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 Read More ›

In a previous post I demonstrated that no sane person acts as if materialism were true.  It later occurred to me that it is impossible to even speak as if materialism were true. Consider the following statement: “I believe materialism is true.” The statement implicitly affirms the following three things that are true only if monist materialism is false: Subject-object duality. There is a subject (the observer; i.e., the “I” in the statement) who perceives an object (the concept of materialism). Intentionality. A mental state exists that is directed toward some object.  Bags of chemicals do not have beliefs. Self-aware subjectivity as a declared reality. It is absurd to say the illusion of myself foisted on me by the chemicals Read More ›

While I am busy locally, I think it is important to discuss the issue as just headlined here at UD. Let me clip from the “Materialism makes you stupid” thread: >>27 CLAVDIVSApril 18, 2016 at 7:52 pm Design as a cause is compatible with materialism. Where’s the beef?>> and >>28 kairosfocusApril 19, 2016 at 5:14 am C, design is compatible with embodied designers — we are embodied designers. Evolutionary materialism is inescapably self referentially incoherent and irretrievably self-falsifying as a worldview. Whether or no it is dressed up in a lab coat . . . threatening to take the credibility of science down with it in the ruins of its inevitable collapse. And that is some serious beef. KF>> So, Read More ›

I have a hard time getting some materialists to admit that two plus two is infallibly four.  Here, a 5’9″ white guy has a hard time getting college students to admit that he is infallibly not a seven year old, 6’5″ Chinese woman.  

From LiveScience: Neuroscientists and many philosophers have typically planted themselves firmly on the materialist side. But a growing number of scientists now believe that materialism cannot wholly explain the sense of “I am” that undergirds consciousness, Kuhn told the audience. One of those scientists is Christof Koch, the president and chief scientific officer of the Allen Institute for Brain Science in Seattle. At the event, he described a relatively recent formulation of consciousness called the integrated information theory. The idea, put forward by University of Wisconsin-Madison neuroscientist and psychiatrist Giulio Tononi, argues that consciousness resides in an as-yet-unknown space in the universe. Integrated information theory measures consciousness by a metric, called phi, which essentially translates to how much power over Read More ›

One of the challenges commonly met with in re-thinking origins science from a perspective open to design, is that the evolutionary materialist narrative is too often presented as fact (not explanation), and there is also a typical failure to recognise that materialist ideology cannot be properly imposed on science. Likewise, there is a pattern of failing to address the issue of the self-falsifying self-referential incoherence of such materialism. It is appropriate to highlight these issues through this basics series. In this case, we have a live case in point, here: GD, 173: >>There are some parts of evolutionary theory that are so well supported that they can be considered facts. Widespread (if not necessarily universal) common ancestry. Mutation, selection, and Read More ›

In my last post I linked to an article in which several atheists discuss how they deal with the lack of meaning in the universe.  In response Seversky asks: What is meant by “meaning” in this context? To me, it sounds like a purpose conceived in the mind of an intelligent being, in this case God. So what you are saying is that unless another intelligent being has a purpose in mind for you, your existence is worthless and meaningless? So, a question, why should you only have value or worth or meaning if it exists in the mind of another intelligence. What is wrong with finding a meaning or purpose for yourself? After all, if God has a purpose, Read More ›

Commenter psypaul writes regarding those (such as Sam Harris) who say consciousness is an illusion. Consciousness is an illusion….to whom? Who is being deceived? Isn’t ‘self’ an illusion as well? Doesn’t the concept of ‘illusion’ require a perceiver (person)? Absurdity. Indeed, psypaul.  As with much of the drivel that comes pouring out of the materialists, this is a statement of purported universal truth that requires an implicit exception for the speaker, thus rendering absurd its claim to being universal. “Consciousness is an illusion – except for me right now; I’m aware of (that is to say, “conscious of”) the illusion.” “There is no meaning.  Except what I just said.  That has meaning.” “We deconstructionists assert absolutely that all texts have Read More ›

An essay contest from the Royal Institute of Philosophy and Cambridge University Press Entrants could win £2,500, publication in Philosophy, and a half hour of fame. No, but seriously, they could contribute to an increasingly significant discussion. Old style vitalism, attributing an internal animating substance or force to living things gave way to the idea that life may yet be a property over and above physical and chemical ones. Subsequent to that it was widely thought that life is an organisational or functional feature of bodies instantiated by their physical properties. With ongoing debates about analogous issues relating to mind (especially consciousness and intentionality) still running, and renewed interest in anti-reductionist interpretations of emergence and of teleological description and explanation Read More ›

One of the persistent dismissive assertions we see from objectors to design thought is the notion that there is “no evidence” for a designer. As we have already seen, that is questionable, immediately a reflection of selective hyperskepticism, but I believe something deeper lurks. For, the very intensity of this dismissive talking point is a clue: on evolutionary materialism, it is problematic for genuine design — based on freedom to reason, creative insight and genuine purposefulness — to exist. So, it is no wonder that those in the iron grip of this ideology will have problems acknowledging evidence of design, however strong. For, if matter, energy, space, time and blind chance and/or mechanically necessary combinations of such are all that Read More ›

Today’s guest post is from nkendall: We have looked at the phenomena of dreams LINK: Are Dreams Incompatible With Materialism? and constancy of self through near death experiences LINK: Constancy of Self in Light of Near Death Experiences – A Disproof of Materialism as disproofs of materialism. Now I want to look at continuity of thought as a disproof of materialism.   Have you ever noticed that your mind is always presented with a continuous stream of related thoughts? There are seldom, if ever, any gaps where your mind is blank. There always seems to be a single, whole, intact thought present in our conscious awareness. I suppose there are exceptions such as seizures. Remarkably, barring interruption, each distinct thought in a sequence of thoughts is related to Read More ›

The following is a guest post be nkendall: One of the striking things about our experience as conscious, thinking humans is how constant our sense of self–our identity–is. Never in my life has there been any suspension or change of my conscious sense of who I am other than during sleep. Throughout our lives our brains change considerably. A myriad of new synaptic connections are formed especially in the early years. Yet one’s identity is immutable. Aside from these ongoing modifications of the brain, there are catastrophic changes as well. Those who have experienced surgery under general anesthesia or suffered cardiac arrest have had their brains shut down and consciousness suspended even if only briefly. Near death experiences represent a Read More ›

Recently, StephenB wrote, RDFish is wrong; Barry Arrington is right: Materialism cannot be reconciled with objective morality: In several previous posts, RDFish stumbled into a serious philosophical error that needs to be addressed. Barry Arrington had made the unassailable point that materialism (understood as physicalism) is incompatible with such concepts as good, evil, and objective morality. The reason is clear: Materialism reduces all choices to electro-chemical processes in the brain. With that model, all apparent moral decisions are really nothing more than chemcial-physical operations or functions. Though RDF failed to refute the argument, confront the argument, or even define his own terms, he sought, nevertheless, to attack it through the back door, claiming that past atheist philosophers embraced both metaphysical Read More ›

Asks nkendall. All that follows is his: Okay lets see what I can come up with. This is just one of several disproofs of materialism that I have tried out on atheist websites. Never once had anyone lay of glove on it: DREAM SEQUENCES – A SIMPLE DISPROOF OF MATERIALISM Here is a simple disproof of materialism that everyone can understand; consider dream sequences: ASSUMPTIONS: 1. Dreams always involve novel (NEW) content – they are not rehashings or restructuring of various memories; although the topics are in the context of one’s life experiences. 2. Dreams are high definition imagery. 3. Dreams are real imagery, i.e. you are unaware or unable to distinguish the dream imagery when it is going on Read More ›

In several previous posts, RDFish stumbled into a serious philosophical error that needs to be addressed. Barry Arrington had made the unassailable point that materialism (understood as physicalism) is incompatible with such concepts as good, evil, and objective morality. The reason is clear: Materialism reduces all choices to electro-chemical processes in the brain. With that model, all apparent moral decisions are really nothing more than chemcial-physical operations or functions.   Though RDF failed to refute the argument, confront the argument, or even define his own terms, he sought, nevertheless, to attack it through the back door, claiming that past atheist philosophers embraced both metaphysical materialism and objective morality. His list includes such notables as David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Ayn Rand, Read More ›