It reflects badly on you to be so blatantly dishonest.
That is just a dishonest accusation on your part, so I suppose the shame is on you. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{February 10, 2015
February
02
Feb
10
10
2015
09:52 PM
9
09
52
PM
PDT}

Hi FMM,
I seem to recall a time when you appealed to quantum vibrations in microtubules as a possible explanation for all sorts of things like consciousness. Is that not woo?
??? That's Penrose and Hameroff, not me. Yup, that's woo too :-)
One thing that hasn’t changed is your confident belief that anything that makes orthodox Christianity more likely must be mistaken. ;-)
You're zero for two, I'm afraid, since I don't think that either. One thing that hasn't changed is that people here just don't know what little box to put me in, so they're never arguing against what I actually believe. Another thing that hasn't changed is my basic argument: We don't have answers to these big questions, and pretending that science has solved them is a mistake, whether you're Dawkins claiming Evolution explains it all, or you're here on UD claiming that immaterial souls and God explains it! Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{February 10, 2015
February
02
Feb
10
10
2015
09:50 PM
9
09
50
PM
PDT}

RDFish as to this statement of mine,,,
"deny the reality of your own mind"
you claim,,,
"I do no such thing of course, nor does anyone else that I’m aware of"
Which is a pretty interesting claim for you to make since I can think of many atheists/agnostics right off the top of my head who deny the reality of their own mind and free will: For instance Alan Turing, who invented computers, infamously thought that his mind was a ‘Turing Machine’.
Alan’s brain tells his mind, “Don’t you blow it.” Listen up! (Even though it’s inchoate.) “My claim’s neat and clean. I’m a Turing Machine!” … ‘Tis somewhat curious how he could know it. Alan Turing & Kurt Godel – Incompleteness Theorem and Human Intuition – video (with Gregory Chaitin) https://vimeo.com/92387854
Jerry Coyne also denies the reality of his own mind and free will:
The Confidence of Jerry Coyne – January 2014 Excerpt: Well and good. But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 Jerry Coyne Is Determined to Deny Free Will Michael Egnor October 3, 2013 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/10/jerry_coyne_is_4077421.html
Matthew D. Lieberman directly states that under materialistic assumptions, 'free will and consciousness are just an illusion'
“We have so much confidence in our materialist assumptions (which are assumptions, not facts) that something like free will is denied in principle. Maybe it doesn’t exist, but I don’t really know that. Either way, it doesn’t matter because if free will and consciousness are just an illusion, they are the most seamless illusions ever created. Film maker James Cameron wishes he had special effects that good.” Matthew D. Lieberman – neuroscientist – materialist – UCLA professor
Just today, O'Leary quoted New Scientist editor Graham Lawton denying he had free will:
"We live in a deterministic universe. Given enough information about its present state, we could extrapolate to any past or future state with 100 per cent accuracy. Everything that has or will happen was determined at the big bang -- and given that our brains are part of the physical universe, free will does not exist." New Scientist editor Graham Lawton
I could go on and on quoting various atheists denying the reality of their own mind and free will, but you knew all of this already, so why did you make the false claim in the first place? It reflects badly on you to be so blatantly dishonest. But hey, go for it if you want. You can become another shining example, like Evolve currently is, as to how intellectually dishonest atheists are willing to be when faced with actual evidence that directly threatens the preferred atheistic worldview. Of note: William J Murray gets the basic point of the necessity of the ‘primacy of consciousness’ across more clearly than anyone else I’ve ever read:
“In any philosophy of reality that is not ultimately self-defeating or internally contradictory, mind – unlabeled as anything else, matter or spiritual – must be primary. What is “matter” and what is “conceptual” and what is “spiritual” can only be organized from mind. Mind controls what is perceived, how it is perceived, and how those percepts are labeled and organized. Mind must be postulated as the unobserved observer, the uncaused cause simply to avoid a self-negating, self-conflicting worldview. It is the necessary postulate of all necessary postulates, because nothing else can come first. To say anything else comes first requires mind to consider and argue that case and then believe it to be true, demonstrating that without mind, you could not believe that mind is not primary in the first place.” - William J. Murray
bornagain77_{February 10, 2015
February
02
Feb
10
10
2015
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

RDfish. I have a special dislike for quantum woo. I say, I seem to recall a time when you appealed to quantum vibrations in microtubules as a possible explanation for all sorts of things like consciousness. Is that not woo? One thing that hasn't changed is your confident belief that anything that makes orthodox Christianity more likely must be mistaken. ;-) Same old song just with a heavy metal beat I suppose ;-) peacefifthmonarchyman_{February 10, 2015
February
02
Feb
10
10
2015
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

Hey FMM, Not bitter, my friend. Sometimes I think it takes a bit of aggressiveness to break through particularly entrenched patterns of thought, plus I have a special dislike for quantum woo. New Age folks peddle this same stuff, telling people that their consciousness creates their reality so all they have to do is believe that something is true (they are rich, successful, extraordinary, etc) and they can make it happen through quantum magic. That's really bad nuttiness. In this case here's ba77 endlessly cluttering up these threads with his gigantic collection of links to mined quotes (and other things that are actually completely irrelevant to what ba77 thinks they mean) and internet crazies who think the measurement problem has been solved and it somehow shows that science is on Jesus' side, so all other religious beliefs can be summarily dismissed. And now he informs us that nobody can do science without theism. Very bad nuttiness indeed. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{February 10, 2015
February
02
Feb
10
10
2015
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

The National Catholic Reporter is the liberal mag, not the National Catholic Register. The National Catholic Register is pretty orthodox.buffalo_{February 10, 2015
February
02
Feb
10
10
2015
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT}

Hey RDfish, There was a time when you weren't so bitter. What happened? peacefifthmonarchyman_{February 10, 2015
February
02
Feb
10
10
2015
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

Hi ba77,
Actually RDFish, it is impossible for you to ‘know’ anything if you deny the reality of your own mind.
I do no such thing of course, nor does anyone else that I'm aware of, so that's a perfectly ridiculous thing to say. It appears that the only people you are willing to argue with are the strawmen you yourself build.
Moreover, it is impossible to do science unless Theism is true.
This unsubstantiate and patently insane claim makes it clear you really are too far gone to reason with. Thanks for that. I'm happy to see yet another example of how Intelligent Design Theory really is a scientific theory that is separate from theism. Bwaaahahahahahahahahahahaha :-) Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{February 10, 2015
February
02
Feb
10
10
2015
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

Actually RDFish, it is impossible for you to 'know' anything if you deny the reality of your own mind.
Do the New Atheists Own the Market on Reason? - On the terms of the New Atheists, the very concept of rationality becomes nonsensical - By R. Scott Smith, May 03, 2012 Excerpt: If atheistic evolution by NS were true, we'd be in a beginningless series of interpretations, without any knowledge. Yet, we do know many things. So, naturalism & atheistic evolution by NS are false -- non-physical essences exist. But, what's their best explanation? Being non-physical, it can't be evolution by NS. Plus, we use our experiences, form concepts and beliefs, and even modify or reject them. Yet, if we're just physical beings, how could we interact with and use these non-physical things? Perhaps we have non-physical souls too. In all, it seems likely the best explanation for these non-physical things is that there exists a Creator after all. http://www.patheos.com/Evangelical/Atheists-Own-the-Market-on-Reason-Scott-Smith-05-04-2012?offset=1&max=1
Thus when you claim that you, 'really don’t know', at least you are being consistent with your atheism in this instance. Moreover, it is impossible to do science unless Theism is true. Besides the fact that modern science was born out of the Judeo-Christian worldview:
Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.robkoons.net/media/69b0dd04a9d2fc6dffff80b3ffffd524.pdf The Threat to the Scientific Method that Explains the Spate of Fraudulent Science Publications - Calvin Beisner | Jul 23, 2014 Excerpt: It is precisely because modern science has abandoned its foundations in the Biblical worldview (which holds, among other things, that a personal, rational God designed a rational universe to be understood and controlled by rational persons made in His image) and the Biblical ethic (which holds, among other things, that we are obligated to tell the truth even when it inconveniences us) that science is collapsing. As such diverse historians and philosophers of science as Alfred North Whitehead, Pierre Duhem, Loren Eiseley, Rodney Stark, and many others have observed, and as I pointed out in two of my talks at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC), science—not an occasional flash of insight here and there, but a systematic, programmatic, ongoing way of studying and controlling the world—arose only once in history, and only in one place: medieval Europe, once known as “Christendom,” where that Biblical worldview reigned supreme. That is no accident. Science could not have arisen without that worldview. http://townhall.com/columnists/calvinbeisner/2014/07/23/the-threat-to-the-scientific-method-that-explains-the-spate-of-fraudulent-science-publications-n1865201/page/full Several other resources backing up this claim are available, such as Thomas Woods, Stanley Jaki, David Linberg, Edward Grant, J.L. Heilbron, and Christopher Dawson.
Besides the 'inconvenient truth' for atheists that Christianty gave rise to modern science, Naturalism, besides not providing the correct epistemological basis for doing science, actually drives modern science into epistemological failure when it tries to account for the origin of the universe, and also for when it tries to account for the origin of human consciousness:
BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010 Excerpt: ,,,The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy. This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world,,, Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality.,,, What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse - where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause - produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale. For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. Universes do not “spontaneously create” on the basis of abstract mathematical descriptions, nor does the fantasy of a limitless multiverse trump the explanatory power of transcendent intelligent design. What Mr. Hawking’s contrary assertions show is that mathematical savants can sometimes be metaphysical simpletons. Caveat emptor. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/ Scientific Peer Review is in Trouble: From Medical Science to Darwinism - Mike Keas - October 10, 2012 Excerpt: Survival is all that matters on evolutionary naturalism. Our evolving brains are more likely to give us useful fictions that promote survival rather than the truth about reality. Thus evolutionary naturalism undermines all rationality (including confidence in science itself). Renown philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued against naturalism in this way (summary of that argument is linked on the site:). Or, if your short on time and patience to grasp Plantinga's nuanced argument, see if you can digest this thought from evolutionary cognitive psychologist Steve Pinker, who baldly states: "Our brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth; sometimes the truth is adaptive, sometimes it is not." Steven Pinker, evolutionary cognitive psychologist, How the Mind Works (W.W. Norton, 1997), p. 305. http://blogs.christianpost.com/science-and-faith/scientific-peer-review-is-in-trouble-from-medical-science-to-darwinism-12421/ Quote: "In evolutionary games we put truth (true perception) on the stage and it dies. And in genetic algorithms it (true perception) never gets on the stage" Donald Hoffman PhD. - Consciousness and The Interface Theory of Perception - 7:19 to 9:20 minute mark - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=dqDP34a-epI#t=439
Moreover RDFish, you contradicted yourself in your own statement. You claimed you, 'really don’t know', and then you turned right around and claimed that you really did know that science didn't support theism. Which is it RDFish, do you really not know or do you really know? ,,, Or do you really know that you really do not know? :) Moreover, contrary to what you 'really don’t know', the findings of modern science are far more supportive of Theistic premises than they are of Naturalitic/Atheistic premises:
1. Naturalism/Materialism predicted time-space energy-matter always existed. Whereas Theism predicted time-space energy-matter were created. Big Bang cosmology now strongly indicates that time-space energy-matter had a sudden creation event approximately 14 billion years ago. 2. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the universe is a self sustaining system that is not dependent on anything else for its continued existence. Theism predicted that God upholds this universe in its continued existence. Breakthroughs in quantum mechanics reveal that this universe is dependent on a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause for its continued existence. 3. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that consciousness is a ‘emergent property’ of material reality and thus should have no particularly special position within material reality. Theism predicts consciousness precedes material reality and therefore, on that presupposition, consciousness should have a ‘special’ position within material reality. Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even a central, position within material reality. - 4. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe. Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time. – Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 – 2 Timothy 1:9) - 5. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and that life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind. Scientists find the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. Moreover it is found, when scrutinizing the details of physics and chemistry, that not only is the universe fine-tuned for carbon based life, but is specifically fine-tuned for life like human life (R. Collins, M. Denton).- 6. Naturalism/Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe. Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex organic life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe (G. Gonzalez, H. Ross). - 7. Naturalism/Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11). Geo-chemical evidence from the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth indicates that complex photo-synthetic life has existed on earth as long as water has been on the face of earth. - 8. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the first life to be relatively simple. Theism predicted that God is the source for all life on earth. The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) - 9. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse animal life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas. - 10. Naturalism/Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record. Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. - 11. Naturalism/Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man (our genus ‘modern homo’ as distinct from the highly controversial ‘early homo’) is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. (Tattersall; Luskin)– 12. Naturalism/Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”. - 13. Naturalism/Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth – The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) - 14. Naturalism/Materialism predicted morality is subjective and illusory. Theism predicted morality is objective and real. Morality is found to be deeply embedded in the genetic responses of humans. As well, morality is found to be deeply embedded in the structure of the universe. Embedded to the point of eliciting physiological responses in humans before humans become aware of the morally troubling situation and even prior to the event even happening. 15. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that we are merely our material bodies with no transcendent component to our being, and that we die when our material bodies die. Theism predicted that we have minds/souls that are transcendent of our bodies that live past the death of our material bodies. Transcendent, and ‘conserved’, (cannot be created or destroyed), ‘non-local’, (beyond space-time matter-energy), quantum entanglement/information, which is not reducible to matter-energy space-time, is now found in our material bodies on a massive scale (in every DNA and protein molecule).
As a footnote to the 'free will' issue and quantum mechanics, the agent causality of theists has always been a much superior explanation in modern science compared to the blind, (it just happened), causality of atheists:
"God is not a “God of the gaps”, he is God of the whole show.,,, C. S. Lewis put it this way: “Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.” John Lennox – Not the God of the Gaps, But the Whole Show – 2012 “In the whole history of the universe the laws of nature have never produced, (i.e. caused), a single event.” C.S. Lewis - doodle video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_20yiBQAIlk "to say that a stone falls to earth because it's obeying a law, makes it a man and even a citizen" - CS Lewis A Professor's Journey out of Nihilism: Why I am not an Atheist - University of Wyoming - J. Budziszewski Excerpt page12: "There were two great holes in the argument about the irrelevance of God. The first is that in order to attack free will, I supposed that I understood cause and effect; I supposed causation to be less mysterious than volition. If anything, it is the other way around. I can perceive a logical connection between premises and valid conclusions. I can perceive at least a rational connection between my willing to do something and my doing it. But between the apple and the earth, I can perceive no connection at all. Why does the apple fall? We don't know. "But there is gravity," you say. No, "gravity" is merely the name of the phenomenon, not its explanation. "But there are laws of gravity," you say. No, the "laws" are not its explanation either; they are merely a more precise description of the thing to be explained, which remains as mysterious as before. For just this reason, philosophers of science are shy of the term "laws"; they prefer "lawlike regularities." To call the equations of gravity "laws" and speak of the apple as "obeying" them is to speak as though, like the traffic laws, the "laws" of gravity are addressed to rational agents capable of conforming their wills to the command. This is cheating, because it makes mechanical causality (the more opaque of the two phenomena) seem like volition (the less). In my own way of thinking the cheating was even graver, because I attacked the less opaque in the name of the more. The other hole in my reasoning was cruder. If my imprisonment in a blind causality made my reasoning so unreliable that I couldn't trust my beliefs, then by the same token I shouldn't have trusted my beliefs about imprisonment in a blind causality. But in that case I had no business denying free will in the first place." http://www.undergroundthomist.org/sites/default/files/WhyIAmNotAnAtheist.pdf
bornagain77_{February 10, 2015
February
02
Feb
10
10
2015
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

Hi ba77, Well that's just it, ba77! Why can't you see it, even when you provide the quote yourself?
We don't actually know this. We really don't
You see, this is my position on many of the Big Questions discussed on this board, yet you and the other true believers here just don't get it. How did the universe come to exist? We really don't know. What is the solution to the mind/body problem? The problem of free will? The origin of life, and of biological complexity? The quantum measurement problem? These are the problems that fascinate us all, and (because!) none of these problems have answers that we can actually justify as being true. We justify many, many other things as true beliefs (knowledge) using science, but not everything, and not these things. Instead of just admitting this the way scientists do, you amass reams of quotes and links and videos and pretend that this or that somehow scientifically supports your religious views. Why bother? Why can't you be just a regular religious person and have your beliefs and faith and not pretend that you are doing science? Why pretend that quantum phenomena demonstrate the truth of dualism/interactionism? It simply doesn't. Or the truth of theism (it doesn't). Why make a fuss over the overthrow of 19th century physics, as though scientists still believe in it? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{February 10, 2015
February
02
Feb
10
10
2015
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

O' Leary weighs in on free will here: How Can We Believe in Naturalism if We Have No Choice? - Denyse O'Leary - February 10, 2015 Excerpt: -- Even naturalists cannot take their own view seriously for long. Matthew Lieberman openly admits that his own materialist position is -- a leap of faith: "I am a neuroscientist and so 99 percent of the time I behave like a materialist, acknowledging that the mind is real but fully dependent on the brain. But we don't actually know this. We really don't. We assume our sense of will is a causal result of the neurochemical processes in our brain, but this is a leap of faith.",,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/02/how_can_we_beli093411.htmlbornagain77_{February 10, 2015
February
02
Feb
10
10
2015
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

BA77 @36 You are very right about that, don't forget it!DillyGill_{February 9, 2015
February
02
Feb
9
09
2015
11:39 PM
11
11
39
PM
PDT}

As I said RDFish, "judging from your actions in the past, I don’t expect you to admit any of this", but I am more than satisfied that the unbiased reader can easily tell who is being honest towards the evidence and who is full of bluff and bluster. Good night sir.bornagain77_{February 9, 2015
February
02
Feb
9
09
2015
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT}

Hi ba77,
Instead of admitting you were wrong, and thanking me for correcting you on your misconception, which is what you should have done,
Hahahahaha you are a laugh riot. This QM woo-woo nonsense starts by baldly assuming your forgone conclusion - dualist interactionism - then decides that since that is true, it explains quantum phenomena. Virtually noone except for a few New Age gurus and religious folks trying to co-opt actual science to support their theistic dogma believe any of this. You point to experiments that we are all perfectly familiar with, declare that 19th century materialism is dead (there's some news!! welcome to the 20th century!), and proceed to claim that somehow this supports your particular metaphysics, including dualism/interactionism (ugh) and of course your particular brand of theism. On top of that you proclaim that all this somehow has something to do with evolutionary theory, which is completely ridiculous - and I'm saying this as somebody who doesn't even believe evolutionary theory explains OOL or speciation!
For instance, quantum entanglement/information has now been found in DNA.
Perfect example of so what?.
If you cannot see the insurmountable problem that quantum non-locality of information presents to neo-Darwinism, there is not really much I can do for you since you don’t even know the basics of the reductive materialistic theory you are trying to defend.
HAHAHAHAHahahahah who is trying to defend "reductive materialistic theory" here? Certainly not me. Could it be one of your men made out of a pile of pure straw? All I'm doing is pointing out that this nonsense about QM supporting dualism/interactionism and theism is an absolute parody of science. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{February 9, 2015
February
02
Feb
9
09
2015
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT}

velikovskys, If the incarnation cannot be created without the incarnation existing ,how exactly does that work? I say, Allow me to speculate wildly 1) I don't get to hung up on which came first questions. The Chicken and the egg are both equally ultimate temporally. 2)The incarnation was not created. The Word became flesh 3)Time is relative before and after have no meaning with out creation. Creation begins with the Word expressed. check it out quote: This was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, (Eph 3:11) and which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began, (2Ti 1:9b) and He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you (1Pe 1:20) and whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (Rev 13:8b KJV) end quote: peacefifthmonarchyman_{February 9, 2015
February
02
Feb
9
09
2015
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT}

RDFish,
What Does Quantum Physics Have to Do with Free Will? - By Antoine Suarez - July 22, 2013 Excerpt: What is more, recent experiments are bringing to light that the experimenter’s free will and consciousness should be considered axioms (founding principles) of standard quantum physics theory. So for instance, in experiments involving “entanglement” (the phenomenon Einstein called “spooky action at a distance”), to conclude that quantum correlations of two particles are nonlocal (i.e. cannot be explained by signals traveling at velocity less than or equal to the speed of light), it is crucial to assume that the experimenter can make free choices, and is not constrained in what orientation he/she sets the measuring devices. To understand these implications it is crucial to be aware that quantum physics is not only a description of the material and visible world around us, but also speaks about non-material influences coming from outside the space-time.,,, https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/what-does-quantum-physics-have-do-free-will Antoine Suarez is the founding director of the Center for Quantum Philosophy in Zurich, based on philosophical questions raised in the 1970's and 1980's by John Bell. Suarez and Valerio Scarani, inspired by discussions with Bell, proposed in 1997 the "before-before" experiment.,,, They showed that, like the other Bell inequalities, the "before-before" suggestion of Suarez and Scarani could not eliminate nonlocality and entanglement. Their tests confirmed quantum mechanics,,, http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/suarez/
RDFish, in your rush to deny the importance of consciousness and free will in quantum mechanics, there are a couple of points I would like to make clear in the experiment that refuted your citation:
Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past - April 23, 2012 Excerpt: The authors experimentally realized a "Gedankenexperiment" called "delayed-choice entanglement swapping", formulated by Asher Peres in the year 2000. Two pairs of entangled photons are produced, and one photon from each pair is sent to a party called Victor. Of the two remaining photons, one photon is sent to the party Alice and one is sent to the party Bob. Victor can now choose between two kinds of measurements. If he decides to measure his two photons in a way such that they are forced to be in an entangled state, then also Alice's and Bob's photon pair becomes entangled. If Victor chooses to measure his particles individually, Alice's and Bob's photon pair ends up in a separable state. Modern quantum optics technology allowed the team to delay Victor's choice and measurement with respect to the measurements which Alice and Bob perform on their photons. "We found that whether Alice's and Bob's photons are entangled and show quantum correlations or are separable and show classical correlations can be decided after they have been measured", explains Xiao-song Ma, lead author of the study. According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as "spooky action at a distance". The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. "Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events", says Anton Zeilinger. http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-physics-mimics-spooky-action.html
RDFish, if, as is held in reductive materialism, my conscious choices, (i.e. free will choices), are just merely the result of whatever state the material particles in my brain happen to be in in the past (deterministic) then how in blue blazes are my choices able to instantaneously effect the state of material particles into the past?,,, This, and other experiments from quantum mechanics, are simply impossible on the reductive materialism (deterministic) view of reality! Moreover RDFish, (as if that was not bad enough for your materialism), if you deny the reality of your own free will then you wind up in epistemological failure. In other words, if you deny your own free will then you undermine your own ability to reason coherently and to make a logically coherent argument as to the truthfulness of your propositions:
Sam Harris's Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It - Martin Cothran - November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state -- including their position on this issue -- is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.html Physicalism and Reason - May 2013 Summary: So we find ourselves affirming two contradictory propositions: 1. Everything is governed by cause-and-effect. 2. Our brains can process and be changed by ground-consequent logical relationships. To achieve consistency, we must either deny that everything is governed by cause-and-effect, and open our worldviews to something beyond physicalism, or we must deny that our brains are influenced by ground-consequence reasoning, and abandon the idea that we are rational creatures. Ask yourself: are humans like falling dominoes, entirely subject to natural law, or may we stand up and walk in the direction that reason shows us? http://www.reasonsforgod.org/2012/09/physicalism-and-reason/ “One absolutely central inconsistency ruins [the popular scientific philosophy]. The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears… unless Reason is an absolute, all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.” —C.S. Lewis, Is Theology Poetry (aka the Argument from Reason)
Thus RDFish, you are in a pickle from two angles. First, the experimental evidence undermines your contention that a person's choices are deterministic. Second, even if you persist in denying the reality of your own free will, then you undermine any right you have argue coherently for your position in the first place since you deny you have an ability to rationally choose the most reasonable option. Of course, judging from your actions in the past, I don't expect you to admit any of this. But I think that the unbiased readers will be interested to see just how irrational your position actually is. And not that you will care about this either RDFish, but since our free will choices figure so prominently in how reality is actually found to be constructed in our understanding of quantum mechanics, I think a Christian perspective on just how important our choices are in this temporal life, in regards to our eternal destiny, is very fitting:
“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell." - C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce “The Problem of Pain,” C.S. Lewis (Chapter 8 - pg. 67 - Hell) http://www.fellowshipoffaith.org/images/files/upload/Problem_of_Pain.pdf
And exactly as would be expected on a Theistic view of reality, we find two very different eternities in reality. A ‘infinitely destructive’ eternity associated with General Relativity and a extremely orderly eternity associated with Special Relativity:
Special Relativity, General Relativity, Heaven and Hell https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_4cQ7MXq8bLkoFLYW0kq3Xq-Hkc3c7r-gTk0DYJQFSg/edit
Verse and Music:
Deuteronomy 30:19 This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live. Evanescence - The Other Side (Lyric Video) http://www.vevo.com/watch/evanescence/the-other-side-lyric-video/USWV41200024?source=instantsearch
Of supplemental note: Here are Dr. Antoine Suarez lecture videos: Antoine Suarez https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVmgTa2vbopdjpMNAQBqXHw/videosbornagain77_{February 9, 2015
February
02
Feb
9
09
2015
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT}

FFM: You say, it is both the mind and the body……required to create anything at all. I say, I agree ever hear of the incarnation? If the incarnation cannot be created without the incarnation existing ,how exactly does that work?velikovskys_{February 9, 2015
February
02
Feb
9
09
2015
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT}

RDFish, Instead of admitting you were wrong, and thanking me for correcting you on your misconception, which is what you should have done, you went on a fact free rant of your personal opinions. Your appeal to 'consensus science', instead of actual experimental evidence, to back up your personal opinions, rather than making your case stronger, as you seem to think it does, actually, in my eyes, exposes you as a dogmatist who ignores evidence instead of a seeker of truth who honestly evaluates it: For instance, quantum entanglement/information has now been found in DNA. If you cannot see the insurmountable problem that quantum non-locality of information presents to neo-Darwinism, there is not really much I can do for you since you don't even know the basics of the reductive materialistic theory you are trying to defend. Please note, at the 8:22 mark of the following video, how ‘metaphysical prejudice’ drastically alters what many physicists are willing to say they believe about quantum mechanics from what they say quantum mechanics actually indicates. The Measurement Problem in quantum mechanics – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUEbornagain77_{February 9, 2015
February
02
Feb
9
09
2015
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT}

Hi ba77,
although Naturalists have proposed various, far fetched, naturalistic scenarios to try to get around the Theistic implications of quantum non-locality, none of the ‘far fetched’ naturalistic solutions, in themselves, are compatible with the reductive materialism that undergirds neo-Darwinian thought.
There is no connection between physical ontology and QM on one hand and evolutionary theory on the other. That's pure crack-pottery. Again, only a tiny minority of physicists believe that consciousness collapses the waveform, or even think that the waveform is something that collapses in the first place. Most physicists aren't very interested in metaphysics, but no, there is no conspiracy keeping them from talking about metaphysical implications of QM. It should be obvious to you that nobody is arguing for some 100 year-old pre-quantum materialism - that is just your silly straw-man. Non-locality, non-realism, even possibly retro-causality in the quantum realm - yes of course these are experimentally confirmed in various ways, but none of these say anything whatsoever about consciousness existing apart from matter or from brains, or consiousness collapsing the waveform, or even consciousness per se being causal in any way at all. Oh, and nothing in QM implies anything whatsoever about gods, goddesses, demons, angels, or any other supernatural kinds of people either. That's just you. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{February 9, 2015
February
02
Feb
9
09
2015
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply