A
- Status
F
Freddy
Guest
A forum is a place for discussions, Al. What would you like to discuss?
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Anything in those articles that you or anyone else would like to discuss, Freddy. Please just pick what interests you.
Last edited:
P
Pattylt
Guest
Are you just trying to drive us to your website? You created the thread, you pick the topic or start the discussion. That’s the usual polite thing to do, anyway.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Sure, Patty, I’ll pick the topic then, from the above link (an expansion of below argument is found there).
"Naturalism is true": A self-contradictory statement
Naturalism is the view that nothing exists beyond the natural world and that only physical laws operate in our world, i.e. that also humans are purely physical beings. Let us suppose the naturalist wants to defend the position that naturalism is true.
Yet under naturalism every thought, just like everything else, is physically determined. Some propose that freedom of thought might be a result of ‘emerging complexity’, but this is based on a misunderstanding of the concept. While emergence results in phenomena that would not have been predicted from the basic components of the system on their own, it never violates the physical laws by which these basic components operate. Such a violation would have to occur if free thought could be the result of purely physical processes, which are either deterministic or, at the quantum level, random on a probabilistic basis (yet significant quantum level influence on thought is not feasible under naturalism, since it would just produce random thoughts).
The physical determination of thought under naturalism of course includes the thought “Naturalism is true”. Therefore, when making the claim, naturalists have no free choice but are at the mercy of the circuits in their brain to judge on the question.
These circuits were shaped by evolution – yet evolution is of no help to reliably arrive at the claim that naturalism is true. Already [Darwin recognized](http://www.darw(name removed by moderator)roject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-13230.html) the problem that natural selection may not suffice to explain the human mind’s capacity for recognition of truth and objective thought – evolution selects only for physical adaptation and behavior, not for correctness of beliefs [see Footnote]. When evolutionary scientists claim that religion was selected for its behavioral survival advantage, they in fact concede, if they adhere to a naturalistic worldview, that evolution can indirectly select for an allegedly false belief. So there is no use in saying that, in terms of frameworks of beliefs, evolution probably has endowed us with a reliable ability to see that naturalism – an abstract concept far beyond everyday sensory experiences – is true, and therefore we ‘ought’ to see the truth of naturalism even under determinism.
(cont.)
Footnote:
Let me be clear from the onset towards those who believe this turns into yet another anti-evolution argument: I fully subscribe to the science of evolution and reject the idea of biological so-called Intelligent Design. I even have written a review article on the origin of life by natural causes for the evolution website Talkorigins.org. Yet evolution is a physical, material process, and the question that this article addresses is whether rationality and recognition of truth are possible as a purely physical phenomenon, or if the human mind requires an immaterial component, operating in connection with the brain, that allows it to transcend physical determinism.
"Naturalism is true": A self-contradictory statement
Naturalism is the view that nothing exists beyond the natural world and that only physical laws operate in our world, i.e. that also humans are purely physical beings. Let us suppose the naturalist wants to defend the position that naturalism is true.
Yet under naturalism every thought, just like everything else, is physically determined. Some propose that freedom of thought might be a result of ‘emerging complexity’, but this is based on a misunderstanding of the concept. While emergence results in phenomena that would not have been predicted from the basic components of the system on their own, it never violates the physical laws by which these basic components operate. Such a violation would have to occur if free thought could be the result of purely physical processes, which are either deterministic or, at the quantum level, random on a probabilistic basis (yet significant quantum level influence on thought is not feasible under naturalism, since it would just produce random thoughts).
The physical determination of thought under naturalism of course includes the thought “Naturalism is true”. Therefore, when making the claim, naturalists have no free choice but are at the mercy of the circuits in their brain to judge on the question.
These circuits were shaped by evolution – yet evolution is of no help to reliably arrive at the claim that naturalism is true. Already [Darwin recognized](http://www.darw(name removed by moderator)roject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-13230.html) the problem that natural selection may not suffice to explain the human mind’s capacity for recognition of truth and objective thought – evolution selects only for physical adaptation and behavior, not for correctness of beliefs [see Footnote]. When evolutionary scientists claim that religion was selected for its behavioral survival advantage, they in fact concede, if they adhere to a naturalistic worldview, that evolution can indirectly select for an allegedly false belief. So there is no use in saying that, in terms of frameworks of beliefs, evolution probably has endowed us with a reliable ability to see that naturalism – an abstract concept far beyond everyday sensory experiences – is true, and therefore we ‘ought’ to see the truth of naturalism even under determinism.
(cont.)
Footnote:
Let me be clear from the onset towards those who believe this turns into yet another anti-evolution argument: I fully subscribe to the science of evolution and reject the idea of biological so-called Intelligent Design. I even have written a review article on the origin of life by natural causes for the evolution website Talkorigins.org. Yet evolution is a physical, material process, and the question that this article addresses is whether rationality and recognition of truth are possible as a purely physical phenomenon, or if the human mind requires an immaterial component, operating in connection with the brain, that allows it to transcend physical determinism.
Last edited:
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
(cont.)
Certainly the naturalist might still claim that evolution has endowed the human brain with basic and universal logical circuitry, shaped by its survival value, that reliably can decide “if we just give the issues some thought”. However, even if evolution could accomplish the creation of reliable logical circuitry (which is debatable), an informed decision for or against naturalism is not solely a matter of simple and straightforward logic based on premises that should be self-evident to everyone, independent of the angle from which they are looked at. Rather, when the issues are thoroughly studied and well thought through, it is a matter of careful weighing of (giving weight to) and interpreting abstract and rather complex evidence and arguments pro and con, and this goes far beyond basic circuitry that might have been induced by evolution for its survival value. So there cannot be an evolutionary ‘ought’ on this issue after all.
Thus, given all the above, it cannot rationally be claimed that evolution has shaped our brain circuits in such a way that they are bound to reliably settle the particular question at hand, “when engaged properly”. This, however, would be the only way to guarantee the right outcome under naturalistic determinism. (For theists there is no problem here; they usually view the brain as an integral part of the mind, on which the mind fully depends for its functioning, but they do not view it as identical to the mind – evolution then does not fulfill as ultimate a role in shaping the functioning of the mind as it does for the naturalist.)
How then can naturalists nonetheless assert that naturalism is true and its acceptance rational? They will reply that they considered the evidence. Yet under naturalism the brain determines how to interpret the evidence – you have no say in that (or rather, under naturalism you are your brain, in terms of reasoning). So the brain of the naturalist determined that naturalism is true, and mine determined, considering the evidence as well, that naturalism is not true. Now, which brain is right? If you accept naturalism, yet this acceptance is solely dependent on firing of neurons over which you have no control (under determinism), then it is not possible for you to know if your brain is right and naturalism is true. Thus under naturalism the claim that naturalism is true becomes incoherent and self-contradictory. Naturalism defeats itself.
A more modest position might be taken. The naturalist can simply hold that naturalism is a useful ‘working hypothesis’, with no truth claim attached. However, given the issues discussed above, how can naturalists even know that this working hypothesis makes sense and is rational? Or if they do not claim to know if it is useful and valid, then how can they at least be rationally convinced that it is? The problem persists. Also as a mere working hypothesis, naturalism defeats itself.
Certainly the naturalist might still claim that evolution has endowed the human brain with basic and universal logical circuitry, shaped by its survival value, that reliably can decide “if we just give the issues some thought”. However, even if evolution could accomplish the creation of reliable logical circuitry (which is debatable), an informed decision for or against naturalism is not solely a matter of simple and straightforward logic based on premises that should be self-evident to everyone, independent of the angle from which they are looked at. Rather, when the issues are thoroughly studied and well thought through, it is a matter of careful weighing of (giving weight to) and interpreting abstract and rather complex evidence and arguments pro and con, and this goes far beyond basic circuitry that might have been induced by evolution for its survival value. So there cannot be an evolutionary ‘ought’ on this issue after all.
Thus, given all the above, it cannot rationally be claimed that evolution has shaped our brain circuits in such a way that they are bound to reliably settle the particular question at hand, “when engaged properly”. This, however, would be the only way to guarantee the right outcome under naturalistic determinism. (For theists there is no problem here; they usually view the brain as an integral part of the mind, on which the mind fully depends for its functioning, but they do not view it as identical to the mind – evolution then does not fulfill as ultimate a role in shaping the functioning of the mind as it does for the naturalist.)
How then can naturalists nonetheless assert that naturalism is true and its acceptance rational? They will reply that they considered the evidence. Yet under naturalism the brain determines how to interpret the evidence – you have no say in that (or rather, under naturalism you are your brain, in terms of reasoning). So the brain of the naturalist determined that naturalism is true, and mine determined, considering the evidence as well, that naturalism is not true. Now, which brain is right? If you accept naturalism, yet this acceptance is solely dependent on firing of neurons over which you have no control (under determinism), then it is not possible for you to know if your brain is right and naturalism is true. Thus under naturalism the claim that naturalism is true becomes incoherent and self-contradictory. Naturalism defeats itself.
A more modest position might be taken. The naturalist can simply hold that naturalism is a useful ‘working hypothesis’, with no truth claim attached. However, given the issues discussed above, how can naturalists even know that this working hypothesis makes sense and is rational? Or if they do not claim to know if it is useful and valid, then how can they at least be rationally convinced that it is? The problem persists. Also as a mere working hypothesis, naturalism defeats itself.
Last edited:
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Deleted, text incorporated in above posts.
Last edited:
P
Pattylt
Guest
Well, that’s a lot of text!
I’m probably going to disappoint you…others may join that give you more of a discussion but my answer is…
We don’t know enough of how the brain works yet to know the answer!
You are making some assumptions in there. Just because the emergence of intelligence is still not fully understood, I think it’s a bit too early in the science to say…
While emergence results in phenomena that would not have been predicted from the basic components of the system on their own, it never violates the physical laws by which these basic components operate. Such a violation would have to occur if free thought could be the result of purely physical processes, which are either deterministic or, at the quantum level, random on a probabilistic basis (yet significant quantum level influence on thought is not feasible under naturalism, since it would just produce random thoughts).
I’m not educated enough in philosophy or neuroscience to respond to what could or could not happen in a natural process and I really don’t think you are either?
If it was discovered tomorrow that there is absolutely no supernatural layer to our existence and thus no God, what would your answer be? God is always such a great placeholder when we don’t know something. I’m not bothered by not knowing all the answers. I’d be happy for any evidence of the supernatural but it stays hidden from me.
I hope some of our other atheists may join in as they are deeper thinkers than I am.
I’m probably going to disappoint you…others may join that give you more of a discussion but my answer is…
We don’t know enough of how the brain works yet to know the answer!
You are making some assumptions in there. Just because the emergence of intelligence is still not fully understood, I think it’s a bit too early in the science to say…
While emergence results in phenomena that would not have been predicted from the basic components of the system on their own, it never violates the physical laws by which these basic components operate. Such a violation would have to occur if free thought could be the result of purely physical processes, which are either deterministic or, at the quantum level, random on a probabilistic basis (yet significant quantum level influence on thought is not feasible under naturalism, since it would just produce random thoughts).
I’m not educated enough in philosophy or neuroscience to respond to what could or could not happen in a natural process and I really don’t think you are either?
If it was discovered tomorrow that there is absolutely no supernatural layer to our existence and thus no God, what would your answer be? God is always such a great placeholder when we don’t know something. I’m not bothered by not knowing all the answers. I’d be happy for any evidence of the supernatural but it stays hidden from me.
I hope some of our other atheists may join in as they are deeper thinkers than I am.
I
IWantGod
Guest
We know what the consequences of naturalism is and we can certainly determine whether or not it is consistent with what we do know about the human experience.
M
Metatron1
Guest
With regard to evolution: don’t we like…learn a lot from it? Especially if we’re looking at it in the capacity of believers. So, the process was definitely guaranteed to produce intelligent life capable of receiving an immortal soul. We can even back this up all the way to the origin of the universe. Honestly, 14 billion years seems pretty close. Since God doesn’t operate in time, it would have been all the same if creation had occurred an unfathomable amount of time ago. The majestic process responsible for our existence started long enough ago that our carnal minds can appreciate the infinity, eternity and majesty of God, but close enough to now that we can appreciate his personhood and love.
So the processes of cosmological and biological evolution seem to hold a unique significance to Providence. There are many many things that we can learn from this. The big bang seems like a big win for ex nihilo creation right? And comparing the process of evolution with Scripture (and please keep in mind that I’m not saying all the paft of Scripture that are ahistorical and unscientific have allegorical or anogogical significance) the order of generation seems to be roughly analogous with that which is commonly associated with evolution. Okay so we believe these writings were inspired. But we also believe they were written by men, for men, and to be understood, according the each one his capacity. The first creation account is P, right? But that’s a significant way into the B.C. The impression made on the mind of the author by the Spirit, insofar as it must be receive according to the mode of the receiver. The creation story might be the best way the author and editors could make sense of something like evolution, and they knew their knowledge was limited and imperfect so they composed a non-literal description to try and express the endless depth of God’s wisdom, and how little we can see of it in this life.
We can see an example of this in Ezekiel’s nested wheels. He knew words were useless to describe the actual theophany, but he tries to convey the import of it. Even this must be done obscurely. When it comes to the actual sensible presence of the shechinah, all he can do is try to communicate some of the aweful majesty and the transport and wonder it inspired.
Zeke is my boy; he goes hard.
I’ve gotten super off track and this was never really that relavent, so I apologise. Still going to post it just in case any one can clarify and teach me things I clearly don’t know properly, because I’m sure I’ve exposed a great de of ignorance here.
So the processes of cosmological and biological evolution seem to hold a unique significance to Providence. There are many many things that we can learn from this. The big bang seems like a big win for ex nihilo creation right? And comparing the process of evolution with Scripture (and please keep in mind that I’m not saying all the paft of Scripture that are ahistorical and unscientific have allegorical or anogogical significance) the order of generation seems to be roughly analogous with that which is commonly associated with evolution. Okay so we believe these writings were inspired. But we also believe they were written by men, for men, and to be understood, according the each one his capacity. The first creation account is P, right? But that’s a significant way into the B.C. The impression made on the mind of the author by the Spirit, insofar as it must be receive according to the mode of the receiver. The creation story might be the best way the author and editors could make sense of something like evolution, and they knew their knowledge was limited and imperfect so they composed a non-literal description to try and express the endless depth of God’s wisdom, and how little we can see of it in this life.
We can see an example of this in Ezekiel’s nested wheels. He knew words were useless to describe the actual theophany, but he tries to convey the import of it. Even this must be done obscurely. When it comes to the actual sensible presence of the shechinah, all he can do is try to communicate some of the aweful majesty and the transport and wonder it inspired.
Zeke is my boy; he goes hard.
I’ve gotten super off track and this was never really that relavent, so I apologise. Still going to post it just in case any one can clarify and teach me things I clearly don’t know properly, because I’m sure I’ve exposed a great de of ignorance here.
P
Pattylt
Guest
OP, you are using presupposition and defining the results of observation. None of your explanations were proposed even hundreds of years ago. When you take the observations of science and define them to fit your theology, well…I’ll just bow out now. I have nothing to contribute.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
I am a scientist – a biochemist – and I know the laws of nature. As I point out, in the physical world there are only either determinism or quantum probability. Neither allows for free will under naturalism.
As I explain above:
“Some propose that freedom of thought might be a result of ‘emerging complexity’, but this is based on a misunderstanding of the concept. While emergence results in phenomena that would not have been predicted from the basic components of the system on their own, it never violates the physical laws by which these basic components operate.”
To assume that somehow free will could emerge from underlying laws of a physical world that do not allow for it, is like believing in magic and fairies.
Also Jerry Coyne, biologist and atheist, points out that under naturalism you have no free will:
https://www.chronicle.com/article/you-dont-have-free-will/
This is logical if you think that our rationality is a purely physical thing and thus is exclusively governed by the laws of nature – regardless of how much we may or may not know about the brain.
If we do not have free will, as under naturalism we do not, my conclusion logically follows, which is that under naturalism the assertion “Naturalism is true” is incoherent and self-contradictory. I have explained above the reasons why.
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
Only if by no free will you assume that we are automatons. That we simply robotically repsond to stimuli. No more than a flower turning towards the sun. But even if there is no free will we can still make decisions. It’s just that if the exact conditions were repeated, we’d make exactly the same decisions.
If someone was omniscient (feel free to nominate someone at this point) then they’d know the infinite number of factors that would lead us to make any specific decision, they would know what you would decide and you’d then conclude there was no free will.
And that is logically possible but practically impossible. So we don’t have it, but for all intents and purposes we may as well conclude that we do.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Even if your decisions are not by automaton, they are not free under naturalism. You admit as much:
Thus, the conclusion of my argument still stands.
F
Freddy
Guest
Your conclusion seems to be that if there is no free will then that proves that there is.Even if your decisions are not by automaton, they are not free under naturalism. You admit as much:
Freddy:
Thus, the conclusion of my argument still stands.
Colour me…bemused.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
How do you arrive at that?
Colour me bemused indeed.
Maybe you should re-read my argument.
F
Freddy
Guest
"If we do not have free will, as under naturalism we do not, my conclusion logically follows, which is that under naturalism the assertion “Naturalism is true” is incoherent and self-contradictory. "Freddy:
How do you arrive at that?
Colour me bemused indeed.
Maybe you should re-read my argument.
So if we don’t have free will…
…if naturalism is true, then the assertion that ‘naturalism is true’ is false. Meaning that naturalism is false…
…then we do have free will.
Last edited:
P
Pattylt
Guest
Someday I’d love it if neuroscientists figure out if we actually do have free will or we just think we do and operate accordingly. I think we may ultimately find out that we don’t have free will but evolved to assume we do as the lack of free will is a very uncomfortable feeling!
If I ever meet God, I’ll ask…
If I ever meet God, I’ll ask…
A
AlNg
Guest
i don’t think that physical processes have to be deterministic. The classical models we have for the forces of nature are deterministic. However, my guess is that these deterministic models do explain a whole lot of what is going on, but not everything.
- Status