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 vaguely remember chemistry classes - bonds, valence, crystals, etc.? Molecules naturally arise from atoms bonding, and it turns out it’s easy to talk about ethanol than C2H5OH, and a little easier to say polyethylene terephthalate than “(C10H8O4)n, where n is a big number”. These naturally arise from the constituent atoms in given circumstances (heat, pressure, possibly presence of a catalyst).
In the same way it’s a darn sight easier to call a tree a tree than attempt to describe it by the configuration of its gazillions of atoms. But every level at which we perceive the tree is valid, from atoms through cells through trunk and branches, through shape and smell and sitting under it with our partner feeling the sunlight through the leaves on our skin. And we sit there, trying to keep our mind on-topic
, knowing all this complexity naturally led to something simple, and we’re around to be part of all of that. It’s amazing and humbling, darn sight more than just seeing a tree. Or did you expect us practical guys to deny the poetic?
Nature does this stuff naturally, why nature is this way is a wonder whatever our belief about why it’s wonderful.
*Why stop there? Why not:
Atoms>molecules>cells>trees >animals>human beings?*
If you’re asking whether trees, animals and humans are all natural then yes, of course.
Your claim to be a Baptist diminishes with every post you write! You may not recall any but do you genuinely believe
all non-scientific explanations and conclusions are inferior toscientific explanations and conclusions? I take it that you reject the reality of human rights and liberty, equality and fraternity…
A little uncalled for dude. Remember that our beliefs are different here - Baptists don’t believe in transubstantiation, or that ground can be consecrated, or that things can be blessed, etc.
As I said before, natural science is self-limited and really dude it’s not the only way to see things. But where any two disciplines provide differing explanations it could be (a) they are complementary, as in evolution and creation are both true from different angles or (b) one is false, as in witches can turn princes into frogs, and then science generally wins through objective evidence.
How you get the idea I reject reality is baffling. What I do
strongly reject is belief in belief, the idea that we should ever once shut our minds and believe something just because other people say so.
My interpretation that he is a materialist dovetails perfectly with his latest post:
Just like boy scouts we practical guys love getting badges, so thanks but I already got the materialist badge loads of times. Wouldn’t mind a “don’t-care-a-damn-if-my-beliefs-are-questioned” badge though if it’s in your power, as after eight months on CAF I think I earned it.
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.
Your OP claims materialism must be false. Instead of simply repeating that claim ad infinitum, could you make a positive claim for an alternative that you think will stand on its own two feet? Do you have one and what is it?
