1. Science explains physical phenomena.
2. Science is not a physical phenomenon.
3. Therefore science does not explain itself.
A weak argument at best, that can be applied to anything except philosophy!
You have not explained why it is weak.
How do you show that human beings are composed entirely (i.e. solely) of particles?
Cut 'em up and look inside.
Do you believe only the things you can see?
How does natural selection show:
- The origin of living cells (of which the body is composed) from inanimate particles?
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv…per.section.90
A list of books containing unverified hypotheses does not constitute evidence. Moreover
natural selection presupposes the existence of living cells.
2. The increase in complexity of living organisms from unicellular organisms?
Same link.
There is no verified explanation of the leap from multicellular to unicellular organisms.
3. The origin of rationality, consciousness and free will?
We’re here, we’re rational, we evolved.
It does not follow that rationality evolved from
blind evolution.
The precise mechanics are not understood.
No mechanics whatsoever are understood.
That doesn’t mean there has to be a different answer.
It means the answer is inadequate…
No. There’s none, other than a rehash of Paley.
That statement is gratuitous.
Selection is far less powerful than intelligent selection…
As evidenced by the breeding of dogs etc.
Precisely.
Less powerful does not mean less likely.
On what do you base your notion of probability?
Conjunction in space and time alone does not indicate causality.
No, but there’s nothing to suggest any other forces are at work.
Your concept of causality is arbitrarily mechanistic.
Since the body is, by definition, physical, how can it be influenced in non-physical ways?
By the exercise of free will and by hypnosis.
That would be true, but again is based on hypothesis not evidence.
What is the mind=brain equation but a hypothesis?
“How?” has to be supplemented by “Why?” in any comprehensive explanation of reality.
Only if you start with an assumption that everything must have an ultimate purpose.
That is a false deduction. It is sufficient to start with the knowledge that there is purposeful activity in the universe.
There is no reason to make such an assumption unless it supports your belief system.
All belief systems accept the existence of purpose.
My point is that we know, beyond reasonable doubt, that we are composed entirely of physical matter.
Who does “we” refer to? All scientists? Or all physicalists?
There is no reason, beyond a desire to believe in the supernatural, to suppose that rationality et al is a product of anything other than physical processes.
How do you define “we”? It could equally well be said that there is no reason, beyond a desire to believe solely in the natural, to suppose that rationality et al are the product of physical processes.
And no reason to suppose that these intangibles are not the product of physical interactions.
Please explain how truth, freedom, equality and love and produced by physical interactions.
You’re confusing ‘explain’ with ‘hypothesise.’
It is far more intelligible that rational beings have their origin in a rational Being than in irrational processes. Otherwise the cause is not proportionate to the effect.
We know rationality, consciousness, free will and purposeful activity are associated only with persons, i.e. intangible entities. To derive such entities from a multitude of particles is a hopelessly inadequate explanation.
Only because we don’t understand how it works.
It remains a hopelessly inadequate explanation as long as it is based on the gratuitous assumption that there must be and will be a physical explanation.
To assume a supernatural influence is also a hopelessly inadequate explanation - in fact it explains nothing, it merely ‘answers.’
A supernatural Being accounts for and unifies all aspects of existence whereas naturalism/physicalism presents an inchoate mass of unrelated phenomena.
The difference being that if we adopt your hypothesis then the effect is that we stop investigating.
If we adopt the physicalist hypothesis we stop investigating the nature and purpose of spiritual and personal reality because we are left with a residue of irrational, purposeless, valueless, impersonal particles.
The alternative, which is to assume that such intangibles are not outside our potential sphere of understanding, promotes investigation, experiment and ultimately, results in increased knowledge (if history is anything to go by).
A reductionist, mechanistic explanation stultifies and negates further research into spiritual, moral, aesthetic and personal reality.
The human race has been using scientific endeavour forever (hey, that rhymes!) to further our knowledge of our environment. That’s how we know that the earth is spherical, that the sun is at the centre of our solar system, and so on, and so on. To stop trying to explain things is contrary to human nature.
That is precisely why the search for truth is not explained by random mutations and natural selection. All the discoveries you have mentioned are related to our physical environment and not to ourselves. Science by its very nature cannot explain non-physical realities like personal autonomy and responsibility. It is absurd to attempt to live your life solely by scientific principles.
Your assertion makes no sense unless you agree that animals, which undoubtedly have consciousness, also have free will and morality.
Animals have no consciousness of the self, i.e. abstract concept.
1. We are persons created in the image and likeness of a personal God.
And your evidence for this is…?
We are persons rather than a fortuitous conglomeration of impersonal processes.
And your comment demonstrates your dogmatic, closed-minded beliefs.
There can be nothing more dogmatic and closed-minded than the closed system of physicalism which excludes on principle other forms of reality and is restricted to what can be observed by the senses…
I’ll check it out, thanks for letting me know.
). If you cannot find physical ideas and the freewill of a living person, then its perfectly reasonable to believe that these things are not atoms.