Are we rational or irrational?

[tonyrey]

That’s not what I said.

That’s what you have implied:

Zillions of atoms formed into long chain molecules formed into cells, some making up roots, some the trunk and branches, some leaves. At one level it’s a whole bunch of complex electromagnetic activity, another a colony of cells, another a tree.

Note that nothing else is included in your scheme of** things**. This is supposed to be a complete account of reality - derived from atoms and nothing but atoms…

 

[larkin31]

Really? How precisely did inanimate matter not only organise itself but also become aware of itself, understand itself and become capable of controlling itself?

I don’t know. I am not sure that anyone does, “precisely.” This is like asking, how, “precisely,” did God make “dust” into “Adam”? Science does not claim to know either of these, “precisely.” Science has NEVER claimed to know this, despite your constant suggestion that it has by arguing against it as a strawman.

 

[larkin31]

All that says is that matter is electrochemical at its base and from their organizes itself into larger collections and forms.

What you summarize that as saying is just wacko.

Are you conceding my point here? Do you understand that he was not in any way saying what you said he said?

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t know. I am not sure that anyone does, “precisely.” This is like asking, how, “precisely,” did God make “dust” into “Adam”? Science does not claim to know either of these, “precisely.” Science has NEVER claimed to know this, despite your constant suggestion that it has by arguing against it as a strawman.

You don’t know nor does he but that is what he** believes** if we are to take his dogmatic statement at its face value…

Absence of evidence weakens any argument - particularly when it undermines rather than supports the generally accepted principles of liberty, equality and fraternity…

BTW True science never claims to know anything!

 

[inocente]

Note that nothing else is included in your scheme of** things**. This is supposed to be a complete account of reality - derived from atoms and nothing but atoms…

Three points:

1. Nowhere does any scientist, Catholic or not, say atoms are the only way to explain things. You’ve just picked one level, and not even the lowest level given that atoms are divisible. It would make no sense at all for a behavioral psychologist to try to explain her observations in terms of atoms.
2. You’re also giving natural science way too much power. Reality is “the state of things as they are, rather than as they are imagined to be” and we find that out through many disciplines. Natural science is confined to exploring the physical world but you seem to want it to do more. It can’t.
3. If one day science can’t explain something physical through physical processes alone then we’d have evidence of some non-physical process influencing the physical. But it’s not happened yet. And remember that if we ever do reach that point some will want to explain it as magik, which might be the opposite of what some theists have in mind.

Evidence tells us what reality is, what we make of that reality is up to us.

 

[tonyrey]

                 [

](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7543664#post7543664)

You gave the impression that the primary level of explanation is “zillions of atoms” with no indication that any other factor is involved.

1. You’re also giving natural science way too much power. Reality is “the state of things as they are, rather than as they are imagined to be” and we find that out through many disciplines. Natural science is confined to exploring the physical world but you seem to want it to do more. It can’t.

I am merely taking your statement to its logical conclusion. On the face of it reality is ultimately material.

1. If one day science can’t explain something physical through physical processes alone then we’d have evidence of some non-physical process influencing the physical. But it’s not happened yet. And remember that if we ever do reach that point some will want to explain it as magik, which might be the opposite of what some theists have in mind.

Your reference to magic reinforces the impression that any non-scientific explanation can be discounted. You obviously rule out the role of the mind in any activity whatsoever.

Evidence tells us what reality is, what we make of that reality is up to us.

“us” is the key word, not “atoms”!

 

[larkin31]

You don’t know nor does he but that is what he** believes** if we are to take his dogmatic statement at its face value…

Absence of evidence weakens any argument - particularly when it undermines rather than supports the generally accepted principles of liberty, equality and fraternity…

BTW True science never claims to know anything!

Huh?

You are all over the place.

 

[larkin31]

Three points:

1. Nowhere does any scientist, Catholic or not, say atoms are the only way to explain things. You’ve just picked one level, and not even the lowest level given that atoms are divisible. It would make no sense at all for a behavioral psychologist to try to explain her observations in terms of atoms.
2. You’re also giving natural science way too much power. Reality is “the state of things as they are, rather than as they are imagined to be” and we find that out through many disciplines. Natural science is confined to exploring the physical world but you seem to want it to do more. It can’t.
3. If one day science can’t explain something physical through physical processes alone then we’d have evidence of some non-physical process influencing the physical. But it’s not happened yet. And remember that if we ever do reach that point some will want to explain it as magik, which might be the opposite of what some theists have in mind.

Evidence tells us what reality is, what we make of that reality is up to us.

again, well put

 

[larkin31]

I am merely taking your statement to its logical conclusion.

Hardly. We say, “The body is made of atoms.” You reply, “Hah, you claim that atoms have consciousness!” Is that your idea of a “logical conclusion”?

Your reference to magic reinforces the impression that any non-scientific explanation can be discounted. You obviously rule out the role of the mind in any activity whatsoever.

Wow. There you go again. Another example of one of your “logical conclusions”?

I am beginning to think that you are not serious. Is this some sort of joke on your part? What’s the gag here?

 

[tonyrey]

  			[

](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7545065#post7545065)

In that case you are nowhere! Ignoring the other person’s statements is the weakest possible response.

 

[tonyrey]

Hardly. We say, “The body is made of atoms.” You reply, “Hah, you claim that atoms have consciousness!” Is that your idea of a “logical conclusion”?

That is his idea not mine:

“Zillions of atoms formed into long chain molecules formed into cells, some making up roots, some the trunk and branches, some leaves. At one level it’s a whole bunch of complex electromagnetic activity, another a colony of cells, another a tree.” (and by implication “another a human being”)

NB He assumes that** everything** and everyone consists solely of atoms.

Wow. There you go again. Another example of one of your “logical conclusions”?

I am beginning to think that you are not serious. Is this some sort of joke on your part? What’s the gag here?

Your sarcasm is another weak, irrational and irrelevant evasion which fools no one.

 

[larkin31]

That is his idea not mine:

“Zillions of atoms formed into long chain molecules formed into cells, some making up roots, some the trunk and branches, some leaves. At one level it’s a whole bunch of complex electromagnetic activity, another a colony of cells, another a tree.” (and by implication “another a human being”)

NB He assumes that** everything** and everyone consists solely of atoms.

In no way, in no place, in no manner does the first thing you quote even suggest the second thing you conclude.

Your sarcasm is another weak, irrational and irrelevant evasion which fools no one.

It is not sarcasm: I think that you have a logical screw loose. Your conclusions have nothing to do with what you quote. Your bias is boldly and baldly evident. You put words in others’ mouths and turn there carefully crafted remarks into unrestrained absolute claims–which they aren’t.

No sarcasm at all. Not one iota of it.

 

[larkin31]

In that case you are nowhere!

I am in Maine, so you are partly right. Feels that way sometimes. Where do you live, Tony?

Ignoring the other person’s statements is the weakest possible response.

Your “conclusions” here have been getting my full attention, and I quote them for others to see.

 

[tonyrey]

That is his idea not mine:

Are you saying he is not a materialist? Then we should ask him to put his cards on the table for once and for all.

Your conclusions have nothing to do with what you quote. Your bias is boldly and baldly evident. You put words in others’ mouths and turn there carefully crafted remarks into unrestrained absolute claims–which they aren’t.

The onus is on you to explain why my conclusion does not follow if his words are taken at their face value. Atoms>molecules>cells>trees. Why stop there? Why not:
Atoms>molecules>cells>trees>animals>human beings?

NB “Zillions of atoms formed into long chain molecules” implies they did so** entirely by themselves** for no reason or purpose without any other factor being involved.

I get the impression your bias makes you evade the logical implications of his dogmatic statement. He introduces “levels” as if they are merely different forms of matter, no more no less. How else do you interpret his meaning?

 

[tonyrey]

I am in Maine, so you are partly right. Feels that way sometimes. Where do you live, Tony?

I’m sure many would disagree with you. I’m by the sea between London and Paris. kpeople:

Your “conclusions” here have been getting my full attention, and I quote them for others to see.

That’s a consolation. The more publicity the better…

 

[inocente]

Your reference to magic reinforces the impression that any non-scientific explanation can be discounted. You obviously rule out the role of the mind in any activity whatsoever.

I don’t recall anyone giving a non-scientific explanation here. I’m all ears, go for it tony, give as much detail as you like.

 

[larkin31]

NB “Zillions of atoms formed into long chain molecules” implies they did so** entirely by themselves** for no reason or purpose without any other factor being involved.

This implies this NOT AT ALL.

When I write, “My body is made up of atoms,” I have made no claim whatsoever about what forces or purposes have brought those atoms together. None whatsoever. Your conclusion is false.

Your obtuse obstinacy on this point is bizarre. Truly.

 

[Tonitz]

Larkin, Tonyrey is aligned with a school of thought that is as dualistic, bifurcated, and divorced from one side of Reality as science is from the other side. Both have a monological view of things that result in an incomplete view and understanding of actuality as far as it is comprehensible by humans. There will be no agreement between the two because they each insist on one half to the equation as being the totality of the dynamic.

 

[tonyrey]

Larkin, Tonyrey is aligned with a school of thought that is as dualistic, bifurcated, and divorced from one side of Reality as science is from the other side. Both have a monological view of things that result in an incomplete view and understanding of actuality as far as it is comprehensible by humans. There will be no agreement between the two because they each insist on one half to the equation as being the totality of the dynamic.

Dualism is superior to a simplistic, monolithic view of reality which doesn’t distinguish between persons and things and deprives reality of all value, meaning and purpose…

 

[tonyrey]

When I write, “My body is made up of atoms,” I have made no claim whatsoever about what forces or purposes have brought those atoms together. None whatsoever. Your conclusion is false.

There is a vast difference between:

“My body** is** made up of atoms” and

“Zillions of atoms formed into long chain molecules formed into cells, some making up roots, some the trunk and branches, some leaves. At one level it’s a whole bunch of complex electromagnetic activity, another a colony of cells, another a tree.”

Do you fail to see the difference?

BTW You haven’t answered my question:

Why stop there? Why not:

Atoms>molecules>cells>trees >animals>human beings?

Your obtuse obstinacy on this point is bizarre. Truly.

I could make exactly the same allegation about you but I don’t indulge in irrelevant ad hominems…