1

Joe:

Are you SURE this is not an April Fool's spoof by those "ID intellectual frauds" that seem to lurk under skeptics' beds? (What is your evidence that it is not a spoof? How do you warrant this knowledge claim? Why should I accept it? . . .)

Or, maybe, it is just another way of saying the same fallacy that led Freud to think potty training in effect can explain all; or Marx, that social class is the same; or Skinner to think we are all conditioned rats in a maze; or Crick to think we are nothing but neuronal chemistry and electrical impulses?

Fallacy? Indeed, for as C S Lewis long ago pointed out (and a great many others before him! Try JBS Haldane on Materialism, if memory serves . . .) the implication of such claims is that a theory that explains away all thought as internal to the random chaos and deterministic laws of nature (and society), is self-referentially inconsistent. For, it explains away itself too.

SO, is this a spoof or is it a public intellectual suicide?

2

Naturalism undercuts retributive, punitive, and fawning attitudes based on the belief that human agents are first causes, as well other responses amplified by the supposition of free will, such as excessive pride, shame, and guilt. Since individuals are not, on a naturalistic understanding, the ultimate originators of their faults and virtues, they are not deserving, in the traditional metaphysical sense, of praise and blame.

Okay, how can you feel excessive pride, shame, and guilt unless your environment and genetics make you that way at the start? Hence, it's natural for you to feel that way. How can man then, since he has no free will, effect situations for the better? Any action man takes is solely based on preset conditions that make it impossible to escape the consequences of nature.

3

Think about what is being claimed: A human is indistinguishable from nature and comprised completely of physical matter; not one molecule in our bodies is sentient. Yet somehow when you combine all of these non-sentient molecules in the shape of a human being, a unique property magically arises.

Is it your claim that all of the properties of a thing must be shared by the components of that thing? You seem to be arguing for a form of ultra-reductionism.

4

Joe:

1] Quick, make sure to grab and archive the site before it is taken down!

2] I think the best answer of all to this sort of blind folly was given by Peggy Noonan in her essay on John Paul II -- The Great - and his first return to Poland as Pope in 1979:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110006523

Two months before the pope's arrival, the Polish communist apparatus took steps to restrain the enthusiasm of the people. They sent a secret directive to schoolteachers explaining how they should understand and explain the pope's visit. "The pope is our enemy," it said. "Due to his uncommon skills and great sense of humor he is dangerous, because he charms everyone, especially journalists. Besides, he goes for cheap gestures in his relations with the crowd, for instance, puts on a highlander's hat, shakes all hands, kisses children. . . . It is modeled on American presidential campaigns. . . Because of the activation of the Church in Poland our activities designed to atheize the youth not only cannot diminish but must intensely develop. . . In this respect all means are allowed and we cannot afford any sentiments." . . . .

The pope traveled by motorcade from the airport to the Old City of Warsaw . . . . By the end of the day, with the people lining the streets and highways plus the people massed outside Warsaw and then inside it--all of them cheering and throwing flowers and applauding and singing--more than a million had come.

In Victory Square in the Old City the pope gave a mass. Communist officials watched from the windows of nearby hotels. The pope gave what papal biographer George Weigel called the greatest sermon of John Paul's life.

Why, the pope asked, had God lifted a Pole to the papacy? Perhaps it was because of how Poland had suffered for centuries, and through the 20th century had become "the land of a particularly responsible witness" to God. The people of Poland, he suggested, had been chosen for a great role, to understand, humbly but surely, that they were the repository of a special "witness of His cross and His resurrection." He asked then if the people of Poland accepted the obligations of such a role in history.

The crowd responded with thunder.

"We want God!" they shouted, together. "We want God!"

What a moment in modern history: We want God. From the mouths of modern men and women living in a modern atheistic dictatorship.

3] I think the experiment of conditioning people to reject God has been tried. At the cost of over 100 million lives, it failed and collapsed in infamy and shame. John Paul II, the Great, is proof positive. (BTW, I am not at all a Roman Catholic. But, I must acknowledge the Spirit and greatness when I see them!)

Nick:

THe problem is not that wholes have properties greater than the mere sum of their parts, but to explain how these properties originate -- especially the inescapable fact that we are moral people.

We argue as if we can make up our minds. We quarrel as if we really are obligated by principle. How can matter governed by only molecular chaos and natural forces give rise to such?

How can the known physical forces -- strong and weak nuclear, electromagnetic [the root of Chemistry] and gravitational, account for such, even in principle? Do we not instead see a clear pattern of self-referential inconsistency as Joe is pointing out -- even when we cite say a Nobel Prize holder such as Sir Francis Crick?

I daresay the site being dissected in this thread is strong evidence that this has never yet been satisfactorily answered from a naturalistic perspective.

OKay. $ 0.02

Gordon

5

The crowd responded with thunder.

"We want God!" they shouted, together. "We want God!"

What a moment in modern history: We want God. From the mouths of modern men and women living in a modern atheistic dictatorship.

Yes. And it seems, based on the lines which have grown beyong all reasonable expectation, that even the supposedly liberal, secular, and modern European hungers for the spirtuality exhibited by Pope John Paul. It can't be driven out of the human soul, can it?

Jack

6

One question... I'm curious as to why it is self-defeating to claim that human beings have no contra-causal free will but also to claim that naturalism, as a philosophical and social movement, can bring about a great deal of good. It's akin to saying that hurricanes and spring showers have no free-will, but one certainly is more pernicious than the other. I don't think anyone over at CFN would claim that because they support naturalism and think that it is a force for good, they are therefore committed to the tenets of a libertarian conception of free-will.
Those are two separate conversations.

7

M.G.,

One question... I'm curious as to why it is self-defeating to claim that human beings have no contra-causal free will but also to claim that naturalism, as a philosophical and social movement, can bring about a great deal of good. It's akin to saying that hurricanes and spring showers have no free-will, but one certainly is more pernicious than the other.

In order to claim that one is more pernicious than the other we must make a value judgment between the two. But to do so we have to be able to choose our preference. Naturalism, however, claims that the choice is not determined by us but is by our genetics and environment.

I don't think anyone over at CFN would claim that because they support naturalism and think that it is a force for good, they are therefore committed to the tenets of a libertarian
conception of free-will. Those are two separate conversations.

Anytime the naturalist starts referring to “good” they are talking gibberish. Without free will, the “good” is simply whatever nature chooses for us. But “evil” is also what nature chooses for us so the two are really indistinguishable (except for as physical states in the brain.

8

One question... I'm curious as to why it is self-defeating to claim that human beings have no contra-causal free will but also to claim that naturalism, as a philosophical and social movement, can bring about a great deal of good.

Naturalism can claim that it, "can bring about a great deal of good" (though how it defines "good" would itself be up for debate). What it cannot claim is that the good is the result of a belief in naturalism, or anything else for that matter; since such a belief would be the result of natural causes, and not based on the adoption of a belief by a creature which is free to adopt beliefs. I.e., 'good' results aren't caused by our choices as to what beliefs we have, good results from the same natural causes as 'bad' or 'neutral' - that is, good happens.

Jack

9

You know, Joe, sometimes I could metaphorically kiss you. This is an excellent post.

I had to look up in the dictionary "naturalism," which says for this, "The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws."

Now these guys have kind of morphed that into behavioral determinism, which, as anyone who's read anything on the subject (say, Barrett's The Illusion of Technique) knows is inherently indeterminate.

I admit that's where I stopped reading your post. ;-)

I went to their website, and found this, which is quite amusing because in order to subscribe to the principles therein one must deny, on a psychological basis, the obvious reality that there are, indeed, born again Christians as well as enlightened Zen masters (not to mention top seeded tennis players at the US Open). And that some of them, despite their backgrounds, derive from their experience an ability to do "good" in the world.

Thanks. I gotta get to that on my blog later.

10

"The naturalist claims that humans cannot cause anything"

I'm not that up on Naturism, but none of the quotes in your post indicate that naturists beleive that. Is this a straw man? Where is the quote about no free will?

If naturism is wrong in claiming that Man is natural, can you please inform which part or region of your body is NOT natural? I'll wait. Medical devices, fillings, etc., don't count.

So far, all I've read reads like people who do not understand science or genetics trying to critisize it from a religious standpoint. It is ...amusing.

Xiaoidng

11

Xianding, the quote from the post above says that naturalism denies that man has free will.

Naturalism, therefore, denies that persons have traditional, contra-causal free will

12

I'm not that up on Naturism, but none of the quotes in your post indicate that naturists beleive that. Is this a straw man? Where is the quote about no free will?

Xiaoding,

Joe quotes the website's mission statement here:

Practically speaking, naturalism holds that an individual’s development and behavior are entirely the result of prior and surrounding conditions, both genetic and environmental. Naturalism, therefore, denies that persons have traditional, contra-causal free will - that something within them is capable of acting as a first cause.

If naturism is wrong in claiming that Man is natural, can you please inform which part or region of your body is NOT natural? I'll wait. Medical devices, fillings, etc., don't count.

For one, those who believe that man has a spiritual aspect generally hold that man's mind (that is, his will, his belief system, his emotive capability) has a non-physical aspect; as would his soul. Naturalists deny the existence of a soul, obviously, and hold our beliefs to be merely aspects of our physical brain.

13

Naturalism is more of a hypothesis than a religion. The hypothesis would be nothing observable in the universe is causd by anything other than natural laws. Determinism is the idea that free will is an illusiion...that our decisions are determined by the laws of chemistry, physics etc. operating on the atoms that make up our brains.

Naturalism does not in itself imply atheism, although it is not inconsistent with naturalism. The dieists were naturalists yet believed in God. Naturalism is a very broad idea so it jumps the gun a bit to assume any particular subset of naturalists (such as Marxists, capitalists (yes friends, economics is built firmly on naturalism), etc.) should be read as anything more than examples of naturalists.

The “deep implications” of naturalism is that we are reducible to molecules which are at the whim of chemical and physical laws of nature. Molecules, however, can’t comprehend such value-laden terms as “positive”, “awe-inspiring”, or “meaning.” If humanity is fully causally connected to nature then is it possible that every molecule in the universe possess the ability to create “meaning?” (Normally, I would have a hard time accepting such a notion. But after reading that last sentence I smelled the faint stench of Marxism left over from the stale air of radical academia. If the molecules didn’t create that “meaning” then where did it come from?)

Back when Joe wrote about what happens to souls after death, we touched upont his a bit. If a thing like the soul exists then it must interact somehow with the brain...otherwise how is the soul to make decisions that the body will carry out? This implies that either the soul is the brain itself or that it communicates with the brain somehow. If the brain communicates with the soul then we should be able to observe things happening in the brain that cannot be explained by chemistry, physics and so on. To date we have yet to find anything that happens in the body or brain that is not explainable by naturalistic laws...although we still have a ways to go before anyone can claim we have know the body atom by atom.

What Joe ignores is that larger systems take on relationships & characteristics of their own. Take rocks arranged in a circle. The circle is a real thing yet you cannot detect any 'circleness' by studying an individual rock from the circle.

Suppose the soul is the sum of both the hardware (the brain) & the state it is in (the relationship of all the cells, electricity etc. in the brain)? An analogy would be a saved video game on a computer. The game is a program that happens to be frozen at a particular state. This only has meaning when you look at the whole system (all the atoms that make up the computer, hard drive etc.)....you can't detect any 'video game' property in any particular screw in the computer yet it exists when you look at the computer as a whole & you don't neet to resort to a supernatural explanation for it.

14

Jack:

"Naturalists deny the existence of a soul, obviously, and hold our beliefs to be merely aspects of our physical brain."

Therein lieth the problem.

As Arch-ID proponent Philip Johnson once observed in response to Nobel Prize Laureate Sir Francis Crick's reduction of thought etc to neuronal chemistry and molecular biology, what would happen if he were to preface his books:

“I, Francis Crick, my opinions and my science, and even the thoughts expressed in this book, consist of nothing more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.”

Johnson then aptly comments that “[t]he plausibility of materialistic determinism requires that an implicit exception be made for the theorist.”

And that is what the problem is. Restating the position without acknowledging its implications does not solve it. DEterminism or even random forces cannot account for highly ordered complexity, or for thought that is logically sound: if thoughts are secretions like bile, why should we trust them?

And, as the Poles of 1979 showed, nations cannot endure life under such deterministic materialism. So, after thirty years of rule by "scientific" atheists, who even then were redoubling their efforts to atheize the nation and discredit the Pope, their cry was obvious and clear: "We want God!"

$ 0.02

Gordon

15

It's rather strange that so many posters on this thread insist on reading marxist economics into a debate about naturalism. Why not use mercantalism or Keynesian economics instead?

16

If the brain communicates with the soul then we should be able to observe things happening in the brain that cannot be explained by chemistry, physics and so on. To date we have yet to find anything that happens in the body or brain that is not explainable by naturalistic laws...although we still have a ways to go before anyone can claim we have know the body atom by atom.

I can think of lots of things "happening in the brain" that cannot be explained by chemistry and physics; personality, will, love, belief formation and modification, faith, imagination, creativity, epiphanies, spirituality...the list goes on.

17

Indeed but let's keep things simple. You have your enemy at gun point. He begs for mercy. You make a decision to either spare his life or kill him. What makes the decision?

If it is the soul and the soul is distinct from the brain then somehow the soul has to tell the brain which nerves to fire (to make your finger squeeze the trigger or relax). In that case the brain would be a bit like the antenna on a radio controlled car. This should show up somewhere as the 'supernatual' soul somehow communicating with the natural world of atoms, molecules etc.

Otherwise you are left with the possibility that the soul doesn't control the body (in which case you have a lot of theological things to hash out) or that the soul itself is the body (or brain) & the naturalist hypothesis is correct once again.

18

What Joe ignores is that larger systems take on relationships & characteristics of their own. Take rocks arranged in a circle. The circle is a real thing yet you cannot detect any 'circleness' by studying an individual rock from the circle.

That's because the 'circleness' does not reside in the rocks themselves; the idea of a circle resides in the mind of the human who makes the circle with the rocks; a circle could be made with virtually any objects, because it's based on the idea of the circle. There's another thing chemistry and physics can't explain; ideas.

19

The circle of rocks is a relationship between them. I can lay out an objective definition of a circle (all points are equaldistant from the center) & we can examine how closely a pattern of rocks conforms to that definition.

What's relevant, though, is that while the rock circle is reducible to individual rocks the property of being a circle only arises among many rocks. In other words, the whole has more properties than the sum of its parts.

Joe is perplexed that consciousness might spring from just a bunch of brain cells 'like magic' but a circle can spring from a bunch of rocks with no need to invoke magic at all.

20

Jack

"There's another thing chemistry and physics can't explain; ideas."

There are a lot of very interesting studies of neurological diseases and/or brain traumas which cause people to perceive of shapes, colors, numbers, letters, etc., in ways that are different from the normal people.

Drugs and/or electric or mechanical manipulation of brain tissue can be used to replicate or repair some of these interesting changes in "perception."

So the relationship between chemistry and physics -- e.g., brain chemistry and the electrical physics underlying neurological processes -- is slowly being teased apart by scientists.

Does that mean that science is any closer to "understanding" or proving the existence of souls or gods?

Of course not.

21

If it is the soul and the soul is distinct from the brain then somehow the soul has to tell the brain which nerves to fire (to make your finger squeeze the trigger or relax). In that case the brain would be a bit like the antenna on a radio controlled car. This should show up somewhere as the 'supernatual' soul somehow communicating with the natural world of atoms, molecules etc.

Otherwise you are left with the possibility that the soul doesn't control the body (in which case you have a lot of theological things to hash out) or that the soul itself is the body (or brain) & the naturalist hypothesis is correct once again.

The words of this post are being transmitted to you via electronic impulses traveling through metallic wires to a phosphor or LCD screen. The existence of images on the screen can be explained by physics and chemistry; the ideas contained within the post however cannot be explained by physics and chemistry; the ideas of this post are from my mind; not from my neurons, but from me as a person, not my collection of atoms, but that part of me which compels me to communicate ideas and intentions and contains my will and personality. You don't see me, but you see the result of my non-mechanical existence; it is displayed on your screen, but is not your screen.

We are continually bombarded with the immaterial aspect of humanity; we may not understand the connection between the immaterial and the organic, but it cannot be explained simply by physics and chemistry, anymore than my posts could be explained by an extensive knowledge of computer science theory.

22

Another question. Traditional theology denies that animals possess immortal souls. Yet the characteristics that some might argue are incompatible with a naturalistic conception of the brain, such as belief, will, personality, love, etc., are present to some degree in certain animals. How then is it possible to explain animals behavior in naturalistic terms, without doing so for human behavior, without resorting to a "God of the gaps" type argument?

23

The circle of rocks is a relationship between them. I can lay out an objective definition of a circle (all points are equaldistant from the center) & we can examine how closely a pattern of rocks conforms to that definition.

What's relevant, though, is that while the rock circle is reducible to individual rocks the property of being a circle only arises among many rocks. In other words, the whole has more properties than the sum of its parts.

Joe is perplexed that consciousness might spring from just a bunch of brain cells 'like magic' but a circle can spring from a bunch of rocks with no need to invoke magic at all.

But that's the point; a circle doesn't 'spring' from rocks; the rocks are arranged intentionally; and even if the fall in a circular pattern, that pattern is recognized by a mind, it isn't inherent in the rocks themselves. 'Circleness' is not an exhibited property, it is an externally imposed construct; imposed by the human mind. Now if the rocks had a tendency to form circles, then the comparison would be valid; we could say something inherent in the rocks was circle forming.

The human mind has tendencies; tendencies that transcend neuronal arrangements.

24

We are continually bombarded with the immaterial aspect of humanity; we may not understand the connection between the immaterial and the organic, but it cannot be explained simply by physics and chemistry, anymore than my posts could be explained by an extensive knowledge of computer science theory.

Nonetheless you are holding a gun and have to make a choice to fire or not. Whatever makes the choice needs to be able to manipulate atoms, neurons, chemistry etc. in order for it to be carried out by the body.

25

Boonton, how do you lay out objective definitions? The rocks have no objectiveness. The circle (define it however you want) is only relevent to you and me.

There cannot be a 'sum' in the naturalist context. The sum of anything requires observation and recognition, something inanimate objects cannot do.

26

Another question. Traditional theology denies that animals possess immortal souls. Yet the characteristics that some might argue are incompatible with a naturalistic conception of the brain, such as belief, will, personality, love, etc., are present to some degree in certain animals. How then is it possible to explain animals behavior in naturalistic terms, without doing so for human behavior, without resorting to a "God of the gaps" type argument?

I think the difficulty is knowing to what degree those characteristics are the result of anthropomorphic observations. We may say an ape has a personality; but the question is, do apes say that about each other; do they recognize a non-related ape as having a unique personality? There seem to be no histories among animals, and I think this is significant; we can recognize a personality, that is, the personage of an individual long after they are physically gone; their communications can extend beyond their immediate utterances because we recognize that those ideas spring from something universal and transcendent; there seem to be no corollaries among animals in this respect.

27

Apparently, you think that causality precludes responses to subsequent causes. There is no contradiction between the two paragraphs you cited. Your lack of understanding with regard to naturalism is so profound, I hardly know where, or even if, to begin helping you.

Perhaps I should approach this naturalistically. Are you incapable of understanding naturalism? Do you lack the cognitive strength and flexibility to grasp the concept? Or, perhaps, you ARE able, but uninclined due to your religious indoctrination and a deep-seated need to attack philosophies that you perceive as offering the greatest threats to it.

I lean toward the second scenario. Unfortunately, this means that any effort to enhance your understanding of naturalism is likely to be doomed to failure. But what the hell! Let's look at one of your statements:

"The naturalist claims that humans cannot cause anything and yet in the very next breath implies that we have the ability to cause changes in our environment."

This misstatement of fact highlights the futility of my present effort. The naturalist does NOT claim that human beings "cannot cause anything", only that the cause they produce has causes of its own. Speed can cause an accident and worsen its outcome, but the speed itself must be caused by something.

Why do I bother? Do I hope to keep you from infecting others with your intransigence? Do I still hold out some hope for you? Do I simply enjoy the rhetorical exercise? I'm not sure, but I am sure that my present effort has a cause (if not many causes acting together in ways we can't discern readily) AND that your tilting at philosophical windmills has a cause. Let's look at another:

"The obvious answer would be that you can’t find the emotional resonance or evoke such feelings since that would require the ability to make free choices."

Here we have a failure to understand the relativity of freedom. For all intents and purposes, our will IS free, since we can't discern, quantify, or qualify every cause that leads to our every thought and action. I am free because I do not feel bound; I am bound nonetheless. I cannot leap into space. I cannot read your mind. And, most likely, I cannot make you understand naturalism.

Just give me a glimmer of hope, and I'll keep trying. ;-)

28

Nonetheless you are holding a gun and have to make a choice to fire or not. Whatever makes the choice needs to be able to manipulate atoms, neurons, chemistry etc. in order for it to be carried out by the body.

And what does make the choice; why does one person fire, and not another? Are you saying that mercy, forgiveness, altruism, or the ability to recognize the humanity of the person being fired upon is directly wired to ones 'atoms, neurons, chemistry'?

If one could measure those exact mechanisms, then I suppose it would be material and organic; the point of conjecturing that it is immaterial is that we can't measure and quantify it.

29

Just give me a glimmer of hope, and I'll keep trying. ;-)

Ha! You just got done saying that hope is an illusion. So to that end, "keep trying"; it is apparent you have no other choice.

30

But Rob, why bother trying? As naturalism states, I am only a wad of chemicals and materials. Your analogy of a car is apt. The car has no decision in the speeding / crashing process. It simply does what the forces of physics cause it to do. The driver does what the forces of physics cause it to do. A man who rapes a 3 year old girl has no responsibility for his actions any more than the car had control of the accident. There is no justification, there is no reason.

So, you trying to change our train of thought shows me you don't actually believe in what you say (not that you can actually 'believe' anything).

And, I've found a better way to try to convince people of my point of view is to avoid being rude and condecending.

31

Boonton, how do you lay out objective definitions? The rocks have no objectiveness. The circle (define it however you want) is only relevent to you and me.

Let's keep it at the level Joe stepped up. Joe implied that emergent properties are like 'magic' that arise out of elements that have no such properties (such as the atoms inside brain cells). My point is simply that such properties can be studied as much as non-emergent properties.

And what does make the choice; why does one person fire, and not another? Are you saying that mercy, forgiveness, altruism, or the ability to recognize the humanity of the person being fired upon is directly wired to ones 'atoms, neurons, chemistry'?

If one could measure those exact mechanisms, then I suppose it would be material and organic; the point of conjecturing that it is immaterial is that we can't measure and quantify it.

At least some of those emotions appear to be. Humans, like many other animals, do appear to be somewhat hardwired for both moral and immoral behavior (helping others close to you, hating the 'stranger' and so on). The question still returns to does anything happen in the brain that is supernatural?

I think the difficulty is knowing to what degree those characteristics are the result of anthropomorphic observations. We may say an ape has a personality; but the question is, do apes say that about each other; do they recognize a non-related ape as having a unique personality? There seem to be no histories among animals, and I think this is significant; we can recognize a personality, that is, the personage of an individual long after they are physically gone;

Elephants appear to mourne their dead. There's been some progress with teaching apes sign language. If an ape signed something like "I remember Suzi used to play on the tree a lot" would that qualify as a history?

32

Sharp asks,
"But Rob, why bother trying?"

That's what I asked myself; did you miss that part?

"As naturalism states, I am only a wad of chemicals and materials."

That may be, but my life still has great meaning to me. I don't care if it has any objective meaning or not. I'm stunned by people who think meaning and naturalism are mutually exclusive. They occupy different spheres; the objective and the subjective. I happen to think one sphere is a subset of the other, but they can be distinguished.

"A man who rapes a 3 year old girl has no responsibility for his actions any more than the car had control of the accident."

Hogwash! Responsibility is a subjective concept, and I'm glad we apply it to wrongdoers of all kinds. In that way, we can all be causes of positive outcomes. Why do people assume that naturalism means we should all throw up our hands and plead impotence? As I said, for all intents and purposes our will is free.

"So, you trying to change our train of thought shows me you don't actually believe in what you say (not that you can actually 'believe' anything)."

You assert this, but you certainly haven't shown it to be true. I can believe, of course. I believe my children love me, for example. I believe that for which I see convincing evidence or hear compelling argument. The fact that my belief is nothing more than chemical encoding in my brain cells does not lessen its significance to me.

"And, I've found a better way to try to convince people of my point of view is to avoid being rude and condecending."

My tone is not dissimilar to the dismissive tone of Joe's post, and what edge there is is largely in fun. Didn't you see my smiley thing at the end?

Jack exclaims,
"Ha! You just got done saying that hope is an illusion."

No, Jack, I did not.

"So to that end, "keep trying"; it is apparent you have no other choice."

No, I can't say that is at all apparent to me.

33

At least some of those emotions appear to be. Humans, like many other animals, do appear to be somewhat hardwired for both moral and immoral behavior (helping others close to you, hating the 'stranger' and so on). The question still returns to does anything happen in the brain that is supernatural?

The problem of course is quantifying that which resists quantification. Are we hard wired to love? Or see beauty? Is that fact that we can observe those tendencies and yet be motivated by them indicative of something else going on beyond chemical impulses? Why is it you and I want there to be something more there than chemical impulses?

I think of the recent incident with Brian Nichols; was he hardwired to kill? And if so, what happened in his interaction with Ashley Smith that caused him to renounce killing? Can such an immediate modification of desire and motivation be explained by 'hardwiring'?

Elephants appear to mourne their dead. There's been some progress with teaching apes sign language. If an ape signed something like "I remember Suzi used to play on the tree a lot" would that qualify as a history?

It's a fascinating question; one which I don't think is easily answered by faith or science. Does the ape call Suzi 'Suzi' because she has been taught that Suzi is a personality with whom it communes? Or is the ape using the sign 'Suzi' as a symbol which represents a creature with which it has naturally bonded as it might with any other ape? Could the ape describe Suzi's personality to another ape? I would think there are still many outstanding questions. Again, I think it notable that animals do not record there exitence for posterity; for whatever reason, as humans we feel the need to let others know we existed; even if the others bear no direct relationship to us. It is, if you will accept the phraseology, a desire for eternal life.

34

That may be, but my life still has great meaning to me. I don't care if it has any objective meaning or not. I'm stunned by people who think meaning and naturalism are mutually exclusive. They occupy different spheres; the objective and the subjective. I happen to think one sphere is a subset of the other, but they can be distinguished.

Yes, but you are essentially saying, "I like to believe my life has meaning".  Subjectively, that may be the case, but no one else need be compelled to believe so based on your belief.

Responsibility is a subjective concept, and I'm glad we apply it to wrongdoers of all kinds. In that way, we can all be causes of positive outcomes. Why do people assume that naturalism means we should all throw up our hands and plead impotence? As I said, for all intents and purposes our will is free.

Again, by calling responsibility subjective you are saying, " I like to believe people should be responsible"; there is no corollary reason for people to be so. And 'positive outcomes' are also relative; one man's 'positive outcome' may be another's demise.

You assert this, but you certainly haven't shown it to be true. I can believe, of course. I believe my children love me, for example. I believe that for which I see convincing evidence or hear compelling argument. The fact that my belief is nothing more than chemical encoding in my brain cells does not lessen its significance to me.

Perhaps; but it is artifice. You may be satisfied with artifice, but it would not constrain another who pleaded his beliefs and actions, however horrendous, were also the result of those same chemical encoding.

No, Jack, I did not.

You beleive there is hope beyond your mere belief there is hope?

No, I can't say that is at all apparent to me.

Apparent meaning; Readily understood; clear or obvious.; you may choose to ignore it, but it remains, apparent.

35

Let's not be so quick to reduce (there's that word again) theories of mental experience to just physicalism (here called "naturalism") and super-materialism; there are other ways of approaching the subject. The Center for Naturalism, impressive as the title sounds, isn't the last word on human cognition.

36

Boonton:

Re: “If the brain communicates with the soul then we should be able to observe things happening in the brain that cannot be explained by chemistry, physics and so on. To date we have yet to find anything that happens in the body or brain that is not explainable by naturalistic laws...although we still have a ways to go before anyone can claim we have know the body atom by atom.”

1] Let me start with something simple. Way back, I designed a small computer-based system around the old 6809E microprocessor. Everything was in principle explicable in terms of gates, states, currents, soldered connexions etc – except for what counted. That is, how did I eventually get an ordered bit of matter that was able to behave in an intelligent way?

ANS: NOT by random chance nor by simple appeal to the deterministic forces of logic gates, finite state machine models of flipflops, etc. But only by careful and diligent, painstaking application of intelligence through troubleshooting and intuitively driven, experience-based decisions as to which possible cause of error was most likely. (If I had relied on chance or blind forces I would still be working away at it!)

2] Let’s kick it up a notch. The states and organisation of the neurons etc in the brain are obviously connected to our mental states. But even if we were to figure it all out – and we seem to be still making major unexpected discoveries here -- all that that does is specify how the information is manipulated and stored, like how bits are stored in magnetic media, retrieved through read heads, then run through gate arrays in Arithmetic and Logic Units to generate outputs. We have yet to account for THE INTELLIGENCE: what makes us truly human.

Not to mention, the biggest thing of all. Back to John Paul II in Poland, 1979 . . .

3] Peggy Noonan again, http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110006523

It was a week into the trip, June 10, 1979 . . . . something happened in the Blonie field [at an open air mass outside Krakow] . . . . it was the biggest gathering of humanity in the entire history of Poland. Two million or three million people came, no one is sure, maybe more. . . . This is what he said:

Is it possible to dismiss Christ and everything which he brought into the annals of the human being? Of course it is possible. The human being is free. The human being can say to God, "No." The human being can say to Christ, "No." But the critical question is: Should he? And in the name of what "should" he? With what argument, what reasoning, what value held by the will or the heart does one bring oneself, one's loved ones, one's countrymen and nation to reject, to say "no" to Him with whom we [poles] have all lived for one thousand years? He who formed the basis of our identity and has Himself remained its basis ever since. . . .

I speak for Christ himself: "Receive the Holy Spirit!"

I speak too for St. Paul: "Do not quench the Spirit!"

I speak again for St. Paul: "Do not grieve the Spirit of God!"

You must be strong, my brothers and sisters! You must be strong with the strength that faith gives! You must be strong with the strength of faith! You must be faithful! You need this strength today more than any other period of our history. . . .They went home from that field a changed country. After that mass they would never be the same.”

The rest, as they say, was history. But the lesson is clear: neuronal networks simply cannot account for the incredible power of the human spirit, especially when it is energised by the Spirit of the risen, exalted Christ.

Grace be to you all

Gordon

37

Responsibility is a subjective concept, and I'm glad we apply it to wrongdoers of all kinds. In that way, we can all be causes of positive outcomes.

As Jack stated above, one person's positive outcome is negative to someone else. If I believe (because of nature and genetics) that all blue-eyed people are evil and should be wiped off of the earth, should I be stopped from releasing a disease that will do just that? To me the removal of all blue-eyed people would be a positive outcome and bring utopia to the planet. From a naturalism perspective you can't argue against it except as against your personal choice.

38

"Yes, but you are essentially saying, "I like to believe my life has meaning"."

No, I'm not! I'm saying my life has meaning to me personally, regardless of what "I like to believe".

"Subjectively, that may be the case, but no one else need be compelled to believe so based on your belief."

Fine with me.

"Again, by calling responsibility subjective you are saying, " I like to believe people should be responsible"; there is no corollary reason for people to be so."

*sigh* Leave the damn "like to" out, and I'll go along.

"And 'positive outcomes' are also relative; one man's 'positive outcome' may be another's demise."

True! The pedophile may be upset that I wish to see his behavior thwarted or punished. I can live with that; can't you?

"You may be satisfied with artifice, but it would not constrain another who pleaded his beliefs and actions, however horrendous, were also the result of those same chemical encoding."

He can plead what he wishes, and we may be moved by his pleas or not.

"You believe there is hope beyond your mere belief there is hope?"

Oh dear. I'm not sure what you mean. I think hope exists as a concept. I hope my wife cooks something nice tonight. I have hope; therefore, hope exists.

"Apparent meaning; Readily understood; clear or obvious.; you may choose to ignore it, but it remains, apparent."

Heh. Still not apparent until you explain it; maybe not even then. I can choose to keep trying or not. I don't know which I will choose or all the reasons why. But I am confident that whatever my choice is, it will have causes.

39

"To me the removal of all blue-eyed people would be a positive outcome and bring utopia to the planet."

How evil you are, Chris, from my point of view. I'm glad my eyes are brown. ;-)

"From a naturalism perspective you can't argue against it except as against your personal choice."

That's true, Chris, and I don't find it an impediment at all. Fortunately, most of us share that moral stance (regardless whence we derive it), and you are likely to encounter much opposition. Especially from the blue-eyed constituency.

40

Thanks for the link Jim, it made for fascinating reading, whether I found the premise agreeable or not. This was an interesting thought from the article:

Our pervasive experience of free will, he [John R. Searle, author of Mind: A Brief Introduction]acknowledges, may be an illusion. But if so, it is a strange illusion, one that requires vast biological resources to maintain yet somehow survived evolution’s travails.

The question I have is, if we know free will is an illusion, doesn't that mean it isn't an illusion anymore? If I have seen the old man behind the curtain, can I go back to pretending he is a wizard? And what does that change in terms of how we live our lives?

41

Yawn.

Joe Carter, Jack, Lutz and others continue patting themselves on the back because they believe that only the existence of a deity (guess which one?) can provide people with a "moral foundation".

The fact is that Joe, Jack, Lutz and others spend 98% of their waking lives embodying "naturalist" philosophy.

They spend 1% of the remaining time pretending that they have a different "worldview" and bragging about that worldview.

And the other 1% they spend complaining about all the people who are going to experience "eternal torment" for not reciting the same "rules" that were "handed down" to "us" by their deity.

42

No, I'm not! I'm saying my life has meaning to me personally, regardless of what "I like to believe".

Based on what? Your statement that it has meaning?

The pedophile may be upset that I wish to see his behavior thwarted or punished. I can live with that; can't you?

Sure; but what if the pedophile happens to be Hitler or Stalin, and they are in the process of convincing others that what they are doing is acceptable, and others should go along; is my reply, "Fine, believe what you want to believe"?

He can plead what he wishes, and we may be moved by his pleas or not.

But it makes no objective difference either way.

Oh dear. I'm not sure what you mean. I think hope exists as a concept. I hope my wife cooks something nice tonight. I have hope; therefore, hope exists.

I didn't mean hope as in 'wish' I meant hope as in 'that which motivates us to act'. You are contending that which motivates us to act is determined by chemistry and physics.

43

That's true, Chris, and I don't find it an impediment at all. Fortunately, most of us share that moral stance (regardless whence we derive it), and you are likely to encounter much opposition. Especially from the blue-eyed constituency.

But "where we derive it" is the point of this discussion; your contention is that we don't derive it; it is derived for us, whether we feel that way or not. So blue-eyed people live in safety not because of a moral stance, but because that happens to be the inclination of our naturally produced brains at this time; tommorrow, who knows?

44

"You are contending that which motivates us to act is determined by chemistry and physics."

Jack, if you are going to pretend to be Mr. High-falootin Metaphysician, try being very specific and clear.

Otherwise your statement in quotes above sounds as if you are disputing a trivial observation: we are motivated to act by chemistry and physics.

Vision is a physical and chemical process. We are motivated to act based on what we perceive.

I assume you do not wish to dispute this basic fact, although I would not be surprised if you did. After all, you may be laboring under the impression that you have a convincing argument that only through worship of your deity can my life have the "meaning" that yours allegedly does.

45

"So blue-eyed people live in safety not because of a moral stance, but because that happens to be the inclination of our naturally produced brains at this time; tommorrow, who knows?"

Blue-eyed people live in safety because most people believe that a nation of laws -- particularly, our laws -- is a good thing.

Of course, a preacher funded by some rich conservatives could pop up tomorrow and start a propoganda business to spread the the belief among frightened rubes that blue-eyed people are "devils" and that the "bible predicted it" and "science proved it." If more than 70% of the population accepted that without question, then they could amend the constitution and start discriminating against the blue-eyes who'd probably leave the country.

Now, Jack, assuming you belong to the preacher's religion and you believe that everything the preacher says is divinely inspired: is discrimination against the blue-eyes "moral"?

46

2] Let’s kick it up a notch. The states and organisation of the neurons etc in the brain are obviously connected to our mental states. But even if we were to figure it all out – and we seem to be still making major unexpected discoveries here -- all that that does is specify how the information is manipulated and stored, like how bits are stored in magnetic media, retrieved through read heads, then run through gate arrays in Arithmetic and Logic Units to generate outputs. We have yet to account for THE INTELLIGENCE: what makes us truly human.

Yet logically if the 'soul' exists apart from the material brain it must be there. Let me give you an example, say you wrote a computer program that opens up Notepad and types the word "Hi there" every ten seconds.

If we came upon this computer running we would ask ourselves why is it doing this? If we carefully examined every piece of it we would discover the reason it was doing this was a self contained program that was making it type "Hi there" every ten seconds. We may not be able to say how that program got there, what your intentions were in writing it etc. but the computer's behavior is entirely natural.

Suppose we discover the computer has a wireless card in it and it is receiving a message from the Internet & it is programmed to show us the message on the monitor. Then the "Hi there" that appears every ten seconds is not coming from the computer but through the computer. We still will not know who is on the other end of that message but we can say it is coming from beyond the computer.

So is the brain more like the first computer or the second? If you believe that a soul exists outside of the material brain then it would have to be more like the second...if that's the case then the naturalist hypothesis will fail and at some point we will find something that is 'receiving' signals rather than generating them.

The naturalist view of it, though, does not exclude the possibility of God or life after death. If you're willing too, please entertain the analogy of a saved video game. The saved video game can be restarted provided the program and data are intact on the computer. Even if the computer was destroyed, you could still put the game back into play if you could rewrite the program and data on a new computer. But before the game was saved its 'life' was lived on the original computer which is just a collection of atoms & electricity.

Another theory I read somewhere was a variation on deulism. Say you do have a soul but it has no control over your body. However your body just happens to be deterministically controlled by the laws of physics. Ironically, some higher intelligence set the universe up so that the body your soul 'rides with' just happens to make all the decisions your soul does. Hence your soul will have the impression it is controlling your body even though your body is really running yourself. Anyone whose seen the end of _Being John Malkovich_ will know what I mean about a soul that rides in a body without control over it.

47

Lar,
I am tempted to going back to deconstructing your posts according to the numerous logicical fallacies contained therein; suffice it to say, that while I find this activity enjoyable I simply don't have time keep up with the volume.

I'll be glad to reply to a point, as I have to others who are capable of a reasonable discussion, when you can construct a logically sound post. 'Til then, I'll just chuckle and move on.

48

Larry's correct in that Joe and most of the 'anti-naturalists' on this list spend 99% of their waking lives living by naturalism in their everyday life and 1% of the time telling people they live by some other worldview.

Joe would probably have been better off making this post an argument on the limits of naturalism rather than simply attacking naturalism as a whole. Also the attempts to pretend naturalism is the same as 20th century marxism are silly & tired.

49

So is the brain more like the first computer or the second? If you believe that a soul exists outside of the material brain then it would have to be more like the second...if that's the case then the naturalist hypothesis will fail and at some point we will find something that is 'receiving' signals rather than generating them.

Actually, it would seem that the second computer comes closer to a belief in an immaterial aspect of humanity. And it could be that we have found 'something that is 'receiving' signals rather than generating them.'; of course, like Clarke's advanced alien civilization; it may seem like magic to us.

The naturalist view of it, though, does not exclude the possibility of God or life after death. If you're willing too, please entertain the analogy of a saved video game. The saved video game can be restarted provided the program and data are intact on the computer. Even if the computer was destroyed, you could still put the game back into play if you could rewrite the program and data on a new computer. But before the game was saved its 'life' was lived on the original computer which is just a collection of atoms & electricity.

Again, as an analogy, this may be useful; but a Christian would contend that the 'data' of one's life can be saved 'offline' someplace, indeed, it isn't altogether running on the machine you see, but somewhere else we don't have access to. You could destroy the terminal and cut off access to the data, but but it's ultimate destiny isn't in the computer itself.

Another theory I read somewhere was a variation on deulism. Say you do have a soul but it has no control over your body. However your body just happens to be deterministically controlled by the laws of physics. Ironically, some higher intelligence set the universe up so that the body your soul 'rides with' just happens to make all the decisions your soul does. Hence your soul will have the impression it is controlling your body even though your body is really running yourself. Anyone whose seen the end of _Being John Malkovich_ will know what I mean about a soul that rides in a body without control over it.

This reminds me a bit of libertine Gnostics; many of whom contended that what one did with the body was irrelevant to one's spiritual condition.

50

Larry Lord: Blue-eyed people live in safety because most people believe that a nation of laws -- particularly, our laws -- is a good thing.

But why do we need laws if everyone is acting according to his or her nature?

If more than 70% of the population accepted that without question, then they could amend the constitution and start discriminating against the blue-eyes who'd probably leave the country.

So, there really isn't a moral position for not killing blue-eyed people. It's just a majority opinion at the moment that it is bad which leads right back to Jack's position.

99% of their waking lives living by naturalism in their everyday life

I sense one of those statements that one's actions are naturalistic because naturalism is all there is.

51

most of the 'anti-naturalists' on this list spend 99% of their waking lives living by naturalism in their everyday life

How would anyone here know how anyone else spends 99% of their waking lives? And how does a naturalist spend their waking lives that differentiate it from anyone else?

52

This reminds me a bit of libertine Gnostics; many of whom contended that what one did with the body was irrelevant to one's spiritual condition.

I'm not familiar with them but what you 'did' would be quite relevent. It's simply that what your soul chooses to do doesn't really make your body do anything. Your body just happens to be 'in sync' with the decisions your soul makes. Sort of like a person walking behind you who times his footsteps to match yours so your ears think you're the only person in the room.

Again, as an analogy, this may be useful; but a Christian would contend that the 'data' of one's life can be saved 'offline' someplace, indeed, it isn't altogether running on the machine you see, but somewhere else we don't have access to. You could destroy the terminal and cut off access to the data, but but it's ultimate destiny isn't in the computer itself.

Why couldn't a Christian believe that the 'program and data' is stored in the brain and only the brain? After the brain is destroyed by death a God of infinite knowledge can restore the 'program and data in a new body.

Actually, it would seem that the second computer comes closer to a belief in an immaterial aspect of humanity. And it could be that we have found 'something that is 'receiving' signals rather than generating them.'; of course, like Clarke's advanced alien civilization; it may seem like magic to us.

To my knowledge we have neither found anything in the brain that appears to be receiving a signal or appears to be magic. If we did the naturalist hypothesis would be thrown for quite a loop.

How would anyone here know how anyone else spends 99% of their waking lives? And how does a naturalist spend their waking lives that differentiate it from anyone else?

A good question. We typically assume nearly everything that happens in our 'normal lives' (that's the part of your life where you have to do things like earn money...not your 'play life' as an Internet Plato) happens due to natural laws. This includes not only undisputable stuff like your car running (or breaking) but also things like psychology of other people, relationships with your family etc.

There are some people who have an excessively 'spirity' view of things. My sister-in-law, who has dabbled in just about every stupid religion except scientology (Wicca is her latest thing), for example is convinced that objects have feelings and can take action. For example, she believes her car hates her husband and only breaks when he drives it. This is probably the best I can do as an example of someone who does not live much of their life based on naturalistic assumptions.

Naturalism is a bit like capitalism. It works so well and is so pervasive it is really hard to find someone living by a totally different system.

53

"Based on what? Your statement that it has meaning?"

I hope you're kidding, Jack. If not, I haven't a clue how to proceed.

"Sure; but what if the pedophile happens to be Hitler or Stalin, and they are in the process of convincing others that what they are doing is acceptable, and others should go along; is my reply, "Fine, believe what you want to believe"?"

Ummm...no. Haven't I indicated my willingness to gang up on miscreants, along with others who share my moral stance to a sufficient degree, to impose such unthinkable restraints as No Killing and No Child-Raping? I think I have.

"But it makes no objective difference either way."

Whew! You've just been playing dumb; you DO get it.

"You are contending that which motivates us to act is determined by chemistry and physics."

And their interplay with environmental factors. Don't oversimplify; I feel you are setting me up for a parody/distortion of my view. I've been down this road before.

"But "where we derive it" is the point of this discussion; your contention is that we don't derive it; it is derived for us, whether we feel that way or not. So blue-eyed people live in safety not because of a moral stance, but because that happens to be the inclination of our naturally produced brains at this time; tommorrow, who knows?"

And there's the parody; you depict human morals (without an objective base) as being buffeted by the winds of whim. You underestimate the solidity of my subjective moral undergirding. You imply objective morality is necessary for moral consistency. It is not, and that is a good thing; it doesn't exist.

We DO derive it, for all intents and purposes. I think you are pretending not to understand what I say in the hope of goading me to respond in exasperation.

54

Why couldn't a Christian believe that the 'program and data' is stored in the brain and only the brain? After the brain is destroyed by death a God of infinite knowledge can restore the 'program and data in a new body.

A Christian could of course believe that, but it wouldn't follow that that is a Christian belief. Even if this were the case, I am not sure it would make a difference from our perspective. At the very least, I think most Christian belief holds that we have a soul and a body; one eventually ceases to exist, the other continues.

To my knowledge we have neither found anything in the brain that appears to be receiving a signal or appears to be magic. If we did the naturalist hypothesis would be thrown for quite a loop.

Magic in the sense that we don't understand how it works naturally; to again reference the naturalist John Searle:

Our pervasive experience of free will, he acknowledges, may be an illusion. But if so, it is a strange illusion, one that requires vast biological resources to maintain yet somehow survived evolution’s travails.

In other words; we don't really understand how this works.

A good question. We typically assume nearly everything that happens in our 'normal lives' (that's the part of your life where you have to do things like earn money...not your 'play life' as an Internet Plato) happens due to natural laws. This includes not only undisputable stuff like your car running (or breaking) but also things like psychology of other people, relationships with your family etc.

There are some people who have an excessively 'spirity' view of things. My sister-in-law, who has dabbled in just about every stupid religion except scientology (Wicca is her latest thing), for example is convinced that objects have feelings and can take action. For example, she believes her car hates her husband and only breaks when he drives it. This is probably the best I can do as an example of someone who does not live much of their life based on naturalistic assumptions.

Naturalism is a bit like capitalism. It works so well and is so pervasive it is really hard to find someone living by a totally different system.

I think there is a difference between living naturally, and living naturalistically. The difference is this; we are all constrained to live our daily lives in a physical world, and so we all eat, breath, do what is necessary to survive. But naturaslism informs our reasons for doing certain things; the 'why' of what we do; and it says there are no real reasons to do one thing or another, there is no objective definition of a good or bad choice; therefore, what is , is. What one chooses is already determined, so whatever one chooses is as right as anything else one might choose.

So in that sense, very few people, including those who believe in naturalism, live as naturalists. Most get up in the morning as if their lives have meaning and purpose, they chat online as if there opinions are right or wrong, and they love their families as if they have chosen to do so. My biggest problem with naturalism (and I speak as a former naturalist) is that it is the most horribly inconsistent set of beliefs I know of.

55

"How would anyone here know how anyone else spends 99% of their waking lives? "

Well, Jack, let's start with what happens when you wake up in the morning.

What do you do? Do you quake in fear that the room you fell asleep in is now the innards of some demon? Do you shout out for your mommy so she can tell you whether the earth's gravity field has reversed itself overnight? Do you gingerly touch your blankets to make sure they are not the living skin of some creature you've never seen before? Do you carefully probe the floor to make sure it's hard before you put your feet on it?

If not, why not? Why "assume" that your previous observations about the world you lived in yesterday in still apply to the world today?

That is what we sadly deceived naturalists do, after all.

56

And there's the parody; you depict human morals (without an objective base) as being buffeted by the winds of whim. You underestimate the solidity of my subjective moral undergirding. You imply objective morality is necessary for moral consistency. It is not, and that is a good thing; it doesn't exist.

I seriously don't question your subjective moral undergirding, I believe you really believe in a standard of right and wrong; but in a circumstance where I might not share your beliefs (I'm not saying I don't; it maybe they are the same), and was in a position to impose my morality on you, what argument would you make to convince me otherwise?

We DO derive it, for all intents and purposes. I think you are pretending not to understand what I say in the hope of goading me to respond in exasperation.

I really have no interest in your exasperation; I don't see either of us 'winning' (how would that be defined anyway?), so I'm in it to respond to the OP and find out why others think differently. As a former naturalist, I didn't consider it important to have a subjective moral undergirding, I did whatever i felt like doing at the time. Where do you derive yours from?

57

I ditto what GWW wrote and as for this

"we are all constrained to live our daily lives in a physical world, and so we all eat, breath, do what is necessary to survive."

Jack, I'm so damn proud of you right now!

58

"As a former naturalist, ... I did whatever i felt like doing at the time."

Sure you did, Jack. How much prison time did you serve?

Seriously, the belief that moral codes can only be "consistently" derived from a belief in a deity is the core of fundamentalism.

It's rude.

59

What do you do? Do you quake in fear that the room you fell asleep in is now the innards of some demon? Do you shout out for your mommy so she can tell you whether the earth's gravity field has reversed itself overnight? Do you gingerly touch your blankets to make sure they are not the living skin of some creature you've never seen before? Do you carefully probe the floor to make sure it's hard before you put your feet on it?

Again, that isn't naturalistic, that is natural. I'm not denying the natural world exists; I'm saying I'm saying my beliefs and motivations aren't determined by the natural world in which I exist. For example; right and wrong choices matter.

But you do bring up an interesting point; humans are capable of living in fear based on certain beliefs; in fact, those who actually live according to naturalism, i.e., believing I don't really matter, right and wrong don't exist, my behaviors are determined by forces beyond my control, do live the dysfunctional life you describe

If not, why not? Why "assume" that your previous observations about the world you lived in yesterday in still apply to the world today?

Our lives aren't motivated soley by our observations; I don't love, do what I believe to be good, or discuss what I believe to be true because I am an automaton programmed to do these things. But the fact that the physical world is consistent need not be ascribed to a belief in natuaralism.

60

"But the fact that the physical world is consistent need not be ascribed to a belief in natuaralism."

Again, you are playing mushmouth.

The recognition of the fact that the physical world is consistent is naturalism. If the physical world was not consistent --> no naturalism.

So how is it that it is a "fact" that the physical world is consistent and yet this Jesus guy was able to walk on water, turn water into wine, etc. What physical laws was he exploiting and how did he do it, Jack?

61

Our pervasive experience of free will, he acknowledges, may be an illusion. But if so, it is a strange illusion, one that requires vast biological resources to maintain yet somehow survived evolution’s travails.

What are the 'vast biological resources' required to maintain our experience of free will?

Magic in the sense that we don't understand how it works naturally;

No magic in the sense that it does not appear to follow any known laws of physics. To return to the example of the computer connected to the Internet, receiving messages from some other being. Suppose we examine the computer and find no cable, we monitor for radio signals of any type and we find nothing. The computer is isolated as far as we can tell yet it appears to be connected to the internet & receiving information from it!

Over time we may uncover how this can be. For example, perhaps there is a small wormhole in the computer allowing it to send and receive signals even though there is no visible cable connecting it to the net...nor a wireless signal. Until we uncover what it is, though, it will indeed defy what we understand about nature.

62

"Seriously, the belief that moral codes can only be "consistently" derived from a belief in a deity is the core of fundamentalism.

It's rude."

What moral code did Stalin operate under with the exception of a deity from the core of his beliefs? In his case, he fully and accurately adhered to a core belief of secular humanism. And no, the inquisition is not a counter as they clearly did not adhere to the moral code contained in Scripture. Indeed, the Inquisition is further support for the proposition you think rude.

63

What are the 'vast biological resources' required to maintain our experience of free will?

I believe the author of that statement is referring to the time and energy spent by the body on a large brain that is capable of "believing" it has free will. Having a big brain that supports consciousness seems to be overkill from an evolutionary perspective. I believe the person making the statement was a naturalist.

64

"What moral code did Stalin operate under with the exception of a deity from the core of his beliefs? In his case, he fully and accurately adhered to a core belief of secular humanism."

This is so patently untrue as to be absurd.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/intro/declaration.html#morals

Check out Ideal#3; there goes your Stalin myth.

65

"...in a circumstance where I might not share your beliefs (I'm not saying I don't; it maybe they are the same), and was in a position to impose my morality on you, what argument would you make to convince me otherwise?"

That, of course, would depend upon what aspect of your morality you sought to impose. How would you answer the same question? It's unlikely I'd be any more impressed by your theistic argument than you would be by my atheistic one. I respond to logic, not scripture.

66

That, of course, would depend upon what aspect of your morality you sought to impose. How would you answer the same question? It's unlikely I'd be any more impressed by your theistic argument than you would be by my atheistic one. I respond to logic, not scripture.

It would seem the point of the topic is exactly that; logical consistency.

67

Great post joe.

Mumon says "Now these guys have kind of morphed that into behavioral determinism, which, as anyone who's read anything on the subject (say, Barrett's The Illusion of Technique) knows is inherently indeterminate."

I think you miss the point Mumon. They argue that we are not first causes, that does not imply determinism, as random occurances (if you think they are possible) are not pre-determined. So, in a naturalistic world, Joe could have written this piece due to a solar flare randomly effecting the machinery of his brain, but this still means that he is not a first cause.

Very simply...machines are not first causes, and if naturalism is true, then we are just machines. My computer does what it does because something else caused it to act that way, that is why we don't throw computers in jail for hacking.

68

I find naturalism so refreshing as a way of describing and understanding the world without appeal to supernatural things like God and a soul. Yet many people, after a superficial introduction to the topic, quickly leap to the misconception that it must be a kind of hedonistic and/or amoral philosophy. That mistaken conceptual leap occurs I think for two primary reasons:

First, an unwillingness to question your current belief system is a fundamental stumbling block. Sometimes I think evangelicals are almost required to NOT consider any other world view in an intellectually honest way as if to do so would constitute a major sin in and of itself. Being deeply religious, I'm sure you find it very difficult to open your mind to a way of thinking about the world without a God or souls or angels or heaven or hell, yet one where human action can be moral and ethical.

A second reason for misunderstanding naturalism is a lack of good analogies and working models to aid your understanding, not because they don't exist but rather you just haven't been looking at them which is understandable when you already have a supernatural explanation for the world that you completely accept.

Here are three areas I think are useful in developing rich analogies and models:

1. computer science and artificial intelligence. Large scale computer networks, distributed computing, parallel computing and the programs that support their organization, operations, and decision making offer models for how the human mind might work without appeal to the supernatural. (Heck, 50 years ago Isaac Asimov offered an example of a world where robots were moral.)

2. organizational behaior and development (i.e. the study of human organizations large and small like corporations, partnerships, and work groups). Looking at how groups of people organize, do work, and make decisions without appeal to the supernatural offers models for how the human mind might work without supernatural explanations. As distasteful as it may be to evangelicals, many corporations act effectively and ethically without appeal to any religious view.

3. meditation practice, learning to watch, as an objective observer, your own mind and body noting how your own thoughts and feelings arise and pass away without "you" doing anything. I mention this because naturalism emphasizes the interconnectedness of people and their environment and meditation practice offers a way of experiencing that without appeal to any supernatural worldview. In particular, it sheds light on the nature of "free will."

69

Hi Rob (and a few others):

This post excerpt is a classic illustration of unjustified ad hominem by projection of base motive:

“Apparently, you think that causality precludes responses to subsequent causes . . . Your lack of understanding with regard to naturalism is so profound, I hardly know where, or even if, to begin . . . . Are you incapable of understanding naturalism? Do you lack the cognitive strength and flexibility to grasp the concept? Or, perhaps, you ARE able, but uninclined due to your religious indoctrination and a deep-seated need to attack philosophies that you perceive as offering the greatest threats to it.”

Have you considered that the self-referential sword of naturalism cuts two ways?

1] As Joe cites Dennet and Leiter: “CFN seeks to foster the understanding that HUMAN BEINGS AND THEIR BEHAVIOR ARE FULLY CAUSED, ENTIRELY NATURAL PHENOMENA . . . . an individual’s development and behavior are ENTIRELY the result of prior and surrounding conditions, both genetic and environmental. NATURALISM, THEREFORE, DENIES THAT PERSONS HAVE TRADITIONAL, CONTRA-CAUSAL FREE WILL - THAT SOMETHING WITHIN THEM IS CAPABLE OF ACTING AS A FIRST CAUSE.”

-- > This is no idiosyncrasy, as a glance at a collegiate dictionary quickly affirms that naturalism denotes: “the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for ALL phenomena.” That is, the underlying idea is that we are entirely caused secondary causes, so that the intuitive understanding we have that we make real, responsible choices in deciding, thinking, reasoning and behaving, is necessarily an illusion.

-- > In short, “don’t believe your lyin’ conscience and mind, we Naturalists KNOW all of your thinking and behaviour are just part and parcel of the great chain of uncaused cause and effect links in the world.” (This already begs the questions: (1) contingent beings arguably require a necessary being for their existence, (2) it is questionable that such an actual infinite regress of sequential causal links is feasible in a space-time universe with 13.7 +/- 0.2 billion years to play with, and (3) the subtle and manifold fine-tuning of the cosmos is itself a strong indication that the very laws of nature are most plausibly explained as the product of an Intelligent Designer. [cf. http://www.angelfire.com/pro/kairosfocus/resources/Intro_phil/God.htm ])

2] But in fact the real trouble is that such naturalism is arguably self-referential and inconsistent. For if we are constrained and controlled in ALL our behaviour and thought by forces that ultimately trace to the deterministic and/or stochastic laws of physics and chemistry -- but which have worked their way out through purposeless, randomly “directed” evolution from hydrogen to humans -- then that must include how we think and what we think we know. For, if free will is an illusion, can our similar intuitions that we know truths, that we reason logically, and that we are constrained by ought-ness (i.e. moral principle) rise above the level of mere illusion?

3] But also, naturalism is itself an object of our thinking and reasoning. So, if our thoughts, perceptions and inferences are just part of a random and/or stochastic chain of purposeless cause and effects, why should we trust and privilege those blind cause-effect chains which happen to have led us to the general laws and theories/models of physics, chemistry, biology, psychology and anthropology-sociology? Are THESE chains, by some wonderful accident, true beyond our perceptions?

4] How can we confidently know that, if our minds run riot with illusions? By Galillean resort to empirical tests? But, then, to assess the relevance of such tests to the abductively inferred laws of science, we are relying on: our reasoning capacity and adherence to scientific values such as integrity in experiment, analysis and reporting.

5] Not to mention, the very laws themselves are as a rule underdetermined by the data: thus, scientific abduction works by inference to the best current explanation [ cf. http://www.angelfire.com/pro/kairosfocus/resources/Intro_phil/toolkit.htm#epist ] – why should we trust and privilege such inferences, if we may be subject to control by class origins [Marx], id-ego-superego conflicts [Freud], operant conditioning [Skinner], or the happenstance of the electrochemistry and molecular biology of our nervous systems [Crick] and God knows what else?

Perhaps, then, we should start afresh on a different basis. First, if we know anything at all it is that we have minds, perceptions and consciences through which we freely interact with the biophysical and socio-cultural worlds, with other people who have minds, perceptions and consciences too. Then, we should accept worldviews that comport well with these intuitions. Naturalism, whether deterministic or stochastic, fails at that bar, but the concept that the fine-tuned cosmos, the intricate cellular mechanisms of life, and the odd fact that our hearts and minds work so well point to a Creator who made us in his image fits the data very well indeed.

Maybe, we should think again about Jesus’ words in Matt 6:22- 23 “If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is your darkness.” [Cf. Plato’s very similar parable of the cave: http://www.bulldognews.net/cave-parable.html ]

In that case, maybe it is wise to avoid ad hominems based on Dawkins’ fallacy that those who reject evolutionary materialism [aka naturalism] are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked.

$ 0.02

Gordon

70

Hi Boonton

I see your analogy of a programmed computer. IT seems to me the case of Poland in 1979 is an interesting empirical test. What would move people raised on a diet of dialectic materialism to "suddenly" trust the very embodiment of the Marxists' case study no 1 on socio-cultural manipulation?

MOre recently, what was the driving force in Ms SMith that was able to suddenly turn around the desperate gunman who shot his way out of COurt and took her hostage? Why did he then meekly surrender?

And, more generally, which do you believe: your lyin' eyes, conscience/heart and mind, or the claim that all this is mere illusion caused by random and deterministic forces in concert over the ages? (Except, to do the latter, you have to make just one exception. By some natural miracle, the chain of thinking and behaving that leads to natruralism is an exception to the illusion. At least, that is what Crick, Freud, and Skinner seemed to think. In his more lucid moments, Darwin had his doubts.)

THat is why I assert that Naturalism is self-referentially inconsistent, so if we are forced to rely on the capacity of our minfs to generate accurate perceptions and sound reasoning at least some of the time, we should reject it.

$ 0.02

Gordon

71

AndyS

I see: Sometimes I think evangelicals are almost required to NOT consider any other world view in an intellectually honest way as if to do so would constitute a major sin in and of itself. Being deeply religious, I'm sure you find it very difficult to open your mind to a way of thinking about the world without a God or souls or angels or heaven or hell, yet one where human action can be moral and ethical.

First, kindly refrain from unwarranted ad hominems, they simply degrade the discussion into quarrels as has too often happened in this blog.

Second, on substance:

1] I think it should be plain that the views being presented by the CFN have been fairly summarised by Joe and others, and that they are self-referentially inconsistent . . . notehow no-one is trying to defend the statements excerpted from CFN.

2] More broadly, in worldview analysis one is looking at comparative difficulties of alternative explanations of the cosmos, given that there are no positions without serious difficulties over the past 2500 years of discourse in Western CUlture.

3] In the case of naturalism, a major difficulty is its evolutionary materialsism as wholly being able to account for the world we experience, including our minds and consciences. For, that leads to the implication -- through various proposed mechanisms -- that thought and conscience are wholly caused by forces internal to a purposeless cosmos. THat is, it makes the subjective probability that these are illusory very high.

4] But, Natutralism depends essentially and inescapably on the quality of at least one chain of these purposeless causes: the chain that leads to naturalism as an intellectual system. So, why should we accept such special pleading?

DO you see why a lot of us prefer to respect our direct intuitions of consciousness, thought and conscience as being generally trustworthy? Then, whatever the difficulties, we can have a reasonably coherent basis for our lives as cognitive, conscience-lashed agents.

Ok