Leyden and Teixeira: Political “Civil War” Coming Because of Global Warming

_{Cornelius Hunter
April 11, 2018

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey recently tweeted that Peter Leyden’s and Ruy Teixeira’s article, “The Great Lesson of California in America’s New Civil War,” is a “Great read.” The article both urges and forecasts a blue-state takeover of America where our current political divide gives way to a Democrat dominion. This new “Civil War” is to begin this year and, like the last one will have an economic cause. Unfortunately, the thinking of Leyden and Teixeira is steeped in scientific ignorance which drives their thesis. Read more

Comments

Seversky:
The claim that materialism reduces mind to delusion fails.
The claim that materialism can account for the mind failsET_{April 19, 2018
April
04
Apr
19
19
2018
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

JDK, I spoke in the context of recent complaints emanating from the penumbra of skeptics, that UD is highlighting more of philosophical rather than scientific issues. My own view is the two are inextricably intertwined especially where origins and fundamental issues are involved. With budget season here at peak for now, I will for the moment just give outline remarks. (After all, I have an underlying intent to take back up the AI issue, which is also key background.) In this case, panpsychism in effect implies that consciousness/ mindedness is an integral aspect of a material world, perhaps as magnetism is present with particles and space, interacting and accumulating into all sorts of phenomena. And indeed the concept of mind as a field of influence is a longstanding concept in psychology. The issues I have outlined instantly obtain, and tell decisively. If space-time and matter-energy entities are associated with a mind-field so to speak, then we already have a universal mind inextricably intertwined with a physical world. Panpsychism becomes a type of pantheism or the variant, panentheism. This then moves the discussion to pantheism and its close relatives. On which, we find the issue that the problem of the one and the many, unity and diversity including the issue of good vs evils, becomes decisive. As backdrop, the logic of being is such that were there ever utter nothing, such having no causal powers, that would forever obtain; that a world is, implies that SOMETHING always was. On the above, this then leads straight to eternal mind. Where also, the nature of mindedness and consciousness is that such is inherently unified, inherently volitional and free entity. This, is on pain of undermining responsible, rational freedom and rendering argument useless, as forces that are essentially material would drive the result on cause-effect bonds, not lead through insightful reason and ground-consequent inference or the like. Mind has to be sufficiently independent to be free and sufficiently capable of interaction with the material to account for our own responsible, rational freedom. Or else we are immediately in self-referential absurdity that renders discussion pointless. The alternative, and that seems to be where Chalmers is, is that some entities are minded, others are not. This then leads to the point that mind is now distinct from the physical cosmos, radically undermining the force of panpsychism. I should add that the dualism and dichotomy of theism have been greatly exaggerated. Exaggerated to the point where there is a needless debate over how could mind or spirit ever interact with the mechanical-stochastic world of physical entities. BTW, this rather reminds me of some debates in macroeconomics, especially where the rational, free agent and his/her expectations become important. The theistic vision is, and has always been that the world is the free creation of God, and so matter is undergirded and sustained by mind. In speaking to the Athenians at Mars Hill c. 50 AD, Paul cited a pagan poet, that we are his offspring, and again, that in him we live and move and have our being. Likewise, here is a spokesman for the school of Paul, writing to the Hebrews:
Heb 1:1 God, having spoken to the fathers long ago in [the voices and writings of] the prophets in many separate revelations [each of which set forth a portion of the truth], and in many ways, 2 has in these last days spoken [with finality] to us in [the person of One who is by His character and nature] His Son [namely Jesus], whom He appointed heir and lawful owner of all things, through whom also He created the universe [that is, the universe as a space-time-matter continuum]. 3 The Son is the radiance and only expression of the glory of [our awesome] God [reflecting God’s [a]Shekinah glory, the Light-being, the brilliant light of the divine], and the exact representation and perfect imprint of His [Father’s] essence, and upholding and maintaining and propelling all things [the entire physical and spiritual universe] by His powerful word [carrying the universe along to its predetermined goal]. When He [Himself and no other] had [by offering Himself on the cross as a sacrifice for sin] accomplished purification from sins and established our freedom from guilt, He sat down [revealing His completed work] at the right hand of the Majesty on high [revealing His Divine authority], 4 having become as much superior to angels, since He has inherited a more excellent and glorious [b]name than they [that is, Son—the name above all names]. [AMP]
So, eternal mind is on the table, and its sustaining of all things is on the table. The need to address the one and the many, providing coherent unity that has room for diversity including that moral diversity we describe on good vs evil, and giving our own mindedness with responsible rational freedom due significance, is now on the table. That complex balance puts Christian, trinitarian theism on the table as the option to beat. Probe Ministries, long ago now, put the point thusly:
When it comes to discussing worldviews the starting point is the question, Why is there something rather than nothing?{6} [BTW, philosophy is best understood as the study of such hard basic questions, the comparison of alternative answers, and the application of our findings to living based on the love of wisdom thereby discovered . . . ] As you may already know, there are three basic answers to this question. The pantheist would generally answer that all is one, all is god, and this "god with a small g" has always existed. Second, the naturalist would say that something, namely matter [in some form], has always existed. Third, the theist holds that a personal, Creator-God is eternal and out of nothing He created all that there is . . . .When we look around at what exists, we see an amazing collection of seemingly disparate elements such as gasses, liquids, and solids, planets and stars, horses, flowers, rocks, and trees. And seeing all of these things we notice that they all exist in some sort of equilibrium or unity. How is it that such diversity exists in such apparent unity? And are we as human beings any more important than gasses or ants? [Thus, we see the problem of the one and the many, with a particular emphasis on human individuality and value of the person, which ties directly into the point that a right is a moral claim we make on others in light of our inherent dignity as human beings] . . . . The pantheist's commitment to an all-inclusive oneness leaves no room for the real world in which people live, where I am not you and neither of us is one with a tree or a mountain. The naturalist has no problem accepting the reality of the physical world and the diversity present in it. However, there is no solid ground for understanding why it is all held together. In short, [as Francis Schaeffer often noted] there is no infinite reference point so we are left with the circular argument: everything holds together because everything holds together; if it didn't, we wouldn't be here to see it. What a coincidence! In fact, coincidence, or chance, is the only basis for anything. As a result human beings are left with an absurd existence . . . . Trinitarian theism is the only option that contains within itself an explanation of both the one and the many while saying that people are important. In the Trinity, God has revealed Himself as the eternal, infinite reference point for His creation. Moreover, the Trinity provides the only adequate basis for understanding the problem of unity and diversity since God has revealed Himself to be one God who exists in a plural unity. Ultimately then, as Horrell concludes, "Every thing and every person has real significance because each is created by and finally exists in relationship to the Triune God." [Article, What Difference Does the Trinity Make?, emphases, links and parentheses added.] In short the problem of balancing unity and diversity in the cosmos is a major issue in assessing the coherence of a worldview -- does it make sense? Does it account for reality? Can I live consistent with what it implies and squarely face myself in the mirror come tomorrow morning? Of the three major live options, it is trinitarian redemptive monotheism that makes best sense, for it best accounts for how the one and the many we observe around us came to be, and it promotes moral coherence, thence the significance of man, as well.
A note for reflection, for now, just to keep a stall open in the marketplace of worldviews level ideas. Focus is elsewhere, given the budget season. KFkairosfocus_{April 19, 2018
April
04
Apr
19
19
2018
02:04 AM
2
02
04
AM
PDT}

One problem with panpsychism is its limited explanatory power wrt life and cosmos. Sure, it is an attempt to explain human consciousness, but it cannot explain the involvement of consciousness in the coming into existence of life itself let alone the (fine-tuned) universe.
jdk: It is only when those particles aggregate in (as far as we know) a living being does awareness of an integrated whole organism start to appear ...
So, panpsychism needs life in order to explain self-aware experience. Again, from this it follows that there can be no conscious intelligent designer of life. Therefore it seems illogical to me that atheist Thomas Nagel arrives at panpsychism. First he argues that it is (very) unlikely that life came about by blind Darwinian processes, and next he suggests that panpsychism can hold some 'design-like-alternative'? However if one needs life in order to have a self-aware intelligent designer, then what good is panpsychism as an explanation for life?Origenes_{April 19, 2018
April
04
Apr
19
19
2018
01:40 AM
1
01
40
AM
PDT}

jdk: In panpsychism, some elemental form of consciousness ... exists as co-equal, concomitant aspect of every elemental particle.
What about 'energy?' Does that contain "some elemental form of consciousness" as well?
jdk: ... a “unified grand consciousness” ... I think I have explained is not possible in panpsychism.
What then is the status of consciousness at the time of the Big Bang, when there were no elemental particles? If consciousness is cumulative, does it follow that large organisms (like the whale) are more aware then relatively small ones (like us)?Origenes_{April 19, 2018
April
04
Apr
19
19
2018
12:52 AM
12
12
52
AM
PDT}

As a preface to some thoughts on panpsychism, kf writes,
we are about to embark on a phil discussion, if you want to go down this line. So, do we really want to run down yet another abstruse rabbit-trail?
Well, obviously, kf, you can choose to discuss this or not. However, given that the discussion is about the metaphysics of how might consciousness be a part of the universe, discussing panpsychism in this regard is no more (or no less) a rabbit hole than discussing a universal mind such as God. Many people consider all metaphysics a useless rabbit hole, but I like thinking about it despite my thoughts about the nature of that enterprise. However, I appreciate your few sketchy thoughts. You write,
.A good place to begin is to ask what it means to be conscious — self-aware, but to have a self, a distinct unit of identity.
Not under panpsychism. In panpsychism, some elemental form of consciousness (or whatever better word might describe this additional component), exists as co-equal, concomitant aspect of every elemental particle. We would not say, however, that every such particle is self-aware, or has a sense of self. It is only when those particles aggregate in (as far as we know) a living being does awareness of an integrated whole organism start to appear (although we also don't know at what level of animal that starts to happen, and what gradations of awareness there might be.) Also, of course, we have no idea how this might happen: that is the hard problem that Chalmers identifies for panpsychism, but he also identifies hard problems for materialism and mind/matter dualisms such as theism. In theism, consciousness does imply a self, because theism posits a integrated universal mind as opposed to the decentralized quantamized model of panpsychism. So your "good place to start" is a starting point for theism, but not a good general place to start that includes the alternative hypothesis of panpsychism You write,
The emergence issue lurks, we are back at poof-magic.
The first phrase is true, but it is just as true of the physical world: the things of the physical world emerge from the elementary particles. I don't think anyone thinks that the creation of the elements inside stars is "poof magic", even though those elements emerge from interactions of the elementary particles. You write,
And BTW, above I did not suggest that Chalmers-/JDK- style pan-psychism asserts that one unified consciousness pervades space, time, matter, energy but that the phenomenon is attached to that which is a component of same. Perhaps, my wording was not very clear.
I appreciate the clarification. I think we are clear, are we not, that panpsychism is about something else (consciousness or some more elemental precursor), but not about any cosmic unified disembodied mind. You write,
I can add, though, that if there is a “natural” emergence by accumulation, then one would have to have a pretty good reason to explain how conscious entities would not fuse to a unified grand consciousness. And if they don’t cohere and unite, then emergence is dead, back to square one.
No, because, since consciousness is concomitant with matter, conscious entities would not "fuse into" one without the associated matter fusing so as to act as an integrated organism, and that doesn't happen.
So, which is it? We can try to restrict the scope of fundamentally conscious elementary “particles” but then that comes back to we have a partly mental, partly purely mechanical world. That seems to be where Chalmers has gone.
Yes, panpsychism is a philosophy where the world is partly mental/partly physical. However, it is not a dualistic philosophy like theism: the mental and the physical exist simultaneously and in a complementary fashion. It is not possible for them to exist separately. And last, you write,
As for JDK, the border between the two persons is fuzzy; unexplained.
I don't understand this sentence, unless it is referring back to a "unified grand consciousness", which I think I have explained is not possible in panpsychism.jdk_{April 18, 2018
April
04
Apr
18
18
2018
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT}

jdk @160
... quanta of consciousness aggregate into ....
What Chalmers fails to understand is that consciousness cannot be a composite. A simple example illustrates the problem: Take a sentence of a dozen words, and take 12 men and tell to each one word. Then stand the men in a row or jam them in a bunch, and let each think of his word as intently as he wills; nowhere will there be a consciousness of the whole sentence. In order to support his erroneous belief in composite consciousness Chalmers refers to scientific evidence:
Chalmers: ... there are cases (especially neuropsychological cases, such as those involving patients with split brains) in which a subject's states of consciousness are disunified.
He doesn't reference his claim, but here at UD we all know what it is about (Sperry and Gazzaniga). And we also know that Chalmer's claim is bogus.Origenes_{April 18, 2018
April
04
Apr
18
18
2018
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

JDK, we are about to embark on a phil discussion, if you want to go down this line. A few sketchy initial thoughts. A good place to begin is to ask what it means to be conscious -- self-aware, but to have a self, a distinct unit of identity. Then try to assemble a larger conscious self like we are by bringing together a cloud of conscious components. The emergence issue lurks, we are back at poof-magic. And BTW, above I did not suggest that Chalmers-/JDK- style pan-psychism asserts that one unified consciousness pervades space, time, matter, energy but that the phenomenon is attached to that which is a component of same. Perhaps, my wording was not very clear. I can add, though, that if there is a "natural" emergence by accumulation, then one would have to have a pretty good reason to explain how conscious entities would not fuse to a unified grand consciousness. And if they don't cohere and unite, then emergence is dead, back to square one. So, which is it? We can try to restrict the scope of fundamentally conscious elementary "particles" but then that comes back to we have a partly mental, partly purely mechanical world. That seems to be where Chalmers has gone. As for JDK, the border between the two persons is fuzzy; unexplained. So, do we really want to run down yet another abstruse rabbit-trail? KFkairosfocus_{April 18, 2018
April
04
Apr
18
18
2018
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT}

kf writes,
consciousness pervades space and time and matter, then we are looking at a cosmic, foundational mind; never mind attempts to imagine a sort of lego-brick assembly of higher mindedness.
If you listen to Chalmers, his idea is not that a unified consciousness pervades space and time, but that, yes indeed, consciousness in little bits (quanta, if you like, although he doesn't use that word) exists as a part of each fundamental physical particle. And, yes, he envisions these quanta of consciousness aggregating into a larger whole in a mind in a way analogous to elementary particles aggregating into physical objects.jdk_{April 18, 2018
April
04
Apr
18
18
2018
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

Note, JDK, 135:
In the video, Chalmers says he himself favors a position that is perhaps close to my own position: that of panpsychism. This is not a materialist position, but neither is it a theistic “mind of God” position. The idea is that consciousness, at some elemental level, is a fundamental aspect of the universe, in a way analogous to that of energy and matter; and that just as elementary particles can coalesce into larger integrated bodies (stars, tornadoes, human beings), elementary consciousness coalesces into an integrated whole in a human being.
I started from there and began a response. More should follow when I have time and energy. It's budget season here. For the moment, I just highlight that consciousness is an aspect of personhood, mindedness, and if consciousness pervades space and time and matter, then we are looking at a cosmic, foundational mind; never mind attempts to imagine a sort of lego-brick assembly of higher mindedness. Other issues follow from here on out. KFkairosfocus_{April 18, 2018
April
04
Apr
18
18
2018
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

I didn't posit "consciousness as part of core reality" if by that you mean endorse that idea. I mentioned it primarily because Chalmers, who ba invoked concerned the hard problem of consciousness, tends to lean towards panpsychism as a favored metaphysic. My main point is that there are a variety of metaphysics that have some type of hard problem with consciousness. Also, panpsychism claims that matter and mind are inextricably entangled, so the idea of a Cosmic disembodied mind, as in theism, is not compatible with, or implied by, panpsychism.jdk_{April 17, 2018
April
04
Apr
17
17
2018
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT}

Seversky, you are not addressing cogently the dynamical issues at stake, on computational substrates and processing of signals or rather variables. Computation is a blindly mechanical process, with the intelligence external to the raw mechanical and stochastic behaviour of elements as they act on signals, such that organisation, signal structures and scaling etc are key to useful results. And, so that GIGO rules. At least JDK has posited consciousness as part of core reality so that all things are to some extent conscious. Pause to reflect on Reppert especially. KFkairosfocus_{April 17, 2018
April
04
Apr
17
17
2018
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 146
PPS: Alex Rosenberg, Atheist’s guide to reality
Rosenberg doesn't speak for all atheists, certainly not for this a/mat.Seversky_{April 17, 2018
April
04
Apr
17
17
2018
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 145
A major way to test a philosophy or worldview is to ask: Is it logically consistent? Internal contradictions are fatal to any worldview because contradictory statements are necessarily false. “This circle is square” is contradictory, so it has to be false. An especially damaging form of contradiction is self-referential absurdity — which means a theory sets up a definition of truth that it itself fails to meet. Therefore it refutes itself . . . . An example of self-referential absurdity is a theory called evolutionary epistemology, a naturalistic approach that applies evolution to the process of knowing. The theory proposes that the human mind is a product of natural selection. The implication is that the ideas in our minds were selected for their survival value, not for their truth-value. But what if we apply that theory to itself? Then it, too, was selected for survival, not truth — which discredits its own claim to truth. Evolutionary epistemology commits suicide.
And, as we have pointed out a number of times before, Pearcey's argument only stands if truth-tracking and survival-tracking are different. If one maps exactly to the other or they at least mostly overlap then her argument falls as there is no contradiction.Seversky_{April 17, 2018
April
04
Apr
17
17
2018
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 144
BO’H (et al): Let’s put JBS Haldane on the table.
Why?
“It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [“When I am dead,” in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. (NB: DI Fellow, Nancy Pearcey brings this right up to date (HT: ENV) in a current book, Finding Truth.)]

Argument from incredulity much?
The rhetorical pretence that materialism reducing mind to delusion is not a serious issue fails.
The claim that materialism reduces mind to delusion fails.Seversky_{April 17, 2018
April
04
Apr
17
17
2018
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

In re JDK, 135:
the fact that there are some famous people who have made statements about “neuronal illusions” does not mean that every one with the same general philosophical position as those people has to agree with what those famous people have said, or are obligated to defend them.
BA77, 140:
jdk at 135, 1. again, the concept of ‘neuronal illusions’ is a direct result of materialistic premises. I assume nothing but take materialistic premises to their logical end, (i.e. if materialism is true atheists are neuronal illusions and are not persons). Having leading materialistic philosophers honestly agree with me on the direct implications of their materialistic philosophy is merely icing on the cake. 2. jdk, you dismiss the ‘philosophical zombie’ argument with a wave of your hand but fail to see that the philosophical zombie’ argument underscores the fact that materialistic premises do indeed lead to the conclusion that people do not really exist but are merely ‘neuronal illusions’. Only under Theism, as Alvin Plantinga pointed out in “God and Other Minds”, are we justified in believing that, not only our own, but other minds are real and that they exist.
I observe again, JDK, 151:
I don’t understand the appeal of copy-and-pasting from a library of quotes, but it is not a productive means of discussion.
Per fair comment, JDK here has set up and knocked over a strawman caricature; in the process, failing to respond to a core point as I highlighted from BA77. And in particular it is entirely legitimate in argument to cite an expewrt or key representative making a key point -- especially a telling admission against interest. The issue on the table (as J B S Haldane long since pointed out) is the dynamics of computation vs the substance of meaningful, ground and consequent reasoning. Where, a computational substrate is inherently a mechanical, cause-effect dynamical system with some stochastic factors also. Certain environmental or internal structures and contingent variables trigger dynamic-stochastic, cause-effect processes in a chain, yielding an output state or sequence of states. This holds for digital machines, it holds for analogue ones, it holds for so-called neural networks. I most recently discussed this here at UD in connexion with memristors (and memtransistors). The direct consequence of this, is that we have mechanical and/or statistical processes at work with no necessary connexion to meaning, truth, prudence, moral considerations and values, etc. Computation simply is not the same sort of thing as rational contemplation. Categorically distinct. So, we may freely challenge evolutionary materialists and fellow travellers, not only to account for the organisation, information, GIGO challenge and the like in the wetware processors in our bodies but also to bridge to reason, insightful inference made per ground and consequent and/or inductive framing of well grounded inferences. Emergence or the like are nowhere near good enough. And in particular, running in circles from matter is all to somehow mind transcends matter to achieve contemplative, truth knowing morally governed rationality and back to somehow the latter must have emerged from the former is just that: circular argument. Indeed, Haldane's point obtains with double-force -- and take this as an endorsement of a point that I hold to be here aptly addressed and expressed in a few powerful, telling words . . . not a mere empty appeal to authority:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. (NB: DI Fellow, Nancy Pearcey brings this right up to date (HT: ENV) in a current book, Finding Truth.)]
This is an argument and issue I have addressed here at UD for 12 years, and beyond in my own right for over thirty years since I saw how evolutionary materialist scientism is self referentially self-falsifying. Here is Reppert, in a point which I also endorse:
. . . let us suppose that brain state A, which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.
That is the point some leading advocates of evolutionary materialism and fellow travellers see and have no serious answer to. Now, JDK goes on to:
Chalmers says he himself favors a position that is perhaps close to my own position: that of panpsychism. This is not a materialist position, but neither is it a theistic “mind of God” position. The idea is that consciousness, at some elemental level, is a fundamental aspect of the universe, in a way analogous to that of energy and matter; and that just as elementary particles can coalesce into larger integrated bodies (stars, tornadoes, human beings), elementary consciousness coalesces into an integrated whole in a human being.
Translated, the whole world is minded, presumably from wavicles and spacetime itself on up. So, whose mind lies at the root of reality? That does not sit very well with JDK's onward:
God is an idea that some people have, but there is no common empirical experience of God (one that all people easily and voluntarily describe as they do their own consciousness), no common conception of God, and no process by which to investigate which ideas of God might be “true.” Plantinga’s assertion that “the evidence for God is just as good as the evidence for other minds”, is extremely faulty for all practical purposes, and philosophically empty: if we have no way to know that other people might not be zombies, are we justified in likewise concluding that God might also be a zombie?
We all experience mind, which points to Mind as its root, indeed the pantheistic panpsychism in your above directly leads there. The Zombie issue of course is that once you lock us down to matter and computation, you have locked in a vast array of problems linked to its self-contradiction. Zombification leads to we are zombies, delusional software riding on a neural network of dubious origin unrelated to truth, logic or duty to same. GIGO obtains and shreds the whole. Self-refutation. A better start is to realise we cannot be in grand delusion though we may have specific errors. Then, we can reason to: matter cannot ground mind, this implies Mind at the root of reality. With, moral government indicating the same in that root. We are at a world framed by the inherently good creator God, a necessary, maximally great being, worthy of loyalty and the responsible, reasonable service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature. KFkairosfocus_{April 17, 2018
April
04
Apr
17
17
2018
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

jdk:
I have made a lot of specific points,...
Where?ET_{April 17, 2018
April
04
Apr
17
17
2018
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

I ended my post at 135 by writing,
Final note to ba. If you decide to respond, I am interesting to see if you could do so without all your standards quotes from other people. I have made a lot of specific points, and perhaps those are ones that you, personally, could respond to. Just a thought.
Looks like ba can't do this. I don't understand the appeal of copy-and-pasting from a library of quotes, but it is not a productive means of discussion. I will now wade back out.jdk_{April 17, 2018
April
04
Apr
17
17
2018
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

And speaking of global warming-> thanks for the 5 month winter.ET_{April 17, 2018
April
04
Apr
17
17
2018
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT}

jdk:
1) In materialism, the problem is how do the material activities of the nervous system give rise to consciousness.
Back up, Jack. With materialism you need to account for the matter and energy of the universe and you cannot. All materialism has to explain anything is sheer dumb luckET_{April 17, 2018
April
04
Apr
17
17
2018
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT}

P^4S: Ruse and Wilson -- and I here emphasise the moral side of the delusion. But the mere fact that reasoning is governed by duty to truth, justice, prudence and more suffices to show there are no handy firewalls to confine the delusions that follow from evolutionary materialism:
The time has come to take seriously the fact [--> This is a gross error at the outset, as macro-evolution is a theory (an explanation) about the unobserved past of origins and so cannot be a fact on the level of the observed roundness of the earth or the orbiting of planets around the sun etc.] that we humans are modified monkeys, not the favored Creation of a Benevolent God on the Sixth Day . . . We must think again especially about our so-called ‘ethical principles.’ The question is not whether biology—specifically, our evolution—is connected with ethics, but how. As evolutionists, we see that no justification of the traditional kind is possible. Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will … In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding… Ethics is illusory inasmuch as it persuades us that it has an objective reference. This is the crux of the biological position. Once it is grasped, everything falls into place.
[ --> And everything instantly falls apart as this would set grand delusion loose in our mental lives. Even logical reasoning is guided by the conscience-driven urge to truth, right and justice, so once such a grand delusion is let loose it undermines the general credibility of conscious mindedness, setting up a cascade of shadow-show worlds. The skeptical spider has enmeshed himself in his own web. Thus, any such scheme should be set aside as self-refuting.]
[Michael Ruse & E. O. Wilson, “The Evolution of Ethics,” Religion and the Natural Sciences: The Range of Engagement, , ed. J. E. Hutchingson, Orlando, Fl.:Harcourt and Brace, 1991. (NB: Cf. a separate discussion on the grounding of worldviews and ethics here on, which includes a specific discussion of the grounding of ethics and goes on to Biblical theism; having first addressed the roots of the modern evolutionary materialist mindset and its pretensions to the mantle of science. Also cf. here on for Plato's warning in The Laws, Bk X, on social consequences of the rise of such a view as the philosophy of the avant garde in a community.]
kairosfocus_{April 17, 2018
April
04
Apr
17
17
2018
04:13 AM
4
04
13
AM
PDT}

PPPS: More,
The materialist, said Chesterton, "is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle." Materialists like Harris keep asking why we make the decisions we do, and what explanation there could be other than the physiological. The answer, of course, is the psychological, the philosophical, the whimsical, and about a thousand others. But these violate the central tenets of his narrow dogma, and so are automatically rejected. 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. And this is not only a mortal consequence for Harris as the one trying to prove his point, it is also problematic from the reader's perspective: If we are convinced by Harris's logic, we would have to consider this conviction as something determined not by the rational strength of his logic, but by the entirely irrational arrangement of the chemicals in our brains. They might, as Harris would have to say, coincide, but their relation would be completely arbitrary. If prior physical states are all that determine our beliefs, any one physical state is no more rational than any other. It isn't rational or irrational, it just is. If what Harris says is true, then our assent to what we view as the rational strength of his position may appear to us to involve our choice to assent or not to assent to his ostensibly rational argument, but (again, if it is true) in truth it cannot be any such thing, since we do not have that choice -- or any other. Indeed, it is hard to see how, if free will is an illusion, we could ever know it. ["The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It: Sam Harris's Free Will" by Martin Cothran at ENV (echoing C S Lewis and J B S Haldane etc) on November 9, 2012, HT the too often underestimated BA77, cf. here.]
****** Evolutionary materialistic scientism is necessarily self referentially incoherent and self falsifying by way of absurdity of undermining reason itself. Insofar as its fellow travellers seek to fit in with it and go with the flow, they too become absurd. Where, too, estimates of the age of the earth, sol system, galaxy, observed cosmos and world of life or even questions on common descent and mechanisms for such have little or nothing to do with this. We are also free to examine the very significant question as to whether the world of life and the cosmos as a whole bear in them traces from the past of origins that per inductive investigation can be deemed strong signs of design. Where, functionally specific complex organisation and associated information and the evident fine tuning of the cosmos from big bang singularity forward that places the world at a locally deeply isolated operating point that enables C-chemistry cell based aqueous medium life are key focal cases. As to the existence of God, the mere fact of responsible rational freedom on our part in a world such as we contemplate is sufficient to point to a necessary being root of the cosmos, and to demand a ground of reality that is sufficient to also found moral government by the force of ought. There is but one serious candidate for such an IS that also grounds OUGHT: the inherently good Creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable responsible service of doing the good in accord with our nature. And, again, that is independent of the age of the cosmos.kairosfocus_{April 17, 2018
April
04
Apr
17
17
2018
04:09 AM
4
04
09
AM
PDT}

PPS: Alex Rosenberg, Atheist's guide to reality
Alex Rosenberg as he begins Ch 9 of his The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: >> FOR SOLID EVOLUTIONARY REASONS, WE’VE BEEN tricked into looking at life from the inside. Without scientism, we look at life from the inside, from the first-person POV (OMG, you don’t know what a POV is?—a “point of view”). The first person is the subject, the audience, the viewer of subjective experience, the self in the mind. Scientism shows that the first-person POV is an illusion. [–> grand delusion is let loose in utter self referential incoherence] Even after scientism convinces us, we’ll continue to stick with the first person. But at least we’ll know that it’s another illusion of introspection and we’ll stop taking it seriously. We’ll give up all the answers to the persistent questions about free will, the self, the soul, and the meaning of life that the illusion generates [–> bye bye to responsible, rational freedom on these presuppositions]. The physical facts fix all the facts. [--> asserts materialism, leading to . . . ] The mind is the brain. It has to be physical and it can’t be anything else, since thinking, feeling, and perceiving are physical process—in particular, input/output processes—going on in the brain. We [–> at this point, what "we," apart from "we delusions"?] can be sure of a great deal about how the brain works because the physical facts fix all the facts about the brain. The fact that the mind is the brain guarantees that there is no free will. It rules out any purposes or designs organizing our actions or our lives [–> thus rational thought and responsible freedom]. It excludes the very possibility of enduring persons, selves, or souls that exist after death or for that matter while we live.>>
This one is pretty direct.kairosfocus_{April 17, 2018
April
04
Apr
17
17
2018
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT}

PS: Pearcey and Gray:
A major way to test a philosophy or worldview is to ask: Is it logically consistent? Internal contradictions are fatal to any worldview because contradictory statements are necessarily false. “This circle is square” is contradictory, so it has to be false. An especially damaging form of contradiction is self-referential absurdity — which means a theory sets up a definition of truth that it itself fails to meet. Therefore it refutes itself . . . . An example of self-referential absurdity is a theory called evolutionary epistemology, a naturalistic approach that applies evolution to the process of knowing. The theory proposes that the human mind is a product of natural selection. The implication is that the ideas in our minds were selected for their survival value, not for their truth-value. But what if we apply that theory to itself? Then it, too, was selected for survival, not truth — which discredits its own claim to truth. Evolutionary epistemology commits suicide. Astonishingly, many prominent thinkers have embraced the theory without detecting the logical contradiction. Philosopher John Gray writes, “If Darwin’s theory of natural selection is true,… the human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth.” What is the contradiction in that statement? Gray has essentially said, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it “serves evolutionary success, not truth.” In other words, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it is not true. Self-referential absurdity is akin to the well-known liar’s paradox: “This statement is a lie.” If the statement is true, then (as it says) it is not true, but a lie. Another example comes from Francis Crick. In The Astonishing Hypothesis, he writes, “Our highly developed brains, after all, were not evolved under the pressure of discovering scientific truths but only to enable us to be clever enough to survive.” But that means Crick’s own theory is not a “scientific truth.” Applied to itself, the theory commits suicide. Of course, the sheer pressure to survive is likely to produce some correct ideas. A zebra that thinks lions are friendly will not live long. But false ideas may be useful for survival. Evolutionists admit as much: Eric Baum says, “Sometimes you are more likely to survive and propagate if you believe a falsehood than if you believe the truth.” Steven Pinker writes, “Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not.” The upshot is that survival is no guarantee of truth. If survival is the only standard, we can never know which ideas are true and which are adaptive but false. To make the dilemma even more puzzling, evolutionists tell us that natural selection has produced all sorts of false concepts in the human mind. Many evolutionary materialists maintain that free will is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, even our sense of self is an illusion — and that all these false ideas were selected for their survival value.
[--> that is, responsible, rational freedom is undermined. Cf here William Provine in his 1998 U Tenn Darwin Day keynote:
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . . The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will [--> without responsible freedom, mind, reason and morality alike disintegrate into grand delusion, hence self-referential incoherence and self-refutation. But that does not make such fallacies any less effective in the hands of clever manipulators] . . . [1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address, U of Tenn -- and yes, that is significant i/l/o the Scopes Trial, 1925]

So how can we know whether the theory of evolution itself is one of those false ideas? The theory undercuts itself. A few thinkers, to their credit, recognize the problem. Literary critic Leon Wieseltier writes, “If reason is a product of natural selection, then how much confidence can we have in a rational argument for natural selection? … Evolutionary biology cannot invoke the power of reason even as it destroys it.” On a similar note, philosopher Thomas Nagel asks, “Is the [evolutionary] hypothesis really compatible with the continued confidence in reason as a source of knowledge?” His answer is no: “I have to be able to believe … that I follow the rules of logic because they are correct — not merely because I am biologically programmed to do so.” Hence, “insofar as the evolutionary hypothesis itself depends on reason, it would be self-undermining.” [ENV excerpt, Finding Truth (David C. Cook, 2015) by Nancy Pearcey.]
Serving evolutionary success rather than truth (= accurate perception/description of reality as it is) is another way to say, grand delusion. Self-referentially incoherent grand delusion on mindedness.kairosfocus_{April 17, 2018
April
04
Apr
17
17
2018
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT}

BO'H (et al): Let's put JBS Haldane on the table. Yes, THAT JBS Haldane:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. (NB: DI Fellow, Nancy Pearcey brings this right up to date (HT: ENV) in a current book, Finding Truth.)]
The rhetorical pretence that materialism reducing mind to delusion is not a serious issue fails. Fails in a context where it has been raised any number of times here at UD and elsewhere, which makes me suspicious of the onward use of the oh it's these dubious IDiots style of argument. Let me be blunt: if you are unwilling to acknowledge a serious issue, in pursuit of imagined rhetorical advantages, evo mat advocates and fellow travellers, you are failing duties of care to truth. KFkairosfocus_{April 17, 2018
April
04
Apr
17
17
2018
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PDT}

As to AK at 138:
But, using your own logic, if mind from matter is derivative, mind from designer is also derivative. One is derived from matter and the other is derived from design. Therefore, by your own argument, theists are also neuronal illusions. Don’t blame me for taking your premise to its logical conclusion. And, being an illusion, your opinions are worth no more than those of your average schizophrenic or hallucinogenic drug addict.
And there you have it folks,,, the shining, self-refuting, logic of atheists for all to see. According to AK's logic, my mind being created by the Mind of God means that my mind must be an illusion. :) And again, for what exactly is this 'illusion of mind' occurring?
"I think the idea of (materialists) saying that consciousness is an illusion doesn’t really work because the very notion of an illusion presupposes consciousness. There are no illusions unless there is a conscious experience or (a conscious person) for whom there is an illusion." Evan Thompson, Philosopher - author of Waking, Dreaming, Being
Of related note,,, as to further establishing exactly what is real and what is illusory, in the following study, materialistic researchers who had a bias against Near Death Experiences being real, set out to prove that they were ‘false memories’, (i.e. illusions), by setting up a clever questionnaire that could differentiate which memories a person had were real and which memories a person had were merely imaginary. They did not expect the results they got: to quote the headline 'Afterlife' feels 'even more real than real”
'Afterlife' feels 'even more real than real,' researcher says - Wed April 10, 2013 Excerpt: "If you use this questionnaire ... if the memory is real, it's richer, and if the memory is recent, it's richer," he said. The coma scientists weren't expecting what the tests revealed. "To our surprise, NDEs were much richer than any imagined event or any real event of these coma survivors," Laureys reported. The memories of these experiences beat all other memories, hands down, for their vivid sense of reality. "The difference was so vast," he said with a sense of astonishment. Even if the patient had the experience a long time ago, its memory was as rich "as though it was yesterday," Laureys said. http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/09/health/belgium-near-death-experiences/
Exactly how is it possible for something to become even ‘more real than real’ in a NDE unless the infinite Mind of God truly is the basis for all reality, and this material reality we presently live in, as is claimed in Christianity, really is just a shadow of the heavenly paradise that awaits us after death? And since Christianity has ALWAYS claimed that the infinite Mind of God sustains all of material reality in its continued existence,,,
Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
,,, then on Christianity this ‘more real than real’ finding is expected whereas, once again, materialism is found to be at a complete loss to explain why this should happen.
A Doctor's Near Death Experience Inspires a New Life - video Quote: "It's not like a dream. It's like the world we are living in is a dream and it's kind of like waking up from that." Dr. Magrisso http://www.nbcchicago.com/on-air/as-seen-on/A-Doctor--186331791.html Medical Miracles – Dr. Mary Neal’s Near Death Experience – video (More real than real quote at 37:49 minute mark) https://youtu.be/WCNjmWP2JjU?t=2269 "More real than anything I've experienced since. When I came back of course I had 34 operations, and was in the hospital for 13 months. That was real but heaven is more real than that. The emotions and the feelings. The reality of being with people who had preceded me in death." - Don Piper - "90 Minutes in Heaven," 10 Years Later - video (2:54 minute mark) https://youtu.be/3LyZoNlKnMM?t=173
bornagain77_{April 17, 2018
April
04
Apr
17
17
2018
03:24 AM
3
03
24
AM
PDT}

You go on, in 135, to try to defend panpsychism. Ironically, you fail to notice that your appeal to panpsychism, directly after claiming the hard problem of consciousness was a hard problem for Theism to, underscores the fact that the 'hard problem' of consciousness is, in fact, a irreconcilably hard problem for materialism (and thus directly undermines the argument you had just made). (Atheists definitely need lessons on basic logic, but then again, it is impossible to logically defend a worldview that is insane in its premises) But anyways, despite all your bluff and bluster about understanding Quantum Mechanics, and how you believe that quantum mechanics is not really that much of a problem for materialism (which is a laughable claim), the fact of the matter is that quantum mechanics, beside undermining materialistic claims, undermines panpsychic claims as well. Panpsychism basically holds that consciousness is co-terminus with material reality on some (il-defined) level. Whereas quantum mechanics strongly indicates, from multiple lines of experimental evidence, that consciousness must precede material reality. Only Theism makes the claim that consciousness, (i.e. the Mind of God), precedes material reality.
A Short Survey Of Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Excerpt: Putting all the lines of evidence together the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this: 1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality. Five intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Double Slit, Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect) - Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness: 5 Experiments – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5qphmi8gYE Double Slit, Quantum-Electrodynamics, and Christian Theism – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK9kGpIxMRM Albert Einstein vs. Quantum Mechanics and His Own Mind – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxFFtZ301j4 The Incompatibility of Physicalism with Physics: A Conversation with Dr. Bruce Gordon - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk-UO81HmO4 Divine Action and the World of Science: What Cosmology and Quantum Physics Teach Us about the Role of Providence in Nature - Bruce L. Gordon - 2017 http://jbtsonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/JBTS-2.2-Article-7.compressed.pdf
Verse:
Colossians 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
bornagain77_{April 17, 2018
April
04
Apr
17
17
2018
02:59 AM
2
02
59
AM
PDT}

ba77 @ 140 -
again, the concept of ‘neuronal illusions’ is a direct result of materialistic premises. I assume nothing but take materialistic premises to their logical end, (i.e. if materialism is true atheists are neuronal illusions and are not persons).
It might help if you spelled out what you think those material premises are. I certainly son't see how the logic flows from my own materialistic premises, but I might be missing something.Bob O'H_{April 17, 2018
April
04
Apr
17
17
2018
02:49 AM
2
02
49
AM
PDT}

jdk at 135, 1. again, the concept of 'neuronal illusions' is a direct result of materialistic premises. I assume nothing but take materialistic premises to their logical end, (i.e. if materialism is true atheists are neuronal illusions and are not persons). Having leading materialistic philosophers honestly agree with me on the direct implications of their materialistic philosophy is merely icing on the cake. 2. jdk, you dismiss the 'philosophical zombie' argument with a wave of your hand but fail to see that the philosophical zombie' argument underscores the fact that materialistic premises do indeed lead to the conclusion that people do not really exist but are merely 'neuronal illusions'. Only under Theism, as Alvin Plantinga pointed out in "God and Other Minds", are we justified in believing that, not only our own, but other minds are real and that they exist. 3. You claim that,,
On the other hand, God is an idea that some people have, but there is no common empirical experience of God (one that all people easily and voluntarily describe as they do their own consciousness), no common conception of God, and no process by which to investigate which ideas of God might be “true.”
Unsurprisingly, you are wrong once again in your claim. God, like the belief in other people's minds, is a 'properly basic belief' which all people, including atheists, share.
Synopsis of ‘Is Belief in God Properly Basic?’ by Alvin Plantinga Excerpt: Alvin Plangtinga argues that belief in God is properly basic as follows. 1. Basic beliefs can be justified and therefore be properly basic. 2. The right conditions are the justificatory grounds for proper basic beliefs. 3. If our cognitive faculties, which are aimed at truth, are functioning properly in the right conditions they will produce properly basic beliefs. 4. God created us with a cognitive faculty aimed at the truth of His presence. This faculty is our sensus divinitatis (SD). 5. Belief in God is produced by our (SD). 6. The right conditions for this faculty are everywhere since God’s glory is everywhere. 7. (From 5 & 6) Belief in God is produced by our (SD) in the right conditions. 8. Therefore, belief in God is properly basic. http://www.mkowen.org/2016/11/17/synopsis-plantinga-belief-god-properly-basic/
And in confirmation of Plantinga's argument that belief in God is a properly basic belief, studies now establish that the design inference is ‘knee jerk’ inference that is built into everyone, especially including atheists, and that atheists have to mentally suppress their very own design inference!
Out of the mouths of babes - Do children believe (in God) because they're told to by adults? The evidence suggests otherwise - Justin Barrett - 2008 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2008/nov/25/religion-children-god-belief Children are born believers in God, academic claims - 24 Nov 2008 Excerpt: "Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/3512686/Children-are-born-believers-in-God-academic-claims.html Design Thinking Is Hardwired in the Human Brain. How Come? - October 17, 2012 Excerpt: "Even Professional Scientists Are Compelled to See Purpose in Nature, Psychologists Find." The article describes a test by Boston University's psychology department, in which researchers found that "despite years of scientific training, even professional chemists, geologists, and physicists from major universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Yale cannot escape a deep-seated belief that natural phenomena exist for a purpose" ,,, Most interesting, though, are the questions begged by this research. One is whether it is even possible to purge teleology from explanation. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/design_thinking065381.html Richard Dawkins take heed: Even atheists instinctively believe in a creator says study - Mary Papenfuss - June 12, 2015 Excerpt: Three studies at Boston University found that even among atheists, the "knee jerk" reaction to natural phenomenon is the belief that they're purposefully designed by some intelligence, according to a report on the research in Cognition entitled the "Divided Mind of a disbeliever." The findings "suggest that there is a deeply rooted natural tendency to view nature as designed," writes a research team led by Elisa Järnefelt of Newman University. They also provide evidence that, in the researchers' words, "religious non-belief is cognitively effortful." Researchers attempted to plug into the automatic or "default" human brain by showing subjects images of natural landscapes and things made by human beings, then requiring lightning-fast responses to the question on whether "any being purposefully made the thing in the picture," notes Pacific-Standard. "Religious participants' baseline tendency to endorse nature as purposefully created was higher" than that of atheists, the study found. But non-religious participants "increasingly defaulted to understanding natural phenomena as purposefully made" when "they did not have time to censor their thinking," wrote the researchers. The results suggest that "the tendency to construe both living and non-living nature as intentionally made derives from automatic cognitive processes, not just practised explicit beliefs," the report concluded. The results were similar even among subjects from Finland, where atheism is not a controversial issue as it can be in the US. "Design-based intuitions run deep," the researchers conclude, "persisting even in those with no explicit religious commitment and, indeed, even among those with an active aversion to them." http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/richard-dawkins-take-heed-even-atheists-instinctively-believe-creator-says-study-1505712 Is Atheism a Delusion? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ii-bsrHB0o
It is not that Atheists do not see purpose and/or Design in nature, it is that Atheists, for whatever severely misguided reason, live in denial of the purpose and/or Design that they themselves see in nature. I hold the preceding studies to be confirming evidence for Romans1:19-20
Romans 1:19-20 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
You go on to state that the 'hard problem' of consciousness is also hard for Theism. (I'm glad I wasn't drinking coffee when I read that because I would have spit it out laughing.) Unlike the evidence-free claims from materialists that matter can give rise to conscious experience, there is abundant evidence that the immaterial mind does indeed interact with the material brain.
Do Conscious Thoughts Cause Behavior? -Roy F. Baumeister, E. J. Masicampo, and Kathleen D. Vohs - 2010 Excerpt: The evidence for conscious causation of behavior is profound, extensive, adaptive, multifaceted, and empirically strong. http://carlsonschool.umn.edu/assets/165663.pdf "We regard promissory materialism as superstition without a rational foundation. The more we discover about the brain, the more clearly do we distinguish between the brain events and the mental phenomena, and the more wonderful do both the brain events and mental phenomena become. Promissory materialism is simply a religious belief held by dogmatic materialists who often confuse their religion with their science." ? John C. Eccles, The Wonder of Being Human: Our Brain and Our Mind - 1984 Materialism of the Gaps - Michael Egnor (Neurosurgeon) - January 29, 2009 Excerpt: The evidence that some aspects of the mind are immaterial is overwhelming. It's notable that many of the leading neuroscientists -- Sherrington, Penfield, Eccles, Libet -- were dualists. Dualism of some sort is the most reasonable scientific framework to apply to the mind-brain problem, because, unlike dogmatic materialism, it just follows the evidence. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/01/materialism_of_the_gaps015901.html The Case for the Soul: Quantum Biology - (7:25 minute mark - The Mind is able to modify the brain, i.e. Brain Plasticity, and Mindfulness control of DNA expression) https://youtu.be/6_xEraQWvgM?t=446
bornagain77_{April 17, 2018
April
04
Apr
17
17
2018
02:35 AM
2
02
35
AM
PDT}

Jdk@137, I agree. I sometimes go for the sarcastic response over the more nuanced one. And I apologize for that. But I couldn’t resist equating BA77’s scroll ball killing comments with deep piles of manure. There may be fertile ground in them, but does anyone really want to sift through piles of dung to get to the rare gem? Damn, was that sarcasm again? I really have to work on that. Maybe a 12 step program. :)Allan Keith_{April 16, 2018
April
04
Apr
16
16
2018
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT}

BS77,
There you go AK, prove the genesis of consciousness from matter and you will have falsified Theism and proven that materialism is ‘talking about reality’ instead of talking about neuronal illusions!
What makes you think that I am trying to falsify theism? But, using your own logic, if mind from matter is derivative, mind from designer is also derivative. One is derived from matter and the other is derived from design. Therefore, by your own argument, theists are also neuronal illusions. Don’t blame me for taking your premise to its logical conclusion. And, being an illusion, your opinions are worth no more than those of your average schizophrenic or hallucinogenic drug addict.Allan Keith_{April 16, 2018
April
04
Apr
16
16
2018
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply