At Themelios:
The epistemology defended in this article leads to the recognition of plural Wissenschaften (see section 2.4 above). This has specific consequences for knowledge about our origins. There are facts about humans which fall outside the competence of the natural sciences, but which we learn from other disciplines. Psychology and sociology cannot be reduced to natural science, nor can philosophy and theology be discarded as providing no independent insights about human identity. This does not mean that natural science does not give us precious information about who we are and where we come from. But we cannot expect to know everything which is worth knowing about humans from this one source.
Probably the oldest and best-known non-reductionist family of arguments concerns the nature of rational thought. It can be traced back through Descartes to Plato’s Phaedo. The backbone of the argument is the general truth that what there is (being) cannot determine what there should be (norms). Natural science aims at describing what exists. But rational thought is a normative endeavor. Affirming that something is true (or false) thus cannot be expressed in purely scientific terms. In the 20th century, versions of this argument have been elaborated (among others) by C. S. Lewis,41 Karl Popper,42 Thomas Nagel,43 and Alvin Plantinga.
The normative character of rational thought is not the only threat to a reductionist understanding of mind. There are other features of thought which are problematic, such as consciousness and intentionality. Theists are not the only philosophers to point out the difficulties of the reductionist program.45 And the mind is not the only aspect of humans which that defies reductionism. Relational notions—such as trust, friendship, sense of transcendence—seem in their very essence to go beyond what natural scientific method can capture. Remember that one of the hallmarks of scientific practice is the repeatability of experiments. The outcome of an experiment should not be affected by which scientist performs it. But the essence of true relationships is that it does matter to whom we are relating.
The irreducible nature of humans has direct implications for any exploration of human origins. Natural scientific studies, important and fascinating as they are, will never tell us all there is to be known. In particular, there is no straight forward way to translate important philosophical and theological concepts into natural scientific ones. More.
But never mind, the next gimcrack theory of consciousness is probably being uploaded at a digital coffee table pop science mag as you read this.
Note: Lydia Jaeger is lecturer and academic dean at the Institut Biblique de Nogentsur-Marne, France, and associate member of St. Edmund’s College, University of Cambridge, England.
See also: Evolution bred a sense of reality out of us
Researcher: Never mind the “hard problem of consciousness”: The real one is…
and
What great physicists have said about immateriality and consciousness
Follow UD News at Twitter!
I love the headline:
“Natural science cannot fully comprehend human nature”
Here is a poem that captures the essence of that thought:
In this article from a few days ago,,,
In noted that,,,
and I then referenced the following cites to back up that claim,,
Yet, to go further, it occurred to me today that although mind will forever be beyond a complete mathematical description, none-the-less, math has been effectively used to show that the brain does not produce consciousness. And to show that ‘consciousness is something altogether different and separate’ from the material brain.
And, from another angle, here is another mathematical critique of any possible materialistic explanation of consciousness,
Moreover, besides computers failing to have genuine mathematical insight, and besides math been used to show that consciousness is forever beyond materialistic explanation, in the math of Quantum Mechanics there is ‘an irreducible subjective element’
And this ‘jumping of probabilities’ for a conscious observer, within the math of quantum mechanics, has been born out experimentally,,,
Here are a few comments as to the ‘disturbing’ implications of Quantum Theory:
Thus in conclusion, 1. Computers lack genuine mathematical insight. 2. Math has shown that consciousness will forever be beyond materialistic explanation, and 3. The math of Quantum Mechanics has an irreducible subjective element to it that entails a conscious observer making a measurement.
Moreover, the math of quantum mechanics has been experimentally verified to prove that ” Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It”.
The atheistic materialist simply has no possible explanation for any of this. He especially has no possible explanation for reality not even existing until we look at it. Whereas the Theist does have a ready answer for all of this in that the Christian has ALWAYS claimed that the infinite Mind of God sustains all of material reality in its continued existence.
Verse and Video
Thus, as the article and the poem in post 1 pointed out, although the vast majority of what it truly means to be human will forever be beyond the grasp of scientific explanation, none-the-less, science, particularly math, has been fairly successful in validating the Christian Theist’s claim that mind precedes, and is irreducible to, material reality.
BA77,
Lots of good information. Thank you.
// On materialistic reductionism:
Consider a muscle connected to an insect’s wing and ask yourself: what causes it to move? Let’s suppose that we trace back the signal through muscle and nerve cells to one particular neuronal cell in the insect’s brain. Now ask yourself: what kind of decision power is in there? Let’s suppose further that we could trace the signal back further to one particular fermion. What kind of explanation would we have? Does that fermion control the insect‘s wing? Does that make sense?
Now ask yourself:
what kind of explanation was I hoping for?