Naturalism Questions

[WimpyPete]

Hello,

I was just looking for a little help or perhaps just some of your comments. I recently read the book The Godless Delusion by Pat Madrid. I’m not sure if many of you have read it but the main principle seems to be showing how naturalism fails to account for things like free will, consciousness, morality and a whole other string of things that are common to our human experience. It’s really a pretty good book.

I guess what I was hoping someone could explain a bit to me is how to talk to naturalists about these sorts of things. I just don’t understand how they defend against them, I’ve heard before the arguments like “how much does your idea weigh and what color is it,” and just the thought of having millions and millions of ideas in our head clearly shows that they cannot be material.

But I know naturalists just try to explain it away by saying it has something to do with our brain neurons or whatever. So how do we really go the extra mile to prove to them that the mind must be something different from the brain and is actually a function of our spirit?

I guess just coming from my experience and not knowing a lot about how the brain or body works I can see where a naturalist might just be able to convince himself that his brain is his mind and that the soul doesn’t animate the body the heart does when it pumps blood or whatever.

So I guess my main question that I’m looking for advice for is how do we really show a materialist that these things such as free will, consciousnesses etc. are not just brain functions? And finally what do you do once you get a materialist to admit that ideas are not material and that they do believe in free will and morality? What if they seem to think that they can remain an atheist without being a materialist, how do you guide them from the proof of immaterial reality to the reality of God’s existence?

Thanks for any help you can give, God Bless,

Peter

 

[Tuno]

Hello,

I was just looking for a little help or perhaps just some of your comments. I recently read the book The Godless Delusion by Pat Madrid. I’m not sure if many of you have read it but the main principle seems to be showing how naturalism fails to account for things like free will, consciousness, morality and a whole other string of things that are common to our human experience. It’s really a pretty good book.

I guess what I was hoping someone could explain a bit to me is how to talk to naturalists about these sorts of things. I just don’t understand how they defend against them, I’ve heard before the arguments like “how much does your idea weigh and what color is it,” and just the thought of having millions and millions of ideas in our head clearly shows that they cannot be material…

Thanks for any help you can give, God Bless,

Peter

The best advice might be, imho, to not argue from a religious standpoint, as it too fails to explain much, whatever religion you might advance. “You” by reason and argument cannot move an atheist or anyone to a belief in God any more than you might like the advice I’m offering. As Walt Whitman said “I and mine teach not by discourse or argument, but by Presence.” (I’m quite sure that is at least very close to what he said.)

What I’m trying to show is that unless you have such a Presence of Spirit that you don’t need to prove anything, which Presence makes you attractive to sincere and honest questions, all you will accomplish is to cause irritation and further entrenchment in the belief that is opposing yours. And in the end, even if you succeeded, what would you have? A believer believing in a thought about God. And that is second hand. Why would you wish that on anyone? And you won’t, unless you are that Presence, have a sense and feel of authority, only arguable “facts” and ideas.

If you are sincere in wishing to see for yourself more clearly that thoughts are immaterial and yet effect the brain, and are the contents of awareness which is lit by Consciousness, then you might refer yourself and your adversary to the teachings of the non dualists who work with mind to hone it into an instrument which will go beyond itself, so to speak. Otherwise, even despite a very sincere and perhaps useful commitment to a religion, any religion, you only have thoughts chasing thoughts as your original post demonstrates.

The non dualists can show you a Way, if you like, from belief to the actual meaning of Petros, the Rock Jesus really meant.

 

[Barbkw]

Definitions of naturalism on the Web:

(philosophy) The doctrine that the world can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations.

How well do you know the naturalists? Test everything. You might think the problem stems from their understanding of nature. Most times, it stems from their natural desires.

Have you ever listened to Dr. Hugh Ross explain how unique the Earth is in our Universe? The Earth is a “pearl of great price”. Astrophysicists have developed a list of “just right” sequences that must happen for a planet to be enabled to support intelligent life.

Last I heard, the list was over 100 separate factors.

On top of that, scientists now know that there was one creation event for our universe.

The only book that correctly records the event in sequence is Sacred Scripture.

To listen or read Dr. Ross’ explanation of the uniqueness of the Earth:

cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm

 

[AntiTheist]

So I guess my main question that I’m looking for advice for is how do we really show a materialist that these things such as free will, consciousnesses etc. are not just brain functions?

Well, that’s the million dollar question, isn’t it. But it’s more than just proving that they’re not brain functions – you have to demonstrate that the explanation you’re offering (“the spirit”) is correct.

What you’ve got so far is a giant argument from ignorance.

Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that we have no scientific explanation at all for the mind. You can’t use that ignorance as evidence that “It’s the spirit!”

For example, there could be natural mechanisms that science hasn’t discovered yet, or supernatural mechanisms (other than “spirits”) that we haven’t discovered yet. (For example, the mind could be controlled by some sort of cosmic essence, or alien ghosts a la Scientology)

Of course, the fact is that we do have some really good science that very strongly suggests that the mind has a physical basis.

You talk as if we haven’t observed the brain thinking, reasoning, deciding, daydreaming, remembering, and all of the other things that you attribute to “mind.” We’ve mapped all of the areas of the brain responsible for these functions, and we’ve even triggered various functions of the mind by stimulating brains with electric currents.

We don’t know everything last thing about consciousness yet, but we’re a very long way from knowing nothing at all.

 

[runningdude]

Hello,

I was just looking for a little help or perhaps just some of your comments. I recently read the book The Godless Delusion by Pat Madrid. I’m not sure if many of you have read it but the main principle seems to be showing how naturalism fails to account for things like free will, consciousness, morality and a whole other string of things that are common to our human experience. It’s really a pretty good book.

I guess what I was hoping someone could explain a bit to me is how to talk to naturalists about these sorts of things. I just don’t understand how they defend against them, I’ve heard before the arguments like “how much does your idea weigh and what color is it,” and just the thought of having millions and millions of ideas in our head clearly shows that they cannot be material.

But I know naturalists just try to explain it away by saying it has something to do with our brain neurons or whatever. So how do we really go the extra mile to prove to them that the mind must be something different from the brain and is actually a function of our spirit?

I guess just coming from my experience and not knowing a lot about how the brain or body works I can see where a naturalist might just be able to convince himself that his brain is his mind and that the soul doesn’t animate the body the heart does when it pumps blood or whatever.

So I guess my main question that I’m looking for advice for is how do we really show a materialist that these things such as free will, consciousnesses etc. are not just brain functions? And finally what do you do once you get a materialist to admit that ideas are not material and that they do believe in free will and morality? What if they seem to think that they can remain an atheist without being a materialist, how do you guide them from the proof of immaterial reality to the reality of God’s existence?

Thanks for any help you can give, God Bless,

Peter

I think that your trying to pull a “strawman” argument here. You want to prove to an atheist that God exist. Instead you try to prove that the mind and brain are separate.

I for one, as a Catholic, believe that God exists first and foremost. Everything else exists as part of God’s will. To me, whether the “brain” is what does the thinking, or the “mind” is irrelevant, because either way, it was God that made it that way, with the purpose of knowing and loving Him.

Atheist don’t believe that God exists. But they can still think and feel and even love. So to them thinking, feeling, and loving must be independent of God, since in their mind, God doesn’t exist.

Atheists love arguing, and showing intellectual might, especially in the face of weakly argued apologies (theological explainations). Converting an atheist, especially one who is intellectually invested in not-believing, must involve living the Gospel, caring for the sick and poor and lonely. They are turned off by hypocrisy, and hide behind an intellectual shield. Show them true faith in action!

To convert an atheist, you got to speak and act from the heart!

 

[WimpyPete]

Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that we have no scientific explanation at all for the mind. You can’t use that ignorance as evidence that “It’s the spirit!”

I guess I’m saying if it’s not material it’s immaterial. For example I said where is an idea, how much does it weigh, what color is it etc. Ideas clearly aren’t material. Consciousness isn’t a material thing, morality isn’t a material thing. I mean if we were purely made of materials and had no spirit then we would be like all other material things governed by natural laws wouldn’t we? But we have a self distinct from our bodies that allows us to self reflect and to line up two or fifty ideas in our heads and compare and contrast them and choose between them. Aren’t those examples of immaterial realities?

For example, there could be natural mechanisms that science hasn’t discovered yet, or supernatural mechanisms (other than “spirits”) that we haven’t discovered yet. (For example, the mind could be controlled by some sort of cosmic essence, or alien ghosts a la Scientology)

Maybe I guess, but like Pat Madrid says in the book in ancient Greece Thales said all things were made from water. Well when they discovered that there were other things that were not made of water they concluded that he was wrong, they didn’t just say well maybe all things are made of water and we haven’t discovered the way of understanding that yet. From my point of view I guess - which I’m trying to get help on here - it seems like the above listed things such as consciousness don’t fit into the naturalist explanation of the universe.

Of course, the fact is that we do have some really good science that very strongly suggests that the mind has a physical basis.

According to the theology of spirit as I understand it it uses the brain like it uses the arm to say play tennis but we wouldn’t say my arm is playing tennis we would say “I” am playing tennis. So I guess I would say “I” am thinking meaning my mind as a part of my spirit vs. my brain is thinking.

You talk as if we haven’t observed the brain thinking, reasoning, deciding, daydreaming, remembering, and all of the other things that you attribute to “mind.” We’ve mapped all of the areas of the brain responsible for these functions, and we’ve even triggered various functions of the mind by stimulating brains with electric currents.

I’d be interested to learn more about this I just haven’t studied it so if you could let me know I’d enjoy reading up on it.

 

[AntiTheist]

I guess I’m saying if it’s not material it’s immaterial. For example I said where is an idea, how much does it weigh, what color is it etc. Ideas clearly aren’t material. Consciousness isn’t a material thing, morality isn’t a material thing.

Sure, they’re immaterial – no one denies that immaterial things exist. But the question is whether or not immaterial things, like thoughts, arise from a physical source like the brain.

And they seem to. The fact that we can trigger thoughts by stimulating the brain with current suggests very strongly that whatever “thoughts” are, they have their roots in the physical. In fact, you don’t even need an electrical current – try having a few glasses of wine, and see what altering your brain chemistry does to your consciousness.

And it’s not just confined to these kinds of experiments, either. There are medications for treating depression, for example, that help repair problems with brain chemistry that are causing the depression. Some of the time, depression is psychological, but some of the time, the cause is physical: something is actually wrong with the person’s brain chemistry, and it’s producing a depressed mood.

I stumbled across this article the other day: http://www.livescience.com/culture/moral-judgments-altered-100329.html It’s called “Morality Altered by Brain Stimulation,” and it explores how stimulating one area of the brain changed the way subjects made a moral judgment.

Probably more disturbingly for you, there have been experiments that have generated the feeling of experiencing god, or various gods (the exact feeling generated depends on the beliefs the person holds). Google “The God Helmet” sometime, and read up on this device (the links in the wikipedia article are pretty good). For example, a Jew reported feeling the presence of Elijah, a Christian felt the presence of Jesus, and some secular folks got a feeling of euphoria.

There’s really no good reason to think that the mind is somehow separate from the body: from everything we can tell, “mind” is a word for what brains do. It’s true that we don’t know everything about the brain and that we haven’t pinned down every last mechanism, but that’s not evidence that there’s something else responsible for thoughts.

 

[In_Spiration]

naturalism fails to account for things like free will, consciousness, morality and a whole other string of things that are common to our human experience.

What would be a sufficient account of human experience? Unless you’re calling for a perfect and ultimately comprehensive account of human experience – which would be futile for even the most basic of things we encounter – then you’re probably looking for explanations of certain particular experiences you’ve deemed minimally necesessary as explanatory “must-haves”, such as the ones mentioned. According to what standard of explanatory sufficiency do you expect someone to judge any one empirical phenomenon as being a “must-explain” (while perhaps giving a pass to other mysteries, or to the account of the last-given account, ad infinitum, assuming it’s not somehow self-sufficient)?

I guess what I was hoping someone could explain a bit to me is how to talk to naturalists about these sorts of things. I just don’t understand how they defend against them, I’ve heard before the arguments like “how much does your idea weigh and what color is it,” and just the thought of having millions and millions of ideas in our head clearly shows that they cannot be material.

You may be surprised at how complex and capable our brains/central nervous systems are. (“The human brain has from 10 billion to 100 billion neurons.” Source.)

So I guess my main question that I’m looking for advice for is how do we really show a materialist that these things such as free will, consciousnesses etc. are not just brain functions?

Consciousness is probably a natural phenomenon; self-consciousness isn’t, but we’re probably confused about what it really is anyway, or that we’ve got it (viz. it’s not just the response of an organism to its body in a mirror, at least not in the highest sense). When not taken as appetitive volition (or, internal self-movement caused by instinct/urge), free will is at least suggested by the occurrence of circular causality within the brain.

And finally what do you do once you get a materialist to admit that ideas are not material and that they do believe in free will and morality? What if they seem to think that they can remain an atheist without being a materialist, how do you guide them from the proof of immaterial reality to the reality of God’s existence?

Your best bet would probably just be to ask them for the object of their belief, what it is their belief is about or on. Presumably, they believe that x, where x has a type of propositional/referential form with some universal content and/or meaning. In other words, belief has form, and it’s indirect and intentional; it “points” beyond itself, even if “it” is composed of/inheres in only neurochemical stuff (it doesn’t), much like a physical extended-finger, or letter-splotches of ink on a paper. (When you see inherently meaningless “letters,” are you merely responding behavioristically, according to some response/reward “training,” or are you grasping a universal, “ideal,” and thus not reducibly material, concept?

Even if the guy attempts a Science-sounding reduction-move (and, indeed, irrespective of how many times he invokes “Science” or even whether his last-cited “Scientific Study” amazingly managed to do metaphysics and epistemology and auto-establish the justification of Scientific Study as such), he still won’t be able to avoid strict materialism without something beyond matter, unless he lapses into nonsensical retortion.

AntiTheist:

Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that we have no scientific explanation at all for the mind. You can’t use that ignorance as evidence that “It’s the spirit!”

He can use that to show a certain inadequacy of materialism as an explanatory theory of reality. If he’s got another theory that’s relatively simple, just as internally consistent, and yet accounts for a larger set of data, then that theory is prima facie superior even if it only explains slightly more facts. Or what if he proves that, in principle, by the basics of a theory, no amount of tweaking to it could possibly “fit” a known fact? Then he could point out which principle is inconsistent with the fact and he will have disproved a principle without any alternative.

I don’t know what exactly, or if, he’s really trying to give arguments here. I’d hope he wouldn’t make the untenable leap to the existence of a spiritual soul merely on the lone “ground” that any datum we haven’t accounted for becomes a hypothetical free-for-all. As one of the less charitable potential interpretations of his “argument,” the refutation probably won’t enlighten him as much as you might think.

Of course, the fact is that we do have some really good science that very strongly suggests that the mind has a physical basis.

“Physical basis” is hardly an adequate expression of the essence of either materialism or naturalism. If that’s all it is, then we’ve got no argument, at least not pertaining to Man. Cartesian and/or Platonic dualism are more Protestant than Catholic, just to let you know. Man is a special kind of animal, a rational one, meaning he’s no less one than an ape. He’s the highest animal and the lowest spiritual soul, i.e., not just or really only a mind stuck in a physical “vehicle.”

 

[Windfish]

I also read the book and am beginning to study more in-depth the presuppositional approach to refuting atheism. There is a lot of material to sift through. Anti-Theist would have you believe stuff like the God Helmet presents some kind of threat when it is almost a non sequitur to the question of God. It is also highly contentious and far from trustworthy. As you do more research, you’ll find out that things are hardly as clear-cut as atheists would like you to believe.

One thing to understand is that atheists tend to have a very linear thought process, and so the presuppositional approach may not always be effective.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

It is impossible to refute atheism because the basic premise of atheism is that there is no material evidence for the existence of God. You will predictably get the Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, and Tooth Fairy treatment from the atheist, or Russell’s teapot, the Lochness Monster, etc. Give up trying to get through to that mentality. It is so steeped in scientism it could only imagine looking for God through a telescope.

Most of the atheist propaganda in this forum derives from the likes of Bertrand Russell and company. Each atheist likes to believe he has come to atheism on his own accord. Blather. He comes to it the same way Christians come to it … by being exposed to writers of one persuasion or another. When you hear an atheist talk, you can always hear in his speech the exact words he learned from his atheist mentors, just as the Christian is speaking the words taught to him by Jesus or Paul.

The only way an atheist can begin to think outside his box is to come to terms with his own ultimate fate. If he wants to die and disappear into the universal mist, he will. If he wants to die and be born again into a different universe, he will find his way.

In my own case it was a matter of listening to sacred music. :harp:

I could never believe that this music produced the uplifting effect it did on me without some profoundly transcendental reason for doing so. Satanic music produces the opposite effect, and even the so-called artists who promote it dress up like devils to prove where their music comes from.

But there are a lot of people who dance to the devil’s music. I do not know where else it comes from if not from the devil.

 

[tonyrey]

Welcome Peter!

1. If the mind is merely the activity of the brain all our thoughts have physical causes.
2. If all our thoughts have physical causes we have no control over them.
3. If we have no control over our thoughts there is no guarantee they are reliable.
4. The success of science is evidence that they are very reliable.
5. Therefore not all our thoughts have physical causes and we have some control over them.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

But there are a lot of people who dance to the devil’s music. I do not know where else it comes from if not from the devil.

All music, like emotions, come from God. Your argument implies that the devil created his own kind of music. But the devil does not create anything. The devil merely perverts that which already exists; the devil uses good things for evil selfish ends. God created dark, foreboding, angry, sad, and despairing music, just as much as he created happy music. But it is all good. There is no such thing as “evil music”.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

MindOverMatter

• There is no such thing as “evil music”.*

“Evil music” is your phrase, not mine. Read my post again.

There is music inspired by God, and music inspired by the devil. The music itself may not be evil, but the devil is.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

MindOverMatter

• There is no such thing as “evil music”.*

“Evil music” is your phrase, not mine. Read my post again.

Music inspired by the devil.

What could that possibly mean, other than that there is music that the devil just so happens to like or use? Does that mean that the music the devil is using is evil music?

You might not have said evil music, but you manner of talking about it in reference to the devil as an inspiration certainly implies that you think that certain types of music is evil.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

MindOverMatter

You might not have said evil music, but you manner of talking about it in reference to the devil as an inspiration certainly implies that you think that certain types of music is evil.

I don’t understand why you are gnawing at this bone. Are you into rap music?

Everything God gives us, starting with our own souls, can be desecrated by the influence of the devil. Adam and Eve were desecrated by the lies of Serpent.

Why do some musicians use music to express base and cruel sentiments (think rap)?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Why do some musicians use music to express base and cruel sentiments (think rap)?

They happen to like rap, and thus they use it for their evil intentions. That does not mean that rap is evil. The words they use when rapping might be about evil things, but the act of rapping is not, and neither is the music that they use.

Why can’t you just admit that simple fact, and then I wouldn’t have to gnaw at this bone.

See here, this music is not evil. myspace.com/verbalexpression

 

[Touchstone]

I also read the book and am beginning to study more in-depth the presuppositional approach to refuting atheism. There is a lot of material to sift through. Anti-Theist would have you believe stuff like the God Helmet presents some kind of threat when it is almost a non sequitur to the question of God. It is also highly contentious and far from trustworthy. As you do more research, you’ll find out that things are hardly as clear-cut as atheists would like you to believe.

One thing to understand is that atheists tend to have a very linear thought process, and so the presuppositional approach may not always be effective.

Presuppositional apologetics is to reasoned discourse what masturbating in public is to social etiquette. It denies the very basis of discourse itself; there is only declaration and preaching, to more or less effect. No other approach is so self-indulgent, intellectually perverse or hostile to one’s fellow man.

Religion may not poison everything (I don’t think it does), but presuppositional apologetics is as pure a poison as religion can produce, intellectually. And, yes, I’m aware this is precisely the reaction a presuppositionalist expects and desires, for his cynicism and animus overwhelms any good will or basis for common ground or even honest discussion between Christianity and hostile worldviews. All is war, all is jihad for the presuppositionalist, and there can be no neutral ground, no comity with infidels and *kufr.

*It’s an excellent way to foster hatred and contempt for Christians, and that’s useful for the proponents of presuppositionalism. No need or use in making your case, but only war. Presuppositionalism is anti-dialectical.

But by all means check it out, and let me know how that works out for ya!

-TS

 

[reggieM]

I think it’s a great idea to research some of the topics Patrick Madrid brings up (Scott Hahn co-wrote a similiarly good book) and become equipped with the facts.

It’s a lot like other apologetic efforts – it’s important to know the material.

After that, it’s a matter of discovering the weakness in the materialist position, and this will vary with each individual that you engage in discussion. Eventually, you can discover the various obstacles and traps that the materialist-mind has fallen into. At that point, it is our task to help them find the way out of those traps.

Breaking through the hostility and arrogance that one finds is very difficult also. It’s like dealing with an inveterate Catholic-hating Protestant. There’s often a deep animosity towards God and faith. This is manifested in an outpouring of ridicule and insults at times and there’s often outraged responses and an attitude that pretends that even the thought of God is absurdly foolish (so, there’s not the calm freedom of an objective mind at work).

Again, depending on the person, there can be a lot of darkness to deal with. That’s a very serious problem and a spiritual disorder at a deep level. We can recognize that there’s evil present in many cases – the conscience can be almost dead from indulgence in sexual sin or (most frequently) egotism and pride. It can be very hard to find a glimmer of inner, self-reflection.

In those cases, intellectual arguments usually fuel the wrong attitude. It becomes game playing, and the materialist always finds a way to escape.

I think the most time-consuming part of the task is studying each individual atheist that you encounter (for example, here on CAF) to eventually discover the religious background and trajectory of the person.

Things that seem incredibly obvious to us, are overlooked by materialism, and that can give us a chance to help open the mind to a wider view of reality.

 

[reggieM]

This page gives a helpful overview of some of the various motives you can find:

Motives For Atheism – David Carlin

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Touchstone
*
Religion may not poison everything (I don’t think it does), but presuppositional apologetics is as pure a poison as religion can produce, intellectually. And, yes, I’m aware this is precisely the reaction a presuppositionalist expects and desires, for his cynicism and animus overwhelms any good will or basis for common ground or even honest discussion between Christianity and hostile worldviews. All is war, all is jihad for the presuppositionalist, and there can be no neutral ground, no comity with infidels and kufr. *

Go to any atheist website and find out how much good will there is toward Christians. Atheism spoils everything, including the atheist who is with Islam in waging jihad against Christ.

According to Anne Gardiner:

“First published in German in the mid-1950s, Christ in Dachau is a deeply moving account by Fr. John Lenz of the five years he spent in a concentration camp in Bavaria from 1940 to 1945. Perhaps the most striking aspect of his account is that it reveals how atheists of all stripes – criminals, socialists, communists, and SS agents – joined forces in Dachau to persecute Catholic priests.”

How’s that for atheist jihad?