- These statements are based on the unsubstantiated assumption that natural phenomena are the **sole **phenomena despite the fact that rational beings transcend natural phenomena by their insight and control of natural phenomena.
Transcend? Um, have you noticed how we’ve worked out how to control the weather? Me neither. And the exertion of control does not entail transcendence. Humans have historically worked out how to control other animals, and other humans too, by manipulation of entirely natural circumstances.
- Without minds we wouldn’t even be aware that matter exists.
We might not be in a position to say or understand that it is “matter”, as opposed to “energy”, but
awareness, as such, only requires sensory structures, which even single-celled bacteria possess.
- The power of the mind is sufficient evidence that it is not derived from matter.
By whose reckoning?
- Calculations of probability are not associated with purposeless particles but with rational beings.
Which ultimately has nothing to do with the argument from probability. It doesn’t matter that we (or some of us, at least) have the ability to make probabalistic calculations and to grasp their implications - that affects the actual state of affairs not a bit.
You were the one who made the accusation of desperation in the first place - did you only do so in order to set up an opportunity to trot out your favourite phrase?
- The unsubstantiated assumption that scientists are in principle capable of explaining everything is falsified by Godel’s incompleteness theorem since it implies they can explain themselves.
In principle, scientists are capable of explaining everything to which we have experiential access. If it’s detectable, it’s examinable. Bear in mind that scientific explanations are only required to account for reality as we experience it - if there is some aspect of reality that we cannot detect or experience, even remotely, it has no effect upon us and is therefore irrelevant to our existence.
- That objection betrays a particular ontological view of the world - a **bottom-up (!) **notion that phenomena such as “autonomy”, “morality” and “love” are merely human ideas that don’t correspond to material reality.
Of course they correspond with material reality - that is the whole point. You are the one claiming they don’t have a material existence.
- The unsubstantiated assumption that matter is **necessarily **orderly overlooks the fact that this universe is not the only possible universe.
Actually, I thought the multiverse hypothesis kind of had that covered. As far as the claim that matter is orderly is concerned, again, perspective is important - it is one thing to say that matter behaves in predictable, patterned ways; it’s quite another to claim that it reflects an externally imposed order.
- There is no rational basis for the assumption that every event is due to physical necessity.
What you seem to mean by a “rational basis” is a predetermined reason to suppose that some state of affairs is the case. On the other hand, when scientific investigation turns up the fact that every phenomenon we have thus far been able to detect is explicable in physical terms, it seems rather pointless to simply assume supernatural explanations.
- Matter and energy are certainly brute facts from a materialist’s point of view but materialism is a discredited hypothesis due to its dependence on the verifiability principle.
You seem to have missed the point of my comment - whenever a god is posited as the ultimate explanation for any phenomena, there is never any accompanying explanation of how or why a god exists; yet when supernaturalists say, “You can’t just say matter exists without explaining where it comes from!!” they seem to overlook the fact that their hypothesis actually assumes far more, as a starting position, than simple matter and energy.
- Your matter and energy are certainly brute facts from a materialist’s point of view but **your **materialism is a discredited hypothesis due to its dependence on the verifiability principle.
Perhaps it’s fair to say that science cannot falsify the necessity for hypotheses to be falsifiable; but this accusation loses its sting when it comes from those whose ultimate hypothesis depends upon blind faith.
(Indications of needless discourtesy which reveals an aggressive hostility towards religion, infringes the forum conduct rules and is evident in other of your posts.)
Luckily for you, we’re on a Catholic forum. If the discourtesy rules were more generally applied, well…
- Blind faith in the power of science to explain every detail of life in terms of inanimate molecules fails to recognise that information systems such as DNA presuppose intelligence.
Actually, they don’t - they merely rely upon means of generating and reading the information. This can be done in the absence of any metacognition - the generators and readers don’t have to comprehend what they are doing.
- “rattling off” the list of what scientists as if to add at the end, “Therefore, matter” is no help to anyone seeking a rational explanation.
Naturalists don’t have to say, “therefore,” matter - the matter is there to be investigated. The difference is that the scientific approach is open-ended regarding conclusions, whilst the religious approach tries to make any and all data fit the predetermined conclusions set down by scriptures.
- A superb example of hyperdogmatic materialism.
Actually, a response to the failure of religious dogma to reflect experienced reality; not to mention an example of a hyperbolic reaction to any and all criticism of religious faith…
- Science is certainly used by materialists as a stop-gap measure to compensate for their ignorance but it does not help people to deal with their **personal **affairs in the real world.
So you’d prefer to interpret your experience on the basis of mythology than on scientific research? That is your prerogative, after all…
- Materialists - as on this thread - invent myths and dogmas about the power of science and fill the gaps in our knowledge with idle speculation and unfalsifiable assertions about what science will discover, but when it comes to daily life they act on the assumption that life has value, meaning and purpose and - in most cases but not all - treat others as persons rather than naked apes.
The fact that we consider ourselves and others to have value has never been demonstrated to be a product of supernatural infusion; but thus far the empirical explanations from biological, psychological, anthropological and sociological fields have provided a great deal of insight that goes far beyond the supposed dictates of mythological entities.
- The items in the list are closed questions as far as materialists are concerned and they thereby eliminate the possibility of discovering truths about **their spiritual development - **which is undoubtedly a cause for compassion on the part of those who believe persons are not merely naked apes…
How are they closed questions when research is still under way?
If spiritual development, whatever that may be, is open to detection, then it is open to research. What’s more, the understanding of ourselves as animals within a natural universe - as naked apes - is more conducive to compassion than the supposition that we are obliged by our “creator” to live up to a perfect (read impossible) standard.
…