Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

No Sane Person Acts as if Materialism Is True

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Seversky set out the following challenge:

Draw up two lists, the first being all the scientific and technological advances of the last two hundred years, say, that were based on [1] a naturalistic/materialistic/ physicalist metaphysics, [2] the second being a list of all such advances based on a teleological metaphysics. A simple comparison should reveal which has been the more prolific and productive approach.

Interesting test. The answer is on list [1] there would be zero entries. On list [2] there would be all the scientific and technological advances of the last two hundred years.

You see, Sev, many people spout materialism. No one actually conducts their lives, from moral choices to scientific research, as if it were true. Because if it were true, there would be no point to any moral choice, and there would be no reason to expect that the universe conforms to regularities we call scientific laws. So, even the researchers who spout materialism act as if it were false when they are actually doing research.

This is especially true of biology, including evolutionary biology, where the scientific literature is drenched in teleological language.  Why?  Because if one wants to describe what is going on, the use of teleological language is unavoidable.

Comments
Mung @ 30 - I think you're making the same error I was pointing to in 25. Nobody would doubt that scientists have purpose (well, some one them...). But is the physics behind aeroplanes teleological? I don't think fluid dynamics is teleological, although the developers of the science had a purpose when doing it. I think there would be very few people who would disagree (up to a qualification...). I think where the disagreement would be would be on whether the universe was created for a purpose: if so then fluid dynamics could have been set in motion for some purpose, even if the fluids themselves have no purpose. But unless we're dealing with these fundamental issues, I'm not sure it helps in day to day life to say fluid dynamics is teleological.Bob O'H
August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
01:30 AM
1
01
30
AM
PDT
jdk: My sentence was obviously about atheists I know, not about every single atheist. Why is it germain to our discussion what the subset of atheists, those ones you know, believe, and are you really on such intimate terms that you know what they believe anyway?groovamos
August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT
Seversky Assuming a naturalistic, materialistic Universe works. Of course it works for a large universe of scientific problems. Huge exception: finding a material cause for schizophrenia. The assumption of a naturalistic, materialistic Universe does not work. Related exception: finding a purely material, non-experiential cure for schizophrenia. The assumption of a naturalistic, materialistic Universe does not work. Subsitute any mental illness, including addiction and serious personality disorders, in the above exceptions list and you have summed up decades, decades and more decades of massively spectacular failures in methodological naturalism. Despite trillions and untold trillions of dollars spent worldwide on a naturalistic search for causes and cures for some of the worst suffering of humanity, and note the side issue of suffering inflicted on others by the afflicted.groovamos
August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT
Then there is the whole Near Death Experience line of evidence:
Near death, explained (?) - By Dr. Mario Beauregard research professor Neuroscience Research Center at the University of Montreal. - April 2012 Excerpt: These findings strongly challenge the mainstream neuroscientific view that mind and consciousness result solely from brain activity. As we have seen, such a view fails to account for how NDErs can experience—while their hearts are stopped—vivid and complex thoughts and acquire veridical information about objects or events remote from their bodies. NDE studies also suggest that after physical death, mind and consciousness may continue in a transcendent level of reality that normally is not accessible to our senses and awareness. Needless to say, this view is utterly incompatible with the belief of many materialists that the material world is the only reality. http://www.salon.com/2012/04/21/near_death_explained/singleton/
In the following study, researchers who had a bias against Near Death Experiences being real, set out to prove that they were merely hallucinations 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:
'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/
Then there is also physical evidence that we have a transcendent component to our being. Namely, quantum entanglement, which cannot be reduced to any possible materialistic explanation, is now found in our bodies on a massive scale, i.e. in every DNA and protein molecule.
Molecular Biology - 19th Century Materialism meets 21st Century Quantum Mechanics - video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1141908409155424/?type=2&theater
bornagain77
August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT
jdk, you seem to want to have your cake and eat it to. In atheistic materialism, only the material brain is held to be real. Consciousness, beliefs, thoughts, free will, the belief that you exist as a real person, i.e. as a mind and/or soul, and etc.. etc.., are held to be merely fictions generated by the material brain. i.e. merely illusions. Yet you rightly want to claim that you really do exist as a real person and that you are not just 'a bag of chemicals' as it has been put in this thread. You cannot have it both ways jdk. Either you exist as a real person or your brain is generating the most elaborate fiction known to mankind. Moreover, we don't have to argue about whether 'personhood' is real or whether it is a fiction. We can look at the scientific evidence itself and see whether the atheist or the Theist is correct: For example, in direct contradiction to the atheistic claim that our thoughts are merely the result of whatever state our material brain happens to be in, 'Brain Plasticity', the ability to alter the structure of the brain from a person's focused intention, has now been established by Jeffrey Schwartz, as well as among other researchers.
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 The Case for the Soul: Quantum Biology - (7:25 minute mark - Brain Plasticity and Mindfulness control of DNA expression) https://youtu.be/6_xEraQWvgM?t=446
Moreover, as alluded to in the preceding video, and completely contrary to materialistic thought, mind has been now also been shown to be able to reach all the way down and have pronounced, ‘epigenetic’, effects on the gene expression of our bodies:
Scientists Finally Show How Your Thoughts Can Cause Specific Molecular Changes To Your Genes, - December 10, 2013 Excerpt: “To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that shows rapid alterations in gene expression within subjects associated with mindfulness meditation practice,” says study author Richard J. Davidson, founder of the Center for Investigating Healthy Minds and the William James and Vilas Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “Most interestingly, the changes were observed in genes that are the current targets of anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs,” says Perla Kaliman, first author of the article and a researcher at the Institute of Biomedical Research of Barcelona, Spain (IIBB-CSIC-IDIBAPS), where the molecular analyses were conducted.,,, the researchers say, there was no difference in the tested genes between the two groups of people at the start of the study. The observed effects were seen only in the meditators following mindfulness practice. In addition, several other DNA-modifying genes showed no differences between groups, suggesting that the mindfulness practice specifically affected certain regulatory pathways. http://www.tunedbody.com/scientists-finally-show-thoughts-can-cause-specific-molecular-changes-genes/
Then there is also the well documented placebo effect
placebo effect a beneficial effect, produced by a placebo drug or treatment, that cannot be attributed to the properties of the placebo itself, and must therefore be due to the patient's belief in that treatment.
Moreover, If the mind of a person were merely the brain, as materialists hold, then if half of a brain were removed then a 'person' should only be ‘half the person’, or at least somewhat less of a 'person', as they were before. But that is not the case, the ‘whole person’ stays intact even though the brain suffers severe impairment:
Removing Half of Brain Improves Young Epileptics' Lives: - 1997 Excerpt: "We are awed by the apparent retention of memory and by the retention of the child's personality and sense of humor,'' Dr. Eileen P. G. Vining,, Dr. John Freeman, the director of the Johns Hopkins Pediatric Epilepsy Center, said he was dumbfounded at the ability of children to regain speech after losing the half of the brain that is supposedly central to language processing. ''It's fascinating,'' Dr. Freeman said. ''The classic lore is that you can't change language after the age of 2 or 3.'' But Dr. Freeman's group has now removed diseased left hemispheres in more than 20 patients, including three 13-year-olds whose ability to speak transferred to the right side of the brain in much the way that Alex's did.,,, http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/19/science/removing-half-of-brain-improves-young-epileptics-lives.html
In further comment from the neuro-surgeons in the John Hopkins study:
"Despite removal of one hemisphere, the intellect of all but one of the children seems either unchanged or improved. Intellect was only affected in the one child who had remained in a coma, vigil-like state, attributable to peri-operative complications." Strange but True: When Half a Brain Is Better than a Whole One - May 2007 Excerpt: Most Hopkins hemispherectomy patients are five to 10 years old. Neurosurgeons have performed the operation on children as young as three months old. Astonishingly, memory and personality develop normally. ,,, Another study found that children that underwent hemispherectomies often improved academically once their seizures stopped. "One was champion bowler of her class, one was chess champion of his state, and others are in college doing very nicely," Freeman says. Of course, the operation has its downside: "You can walk, run—some dance or skip—but you lose use of the hand opposite of the hemisphere that was removed. You have little function in that arm and vision on that side is lost," Freeman says. Remarkably, few other impacts are seen. ,,, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-when-half-brain-better-than-whole How Removing Half of Someone's Brain Can Improve Their Life – Oct. 2015 Excerpt: Next spring, del Peral (who has only half a brain) will graduate from Curry College, where she has made the dean’s list every semester since freshman year. http://www.mentalfloss.com/article/70120/how-removing-half-someones-brain-can-improve-their-life
Although the girl in the following videos was written off as hopelessly retarded by everyone who saw her, eventually a breakthrough was made that gave her the ability to communicate with the outside world. A breakthough that revealed there was/is indeed a gentle intelligence, a “me”, a “soul”, a “person”, within the girl that was and still is trapped within her body. And that that “me” was not able to express herself properly to others simply because of her neurological disorder not because she did not have a ‘mind’ that was not fully functioning.
Severely Handicapped Girl Suddenly Expresses Intelligence At Age 11 – very moving video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNZVV4Ciccg Carly’s Café – Experience Autism Through Carly’s Eyes – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmDGvquzn2k
bornagain77
August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT
My sentence was obviously about atheists I know, not about every single atheist.
Are you now claiming to be unaware of world famous atheists Harris, Dawkins and Coyne? Are you suggesting that you were justified in saying BA77's comment was "baloney" because the half dozen atheists you personally know don't hold that view? Are you now denying that you were implying that no atheists (not just the half dozen you know personally) hold that view? The answer to all of those questions is "yes." Which means you are adding lies to your lies. First rule of being in a hole jdk: Stop digging.Barry Arrington
August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT
The world is full of honest rocks. Barry, telling a rock that it is a bad rock doesn't help the rock one bit.Mung
August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT
Barry, I think you are riled up for no good reason. I wrote,
I know lots of atheists (including myself rather well), and none of them claim that.
My sentence was obviously about atheists I know, not about every single atheist.jdk
August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT
jdk @ 47
I am not responsible for what other people say
That is exactly right. Conversely, you are responsible in every sense of that word, including the moral sense, for what you yourself say. And when you lie, as you brazenly did above, you are morally culpable. Or do you think "lying for the materialist cause" is morally good?Barry Arrington
August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT
jdk @ 47: People who act as if there are just two sides are detriments to constructive discussion.
People, such as yourself, who lie shamelessly are even worse detriments to discussion.
A couple of days ago you informed us all that you jettisoned your Christian upbringing. Apparently you did, including that "do not bear false witness" thing.Barry Arrington
August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT
bornagain77 @ 41:
since atheists claim they are not really real persons, but are merely neuronal illusions
jdk @ 42
Baloney: I know lots of atheists (including myself rather well), and none of them claim that.
UDEditors @ 42:
It took us ten seconds to find [atheists claiming they are neuronal illusions] in which atheists do that. jdk, you seem to feel free to pontificate on matters about which you are massively ignorant. How do you justify that?
jdk @ 47
I didn’t say there wasn’t anyone that might have made some comments about the nature of the self or consciousness being illusions.
No, that is precisely what you said. “none of them claim that.”
I just said most don’t believe that.
No, you said “none of them claim that.” You are damned liar sir. I despise liars. What’s more, you are a coward. A courageous man admits his errors and tries to improve. A coward lies about them. Don’t worry though. I won’t ban you for this. Just keep on doing what you are doing. You are helping our side immensely.Barry Arrington
August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT
to Barry: I don't think much of Coyne or Harris (or Dawkins, for that matter). I didn't say there wasn't anyone that might have made some comments about the nature of the self or consciousness being illusions. I just said most don't believe that. I am not responsible for what other people say: there are not just two black-and-white sides here,as I pointed out in another post recently. People who act as if there are just two sides are detriments to constructive discussion.jdk
August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT
jdk: I am honest. Honestly mistaken, if that is even possible. :) To be honest, don't you have to be in possession of the truth? : good and truthful How is it that you are both good and truthful when you are nothing more than chemicals?Mung
August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT
jdk: And which of us does that apply to, and how do you know? It applies to each and everyone one of us. You're nothing special, even if you do think there's no essential difference between you and a rock.Mung
August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT
1. I am honest. Telling me that I believe what I believe because I am not honest doesn't cut it. 2. I am not responsible for what others say, nor obligated to agree with them.jdk
August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT
Sorry jdk, I should have said instead,,
"since atheists, who are honest with what their worldview actually entails, claim they are not really real persons, but are merely neuronal illusions",,,
I provided references of leading atheistic academics who honestly admit that, given materialistic premises, subjective conscious experience is an illusion and can provide more.
Could Consciousness be an Illusion? June 30, 2014 - Excerpt: "I recently participated in a conference which was unusual for a couple of reasons. Firstly it was held in a sailing boat in the Arctic. Secondly the consensus view of the conference was that consciousness is an illusion. This view, ‘illusionism’, is about as far removed from my own perspective in philosophy of mind as it is possible to get. Me the panpsychist, Martine Nida-Rümelin the substance dualist, and David Chalmers who splits his opinion between these two views, formed the official on board opposition to the hard-core reductionist majority. Somehow we managed to avoid being made to walk the plank.",, Illusionism is even less plausible than solipsism: the view that my conscious mind is the only thing that exists.,,, http://conscienceandconsciousness.com/2014/06/30/could-consciousness-be-an-illusion/ 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. Daniel Dennett 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. Michael S. A. Graziano “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 At the 23:33 minute mark of the following video, Richard Dawkins agrees with materialistic philosophers who say that: "consciousness is an illusion" A few minutes later Rowan Williams asks Dawkins ”If consciousness is an illusion…what isn’t?”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac&t=22m57s
jdk, I don't blame you for saying "Baloney" when the implications of atheistic materialism, i.e. non-personhood, are made clear to you. It is complete baloney! The fact that you really exist as a real person is the most sure thing you can possibly know about reality! Any worldview that denies that most sure thing that you can know, i.e. the fact that you really exist as a real person, must necessarily be baloney. Otherwise you end up in complete epistemological failure:
“No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” Max Planck (1858–1947), the originator of quantum theory, The Observer, London, January 25, 1931 “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.” Schroedinger, Erwin. 1984. “General Scientific and Popular Papers,” in Collected Papers, Vol. 4. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden. p. 334. "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
August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT
since atheists claim they are not really real persons, but are merely neuronal illusions
Baloney: I know lots of atheists (including myself rather well), and none of them claim that. UDEditors: It took us ten seconds to find this in which atheists do that. jdk, you seem to feel free to pontificate on matters about which you are massively ignorant. How do you justify that? jdk
August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT
Here is a dramatic personal testimony of that psychopathic characteristic inherent to atheistic materialism:
Why I Am a Christian (David Wood, Former Atheist) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DakEcY7Z5GU
Moreover, in atheistic materialism's failure to ground personhood, atheistic materialism undermines morality for society at large. In fact, both the Jews in Nazi Germany, and humans in their mother’s womb in present day America, were and are denied the legal status of ‘personhood’
The introduction of the Nuremberg Race Laws in 1935 saw Jews declared non-persons, stripped of their rights, robbed of their property and isolated. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1399798/Hitlers-murderous-obsession-to-annihilate-the-Jews.html 8 Horrific Times People Groups Were Denied Their Humanity - July 02, 2014 Excerpt: According to Ernst Fraenkel, a German legal scholar, the Reichsgericht, the highest court in Germany, was instrumental in depriving Jewish people of their legal rights. In a 1936 Supreme Court decision, “the Reichsgericht refused to recognize Jews living in Germany as persons in the legal sense.” Nazis described Jews as Untermenschen, or subhumans to justify exterminating them. http://www.personhood.com/8_horrific_times_people_groups_were_denied_their_humanity Unborn children as constitutional persons. - 2010 Excerpt: In Roe v. Wade, the state of Texas argued that "the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." To which Justice Harry Blackmun responded, "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment." However, Justice Blackmun then came to the conclusion "that the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn." In this article, it is argued that unborn children are indeed "persons" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20443281 in no case in its history has the Court declared that a fetus—a developing infant in the womb—is a person. Therefore, the fetus cannot be said to have any legal “right to life.” http://www.phschool.com/curriculum_support/interactive_constitution/scc/scc35.htm
I wonder, since atheists claim they are not really real persons, but are merely neuronal illusions, would atheistic materialists be willing to give up their legal status as real persons? I'm sure there are many people that would be willing to treat them as objects to used for personal gain and pleasure instead of persons to be respected as humans 'made in God's image', if they could legally get away with treating them as such!bornagain77
August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
That "No Sane Person Acts as if Materialism Were True" is easily provable. For instance, given materialistic premises, your conscious experience of yourself becomes merely a 'neuronal illusion'. In other words, given materialistic premises, 'you', as a real person, do not really exist as a real person, but are merely an illusion. Yet everyone acts as if they are real persons and no sane person acts as if they were an illusion.
“What you’re doing is simply instantiating a self: the program run by your neurons which you feel is “you.”” Jerry Coyne The Confidence of Jerry Coyne – Ross Douthat – January 6, 2014 Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession (by Coyne) 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.) Prometheus cannot be at once unbound and unreal; the human will cannot be simultaneously triumphant and imaginary. http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?_r=0 “that “You”, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.” Francis Crick – “The Astonishing Hypothesis” 1994 “The neural circuits in our brain manage the beautifully coordinated and smoothly appropriate behavior of our body. They also produce the entrancing introspective illusion that thoughts really are about stuff in the world. This powerful illusion has been with humanity since language kicked in, as we’ll see. It is the source of at least two other profound myths: that we have purposes that give our actions and lives meaning and that there is a person “in there” steering the body, so to speak.” [A.Rosenberg, The Atheist’s Guide To Reality, Ch.9] “There is no self in, around, or as part of anyone’s body. There can’t be. So there really isn’t any enduring self that ever could wake up morning after morning worrying about why it should bother getting out of bed. The self is just another illusion, like the illusion that thought is about stuff or that we carry around plans and purposes that give meaning to what our body does.” – A.Rosenberg, The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, ch.10
In other words, under atheistic materialism, the lights are on but nobody is home!
Photo of an atheist contemplating his mind http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-H-kjiGN_9Fw/URkPboX5l2I/AAAAAAAAATw/yN18NZgMJ-4/s1600/rob4.jpg
Even leading atheistic materialists admit that it is impossible for them to live as if their worldview were actually true:
Darwin's Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails - Nancy Pearcey - April 23, 2015 Excerpt: Even materialists often admit that, in practice, it is impossible for humans to live any other way. One philosopher jokes that if people deny free will, then when ordering at a restaurant they should say, "Just bring me whatever the laws of nature have determined I will get." An especially clear example is Galen Strawson, a philosopher who states with great bravado, "The impossibility of free will ... can be proved with complete certainty." Yet in an interview, Strawson admits that, in practice, no one accepts his deterministic view. "To be honest, I can't really accept it myself," he says. "I can't really live with this fact from day to day. Can you, really?",,, In What Science Offers the Humanities, Edward Slingerland, identifies himself as an unabashed materialist and reductionist. Slingerland argues that Darwinian materialism leads logically to the conclusion that humans are robots -- that our sense of having a will or self or consciousness is an illusion. Yet, he admits, it is an illusion we find impossible to shake. No one "can help acting like and at some level really feeling that he or she is free." We are "constitutionally incapable of experiencing ourselves and other conspecifics [humans] as robots." One section in his book is even titled "We Are Robots Designed Not to Believe That We Are Robots.",,, When I teach these concepts in the classroom, an example my students find especially poignant is Flesh and Machines by Rodney Brooks, professor emeritus at MIT. Brooks writes that a human being is nothing but a machine -- a "big bag of skin full of biomolecules" interacting by the laws of physics and chemistry. In ordinary life, of course, it is difficult to actually see people that way. But, he says, "When I look at my children, I can, when I force myself, ... see that they are machines." Is that how he treats them, though? Of course not: "That is not how I treat them.... I interact with them on an entirely different level. They have my unconditional love, the furthest one might be able to get from rational analysis." Certainly if what counts as "rational" is a materialist worldview in which humans are machines, then loving your children is irrational. It has no basis within Brooks's worldview. It sticks out of his box. How does he reconcile such a heart-wrenching cognitive dissonance? He doesn't. Brooks ends by saying, "I maintain two sets of inconsistent beliefs." He has given up on any attempt to reconcile his theory with his experience. He has abandoned all hope for a unified, logically consistent worldview. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/when_evolutiona095451.html
Even Richard Dawkins himself reluctantly admits that it would be 'intolerable' for him to live as if materialism were actually true and to live as if he did not actually exist as a real person:
Who wrote Richard Dawkins’s new book? – October 28, 2006 Excerpt: Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don’t feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,, Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views? Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/who_wrote_richard_dawkinss_new002783.html
In what should be needless to say, if it is impossible for you to live as if your worldview were actually true then your worldview cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but your worldview must instead be based on fantasy. It is akin to someone believing he is superman save for the minor detail that he never actually acts like superman. For what it worth, we call such people who believe such imaginary things delusional!
Existential Argument against Atheism - November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen 1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview. 2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview. 3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality. 4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion. 5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true. Conclusion: Atheism is false. http://answersforhope.com/existential-argument-atheism/
Moreover, in their denial of 'personhood', atheistic materialists become a bit more 'psychopathic' and also undermine morality generally.
The Heretic - Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? - March 25, 2013 Excerpt:,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3
This psychopathic characteristic inherent to the atheistic/materialistic philosophy is born out empirically, in that people who do not believe in a mind/soul tend to be more psychopathic than the majority of normal people in America who do believe in a mind/soul.
A scientific case for conceptual dualism: The problem of consciousness and the opposing domains hypothesis. - Anthony I. Jack - 2013 Excerpt page 18:  we predicted that psychopaths would not be able to perceive the problem of consciousness.,, In a series of five experiments (Jack, in preparation), we found a highly replicable and robust negative correlation (r~-0.34) between belief in dualism and the primary psychopathic trait of callous affect7. Page 24: Clearly these findings fit well with the hypothesis (Robbins and Jack, 2006) that psychopaths can’t see the problem of consciousness8. Taking these finding together with other work on dehumanization and the anti-social effects of denying the soul and free will, they present a powerful picture. When we see persons, that is, when we see others as fellow humans, then our percept is of something essentially non-physical nature. This feature of our psychology appears to be relevant to a number of other philosophical issues, including the tension between utilitarian principles and deontological concerns about harming persons (Jack et al., accepted), the question of whether God exists (Jack et al., under review-b), and the problem of free will9. http://tonyjack.org/files/2013%20Jack%20A%20scientific%20case%20for%20conceptual%20dualism%20%281%29.pdf Why Don't Psychopaths Believe in Dualism? The Role of Opposing Brain Networks Anthony Jack (Case Western Reserve University, Cognitive Science, Cleveland, OH In a theoretical paper linking the attribution of phenomenal consciousness to moral cognition, Robbins and Jack (Philosophical Studies, 2006) predicted that psychopaths would not perceive the problem of consciousness. New experimental evidence is presented which supports this claim: in a group of undergraduates it was found that support for a naturalistic view of the mind is positively correlated with the primary psychopathic trait of callousness. http://www.sonoran-sunsets.com/goinggreen.html
bornagain77
August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
And which of us does that apply to, and how do you know?jdk
August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT
...and no captivity is so terrible and so impossible to break as that in which the individual keeps himself... - Soren KierkegaardMung
August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
Barry, I was not denying that posts that deny the existence of libertarian free will exist. Libertarian free will is a belief that only a dualist who believes that we have a non-material aspect to ourselves that somehow can influence the world, and I am not such a person. My comment earlier was about someone who declared that it was an "ironclad law" (there are no such things in the social sciences) that peoples lives were determined by the place and circumstances they were born in. My point was that no social scientists say that. These are two different things. But, as the saying goes, if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. UDEditors: Translation: "I was not denying that people deny free will; I was denying that people deny free will in an 'ironclad' way."jdk
August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT
Seversky @ 32: Here is your argument summarized: Who we are (our character if you like) and the choices we make are deeply influenced by our environment and heredity. Therefore, libertarian free will does not exist. Of course, this is a massive non sequitur. Your conclusion simply does not follow logically from your premises. I concede that who I am and the choices I make are deeply influenced by my environment and heredity. Yet I had a choice about whether to post this comment. I could have done otherwise. The existence of such meaningful choices – even given our environment and heredity – means libertarian free will exists.
The Nazi regime was overthrown at great cost. Was that wrong?
Under your theory of morality, the most powerful prevailed. And the mere fact of their prevailing makes their actions right. The more interesting question Sev is what about the opposite. Suppose the Nazis had won WWII and eradicated the Jews and homosexuals and then taken over the school systems of the world and taught everyone to believe that the eradication of every Jew and homosexual on the face of the earth was a good thing. Suppose further that you came along and bucked the system, so that you were literally the only person on the face of the earth who says killing all the Jews and homosexuals was wrong. Would you be right and everyone else wrong? I predict you will dodge that question. And why will you dodge it? Because if you give the only obviously correct response, the entire materialist edifice you have constructed for yourself will come tumbling down. And you will never allow that. Better to avert your eyes from the glaringly obvious truth than abandon the comforts of your materialist worldview.Barry Arrington
August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT
jdk, just yesterday you were denying that posts like Sev's that deny the existence of libertarian free will even existed on these pages. Today you are applauding yet another one. Odd that.Barry Arrington
August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
jdk, "Excellent post, sev." Ditto.Rationalitys bane
August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
Excellent post, sev. I especially like the quote from Russell, and your last paragraph about how quantum mechanics and relativity have expanded our understanding of the material world, not gone beyond it, and also that the best answer to how the universe got here as it is is that we don't know.jdk
August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT
William J Murray @ 2
No sane person can act as if libertarian free will doesn’t exist;...
We all agree that we experience or have the sensation of exercising free will But no sane person can deny that much of what they are physically and psychologically was inherited from their parents through their genes. No sane person can deny that their character or personality was shaped in their formative years by influences of which they were unaware and over which they had no control. So no sane person can deny that to that extent what and who we are was determined or constrained by history. Given the above, to what extent can we be said to have free will? There was no point during puberty where I sat down and tried to decide rationally whether to be heterosexual or homosexual. I didn't even decide it by the toss of a coin. I became aware of my sexual preference at a certain point, a preference that had already been determined. I couldn't change that then or now by an exercise of free will and I think that is true of most people. Given the above, to what extent can we be said to have free will? Given those constraints, what can we mean by "libertarian free will"?
...no sane person can actually act as if morality is subjective;...
If the function of morality is to regulate the way human beings behave towards one another in society then what else can it be? If it is somehow a property embedded in the physical universe then where do we find it? Anatomically modern humans are thought to have emerged a few hundred thousand years ago. The age of the Universe is now set at about 13.8 billion years. Was morality built in from the very beginning in anticipation of beings that would not emerge until billions of years in the future? If it was added later, when and by whom? Isn't the better explanation that moral codes are what have been developed by human beings as rules that are intended to promote a more cohesive society that will be to the benefit of all? Yes, if morals are subjective then, in principle, anyone can make up their own moral beliefs to suit themselves and there is no objective means of deciding between them. What constrains that freedom, however, is that they apply to human beings in society. The psychopath may decide that he is morally justified in satisfying his appetite for rape and murder but all his potential victims are equally justified in deciding that they don't want to be actual victims. Given that the potential victims greatly outnumber the psychopaths the will of the majority is likely to prevail. What's wrong with that? The Nazis may have believed that they were morally justified in believing that the Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and mentally disabled were corrupting society and should be exterminated. If they had been asked, those groups would almost certainly have disagreed, as would at least part of the German people. As did much of the rest of the world. The Nazi regime was overthrown at great cost. Was that wrong? The elimination of the Nazis has not prevented the emergence of brutally despotic regimes elsewhere in the world since then. In two cases, Iraq and Libya, such regimes were removed by military action although the consequences not been good for the people of those countries and it's questionable whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Other despotic regimes have been left in place for various reasons. What does objective morality tell us about how we should handle such situations?
...no sane person can actually act as if materialism is true.
Sure they can, and do. Just because you find it impossible to accept materialism is true, doesn't mean that others of us can't. Bertrand Russell is usually considered to have been a fairly sane person and, as most of us know, wrote:
Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion. I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods. None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof. Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.
Like Russell, I can't rule out the possibility of a God or some sort of original creative agent but I don't find the arguments for the existence of such a being compelling. No, I don't have a materialistic account for the origin of the Universe but that only means the honest position is "I don't know". There is no necessary default to belief in a God. And the Universe, in the broadest meaning of the word, is observably materialistic. Quantum mechanics and relativity theory, however unintuitive or downright weird their predictions, are still dealing with the nature of the physical Universe. It may be far stranger than we had previously thought but it is still part of the natural world. I should have thought that living according to our best understanding of the way the world is observed to be is at least as viable as living by what may be no more than a myth or legend, no matter how hopeful and comforting it might be.Seversky
August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
Bob O'H, Cf 11 above as was already indicated, and kindly explain re the issues highlighted: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/no-sane-person-acts-as-if-materialism-were-true/#comment-614937 KFkairosfocus
August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT
Bob O'H: Mung @ 18 – yes, but do they want to? Ah, I see. Well, in my understanding teleology has nothing to do with "wants to." Telos is the Greek word for end, purpose, or goal. I understand teleology to be concerned with that which is end-directed. Surely you would agree that airplanes have a purpose. That they were created with an end in mind. That every time an airplane flies it exhibits that end and that an airplane that is incapable of flight isn't much of an airplane.Mung
August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT
kf - I can see no problems with designers existing in a purely material, non-teleological universe (should such a universe exist). TBH I doubt the designers of the flying machines we know about were really deeply worried about foundational metaphysical issues. They just wanted things to fly, which seems to me to be an inherently material thing to wish for.Bob O'H
August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply