Animal minds Intelligent Design Mind

Woke U fires prof, hires chimp ;)

Spread the love
Michael Egnor

He’ll teach, research. And campaign against speciesism …

A light-hearted look by neurosurgeon Michael Egnor at what would happen if we really thought that unreason is better than reason:

Dissociated Press – According to sources from the Funny Papers News Collective, officials at the Université Paris Diderot announced today that philosophy professor Justin Smith has been dismissed from his teaching and research duties at the university, following publication of his new book, Irrationality. In the widely acclaimed book, Smith argues forcefully that reason is highly overrated, and generally of less survival value than brute animal instinct…

University officials enthusiastically endorsed Smith’s thesis. Dean Nemo Nope told Dissociated Press:

“We believe Smith is completely right to argue that brute animal instinct is superior to human reason.” Citing university recruitment goals of hiring the best faculty available, the university provost announced that Smith would be let go and replaced with a bonobo chimpanzee named Nietzsche. “While Smith is certainly capable of being wrong, Nietzsche is not, and is thus clearly better qualified to hold the position of professor of philosophy. It’s not every day that you find a philosopher who is incapable of being wrong.” Michael Egnor, “University fires philosophy prof, hires chimpanzee to teach, research” at Mind Matters News

See also: An Atheist Argues Against Reason. And thinks it is the reasonable thing to do (Michael Egnor)

and

Philosopher offers to resolve the problem of human exceptionality by dethroning reason He hopes that artificial intelligence and extraterrestrial life (a “statistical near-certainty”) will help us “give up the idea of rationality as nature’s last remaining exception.” (Denyse O’Leary)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

One Reply to “Woke U fires prof, hires chimp ;)

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    That a university professor, because of his apriori Darwinian bias, would, via his reasoning, be driven to argue that his ability to reason is invalid, is another sure mark that Darwinian evolution can’t possibly be true and even that it is completely insane for anyone to hold as a rational worldview.

    AN ATHEIST ARGUES AGAINST REASON
    And thinks it is the reasonable thing to do
    MICHAEL EGNOR – MAY 24, 2019
    Excerpt: Think of the irony: a professor of philosophy, who is paid only to reason, uses reason to argue against reason. Welcome to the bowels of atheist metaphysics. It would be funny if it were not so dangerous to our culture and to our souls.
    https://mindmatters.ai/2019/05/an-atheist-argues-against-reason/

    The atheist professor was driven to make such a insane claim against his own reasoning ability because the aura of the ‘supernatural’, and of human exceptionalism, reared their ugly heads, (both of which are strictly forbidden in Darwinian metaphysics),,,

    Reason is exceedingly rare, a hapax legomenon of nature, and yet this rarity has led to a bind: when pushed to account for its origins, thinkers who champion reason’s human-exclusivity are forced to lean on supernaturalism, while those who contend that reason is a fundamentally natural property have then to concede that ‘lower’ lifeforms are capable of exercising it. The question is – how?
    – Justin E. H. Smith.

    As Dr. Egnor pointed out in his first article, reasoning is far more problematic for the Darwinian atheist than they realize because “Reason is an immaterial power of the mind”

    The ability to reason didn’t evolve because it’s not a material power of the mind. Reason is an immaterial power of the mind—it is abstracted from particular things, and cannot logically be produced by a material thing.
    Dr. Michael Egnor

    The laws of logic, upon which all human reasoning is based , simply cannot be reduced to any possible reductive materialistic explanation of Darwinian evolution. As Dr. Egnor pointed out in the following article, “logic — is neither material nor natural. Logic, after all, doesn’t exist “in the space-time continuum” and isn’t described by physics. What is the location of modus ponens? How much does Gödel’s incompleteness theorem weigh? What is the physics of non-contradiction? How many millimeters long is Clark’s argument for naturalism? Ironically the very logic that Clark employs to argue for naturalism is outside of any naturalistic frame.”

    Naturalism and Self-Refutation – Michael Egnor – January 31, 2018
    Excerpt: For Clark, thoughts merely appear out of matter, which has no properties, by the laws of physics, for generating thought. For Clark to assert that naturalistic matter as described by physics gives rise to the mind, without immateriality of any sort, is merely to assert magic.
    Furthermore, the very framework of Clark’s argument — logic — is neither material nor natural. Logic, after all, doesn’t exist “in the space-time continuum” and isn’t described by physics. What is the location of modus ponens? How much does Gödel’s incompleteness theorem weigh? What is the physics of non-contradiction? How many millimeters long is Clark’s argument for naturalism? Ironically the very logic that Clark employs to argue for naturalism is outside of any naturalistic frame.
    The strength of Clark’s defense of naturalism is that it is an attempt to present naturalism’s tenets clearly and logically. That is its weakness as well, because it exposes naturalism to scrutiny, and naturalism cannot withstand even minimal scrutiny. Even to define naturalism is to refute it.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/01/naturalism-and-self-refutation/

    And as Dr Egnor also noted in the following article, it is precisely because of our ability to reason abstractly about immaterial objects that makes us “more different from apes than apes are from viruses.”

    The Fundamental Difference Between Humans and Nonhuman Animals
    Michael Egnor – November 5, 2015
    Excerpt: Human beings think abstractly, and nonhuman animals do not. Human beings have the power to contemplate universals, which are concepts that have no material instantiation. Human beings think about mathematics, literature, art, language, justice, mercy, and an endless library of abstract concepts. Human beings are rational animals.
    Human rationality is not merely a highly evolved kind of animal perception. Human rationality is qualitatively different — ontologically different — from animal perception. Human rationality is different because it is immaterial. Contemplation of universals cannot have material instantiation, because universals themselves are not material and cannot be instantiated in matter.,,,
    It is in our ability to think abstractly that we differ from apes. It is a radical difference — an immeasurable qualitative difference, not a quantitative difference.
    We are more different from apes than apes are from viruses. Our difference is a metaphysical chasm,,,
    https://evolutionnews.org/2015/11/the_fundamental_2/

    The atheist professor, Justin E. H. Smith, stated that “when pushed to account for its origins, thinkers who champion reason’s human-exclusivity are forced to lean on supernaturalism.”

    If I had the chance to ask our good Professor, I would ask him exactly what is it that forces us to lean on this ‘supernatural’ explanation for the origin of our reasoning ability? Well, by golly, it is reasoning itself that forces us to ‘lean on supernaturalism’. (I guess that could be a big part of the reason why our good atheist Professor abandoned his ability to reason altogether 🙂 )

    J. Warner Wallace has an excellent article laying out the reasoning for this ‘supernatural’ explanation for the origin of our ability to reason.

    Is God Real? Evidence from the Laws of Logic
    J. Warner January 9, 2019
    Excerpt: All rational discussions (even those about the existence or non-existence of God) require the prior foundation of logical absolutes. You’d have a hard time making sense of any conversation if the Laws of Logic weren’t available to guide the discussion and provide rational boundaries. Here are three of the most important Laws of Logic you and I use every day:

    The Law of Identity
    Things “are” what they “are”. “A” is “A”. Each thing is the same with itself and different from another. By this it is meant that each thing (be it a universal or a particular) is composed of its own unique set of characteristic qualities or features.

    The Law of Non-Contradiction
    “A” cannot be both “A” and “Non-A” at the same time, in the same way and in the same sense. Contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time.

    The Law of Excluded Middle
    A statement is either true or false. For any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is true. There is no middle position. For example, the claim that “A statement is either true or false” is either true or false.

    These logical rules are necessary in order for us to examine truth statements. We also need them to point out when someone is reasoning illogically. We use the Laws of Logic all the time; you couldn’t even begin to read or reason through this blog post if you didn’t employ these laws. In fact, you’ve never had an intelligent, rational conversation without using these laws. They’re not a matter of subjective opinion; they are, instead, objectively true. So, here’s an important question: “From where do the transcendent, objective laws of logic come?”

    As an atheist, I would have been the first to describe myself as rational. In fact, I saw myself as far more reasonable than many of the Christians I knew. But, I was basing my rationality on my ability to understand and employ the Laws of Logic. How could I account for these transcendent laws without the existence of a transcendent Law Giver?

    (1) The Objective Laws of Logic Exist
    We cannot deny the Laws of Logic exist. In fact, any reasonable or logical argument against the existence of these laws requires their existence in the first place.

    The Objective Laws of Logic Are Conceptual Laws
    These laws are not physical; they are conceptual. They cannot be seen under a microscope or weighed on a scale. They are abstract laws guiding logical, immaterial thought processes.

    The Objective Laws of Logic Are Transcendent
    The laws transcend location, culture and time. If we go forward or backward a million years, the laws of logic would still exist and apply, regardless of culture or geographic location.

    The Objective Laws of Logic Pre-Existed Mankind
    The transcendent and timeless nature of logical laws indicates they precede our existence or ability to recognize them. Even before humans were able to understand the law of non-contradiction, “A” could not have been “Non-A”. The Laws of Logic were discovered by humans, not created by humans.

    (2) All Conceptual Laws Reflect the Mind of a Law Giver
    All laws require law givers, including conceptual laws. We know this from our common experience in the world in which we live. The laws governing our society and culture, for example, are the result and reflection of minds. But more importantly, the conceptual Laws of Logic govern rational thought processes, and for this reason, they require the existence of a mind.

    (3) The Best and Most Reasonable Explanation for the Kind of Mind Necessary for the Existence of the Transcendent, Objective, Conceptual Laws of Logic is God
    The lawgiver capable of producing the immaterial, transcendent laws preceding our existence must also be an immaterial, transcendent and pre-existent mind. This description fits what we commonly think of when we think of a Creator God.

    The Christian Worldview accounts for the existence of the transcendent Laws of Logic. If God exists, He is the absolute, objective, transcendent standard of truth. The Laws of Logic are simply a reflection of the nature of God. God did not create these laws. They are a reflection of His rational thinking, and for this reason, they are as eternal as God Himself. You and I, as humans, have the ability to discover these laws because we have been created in the image of God, but we don’t create or invent the laws.
    https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/is-god-real-evidence-from-the-laws-of-logic/

    Of supplemental note:

    C.S. Lewis, through reason itself, was able to show that ‘reason must be absolute’ and that “Reason (must be) given before Nature”.
    What C.S. Lewis was not able to do during his day was to show, empirically, through scientific experimentation, that “Reason (must be) given before Nature”.
    In other words, C.S. Lewis, in his day, was not able to offer experimental confirmation for his philosophical claim that reason must be absolute and prior to nature.
    Yet, recent advances in quantum mechanics, (via the closing of the ‘free-will loop-hole in quantum mechanics by Zeilinger and company), have now empirically validated C.S. Lewis’s philosophical claim that ‘reason must be absolute’ and that “Reason (must be) given before Nature”.
    https://uncommondescent.com/human-evolution/philosopher-eliminates-human-exceptionality-by-ejecting-reason/#comment-677540

    Verse and quote:

    John 1:1
    “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”

    What is the Logos?
    Logos is a Greek word literally translated as “word, speech, or utterance.” However, in Greek philosophy, Logos refers to divine reason or the power that puts sense into the world making order instead of chaos.,,,
    In the Gospel of John, John writes “In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). John appealed to his readers by saying in essence, “You’ve been thinking, talking, and writing about the Word (divine reason) for centuries and now I will tell you who He is.”
    https://www.compellingtruth.org/what-is-the-Logos.html

Leave a Reply