From The Little Book of God, Mind, Cosmos and Truth:
In an interview in the Irish Times newspaper, Dr Kevin Mitchell from Trinity College Dublin, spoke about this some years ago. He pointed out the idea “that we are effectively androids, though made out of carbon”. He says that the “mind emerges from the workings of my brain and nothing else”. If God does not exist and Naturalism is all there is, then Dr Mitchell’s views would be correct. But on theism, how can the reliability of his statement be true if it’s coming from an android made out of carbon? Surely carbon androids are primarily evolved for survival-of-the-fittest values, with truthful statements being less significant? Furthermore, an android does not have freedom of the will (it has to be programmed), is hard-wired and its behaviour would be determined to come to any given conclusion.
But how can the behaviour of nerve cells, glial cells, and the atoms, ions, and molecules that make up and influence them magically belch out the emergence of consciousness? Did Dr Mitchell employ his consciousness to denounce the existence of a separate conscious mind from the brain when he consciously chose to give the interview? This form of epiphenomenalism (mind is the brain) does not seem rational from a theistic perspective.
If epiphenomenalism is true, then how come fake drugs can work in placebo effects? Also, how can parents’ love of their children be nothing more than an electrochemical reaction in the brain? And at what point in evolution did the atoms in brains develop morals? That we can have logic, reason and truth evolving out of a material process that is aimless, purposeless, misguided and unaware of self seems absurd. Objective morality cannot be justified if all forms of indignation are nothing more than sophisticated monkey screeches emanating from a carbon android with intellectual delusions of grandeur.
There probably can’t be a good theory of consciousness because naturalism excludes it.
See also: Books of interest: “Without God, we would be nothing more than evolved slime fighting for survival”
Would we give up naturalism to solve the hard problem of consciousness?