The Plausibility of Atheism

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by Jason » Thu Oct 08, 2015 3:24 pm

ApostateltsopA,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my points. In another thread I think you mentioned having children, so extra kudos for finding the time to entertain us silly Christians! I hope you’re getting adequate sleep to deal with these heady philosophical topics.

So, you wanted me to say more about why I don’t find your type of argumentation persuasive. One of the main reasons is that I have a strong aversion to reductionism, which is what you and most atheists resort to when confronted with theistic interpretations of the data. Reductionism is looking at your daughter as you tuck her into bed at night and seeing only a bundle of molecules and electrical processes. Intellectually, you know this to be true but decide (because your brain evolved to trick you into looking sympathetically upon your offspring for the sake of genetic survival) to imagine her as something more. Your love for your daughter is, therefore, a mere chemical process. A trick of evolution. For this reason, I somehow wonder if atheists fully believe what they preach (especially when they speak of concepts like love and kindness). You are being neither kind nor loving at any moment. As Richard Dawkins famously said, “DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.” If you don’t feel beholden to determinism as an atheist, then feel free to tell me why.

I have listened to some lectures by Sam Harris on the subject of finding meaning and purpose within atheism. And what I find curious is his need to find meaning and purpose at all. This might be just another version of the cringe-worthy “god-shaped hole in our hearts” idea, but when I see intelligent atheists grapple with this idea of meaning and purpose, it often sounds like doublespeak. On one hand, I affirm that I love my children but, on the other hand, I must admit that doing so is nothing more than a chemical process in the brain. If human beings had actual (and not pretend) value then we no longer need to invent purpose or delude ourselves.

But there are other problems than self-delusion when it comes to reductionism and philosophical naturalism. Atheists seem to be very impressed that because we know how complex systems work, it means we can be satisfied that no outside involvement was needed and all inference to design can be explained by appealing to the system itself. To show me arranged complexity that wasn’t designed, you cite the snowflake and the crystal. And the reason you know these items are not designed is because we know how they form. I think, in part, this kind of objection comes from a somewhat childlike view (probably programmed from an early age) which says there’s the physical realm we observe and a spiritual realm that God inhabits. One is tangible, the other a product of faith. But if God actually does exist (go with me here) then the realm we observe through science is also the realm He decided would be physical and made up of matter and energy. So of course snowflakes form when water attaches itself to pollen and freezes. Describing the system doesn't tell us anything about whether that system was designed. Therefore, observing molecular interactions and understanding how energy plays upon matter says nothing about whether atheism is true. If the God Hypothesis turned out to be true, we would expect the physical realm we inhabit to look exactly the same as it does now.

Your objection to this might be, “Of course understanding the physical realm doesn’t prove atheism is true, but it doesn’t prove there is a god either.” In a sense, it’s correct to say that observing the physical world (through scientific experimentation) is a wash because it neither confirms nor denies the existence of a god who decided to create physical things.

But it’s also a bit naïve to claim atheists are the ones approaching the data objectivity. Atheists often claim to be objective because, “Hey, evidence is evidence, man. That’s all I care about.” This is both naïve and not true to experience. Unless you’re a robot, we all have a strong preference when it comes to addressing ultimate matters like creation, meaning and purpose. I’ve yet to meet an atheist who didn’t have a very strong visceral reaction to words like god and religion. If you told me that you didn’t care about such things, I’d have to assume you were a sociopath. We all care, and we all have preferences that we bring to interpreting evidence. The difference between you and me is that you think you have assumed the intellectual high ground, and that it’s up to people like me to convince you that God exists.

Consider the title of this thread. I don’t owe you an explanation. We have looked at the same data, the same science, probably read many of the same books, and yet we have arrived at different conclusions. It might make atheists feel better about their position to claim the high ground, but it is not we who cater to you. I am persuaded that your life is intrinsically precious and valuable (and that of your children too) and I’d love to prove that to you in a concrete way, but it’s not my obligation. It is, however, the obligation of people like Dawkins and Hitchens who’ve claimed theists are evil to offer us proof of atheism. If you’re wishing to convert me to your cause, then the ball has definitely rolled onto your side of the court.

I’ve seen no evidence from you that you agree with those guys. But just know that if you do think the world would be a better place if everyone let go of this silly god concept, then the onus is on you to provide proof that atheism is true. In fact, it’s your moral right (for the betterment of society!). So consider me a skeptic of atheism. Why should I assume that atheists are open minded or even honest in their approach? What proof is there that we live in a godless universe? By chance, have you read Anthony Flew’s book that both Steve and I referenced? I ask because he interacts directly with the objections you’ve raised and it might be interesting to hear what such a noted atheist scholar thought after wrestling with this for longer than we’ve been alive. Or you can do what most atheists do and Google a rebuttal of Flew’s work and decide that’s gospel. I kid, I kid!

I’d also recommend Stephen Meyer’s work since he has a habit of answering critics of his work in real time online. He even put an appendix in my copy of Signature in the Cell to answer critics of the first edition. I offer these two gentlemen as a means of further study. I lack the energy required to write long refutations centering on RNA and abiogenesis. Frankly, I find that stuff boring anyway.

I apologize if I haven’t left you with much to respond to here. Maybe you can pick some nugget that interests you and we can discuss that. I just want to steer clear of wide-ranging topics (might be too late) that are not well suited to a forum discussion. So a narrow focus is always better. Feel free to ask me questions too.

dizerner

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by dizerner » Thu Oct 08, 2015 3:42 pm

Fascinating discussion guys. I kind of struggled with this statement:

If the God Hypothesis turned out to be true, we would expect the physical realm we inhabit to look exactly the same as it does now.

What exactly did you mean by that?

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by Jason » Fri Oct 09, 2015 8:46 am

dizerner wrote:Fascinating discussion guys. I kind of struggled with this statement:

If the God Hypothesis turned out to be true, we would expect the physical realm we inhabit to look exactly the same as it does now.

What exactly did you mean by that?
Atheists sometimes feel they can defeat the design argument by appeal to our current knowledge of physical systems. Ancient societies once thought thunder was sent by the gods to let us know they were angry, but now we know that thunder is actually caused by a sudden increase in air temperature.

Since we know how these complex systems work, appeal to God's hand is unnecessary. That's the idea. So, my argument is just stating the obvious -- If God decided to create a physical world (where changes in air temperature create thunder) then discovering the molecular cause of thunder isn't an argument against design. At best, it only tells us that if God did create the physical world we inhabit, that he also decided how molecules would interact. It's not an argument for or against design though it's usually said to disprove special creation.

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by steve7150 » Fri Oct 09, 2015 9:13 am

At best, it only tells us that if God did create the physical world we inhabit, that he also decided how molecules would interact. It's not an argument for or against design though it's usually said to disprove special creation.











Right, plus how much of the universe can we really explain by actual proof not just speculating? Something less then 1% I think, so are our egos so large that because we know less then 1% of the knowledge of the universe this proves there is no God?

dizerner

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by dizerner » Fri Oct 09, 2015 9:43 am

Jason wrote:Atheists sometimes feel they can defeat the design argument by appeal to our current knowledge of physical systems. Ancient societies once thought thunder was sent by the gods to let us know they were angry, but now we know that thunder is actually caused by a sudden increase in air temperature.
Okay, I get it. What I was thinking though is—God obviously didn't mean for our faith in him to come from an observation of the violation of the laws of Physics somewhere. God could have snuck the fossil of a rabbit into the Precambrian strata, God could have written E=mc2 into Genesis 1, God could have made biological systems not conform to know evolutionary laws (like make something other than reproduction the strongest biological reward system, to keep species going), or God could have written some Hebrew verse on a rock on the moon. God could have given faith by a violation of the physical laws that everyone could see with the senses, and yet he chose not to make this kind of world. This makes me wonder: why would he purposefully hide the violations of the laws of physics that would let all know the supernatural does indeed occur? There is where I struggle with "we would expect the physical realm we inhabit to look exactly the same as it does now." Without any signs of physical laws being violated? Of course that doesn't mean they aren't violated, but I'm not sure we would expect God to hide himself. I also realize that science still doesn't understand enough of the fundamental nature of reality to be able to say there is no mystery; some people think this will happen, some people like myself think there are limitations to science because of philosophical problems of knowledge. In that sense thunder and lightning, although we see more of how they work, are no less mysterious now than then. For me, any creation at all testifies of it's Maker, because the Creation itself is less than the greatest conceivable Being. But I wouldn't use that as an argument for faith; apparently God didn't intend to make faith easy, so why should I act like he did.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by Paidion » Fri Oct 09, 2015 10:14 am

Apos wrote:Now, we do not currently know how the first molecule replicated, or how many tried it took to get one that survived. However science has demonstrated that these molecules do form naturally in the correct conditions and we have even succeed in creating ones that replicate.
Okay "we" have succeeded in creating molecules that replicate. But are molecules in fact life? Has anyone succeeded in creating life?
I've tried repeatedly to explain how an objective moral code can be established, with understanding that implementation can not be flawless. I think my description is a pretty accurate appraisal of how we deal with questions of morality in the real world and why absolutist statements like "Lying is wrong" fail when situations are described where lying is right. It's not that I wouldn't like to have a true objective morality, it's just that I see no evidence for one. So this is the best we can currently do.
You seem to be equating absolutism with objectivism as if the two words were synonyms. They are quite different. In the realm of morality, a subjectivist considers that what is right for you may be wrong for me even under identical conditions. Thus what is right or wrong is a matter of personal opinion. The objectivist believes that if an act is wrong, then it is wrong independently of who does it (and the same for right actions).

A situationist believes that what is right or wrong depends on the situation or context in which an act is committed. He may also be an objectivist if he holds that the morality of an act is independent of who performs it. Thus same is true of the hierarchalist.

I, as a hierarchalist believe that the morality of an act is not only independent of who performs it, but is also independent of the situation. I hold that all acts with moral value (morally right or morally wrong) can be arranged in a hierarchy so that some acts take precedence over others. Thus (as in the example I previously gave) the moral imperative to save a life takes precedence over the moral imperative to refrain from lying. Thus it is morally right to lie in order to save a life. This stance is unlike that of the absolutist, who proposes that all actions are equally morally right or morally wrong or morally neutral, and are independent of the circumstances, and are independent of the opinions of those who perform them. For the absolutist, in the case of a moral conflict where either of the choices one could make is morally wrong in itself, then whatever choice is made is morally wrong. In a previous thread, I gave an example of an absolutist pastor who when faced with the dilemma of lying to save a life would do so, but would still believe that he had done wrong, and would feel the need to confess the sin of lying to God and ask forgiveness. Or if he chose not to lie, with the death of a person resulting from that choice, he would feel the need to confess the sin to God of failing to save a life and ask God's forgiveness.

It seems that Jesus may have been a hierarchalist. For he said to Pilate, "He who delivered me over to you has the greater sin." (John 19:11)
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
ApostateltsopA
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2015 12:16 am

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by ApostateltsopA » Sat Oct 10, 2015 12:35 am

Jason wrote:ApostateltsopA,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my points. In another thread I think you mentioned having children, so extra kudos for finding the time to entertain us silly Christians! I hope you’re getting adequate sleep to deal with these heady philosophical topics.
I'm getting about as much sleep as usual, but you lot are cutting into my videogame time. I'll have a lot less free time in the upcomming weeks so expect me to go largely silent here until mid November or so.
Jason wrote: So, you wanted me to say more about why I don’t find your type of argumentation persuasive. One of the main reasons is that I have a strong aversion to reductionism, which is what you and most atheists resort to when confronted with theistic interpretations of the data. Reductionism is looking at your daughter as you tuck her into bed at night and seeing only a bundle of molecules and electrical processes. Intellectually, you know this to be true but decide (because your brain evolved to trick you into looking sympathetically upon your offspring for the sake of genetic survival) to imagine her as something more. Your love for your daughter is, therefore, a mere chemical process. A trick of evolution. For this reason, I somehow wonder if atheists fully believe what they preach (especially when they speak of concepts like love and kindness). You are being neither kind nor loving at any moment. As Richard Dawkins famously said, “DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.” If you don’t feel beholden to determinism as an atheist, then feel free to tell me why.
Normally I would call this a strawman and write it off. I think you are being sincere though and it may be you actually think I see my kids as nothing more than molecules. I'm not sure how you could believe that so let me simply say it seems to me that many people don't believe something can be special, unless there is magic involved. I love my family, and my kids mean the world to me. They are so much more than the sum of their parts. They are amazing, growing people. However they are mostly carbon and water. Isn't it wonderful what those elements can become?

If something happened to their brains, they could be hurt in ways that made them less than the people they are today. The fragility of human life, especially the parts of us that are who we are, frightens me. However I see no alternative but to accept that our brains contain who we are. There is no evidence of a person surviving the loss of brain, and lots of evidence about how changes in the brain change who we are and how we percieve the world around us. When I see Christians describe brains though they like to use dismissive words like "brain fiz" and "just chemicals". We both believe in complex, wonderful personalities in the people around us. I don't think that brains are any less wonderful for being physical. I don't understand why you need to believe in magic to see them as special.
Jason wrote: I have listened to some lectures by Sam Harris on the subject of finding meaning and purpose within atheism. And what I find curious is his need to find meaning and purpose at all. This might be just another version of the cringe-worthy “god-shaped hole in our hearts” idea, but when I see intelligent atheists grapple with this idea of meaning and purpose, it often sounds like doublespeak. On one hand, I affirm that I love my children but, on the other hand, I must admit that doing so is nothing more than a chemical process in the brain. If human beings had actual (and not pretend) value then we no longer need to invent purpose or delude ourselves.
I disagree with Sam on many things. I believe we set our own purposes in life. I have been gladly doing so for years and have felt quite at peace in doing so. I see many believers try to cheapen my purpose, or claim it's an illusion and the only thing I can say is it seems you need to believe your purpose will be eternal, to be valuable. I wonder if this stems from the ideas of a fallen and flawed world. A shunning of "worldliness". I feel bad for all the people I see just marking time until they die in hopes that there will be a reward. I hope there will be one for them, but I don't believe there will.
Jason wrote: But there are other problems than self-delusion when it comes to reductionism and philosophical naturalism. Atheists seem to be very impressed that because we know how complex systems work, it means we can be satisfied that no outside involvement was needed and all inference to design can be explained by appealing to the system itself. To show me arranged complexity that wasn’t designed, you cite the snowflake and the crystal. And the reason you know these items are not designed is because we know how they form. I think, in part, this kind of objection comes from a somewhat childlike view (probably programmed from an early age) which says there’s the physical realm we observe and a spiritual realm that God inhabits. One is tangible, the other a product of faith. But if God actually does exist (go with me here) then the realm we observe through science is also the realm He decided would be physical and made up of matter and energy. So of course snowflakes form when water attaches itself to pollen and freezes. Describing the system doesn't tell us anything about whether that system was designed. Therefore, observing molecular interactions and understanding how energy plays upon matter says nothing about whether atheism is true. If the God Hypothesis turned out to be true, we would expect the physical realm we inhabit to look exactly the same as it does now.
Look again at this sentence you wrote,
Jason wrote: Describing the system doesn't tell us anything about whether that system was designed.
If this is true, then there is no means of determining if a system is designed, except to observe the process of design and construction. So specified complexity is nonsense, it can not be found. This is essentially what I already said, design is discovered by watching the designers, not by observing the object. It may be possible that there is a god, however I contend to believe in a god without evidence is not possible for me. I could go through the motions, but I would be lying.
Jason wrote:But it’s also a bit naïve to claim atheists are the ones approaching the data objectivity. Atheists often claim to be objective because, “Hey, evidence is evidence, man. That’s all I care about.” This is both naïve and not true to experience. Unless you’re a robot, we all have a strong preference when it comes to addressing ultimate matters like creation, meaning and purpose. I’ve yet to meet an atheist who didn’t have a very strong visceral reaction to words like god and religion. If you told me that you didn’t care about such things, I’d have to assume you were a sociopath. We all care, and we all have preferences that we bring to interpreting evidence. The difference between you and me is that you think you have assumed the intellectual high ground, and that it’s up to people like me to convince you that God exists.

Consider the title of this thread. I don’t owe you an explanation. We have looked at the same data, the same science, probably read many of the same books, and yet we have arrived at different conclusions. It might make atheists feel better about their position to claim the high ground, but it is not we who cater to you. I am persuaded that your life is intrinsically precious and valuable (and that of your children too) and I’d love to prove that to you in a concrete way, but it’s not my obligation. It is, however, the obligation of people like Dawkins and Hitchens who’ve claimed theists are evil to offer us proof of atheism. If you’re wishing to convert me to your cause, then the ball has definitely rolled onto your side of the court.

I’ve seen no evidence from you that you agree with those guys. But just know that if you do think the world would be a better place if everyone let go of this silly god concept, then the onus is on you to provide proof that atheism is true. In fact, it’s your moral right (for the betterment of society!). So consider me a skeptic of atheism. Why should I assume that atheists are open minded or even honest in their approach? What proof is there that we live in a godless universe? By chance, have you read Anthony Flew’s book that both Steve and I referenced? I ask because he interacts directly with the objections you’ve raised and it might be interesting to hear what such a noted atheist scholar thought after wrestling with this for longer than we’ve been alive. Or you can do what most atheists do and Google a rebuttal of Flew’s work and decide that’s gospel. I kid, I kid!

I’d also recommend Stephen Meyer’s work since he has a habit of answering critics of his work in real time online. He even put an appendix in my copy of Signature in the Cell to answer critics of the first edition. I offer these two gentlemen as a means of further study. I lack the energy required to write long refutations centering on RNA and abiogenesis. Frankly, I find that stuff boring anyway.

I apologize if I haven’t left you with much to respond to here. Maybe you can pick some nugget that interests you and we can discuss that. I just want to steer clear of wide-ranging topics (might be too late) that are not well suited to a forum discussion. So a narrow focus is always better. Feel free to ask me questions too.
I'm not really sure where to go with the block I've left quoted above. You seem to be upset with atheists, or some atheists, and are holding effigies up. I've never claimed to be the only objective person, and I have stated in multiple places that because we have to come at the world with brains and perception the objective is a subset of the subjective. (Perhaps not that clearly). The burden of proof lies on whomever is trying to convince someone else of something. So when you seek to convince me, you have a burden, if I seek to convince you the burden is mine.

I'm not here to evangelize atheism. It isn't important to me that all people lose their faith. If I were to evangelize anything it would be skepticism and humanism. You are right that I have read refutations online for the works of many of the people you cite. However if you are citing people about design, then you and I have already agreed that looking at the artifact can not prove design. So I don't need to read his work do I?

In any case, I don't just read the replies, I look at, where possible, what was actually claimed. In most cases I can refute the ideas myself. I don't mean to be arrogant, it's just that proving the things they claim to is not possible, so there are always flaws in their reasoning. As we agreed, without proving god, we can't prove design. We can't prove god. It is more a matter of what would it take to convince. This is why I reject the atheistic arguments where proof is demanded. I focus more on the philosophy and why people believe what they believe. I think it's more interesting and more genuine.

I will do you a favor, and refuse to put words in your mouth, or hold you to the standards of Kent Ham or Eric Hovind or Daniel Craig. You aren't them. Please understand I'm not Dawkins, Hitchens, or Harris. I actually disagree on many levels with all of them, and they have a propensity to be terrible people.

When it comes to arguments, if the person is arguing on likelyhoods, and probability, I generally get a lot more skeptical. If the person is showing physical evidence, then I view them more credibly. When a person is an expert in their field, I give more weight to their opinions in that field. I've been through a lot of apologetic websites, and I'm sad to say that I can regularly find obvious distortions, and outright lies. If I locate any such thing I generally wash my hands of that source as being deliberately disingenuous.

User avatar
ApostateltsopA
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2015 12:16 am

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by ApostateltsopA » Sat Oct 10, 2015 1:35 am

Paidion wrote:
Apos wrote:Now, we do not currently know how the first molecule replicated, or how many tried it took to get one that survived. However science has demonstrated that these molecules do form naturally in the correct conditions and we have even succeed in creating ones that replicate.
Okay "we" have succeeded in creating molecules that replicate. But are molecules in fact life? Has anyone succeeded in creating life?
Flippantly I saw some life created in my fish tank the other day. More seriously, we would need molecules that replecate completely first. However if we are talking abigenesis, expecting life at this early stage of the study would be like expecting a bit much. We would need a definition of "life" first. Will it be life if we make a virus? A living cell? A prokarote? So far as I know life has not yet been created from scratch in the lab, however unless we call zygotes life, we know that life comes from nonlife somewhere.
Paidion wrote:
I've tried repeatedly to explain how an objective moral code can be established, with understanding that implementation can not be flawless. I think my description is a pretty accurate appraisal of how we deal with questions of morality in the real world and why absolutist statements like "Lying is wrong" fail when situations are described where lying is right. It's not that I wouldn't like to have a true objective morality, it's just that I see no evidence for one. So this is the best we can currently do.
You seem to be equating absolutism with objectivism as if the two words were synonyms. They are quite different. In the realm of morality, a subjectivist considers that what is right for you may be wrong for me even under identical conditions. Thus what is right or wrong is a matter of personal opinion. The objectivist believes that if an act is wrong, then it is wrong independently of who does it (and the same for right actions).

A situationist believes that what is right or wrong depends on the situation or context in which an act is committed. He may also be an objectivist if he holds that the morality of an act is independent of who performs it. Thus same is true of the hierarchalist.

I, as a hierarchalist believe that the morality of an act is not only independent of who performs it, but is also independent of the situation. I hold that all acts with moral value (morally right or morally wrong) can be arranged in a hierarchy so that some acts take precedence over others. Thus (as in the example I previously gave) the moral imperative to save a life takes precedence over the moral imperative to refrain from lying. Thus it is morally right to lie in order to save a life. This stance is unlike that of the absolutist, who proposes that all actions are equally morally right or morally wrong or morally neutral, and are independent of the circumstances, and are independent of the opinions of those who perform them. For the absolutist, in the case of a moral conflict where either of the choices one could make is morally wrong in itself, then whatever choice is made is morally wrong. In a previous thread, I gave an example of an absolutist pastor who when faced with the dilemma of lying to save a life would do so, but would still believe that he had done wrong, and would feel the need to confess the sin of lying to God and ask forgiveness. Or if he chose not to lie, with the death of a person resulting from that choice, he would feel the need to confess the sin to God of failing to save a life and ask God's forgiveness.

It seems that Jesus may have been a hierarchalist. For he said to Pilate, "He who delivered me over to you has the greater sin." (John 19:11)
[/quote]

I may have crossed absolutism with objectivism. Depending on how one describes objectivism I think it can fall into the same traps as Knowledge and Free Will in that definationally it can be come impossible.

I think the only functional difference between my consequentialism and your heirarchal ethics is that after making my choice, I don't have to carry guilt. Perhaps you see not even that since you mentioned your friend who prayed for forgiveness of lying was off.

I was going to end with a quip about all sins being equal, but despite a clear memory of reading it I can not find that specific verse for the life of me. In any case it's contradicted in lots of other places so it would only have been a friendly jibe.

dizerner

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by dizerner » Sat Oct 10, 2015 2:30 pm

ApostateltsopA wrote: We both believe in complex, wonderful personalities in the people around us. I don't think that brains are any less wonderful for being physical. I don't understand why you need to believe in magic to see them as special.
There's a pretty good logical case for consciousness being an immaterial emergent property directly causally correlated to brain activity. What's odd about consciousness is that, it's the activity that produces it, not the matter and energy alone. When we think of an arrangement of matter and energy, no matter how they are arranged, they are still the same substances essentially. If I shuffle 5 rocks around on the sand, no matter how they are arranged, they are still just 5 rocks on the sand. And we use labels for certain arrangements of atoms. If I smash an "apple" is it then no less an apple? All the "stuff" is still there. So how come when I smash a brain, all the "stuff" isn't still there? This produces some logical problems about the nature of consciousness that strike against naturalistic materialism. regards.

User avatar
ApostateltsopA
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2015 12:16 am

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by ApostateltsopA » Mon Oct 12, 2015 2:05 am

Interesting, of course all the stuff isn't still there is it? If I smash coal, I get a diamond. Its the same "stuff" but I suspect they would be recognized as different things. When I digest a burrito the resulting "stuff" is not something you'd be willing to share with me, though you might take half a burrito if I gave it to you before I chewed it up and digested it eh?

The shape of the thing matters. The process of the thing matters. If I run my hand through a chipper shredder I can maybe get all the pieces back, but I don't have a hand any more. What you are talking about looks like substance dualism to me. Unless you mean "mind" as that thing that happens when the right pieces come together and begin to think.

Are you a substance dualist?

Post Reply

Return to “Agnosticism & Atheism”