"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." -- Alice in Wonderland
Like Alice I am woefully unskilled in the art of believing impossible things. Even if I were to spend an entire hour a day I doubt I could develop the proficiency to believe even one impossible thing before breakfast, much less six. This lack of imagination is one of the primary reasons I could never be an atheist.
I’m not sure how they do it, how they aquire the skill, but they have an incomparable ability to believe impossible things. Take, for example, the following list of beliefs. Not all of them are shared by every atheist, but all who claim the label believe at least one of these items:
1. Emergent properties ‘arise’ out of more fundamental entities (i.e., matter) and yet are ‘novel’ or ‘irreducible’ with respect to them. Consciousness, for example, is an emergent property of the brain, arising – like magic – from a specific arrangement of molecules. This magical property which is created by the physical can also turn around and affect the physical matter from which it came.
2. Everything that is real is, in some sense, really physical. Therefore, mental states such as beliefs, desires, and sensations do not exist. Mental states such as the belief that mental states do not exist, do not actually exist but are merely physical states in the brain.
3. Our cognitive faculties have resulted from blind mechanisms like natural selection, working on sources of genetic variation such as random genetic mutation, yet are reliable for distinguishing between truth and false aspects of reality, such as the claim that our cognitive faculties have resulted from blind mechanisms.
4. Evolution is a blind process that has no teleology; whatever behavior works is the behavior that survives. Yet ethical norms of behavior should not be based on what works or what will lead to survival but should be based on concepts not found in nature (even though nature is all that exists).
5. The brain is nothing more than a physical system whose operation is governed solely by the laws of chemistry and physics. Nevertheless, a person’s beliefs (i.e., about the purported existence of deities) are not determined by random fluctuations in the natural laws but are chosen by the individual and should be considered “rational.”
6. A human being has a finite ability to know yet should be taken seriously when making claims that no infinite beings exist.
While I’m fairly certain that all Western atheists believe at least one of these items, I am completely baffled at how they do it. Admittedly, I’ve never been much of one for magic or mysticism and since such alien and exotic concepts are required to maintain a belief in atheism, I am at a distinct disadvantage. Still, I wonder how they are able to maintain such supple reasoning abilities. I wonder sometimes if, like the Queen of Hearts, they have to practice the skill of believing the impossible.
Although I am having a bit of good-natured fun at the expense of my atheist friends, I do hope they will take the broader point seriously. As the philosopher Mortimer Adler once wrote, a person should not only be able to state the position of the other in a manner that the other approves, he should also be able to state the other person's reasons for holding that view. I’m not sure that I would be able to do that which is why
I don’t claim, of course, to understand how atheism can be considered internally coherent. As a Christian I obviously don’t think it’s possible for atheism to be true. But it might be more logically consistent and intellectually reasonable than I give it credit for being.
I’d be curious to know how an atheist would reword the list of six impossible things (in a way that doesn’t avoid the inherent tensions I point out) and also how they justify their beliefs. If you put together such a response send it to me in a email or, if you post a response on your blog, a link to the relevant post. If I receive enough responses I’ll put them together and include them in a post next week.
1
Hopefully you won't turn this into my defending child porn and pedophilia...
"This magical property which is created by the physical can also turn around and affect the physical matter from which it came."
What don't you get? The point is that mental states ARE physical brain states. Physical brain states (which are mental states) can affect subsequent physical brain states (which are mental states). What's impossible about that?
Number two strikes me as utter nonsense that I can't even respond to.
"yet are reliable for distinguishing between truth and false aspects of reality, such as the claim that our cognitive faculties have resulted from blind mechanisms. "
I wouldn't personally make any claim for or against their reliability. I would say they seem to be reliable, but who the f*** really knows for sure?
"Yet ethical norms of behavior should not be based on what works or what will lead to survival but should be based on concepts not found in nature (even though nature is all that exists)."
To claim that ethical norms *should* be based on anything without offering an objective seems self-defeating to me, but that's just me.
"Nevertheless, a person’s beliefs (i.e., about the purported existence of deities) are not determined by random fluctuations in the natural laws but are chosen by the individual and should be considered “rational.”"
First: The individual is a product of the same processes. Second: No, what we should consider rational is what most closely identifies with our conception of rationality. Who is to say whether its *actually* rational?
"A human being has a finite ability to know yet should be taken seriously when making claims that no infinite beings exist."
What self-respecting atheist makes this claim? I know plenty do, but they're idiots and its not fair of you to paint atheists in general as believing this. What rational atheists believe, in my opinion, is that no evidence for or against the existence of an infinite being can be assessed by us in the natural realm.
Now, using your logic, I'm sure I just defended child porn, but I'm not sure exactly how...
posted on 01.19.2006 3:21 AM2
I know plenty do, but they're idiots and its not fair of you to paint atheists in general as believing this.
Plenty that do means a lot do. Joe states:
While I’m fairly certain that all Western atheists believe at least one of these items...
In other words, he's not saying that atheists in general believe it, just that some do. You yourself admit that plenty do which makes it more than some tiny minority position.
What rational atheists believe, in my opinion, is that no evidence for or against the existence of an infinite being can be assessed by us in the natural realm.
I would classify that as being agnostic. Atheism is the belief that there are no god(s). It does not make the claim that it doesn't know.
To claim that ethical norms *should* be based on anything without offering an objective seems self-defeating to me, but that's just me.
Objective: Create a healthier and happier human race.
Method: Anyone found with mental and/or physical disorders are to be humanely euthanised.
Reason: People who have mental and/or physical health problems can not achieve the objective. They also hinder the healthy from achieving the objective.
posted on 01.19.2006 6:40 AM3
Ed,
What, exactly, is a "brain state"? I have some specific questions I'm sure you'll be able to answer, and I'm looking forward to learning something...
(1) How many different "brain states" exist, using current data, and what are they?
(2) Where are these "brain states" catalogued? I'd like to see the list.
(3) What are the parameters of these "brain states"? Are they defined by the concentration of particular neurotransmitters or other biochemical agents, focused metabolic activity (like a virtual ganglion), or some other measureable phenomena?
3a) Refer me to a paper wherein measurements are made on a subject whose "brain state" is unknown to the observer, measurements are made, and the correct "brain state" is deduced by purely objective means that reliably correlates with the subject's report of the state at the time of measurement.
(4) Given our knowledge of these "brain states" and their physical parameters, what is the mechanism that causes the brain to transition from one "state" to another?
(5) Are these "brain states" mutually exclusive or can they co-exist? If more than one "state" can be active at a given time, do they compete for resources?
(6) What are the behavioral effects of these "brain states"?
4
Joe says: As a Christian I obviously don’t think it’s possible for atheism to be true.
St. Paul went further, and in Romans 1 claimed atheism doesn't even exist. What a lovely irony.
posted on 01.19.2006 7:14 AM5
I'd like to know how atheists can believe the physical universe is self creating. It is an irrational concept.
posted on 01.19.2006 8:06 AM6
Jim Gilbert says: St. Paul went further, and in Romans 1 claimed atheism doesn't even exist. What a lovely irony.
Jim, you've got a great point. Indeed, it reaveals what Atheism really is: the ultimate in illogic; a belief system of denial.
Great Post Joe!
posted on 01.19.2006 8:46 AM7
Actually the most interesting things that most of you are missing so far is that first these six impossible beliefs have little or nothing to do with atheism AND they nicely show how many impossible things Joe actually believes.
3. Our cognitive faculties have resulted from blind mechanisms like natural selection, working on sources of genetic variation such as random genetic mutation, yet are reliable for distinguishing between truth and false aspects of reality, such as the claim that our cognitive faculties have resulted from blind mechanisms.
What is meant by blind mechanisms? Mechanisms that have no relationship to reality? Such as an car's cruise control system that just uses random numbers instead of reading the speedometer to determine if gas needs to be added or decreased?
As we exhaustively examined on the Monkey Mind thread, if true beliefs have anything to do with behavior and anything to do with the real world then there should be no surprise that a 'blind' process like evolution would result in a creature that could hold true beliefs about its environment.
But what the hell are 'blind mechanisms' and does Joe believe they really exist? Is gravity a 'blind mechanism'? I have sad news for Joe, he's been believing impossible things quite a bit and has probably broken the Queen's record. Joe claims to believe in God which I assume he defines as having the qualities of infinite knowledge, infinite power, infinite control over the universe yet he also seems to believe in 'blind mechanisms'.
A moment's thought, though, reveals that such cannot really exist. Joe would have us believe a man walking down a street who gets killed because a brick shakes loose from a building and falls on him is the victim of 'blind forces' while God coming down and altering the gene pool every few dozen years for the last billion or so is a 'non-blind force'. Yet his very definition of God would mean that God had to have known the implications of setting up gravity would have ment the poor schlub walking down the street would get killed by the falling brick billions of years later.
We dismiss unpredictable, 'blind forces' events as an Act of God when we make our claim to the insurance company. The insurance company could never sell a policy to God, though, or shall we say God could never collect. By definition God can't fall victim to 'acts of God'!
6. A human being has a finite ability to know yet should be taken seriously when making claims that no infinite beings exist.
Yet Joe has previously asserted that infinity can exist in mathematics but not in the material universe. While I'm sure Joe believes in infinite beigns I'm also sure Joe does not believe that he is an infinite beign nor does he believe he has anything other than a finite ability to know.
Needless to say let me just take out one more item:
1. Emergent properties ‘arise’ out of more fundamental entities (i.e., matter) and yet are ‘novel’ or ‘irreducible’ with respect to them. Consciousness, for example, is an emergent property of the brain, arising – like magic – from a specific arrangement of molecules. This magical property which is created by the physical can also turn around and affect the physical matter from which it came.
Emergent properties are not magic. They are the result of fundamental entities but in interaction with many of themselves. In other words, ten trillion atoms interacting together will have properties that can be described on the macro scale that result from the fundamental properties of a single atom yet to derive the emergent property one must calculate the behavior of ten trillion atoms together. That may take more energy than simply putting ten trillion atoms together and seeing what happens.
If this wasn't the case then engineering would have never been a subject of study. Students would just be instructed in physics and chemistry and told that's all they need to know. More recently even that would have been discarded & instruction would be in quantum theory & physics and left at that. Yet oddly chemistry and engineering remain majors at most colleges.
So what have we here:
1. Joe has listed beliefs that one doesn't really have to be an athiest to hold.
2. We have discovered that Joe is almost certainly walking around with a host of impossible beliefs and the best part of the laugh is that he doesn't even get it!
8
Ed Hopefully you won't turn this into my defending child porn and pedophilia...
Kudos for not only not defending child porn and pedophilia in your comment but for having the courage to respond thoughtfully.
What don't you get? The point is that mental states ARE physical brain states. Physical brain states (which are mental states) can affect subsequent physical brain states (which are mental states). What's impossible about that?
In case you are not aware of it, the theory you are positing is called eliminativism. As the Dictionary of Philosophy of Mind defines the term, “eliminativism claims that it is an empirical fact, rather than a conceptual necessity, that mental states are identical with brain states, and that this fact is justified only by scientific evidence.”
Number two strikes me as utter nonsense that I can't even respond to.
Obviously you are not able to follow your belief about the brain to it’s logical conclusion. Your view that “mental states ARE physical brain states” is called eliminativism. Eliminativism says that since mental state are brain states, entities such as beliefs, desires, and sensations do not exist. How is it utter nonsense if that is exactly what cognitive scientists conclude is the logical outcome of that belief?
First: The individual is a product of the same processes. Second: No, what we should consider rational is what most closely identifies with our conception of rationality. Who is to say whether its *actually* rational?
Where did our conception of rationality come from? Did we just make it up? Is it purely subjective or does it have an objective component?
What self-respecting atheist makes this claim? I know plenty do, but they're idiots and its not fair of you to paint atheists in general as believing this.
Please note for the record that it was not me (a Christian) who says that no self-respecting atheist would say that hat no infinite beings exist, but Ed (a fellow atheist).
Jim St. Paul went further, and in Romans 1 claimed atheism doesn't even exist. What a lovely irony.
That is usually what I say too, but I was trying to be generous today. Atheism is not, in my opinion, an intellectual position (at least not a rationally defensible one) but a matter of the will or passions. It is a conscious choice to ignore the evidence in order to maintain a certain belief.
Boonton Actually the most interesting things that most of you are missing so far is that first these six impossible beliefs have little or nothing to do with atheism…
I’m not sure how you can claim that they have little or nothing to do with atheism since most of them are things that only atheists believe and that all atheists believe at least some of them.
What is meant by blind mechanisms?
By blind I mean “non-teleological” or undirected.
As we exhaustively examined on the Monkey Mind thread, if true beliefs have anything to do with behavior and anything to do with the real world then there should be no surprise that a 'blind' process like evolution would result in a creature that could hold true beliefs about its environment.
And as Alvin Plantinga exhaustively showed, true beliefs are not required for survival and therefore are not necessary in an evolutionary produced brain.
But what the hell are 'blind mechanisms' and does Joe believe they really exist? Is gravity a 'blind mechanism'?
No, it’s not.
Joe claims to believe in God which I assume he defines as having the qualities of infinite knowledge, infinite power, infinite control over the universe yet he also seems to believe in 'blind mechanisms'.
Um, no, I don’t.
A moment's thought, though, reveals that such cannot really exist.
Uh, yeah, I agree. Next strawman please…
Yet Joe has previously asserted that infinity can exist in mathematics but not in the material universe. While I'm sure Joe believes in infinite beigns I'm also sure Joe does not believe that he is an infinite beign nor does he believe he has anything other than a finite ability to know.
I believe that infinity “exists” in mathematics in the same way that a unicorn can “exist” in a fairy tale: as a useful concept that has no ontological correspondence to anything in the material world.
In other words, ten trillion atoms interacting together will have properties that can be described on the macro scale that result from the fundamental properties of a single atom yet to derive the emergent property one must calculate the behavior of ten trillion atoms together. That may take more energy than simply putting ten trillion atoms together and seeing what happens.
This reminds me of the a line from Animal Farm where the pigs write on the barn that “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” In Boonton’s view, ten trillion atoms is not equal to ten trillion atoms. Some sets of ten trillion atoms can produce special properties that “emerge” out of themselves while others cannot.
Why they are able to do this no seems to know. But apparently every atom has a magical ingredient that remains hidden throughout 99.999% of the universe but “arises” when they accidentally join 9,999,999,999,999 in a super-special arrangement.
Maybe Boonton can believe this but, as I said, I have trouble believing impossible things.
9
Joe:
Obviously you are not able to follow your belief about the brain to it’s logical conclusion. Your view that “mental states ARE physical brain states” is called eliminativism. Eliminativism says that since mental state are brain states, entities such as beliefs, desires, and sensations do not exist. How is it utter nonsense if that is exactly what cognitive scientists conclude is the logical outcome of that belief?
I must be missing something here.
How do you get from the claim that mental states are brain states, to the claim that mental states do not exist? If, mental states do not exist, then how can "eliminativists" claim that they are brain states.
As far as I can tell, you are working with the following propositions:
1. Beliefs, desires, and sensations are mental states.
2. "Eliminativists" claim that mental states are brain states.
3. Therefore, according to eliminativists, beliefs, desires, and sensations are brain states.
4. "Eliminativists" claim that brain states DO exist.
From that, the logical conclusion to eliminativism would seem to be that it is possible for beliefs, desires, and sensations to exist.
Can you provide support (preferably empirical) for the claim that mental states are not brain states?
10
I’ve never been much of one for magic or mysticism and since such alien and exotic concepts are required to maintain a belief in atheism
You believe in an unseeable being with unlimited powers not subject to natural laws or material constraints, who runs the world in secret, grants wishes, and loves you very, very much, and you reject beliefs that are confined only to correspondence with material fact and natural law . . . because you don't believe in magic or in alien and exotic entities.
OK.
As for the various purported beliefs you cite, none of them is necessarily a part of, or in most cases even logically related to, atheism. You're probably right that most atheists would subscribe to at least some of them, but for reaons only distantly related to atheism - namely, that atheists commonly embrace scientific explanations of the world - but note that these beliefs are not atheism, they're just (sort of) science.
As for details:
1. Emergent properties ‘arise’ out of more fundamental entities (i.e., matter) and yet are ‘novel’ or ‘irreducible’ with respect to them. Consciousness, for example, is an emergent property of the brain, arising – like magic – from a specific arrangement of molecules. This magical property which is created by the physical can also turn around and affect the physical matter from which it came.
"Emergence" is a technical term that refers to how higher-level phenomena are related to the physical processes that manifest them. (As a loose analogy, "music" is not the same as "soundwaves" - but when you organize sound waves in certain ways, music "emerges".) Some argue that emergence is a good explanation for such relationships; some reject any distinction between them, and argue that "higher-level" phenomena are just shorthand descriptions of the lower-level processes, with nothing substantively different going on. This is a debate over how to describe mechanisms and their effects - it has nothing to do with atheism. (You can be a religious believer and still hold with "emergence" theories. "Emergence" occurs - if it does - in any complex system. Traffic jams, eddies in fluid flow, thunderstorms, and intelligence in computing systems are all examples of emergence - none has anything to do with atheism.)
2. Everything that is real is, in some sense, really physical. Therefore, mental states such as beliefs, desires, and sensations do not exist. Mental states such as the belief that mental states do not exist, do not actually exist but are merely physical states in the brain.
You're equivocating on the word "exist". Mental states are a property of a physical system; they are not physical objects, but that does not mean they do not "exist". Does the score of a baseball game "exist"? Where is it located? How much does it weigh? These questions are absurd, not because the score does not "exist" but because it exists as a fact about the physical process known as the game, not as a physical object in the game. Mental states - configurations of the brain - surely exist. We know this - aside from the fact that we are aware of our mental states - because changing the physical mechanisms of the brain, through drugs, injuries, tumors, etc., not only produces changes in mental states, but it produces predictable changes in those states. (Injuries to specific brain areas produce very remarkably specific losses of function.) Thus, the mental states are the product of the physical object, and its processes, known as the brain. Again, this has nothing to do with atheism, but neither is it impossible - it's obviously true.
3. Our cognitive faculties have resulted from blind mechanisms like natural selection, working on sources of genetic variation such as random genetic mutation, yet are reliable for distinguishing between truth and false aspects of reality, such as the claim that our cognitive faculties have resulted from blind mechanisms.
Once again, this is not a belief specific to atheism (in fact, it's one held by many religious believers). Second, how mental mechanisms arose (hint: mutation is only a small part of genetic variation) is irrelevant to whether they can ascertain "truth".
Note that we obviously can ascertain some truths - especially in axiomatic systems like math or logic - so our truth-ascertaining system is not at fault. Where we have trouble is ascertaining necessary (i.e., logically irrefutable) truths on the basis of material observation - for the obvious, and trivial, reason that material observation is not a system of logical deduction.
This means that our material science carries an inherent limit of reliability - but any scientist would tell you so, and, though that makes science hard and progress slow, it does not practically limit our use of scientific knowledge when we have it. The reason for that is three-fold: though science is always subject to question, it's the best system of obtaining knowledge about the world that we have, so complaining about its limits is rather pointless; second, science is not only the best system for obtaining material knowledge, but it's the only reliable system, so the other choices (religion, "psi", intuition, etc.) are not just worse but crazy; and finally, though science is limited in its approach to truth, that limit is awfully high in the best cases - science cannot give us provably irrefutable truths, but it can give us truths so well-grounded on observation and correspondence with other well-grounded truths that it would be insane to reject them.
The result: everything we know we know through science, and everything we really want to know we pursue through science. We waste a lot of time doing weird things like praying and meditating, but when the rubber hits the road we rely on science - which is no more than logical inference based on objective observation of material systems - whenever we try to explain, design, predict, or control something. And it inevitably comes through for us in systematic and predictable ways. We never pray to get the right channel on TV, we don't "intuit" rocket trajectories, we don't "feel the vibes" of new therapeutic drugs, we don't let Uri Geller remotely program our computers, and we don't use the Bible's definition of pi (= 3.0) to calculate anything. The things we really care about, we approach through science . . . and it works. That's as much truth as we can expect, and our brains are perfectly capable of appreciating it (as they obviouisly do, since it's our brains we use to do all those things above).
4. Evolution is a blind process that has no teleology; whatever behavior works is the behavior that survives. Yet ethical norms of behavior should not be based on what works or what will lead to survival but should be based on concepts not found in nature (even though nature is all that exists).
You're still equivocating on the word "exists. Obviously we have to base our ethics on "concepts not found in nature" - because "concepts" are not natural objects like rocks or trees. They are mental constructs (mental states, in the technical language of your first point above). Why is this puzzling?
We base our poetry and music on "concepts not found in nature". We base our goals and aspirations on such concepts. We base our decision what to have for lunch on such concepts. All this means is that we think about things - and not everything we think about is an observable natural phenomenon, or a logical inference from one.
That's the whole point. Because we have an intelligence capable of conceiving of - having a concept of - more than simple direct observation, we can have lives that incorporate values and goals other than instinctive or biological drives. And because we can, we choose to - and among those values, for most people, is a vision of what is commonly called "the good life". If we choose to live by that value, we need to figure out how - because it's not natural (any more than is poetry, music, or the desire for honey-mustard sauce on chicken finges).
We could live like animals if we chose (homosexuality and murder would both be legal, but religion would not) - we just choose not to. But how is this "impossible"? It's obviously not impossible - we do it.
5. The brain is nothing more than a physical system whose operation is governed solely by the laws of chemistry and physics. Nevertheless, a person’s beliefs (i.e., about the purported existence of deities) are not determined by random fluctuations in the natural laws but are chosen by the individual and should be considered “rational.”
Um, this one's down to you.
The "problem of free will" is not a problem for atheists. It has been nurtured for millenia by religious believers as the last desperate shred of their otherwise-absurd beliefs. It's certainly true that in a purely material universe there would be no reason for religious beliefs. Having religious beliefs requires that there be free will - both to explain how we do what we do in a non-materialistic world and to make room for all that guilt that makes religion a convenient necessity. And the fact that our behavior feels so free and unchosen gives strong intuitive support to that position.
But it's not clear that the feeling of free will that we have is really true. It's certainly almost impossible to cohere with every other fact we have about the universe - and recall, those facts explain, quite nicely, everything we know and do. It's much easier to accept that "hard" free will is a convincing delusion - in which case everything falls into place. There may be some atheists who hold out for "soft determinism" [i.e., essentially determinism that is indistinguishable from free will], but that's a minor quibble.
As it stands now, it's clearly the responsibility of religious believers to prove that there is free will. The materialist case is both obvious and self-consistent; it's the religious case that looks worse and worse every day.
6. A human being has a finite ability to know yet should be taken seriously when making claims that no infinite beings exist.
I don't think this means anything. I don't know what a "finite ability to know" is, but it surely can't mean that we can't know about infinite things. Our "ability to know" is "finite", I suppose, in the sense that it's a product of a finite physical system and cannot encompass more than some finite amount of information, or a finite processing capacity - but you can certainly turn that capacity on questions regarding infinity. For instance, I know that there is no largest prime number - they go on infinitely high. I also know that there is no smallest fraction - they can get infinitely small. I also know that there is no infinitely large even-numbered prime.
At best, you seem to be making another claim about the difference between absolute knowledge (deductive proof) and observational knowledge. We've covered that already. If you are claiming that we cannot scientifically observe the absence of something, that's trivially true, but science doesn't seek "observations of things that don't exist". It seeks observations of things that do, and rejects belief in things that can't be seen or inferred from what is seen - not because it proves what isn't there, but because it's irrational to believe in anything without good reason. Science gives us good reasons for what it teaches us; it doesn't even bother to look for reasons for what isn't true. It just declares that there is no good reason to believe in anything that there is no good reason to believe in (or: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it is absence of a reason to believe).
Since the scientific system of knowledge is not only the best we have, but the only rational one we have, and is remarkably well-grounded by the test of empirical robustness in the actual world it purports to describe, the claim that it houses some otherwise completely incompatible object that has infinite powers that are constantly busy doing things that can't be observed or detected is one it would be irrational to accept. If you think otherwise, no problem: prove it. Show us the thing that can't possibly be part of a material universe, then show that it is the product of your imaginary invisible . . . "magical"? . . . friend. Until then, we have no reason to believe in it, and lots of reason not to.
This list of things, as I've noted, seems to have almost nothing to do with atheism. More importantly, it often seems to assume a privileged position for religious belief, and then ask how anyone could deviate from those beliefs.
The materialist position is simply that we should have evidence for what we believe, and that materialist beliefs are sufficient to make sense of what evidence we do have. And in fact, they do prove sufficient every time we try them - so what's the problem?
posted on 01.19.2006 1:06 PM11
Nick From that, the logical conclusion to eliminativism would seem to be that it is possible for beliefs, desires, and sensations to exist.
No, what exists is the brain state, a physical collection of neurons. It may appear as if you have a mental state (i.e., you believe that you have a stomachache) but it is an illusion, a way of describing something that doesn’t exist. In other words, there is no you that is controlling your brain; it is regulated by the laws of physics. When everything is reducible to the physical, everything is controlled by the laws of physics.
Can you provide support (preferably empirical) for the claim that mental states are not brain states?
I am not claiming that mental states are not associated with brain states. I’m saying that they are not identical. Mental states cannot be reduced to physical states. But the answer is no, I cannot prove it empirically anymore than it can be empirically proved that mental states are the same as brain states.
Kevin You're probably right that most atheists would subscribe to at least some of them, but for reasons only distantly related to atheism - namely, that atheists commonly embrace scientific explanations of the world - but note that these beliefs are not atheism, they're just (sort of) science.
If only that were true! I’ve never met an atheist who really embraced a scientific explanation of the world for the simply reason that science cannot explain the world. Science can give us data and from there we can combine it with other areas (i.e., philosophy) to come up with theories which may help us explain the world. But science itself does not, and I have never met anyone who did not embrace atheism that accepted all of these “impossible things.”
You can be a religious believer and still hold with "emergence" theories.
I agree. I believe in many of the ideas posited by “emergence” theories. I just don’t think they are a “property” of matter anymore than traffic is a “property” of cars.
You're equivocating on the word "exist". Mental states are a property of a physical system; they are not physical objects, but that does not mean they do not "exist".
I hear materialists make such claims all the time, yet it makes no sense whatsoever. If a physical property does not “exist” in the same way that matter “exists” then all that exists is not material. This is no different than Platonists who say that matter exists and forms exists just not in the same way.
Does the score of a baseball game "exist"? Where is it located? How much does it weigh? These questions are absurd, not because the score does not "exist" but because it exists as a fact about the physical process known as the game, not as a physical object in the game.
It is absurd because materialism is absurd. If everything is material then no, a baseball game doesn’t exist. You are trying to claim that non-material entities can have an ontological, but non-physical reality. But that is the very thing that materialism rejects about other philosophical systems.
Note that we obviously can ascertain some truths - especially in axiomatic systems like math or logic - so our truth-ascertaining system is not at fault.
I would have thought that you would be the first to have avoided the question-begging fallacy. Come on, it’s not that difficult to see that you can't assume that non-teleological processes created the brain simply because it is obvious to you that we can ascertain some truths.
The reason for that is three-fold: though science is always subject to question, it's the best system of obtaining knowledge about the world that we have, so complaining about its limits is rather pointless;
Nonsense. Science relies on proof, which is a way we resort to knowing something when we can’t directly experience something.
second, science is not only the best system for obtaining material knowledge, but it's the only reliable system, so the other choices (religion, "psi", intuition, etc.) are not just worse but crazy;
Double nonsense. Science relies on such things as philosophical presuppositions and logic, things that, last I checked were not themselves “scientific.” Also, most of the greatest scientific theories would have not have been discovered without “intuition.”
and finally, though science is limited in its approach to truth, that limit is awfully high in the best cases - science cannot give us provably irrefutable truths, but it can give us truths so well-grounded on observation and correspondence with other well-grounded truths that it would be insane to reject them.
Sort of. At its best, science gives us the data that is as strong as direct experience. Science may irrefutably prove that there is a tree in front of me but that is no more well-grounded than my own direct experience.
Also, I should note that much of what passes for science is not based on observation. If you want to set the bar that high you’ll cut out a huge chunk of what you are trying to defend.
You're still equivocating on the word "exists. Obviously we have to base our ethics on "concepts not found in nature" - because "concepts" are not natural objects like rocks or trees. They are mental constructs (mental states, in the technical language of your first point above). Why is this puzzling?
Because this is an internally incoherent claim. Materialism claims that the material world of nature (that which can be detected by science!) is all there is. Concepts not found in nature are concepts that do not exist. If mental states (such as concepts) are brain states then what “exists” is like a rock or tree. If we don’t base our ethics on rocks or tress then why should we base them on “concepts?”
That's the whole point. Because we have an intelligence capable of conceiving of - having a concept of - more than simple direct observation, we can have lives that incorporate values and goals other than instinctive or biological drives.
Let’s back up a second. Just a few paragraphs up you said:
everything we know we know through science, and everything we really want to know we pursue through science. We waste a lot of time doing weird things like praying and meditating, but when the rubber hits the road we rely on science - which is no more than logical inference based on objective observation of material systems - whenever we try to explain, design, predict, or control something.
You just said that everything we really want to know is based on science which is “no more” than logical inference based on objective observation of material systems. Yet you turn around and say that we can live our lives based on values and goals that are “more than” simple direct observation.
I’m confused about what you are claiming.
If science gives us the ultimate knowledge then we should base our ethics on science (i.e., what is, is right) since as you say, “The things we really care about, we approach through science . . . and it works.”
As it stands now, it's clearly the responsibility of religious believers to prove that there is free will. The materialist case is both obvious and self-consistent; it's the religious case that looks worse and worse every day.
You’re just saying that because you had no other choice. ; )
12
Joe:
Obviously you are not able to follow your belief about the brain to it’s logical conclusion. Your view that “mental states ARE physical brain states” is called eliminativism. Eliminativism says that since mental state are brain states, entities such as beliefs, desires, and sensations do not exist. How is it utter nonsense if that is exactly what cognitive scientists conclude is the logical outcome of that belief?
Errrr, how would the 'do not exist' part follow? If 'mental states' are 'brain states' and a desire is a 'mental state' then it would therefore be a 'brain state' as well.
Where did our conception of rationality come from? Did we just make it up? Is it purely subjective or does it have an objective component?
Good question, for several posts now rationality has been an essential part of your argument regarding evolution and many other things yet every time I ask what it is you are talking about exactly little or no answer is provided. The unwritten definition seems to be that "rationality is whatever it takes for me to defeat the theory of evolution"
This reminds me of the a line from Animal Farm where the pigs write on the barn that “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” In Boonton’s view, ten trillion atoms is not equal to ten trillion atoms. Some sets of ten trillion atoms can produce special properties that “emerge” out of themselves while others cannot.
Errr actually no. If my brain, my whole body was copied atom by atom I'd expect the copy to be just like me. What would you expect?
Why they are able to do this no seems to know. But apparently every atom has a magical ingredient that remains hidden throughout 99.999% of the universe but “arises” when they accidentally join 9,999,999,999,999 in a super-special arrangement.
Take the painting of the Mona Lisa. Examine any particular atom of it and you'll find nothing that indicates it is 1 / ten trillion trillionth of the Mona Lisa painting. Yet if you could see, say 75% of the atoms you'd probably be able to recognize what it was. Does the property of being the Mona Lisa exist when looking at the micro scale or does it only emerge when looking at the macro scale?
Now what does this have to do with atheism? What is the big deal about believing that your thoughts map to arrangements of atoms that make up your brain? You state:
I’m not sure how you can claim that they have little or nothing to do with atheism since most of them are things that only atheists believe and that all atheists believe at least some of them.
What is this? Philsophy by imaginary survey results? I don't see anything particularly atheist about believing your thoughts happen in your brain and result from the arrangement of matter in your brain. Why is your vision of God limited to being who makes thoughts happen from 'spooky unknown stuff' like out of some cheap knock off of a Harry Potter movie?
But what the hell are 'blind mechanisms' and does Joe believe they really exist? Is gravity a 'blind mechanism'?
No, it’s not.
Now this is beautiful because it cuts to the core of about 20,000 comments on this blog. Gravity is not a blind mechanism in Joe's eyes for the very reason I gave that one cannot believe in God and 'blind mechanisms' at the same time. God by definition knows exactly how all 'coin flips' will turn out.
Of course to the scientist gravity looks like a blind mechanism. It's behavior, described by a simple equation, doesn't say anything about whether or not it has a purpose. Joe's point would be better made if he got off the evolution kick, insisting that the theory of evolution is saying something that is not also said by the theory of gravity & every other theory out there. A point like "even a leaf doesn't fall from a tree unless God wants it too" has a simple, almost Zen-like elegance to it. And it would have saved us all a lot of time and prevented a lot of stupidity from most of the commentors here.
Finally:
I believe that infinity “exists” in mathematics in the same way that a unicorn can “exist” in a fairy tale: as a useful concept that has no ontological correspondence to anything in the material world.
Infinity probably exists in the material world. There is reason to think, for example, that the universe may be infinitly large. Of course we could never see it all at once so you're right that we can't 'see infinitity' even if it exists in the material world. I do, however, think that mathematics exists but believing in mathematics is not believing in God or even theism. I still think you should link the idea of Plato's 'pure forms' to the material world rather than the non-material one.
posted on 01.19.2006 2:02 PM13
1-The self existent or uncaused is nothing or a ball of non-living material that exploded into all that we see now---for no known reason.
2-the self existent or uncaused is living, powerful, and intelligent, and capable of creating complex phyisical designs and systems perfect for the support of human life.
Which one of those statements is absurd???
How did I know my parents loved me? They gave me a place to live, they fed me, they taught me when I was capable of learning, etc.
How do I know God loves me? He created a universe finely tuned to support life, and a world full of every element needed for shelter and food, and rich relationships. He inspired the words of His prophets, He sent His Son, who provided a new covenant, and rose from the dead for the forgiveness of sins and the validation of who He was.
Hey, I've got an idea --name the scientist who died and rose again and has answered all those questions for those of you who know God does not exist???
Place my faith in the uncaused creator of the universe, or place my faith in men sealed away in laboratories, staring into computer screens and gazing into microscopes?...there's really no contest folks.
posted on 01.19.2006 2:10 PM14
The worship of science going on in these discussions is missing the point. Both Materialism and Theism do science. Science is neutral in this regard--it comes after.
The argument is on metaphysics, not praxis. The argument is that Materialism is incoherent as a metaphysic. The argument is not that science isn't reliable or useful. Materialists who have no philosophical justification for their beliefs can still do science (because what is, IS, regardless of the nonsensical way materialism tries to account for it).
posted on 01.19.2006 2:21 PM15
Brian K-
Would you not agree that some are banking on science to figure it all out? I don't think anyone here thinks science isn't useful. Problem is, some think it has proven things that it has not, and have a reverencial regard for it as the only real basis for establishing truth...that's all.
16
Mr Carter,
In the comments to your 12/22/05 post you kindly responded to my remark about hubris. In light of this post, I think it would be fruitful to recall. Your arguments here demonstrate an incomplete, and at times erroneous, (albeit wily), grasp of the science involved. My sense is that you are struggling, as many of us do, for the "truth"--why else all these posts on science?
posted on 01.19.2006 2:36 PM17
DM Your arguments here demonstrate an incomplete, and at times erroneous, (albeit wily), grasp of the science involved.
If I am in error, I’m certainly open to correction.
My sense is that you are struggling, as many of us do, for the "truth"--why else all these posts on science?
For starters, I find science to be a fascinating field of study (at least at the macrolevel). But I also talk about it often because it is a place of convergence between worldviews. Kevin Keith and I, for example, may not agree on the objectivity of ethics, but we will generally agree on science. So that gives us a starting point to discuss the underlying philosophical presuppositions.
18
Reverence... worship... faith... interesting relationship among those words.
Call me a simpleton, but it seems that some find (fortuitously) that science is reliable in the areas it's "designed" for, and then stretch that into metaphysics and epistemology where it doesn't fit.
Take the quote previously about hard/soft determinism. We feel that we are free, but materialism (and scientists who hold to it) tell us that our feelings are lying to us. We feel/intuit/believe a lot of things that materialsim tells us are false (or, if not false, radically less than what we think they are: love, honor, beauty, all things sublime are really just survival mechanisms that we wrongly hang a bunch of sentimentality upon).
As a metaphysic, then, materialism can't account for the way we experience life. We have to throw out a bunch of commonly held beliefs as illusory. The "best things in life" are not really much at all in materialism. We're all just dressed-up atoms randomly colliding with no significance. Our greatest desires and aspirations are meaningless. "The real men" among us cowboy-up and accept this "reality", while us crazy religion people keep babbling about an alternative way of explaining things.
I would argue that theism does a better job of accounting for reality as we experience it. Materialism says that your desire to matter doesn't matter. Your desire for meaning doesn't mean anything. Theism says otherwise.
19
Brian K. Mills,
Well said. Points taken. Mattering doesn't matter...I think there's a song there :-)
20
Forgot to mention--that reminded me of a great Neal Young lyric. "It don't mean that much to me, to mean that much to you". OK, I'll shut up now--have a great weekend everybody.
posted on 01.19.2006 3:17 PM21
No, what exists is the brain state, a physical collection of neurons. It may appear as if you have a mental state (i.e., you believe that you have a stomachache) but it is an illusion, a way of describing something that doesn’t exist. In other words, there is no you that is controlling your brain; it is regulated by the laws of physics. When everything is reducible to the physical, everything is controlled by the laws of physics.
Even if a 'me' exists I still have a stomachache. I can't detach from my 'physical collection of neurons' until the stomach ache passes. Which leads too:
I am not claiming that mental states are not associated with brain states. I’m saying that they are not identical. Mental states cannot be reduced to physical states. But the answer is no, I cannot prove it empirically anymore than it can be empirically proved that mental states are the same as brain states.
Again nothing that has anything to do with atheism. It is perfectly possible for a theist to believe that the two are the same. We do have a serious disconnect here. Do 'mental states' do anything other than give us subjective 'feelings' and thoughts? Do our internal mental states actually cause us to make decisions that we carry out with our body? If so it is clearly the case that out body is physically controlled by the physical states of our brain. If our 'mental states' are external to the physical brain then the order should go:
Mental State -> Physics of the brain -> actions of the body
Instead of
Physics of the brain -> mental state -> actions of the body
To date no one has ever detected anything happening in the brain that is controlled by anything other than the standard laws of matter. Book is still open though. So we're left with:
1. Some 'arrangements of atoms' have an emergent property that they can 'receive' instructions from a non-material 'mental state' (aka soul). Since this 'mental state' cannot interact with matter in any other type of arrangement it has so far been unobservable.
2. The physics of the brain and 'mental state' have no connection but just happen to be remarkably synchronized so the 'mental state' decisions are just perfectly timed with the actions of the body and physics of the brain so as to create a really sharp illusion of control
As for empiricalism, #1 can be proved or at least evidence for it can be aquired if we find stuff happens in the brain that is not explainable by standard physics/chemistry. #2, of course, cannot be proven anymore than the '5 minute universe' hypothesis that Gordon loves to cite can be proven or disproven.
I agree. I believe in many of the ideas posited by “emergence” theories. I just don’t think they are a “property” of matter anymore than traffic is a “property” of cars.
But it is, of course. Assume you never saw more than one car but knew how a car works. I ask you to project from the known properties of a car what would happen if 100 people drove a car at once on a single road. You could project the resulting traffic jam (and possible accidents) that would emerge from such an event.
Onto the baseball game score:
It is absurd because materialism is absurd. If everything is material then no, a baseball game doesn’t exist. You are trying to claim that non-material entities can have an ontological, but non-physical reality. But that is the very thing that materialism rejects about other philosophical systems.
OK, so you've basically defined 'exist' to mean only physical properties of matter & energy that can be measured at the most fundamental of levels. You then discover that more abstract concepts such as the score of a baseball game cannot exist.
What you have missed is that none of this has anything to do with atheism. The Platonic idea of 'pure forms' is not theistic but would cover the baseball game very well.
Because this is an internally incoherent claim. Materialism claims that the material world of nature (that which can be detected by science!) is all there is. Concepts not found in nature are concepts that do not exist. If mental states (such as concepts) are brain states then what “exists” is like a rock or tree. If we don’t base our ethics on rocks or tress then why should we base them on “concepts?”
Errr if we base our ethics on mental states then why would we base them on rocks or trees? Seriously are you actually debating materialism as it exists as a philsophy or debating what you would like materialists to say? I think you're really arguing against not atheism, not even materialism but only an extreme form of subjective relativism & then trying to construct an either/or fallacy. A bit like someone saying "Good Christians want to burn witches at the stake, Christians who say they do not want to do this don't really understand Christianity and are therefore confused or haven't really thought about what it means to be a Christian therefore you should EITHER want to burn witches at the stake OR reject being a Christian".
Nonsense. Science relies on proof, which is a way we resort to knowing something when we can’t directly experience something.
Errr, actually you may be thinking of mathematics or logic or something else. Science can't tell us much of anything about something that we cannot experience. It's never been proven that matter cannot be accelerated past the speed of light. It has simply been shown to be consistent with numerous direct experiences we have had with matter.
posted on 01.19.2006 3:29 PM22
Boonton Again nothing that has anything to do with atheism.
This is probably a good time to reiterate that I am not claiming that all atheists believe these things. In fact, I suspect you might even find an atheist who believes none of them. Atheists, after all, can be idealists and not even believe in matter. So I guess when I am referring to atheists I am talking about your garden-variety Western materialist atheist.
Do 'mental states' do anything other than give us subjective 'feelings' and thoughts?
I don’t know. Maybe not.
Do our internal mental states actually cause us to make decisions that we carry out with our body?
I think so.
If so it is clearly the case that out body is physically controlled by the physical states of our brain. If our 'mental states' are external to the physical brain then the order should go:
Therein lies the problem. If the mental states are identical to brain states then they are not external. That is the claim made by materialist cognitive scientists and is the reason why they (like Kevin) say there is no such thing as “free will.”
To date no one has ever detected anything happening in the brain that is controlled by anything other than the standard laws of matter. Book is still open though. So we're left with:
That’s because we have the wrong paradigm. Look at space and time. Does time control space? No, but yet they are interconnected in a way that is difficult to comprehend.
But it is, of course. Assume you never saw more than one car but knew how a car works. I ask you to project from the known properties of a car what would happen if 100 people drove a car at once on a single road. You could project the resulting traffic jam (and possible accidents) that would emerge from such an event.
Your are equivocating on the meaning of “property.” Mass and color are properties; a traffic jam is not. In fact, a traffic jam is simply a large-scale collection of atoms. Are you saying that traffic is also an emergent property of matter?
OK, so you've basically defined 'exist' to mean only physical properties of matter & energy that can be measured at the most fundamental of levels. You then discover that more abstract concepts such as the score of a baseball game cannot exist.
Well, yes, that is what materialism means.
What you have missed is that none of this has anything to do with atheism. The Platonic idea of 'pure forms' is not theistic but would cover the baseball game very well.
True. But it is hard to imagine how Platonic forms could be squared with atheism.
Errr if we base our ethics on mental states then why would we base them on rocks or trees?
What I meant was that if mental states are brain states and brain states are simply collections of atoms, then mental states are no different than rocks or trees or any other aggregation of atoms.
Seriously are you actually debating materialism as it exists as a philsophy or debating what you would like materialists to say? I think you're really arguing against not atheism, not even materialism but only an extreme form of subjective relativism & then trying to construct an either/or fallacy. A bit like someone saying "Good Christians want to burn witches at the stake, Christians who say they do not want to do this don't really understand Christianity and are therefore confused or haven't really thought about what it means to be a Christian therefore you should EITHER want to burn witches at the stake OR reject being a Christian".
Actually, a better analogy would be between what theologians believe compared to the people in the pews. You may have the average laymen say “No Christian believes that…” when it fact it is what most theologians actually claim to be true. You may think the claims are silly but that is because, deep down, you are probably not as firm a believer in materialism as you think. The true believers are the ones that sound absurd when they talk about the logical conclusions of materialism (i.e., free will and mental states are an illusion).
23
This thread keeps coming back to the relationship between the electrochemical activity of the brain and what we call thought. The emergent property which arises from both brains and computers could also be called information. (Self awareness goes a step beyond that, but my brain hurts thinking about it, or is it my mind?) The analogy between the brain and a computer, or between thought and a program running on a computer, are compelling, but before the radical materialist jumps on it as a perfect illustration, we should also note that the computer hardware and software require a designer.
The notion that logic, our mental space, or any other software routine we experience can even BE experienced is in itself miraculous.
I remember someone once described consciousness as similar to a movie projected onto an internal screen in our heads. This is a hopelessly inadequate image, and misses the all encompassing nature of conscious existence. Trying to capture the wonder of our conscious being as an emergent property of matter and energy is like trying to "see" the universe by stepping outside of it. You can't do it without being transcendent or "other than", in which case the universe would be less than you, or your conscious being would be less than the one (impossibly, this would be you) who "sees" it. Now let's see, who could possibly do that?
posted on 01.19.2006 5:59 PM24
It appears to me that much of this back and forth is a consequence of a misunderstanding of actually what materialistic athiesm/agnosticism is.
Materialism is the belief that everything that "exists" or "is" is composed of physical or material substance. That is, it must take up space or volume. It must be touchable, tasteable, hearable, seeable, or feelable. Nothing outside of the material world does not "exist".
For the materialist, concepts, beliefs, feelings, etc. cannot be real or "exist" because the are not part of the physical, material world. The concept of a score in a game does not exist because there is not a physical manifestation of it. The physical seeing of the numbers on the scoreboard are nothing more than that, seeing them. The numbers are the result of electrical currents running to the respective lightbulbs to create the numbers. The "concept" has no physical, material entity.
Of course both the materialist and the theist can observe this score at a game. Both realize that the score does indeed have an "existance" outside of the electronic impulses of the lights. So-and-so crossed home plate so-many times to score. The result is a "concept" or a mental, non-material knowledge of the score. However, the consistent materialist cannot say that the score "exists" in his head because it does not have any physical manifestations.
If one does hold to the belief that the score "exists" than he cannot hold to a materialistic worldview. If a non-physical "exists" than that leads to the possibility of God or gods existing or anything spiritual whatsoever.
posted on 01.19.2006 6:21 PM25
I was going to write a lengthy reply to Joe's request, but Kevin Keith seems to have beat me to it. I second his excellent answers (although I should note that I disagree with him regarding the existence of free will; I consider myself a compatibilist following Dennett). I'll therefore confine myself to a few comments, which will more or less lump together Joe's points 2, 3 and 5, which are really pretty similar.
I have to agree that Joe is thoroughly confused about things like brain states, probably because he's equivocating between two different definitions of "exist". It's just silly to say that materialism is threatened by the existence of baseball scores. A baseball score is, as Kevin said, a fact about a certain arrangement of matter, not something that "exists" separately in its own right. (If you seriously believe, Joe, that a materialist worldview cannot accommodate the existence of facts, I suggest you adjust your definition of materialism.) In a similar way, mental states exist and are physical; they are patterns of activation in the physical structures of our brains, facts about the way our brains are processing information at a given moment. That does not mean they do not exist. Of course they exist! Brain states like happiness, sadness, love, empathy, anger, and all the rest of them absolutely are real, absolutely do exist, and a well-articulated atheist viewpoint is not threatened in the slightest by this. The only thing that's changed is that we now know what produces them and what they consist of.
When Joe says things like, "in other words, there is no you that is controlling your brain; it is regulated by the laws of physics", he's sneaking dualism in through the back door. He's implicitly assuming that there must be some special thing, some "you" that is separate from the arrangement and activity of your brain, and when science finds no such thing, he says that means that "you" don't exist. No, you still do exist; it just means we have to slightly alter our view of what a "you" consists of. You don't have to "control" your brain because you are your brain.
As far as our cognitive faculties and rational beliefs, the issue is not whether the mechanism that produces them is "blind" (i.e., unconscious, I assume), but whether it is truth-seeking. It is, again, equivocation to claim that a "blind" process would necessarily produce beings with no ability to perceive truth. Evolution is blind with respect to method, but evolution is most definitely not blind with respect to results. A creature that could not distinguish between true and false aspects of reality would be at a serious survival disadvantage compared to one that could, and a creature that could distinguish between true and false aspects of reality less accurately would likewise be at a disadvantage compared to one that could distinguish more accurately.
Consider a simple example: a bacterium that needs to swim (using its irreducibly complex flagellum, naturally) toward a source of nutrition. It does this by sensing the nutrient gradient all around it and moving up that gradient toward areas of higher nutrient concentration. Notwithstanding the fact that evolution is "blind", which one is going to do better (and thus leave more offspring): a bacterium that can accurately sense the direction of the gradient or one that strikes out in some random direction? Or, if you prefer a more anthropomorphic example, which monkey living in the rainforest is going to survive better - the one that can accurately discern the tasty fruit and tell it apart from other objects, or the one that can't tell the difference and spends all day gnawing on rocks?
This is not to say that our cognitive faculties are perfect - indeed it should be a matter of no dispute that they are not perfect. Consider how easily they can be deceived by things like optical illusions. (No, those two lines really are the same length!) But we can overcome these illusions by using a physical prosthesis, such as a ruler, to measure the lines and overrule the evidence of our senses. Similarly, science can be considered a mental prosthesis which we can use to make up for our less-than-perfect perception by determining which of our beliefs are incorrect and adjusting them accordingly. You may think the coin that's just come up nine heads in a row is more likely to come up tails this time, but by employing the right mental prosthesis, you can convince yourself otherwise. Theists, I would argue, are using these important tools either incorrectly or not at all (I suggest Rob B's post #13 for a lovely example of the latter).
Finally, an observation regarding Joe's last point: If a human has a "finite ability to know", then it is just as impossible to believe anyone who claims that an infinite being does exist. A finite knower, by definition, could not recognize an infinite being were they to encounter one.
posted on 01.19.2006 6:22 PM26
So far I've seen plenty of people complaining that these six statements have "nothing to do with atheism" or "I don't believe that and I'm an atheist, how could you Joe?" or "these beliefs aren't held solely by atheists."
Reread the original post. Joe said that most atheists believe at least one of these things. These are correlations, not direct arguments for the non-existence of God. That is obvious. You don't need to tell us that. I guess he also could have said with, equal warrant, that most atheists believe Elvis is dead.
27
KTK:
Wow, I've been away from this site for far too long. I was going to tackle point #2, but given the ass-whuppin' you just laid on Joe, I hardly think it's necessary. Good to see you still have your "A" game. :)
posted on 01.19.2006 11:59 PM28
Interesting post, Joe. In particular, points 1 and 2. While no Western atheist can believe both of them (because they contradict), it appears to me that they *must* accept one of them or the other.
posted on 01.20.2006 12:43 AM29
KTK:
As it stands now, it's clearly the responsibility of religious believers to prove that there is free will. The materialist case is both obvious and self-consistent; it's the religious case that looks worse and worse every day.
Um, actually how can anyone prove there is free will if there is no free will? I will respond based on stimuli the same way regardless of the true situation.
It has been nurtured for millenia by religious believers as the last desperate shred of their otherwise-absurd beliefs.
Again, if there is no free will and everything is determined by physical laws, then religious beliefs are no less absurd than atheistic beliefs. Actually, considering that religious beliefs are far more prevalent than atheistic beliefs, it would appear that evolution selects for religious belief.
It's certainly true that in a purely material universe there would be no reason for religious beliefs.
Obviously false, since religious beliefs (at least in humans) have existed from as far back as we can tell, there must be some materialistic necessity for them.
It's much easier to accept that "hard" free will is a convincing delusion - in which case everything falls into place.
Which again means that people don't choose to be religious or atheist, but are stuck in that position and that everything we do is predetermined.
posted on 01.20.2006 7:55 AM30
Joe Carter wrote:
I believe that infinity “exists” in mathematics in the same way that a unicorn can “exist” in a fairy tale: as a useful concept that has no ontological correspondence to anything in the material world.
I wasn't going to comment on the rest of this post, first of all because it so mischaracterizes those whom I know who call themselves atheists, and it so misses the point that I as a nontheist see.
But, as a guy with a technical background, I was struck by the above quoted sentence.
Clearly Joe doesn't get infinity, nor ontological correspondences, nor the concept of convergence.
Infinity is a useful construct for contructing limits of sequences of things, and those limits are "close enough" to correspond to what we observe that it "might as well" be there. Take, for example the Central Limit Theorem, and thermal noise.
Now despite the fact that there's only a finite number of particles in the universe, and despite the fact that they have only collided with each other a finite (but huge!) number of times, the distribution of noise induced by these particles will, as much as we can measure, behave according to a normal distrubution, which would only have happened if these particles had collided an infinite number of times.
There's a host of other physical phenomena for which this is true; in fact, you can make a similar argument with circles...or of a host of other mathematical objects.
I suspect what Carter is thinking of is the concept of an isomorphism, or one-to-one exact correspondence between idea and reality.
But that can't be shown to exist for any idea, outside of trivially simple things, I think.
posted on 01.20.2006 8:04 AM
31
the distribution of noise induced by these particles will, as much as we can measure, behave according to a normal distrubution, which would only have happened if these particles had collided an infinite number of times.
What is the difference between this and infinite being like a unicorn? Conceivable, describable, but not actually existing.
posted on 01.20.2006 10:48 AM32
brandon :
The issue is not "actually existing," that is having a unique correspondence to the real world- no idea really does, except by convention.
And by convention, infinity corresponds, by convention to a "close enough" limit for useful reference. Just like a circle.
posted on 01.20.2006 11:21 AM33
This is probably a good time to reiterate that I am not claiming that all atheists believe these things. In fact, I suspect you might even find an atheist who believes none of them. Atheists, after all, can be idealists and not even believe in matter. So I guess when I am referring to atheists I am talking about your garden-variety Western materialist atheist.
What I'm pointing out is that these beliefs are not particularly atheist. You definition of 'blind force', for example, is highly refined and different from what a casual reader would take it to mean.
For more than a year now on this list we have had IDers telling us that 'blind forces' could account for things like the shape of a mountain but not account for the development of life or intelligent life. Now, after all this writing, you finally tell us that the 'blind forces' you are talking about cannot exist in your worldview. The 'random' mountain is no less telelogical than the intelligent human brain. Needless to say your obsession with evolution makes this all the worse. Only evolutionary theory needs to be tested for 'telelogicalness', in fact you tip your hand that everything you've written about science is really a philsophical point.
Therein lies the problem. If the mental states are identical to brain states then they are not external. That is the claim made by materialist cognitive scientists and is the reason why they (like Kevin) say there is no such thing as “free will.”
What is the importance of 'mental states' being external from the brain?
That’s because we have the wrong paradigm. Look at space and time. Does time control space? No, but yet they are interconnected in a way that is difficult to comprehend.
Space can be measured and studied. Time can be measured and study. They may be interconnected in a way that is hard to comprehend but not as a matter of faith but fact. There is no reason to assume the difficulty in comprehension cannot be reduced or eliminated with more study. You seem to be asserting as a matter of principle that there be this thing called 'mental states' which impacts the real world (the brain which causes the body to act according to decisions made by the 'mental state') but whose nature is by definition "difficult to comprehend"....In other words it sounds like you'd rather just have cognitive science stopped and just leave any explanation for what happens in the brain as "spokey".
Your are equivocating on the meaning of “property.” Mass and color are properties; a traffic jam is not. In fact, a traffic jam is simply a large-scale collection of atoms. Are you saying that traffic is also an emergent property of matter?
A traffic jam happens because of those properties of the individual cars. For example, since cars cannot combine themselves together (barring high speed collisions) traffic is a result of the properties of individual cars trying to all go one place at once. Water drops, on the other hand, will combine together because of their properties and become a flow of water. In principle the traffic jam arises out of the properties of individual cars but it is easier work with the properties as emergent rather than modeling every individual car. In this sense chemistry is nothing more than an emergent property of quantum physics. In principle you could do chemistry by simply working just with the tools of quantum theory.
What I meant was that if mental states are brain states and brain states are simply collections of atoms, then mental states are no different than rocks or trees or any other aggregation of atoms.
Somewhere else I used to discuss gun control policy with a strict libertarian. He felt that the gov't should not regulate anyone's right to own 'collections of atoms'. Therefore he felt owning an atomic bomb was no different from owning a happy meal toy. Both were, after all, just 'collections of atoms'. But just because you want to summarize things at a really high level doesn't mean that the details cease to matter. Theology-wise God is a supernatural beign and so is the devil. Just because they share one trait doens't mean there is no difference.
Actually, a better analogy would be between what theologians believe compared to the people in the pews. You may have the average laymen say “No Christian believes that…” when it fact it is what most theologians actually claim to be true. You may think the claims are silly but that is because, deep down, you are probably not as firm a believer in materialism as you think. The true believers are the ones that sound absurd when they talk about the logical conclusions of materialism (i.e., free will and mental states are an illusion).
Fair enough but you're still basically telling us what you think materialism says and trying to use an argument from authority to dismiss any materialist that says something different. In the above analogy you off I'd say that in order to argue against Christianity one would have to confront the views of both the thelogian and the average laymen and show how they are both wrong.
posted on 01.20.2006 12:20 PM34
For the materialist, concepts, beliefs, feelings, etc. cannot be real or "exist" because the are not part of the physical, material world. The concept of a score in a game does not exist because there is not a physical manifestation of it. The physical seeing of the numbers on the scoreboard are nothing more than that, seeing them. The numbers are the result of electrical currents running to the respective lightbulbs to create the numbers. The "concept" has no physical, material entity.
This leads to a problem. Let's take two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen. They combine in a reaction that produces heat and water (H2O). So far so good. Your hypothetical materialist agrees that hydrogen, oxygen, heat and water all physically exist. But so does the relationship....the two atoms join in a particular way that produces heat and water. This relationship exists as a description of how those things behave in the physical world.
Likewise, the score in the game exists as a description of how the players and fans behave in the game. Should the scoreboard suddenly decrease the score of a team for no particular reason one expects that fans and the team will quickly protest loudly. One does not need to call upon any supernatural concepts or non-material world to make that prediction. Nor does one need to call upon non-material facts to say that a leaking hydrogen tank combined with a lazy worker smoking by it will result in an explosion of heat and by-product of steam.
If one does hold to the belief that the score "exists" than he cannot hold to a materialistic worldview. If a non-physical "exists" than that leads to the possibility of God or gods existing or anything spiritual whatsoever.
So you seem to be implying if I can assert the simple statement that hydrogen and oxygen make heat and water I'm opening the door to the existence of God? By this reading atheism does indeed become just about impossible. If you rub your nose you're suddenly a theist!!! Congratuations! Here's your Church membership card & a 750 page book from Gordon explaining how rubbing your nose logically leads all the way to embracing Christianities dogmas and supporting Robert's nomination to the S.C!
brandon
Reread the original post. Joe said that most atheists believe at least one of these things. These are correlations, not direct arguments for the non-existence of God. That is obvious. You don't need to tell us that. I guess he also could have said with, equal warrant, that most atheists believe Elvis is dead.
True but the problem isn't so much that, it is the fact that many sensible theists have good reason to believe a good number of things on that list too!
Chris on free will:
Obviously false, since religious beliefs (at least in humans) have existed from as far back as we can tell, there must be some materialistic necessity for them.
1. Free will is a different debate than simple materialism. Theism does not automatically equal accepting free will. In fact, quite a few have pointed out that it is hard to square free will with the concept of an infinitely powerful God with infinite knowledge. Granted it is also difficult to square it with materialism. A key part of the problem is exactly what do we mean by free will. If a wife knows her husband is going to cheat on her in the next year is it his 'free will' that he does? If I know that my dog is going to run to me as soon as he hears me open the door does my dog have free will? What is the difference?
2. Actually a materialist would probably take out the word 'necessity' and substitute 'explanation' in the above. There's an explanation for why travel over distances more than a mile or so were primarily done on horseback or foot for the last ten thousand years. That's not a necessity that people continue to do so for the next ten thousand.
posted on 01.20.2006 12:20 PM35
Boonton:
This leads to a problem. Let's take two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen. They combine in a reaction that produces heat and water (H2O). So far so good. Your hypothetical materialist agrees that hydrogen, oxygen, heat and water all physically exist. But so does the relationship....the two atoms join in a particular way that produces heat and water. This relationship exists as a description of how those things behave in the physical world.
In what sense does this relationship exist? You said it exists as a "description" of how two things behave in the physical world, but that can't be precisely what you meant, since presumably it would still exist even if nobody were there to describe it (unless you think mental constructs are more fundamental than physical reality!). Presumably you mean that there's some law, or principle, that exists and causes them to behave that way, correct?
posted on 01.20.2006 3:16 PM36
Well the materialist cited here believes matter exists so presumably they can accept the fact that hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms can exist even if they aren't around to observe them. In other words the materialist isn't a subjectivist who would believe that even matter is some type of illusion or dream that can't be counted on to exist if he isn't there to see it.
So the description of the properties of matter must include its behavior or how different types of matter relate to other matter. In that regard the score of a baseball game is simply a description of the possible relationships of matter that could be classified as 'baseball games'.
posted on 01.20.2006 4:27 PM37
This is an interesting effort, Joe. But you might be carrying things further than what you are able.
For example, eliminativism isn't the view that mental states JUST ARE physical states. Rather eliminativism has several steps.
It asserts:
1. There is a sort of "common sense" language that surrounds most human discussion of mental states. We talk about beliefs, desires, etc. These compose a sort of "folk psychology" that has been around for a long time.
2. Science may be able to give a different account of what transpires inside a human brain than folk psychology.
3. If and when science is able to do that, we should "believe" in that theory because it is scientific. ["Believe" is in quotations because science might determine that we don't "believe," we do something else instead.]
Anyways, eliminativism is tough to defend, or even talk about, because it is hard to discuss it without using certain words that the eliminativist supposes might be done away with. For example, it is sort of awkward for the eliminativist to say "I believe eliminativism."
[I should point out at this point that I don't believe eliminativism and I'm not trying to defend it.]
However, this view is not the same thing as saying brain states and mental states are the same thing. That might be called "physicalism". You should follow some of the links on the site you used as reference.
It is not clear exactly what taking a physicalist position implies. That is something philosophers debate. But being a physicalist does not box one in to saying that they have no mental states. (Or, at least, if you wanted to make that claim, it would probably require a long, very technical defense.)
Second, one can be a physicalist and a theist at the same time.
What I would be curious to hear is what mind-body belief you hold, Joe? Platonic dualism? Cartesian dualism? Functionalism? All of them have their problems.
posted on 01.20.2006 4:59 PM38
Hey, Boonton, I may get back to the baseball score thing later, but I wanted to focus on this first:
Well the materialist cited here believes matter exists so presumably they can accept the fact that hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms can exist even if they aren't around to observe them.
I'm trying to get at something a little deeper here. What I'm trying to say is, it's not just incidental each time when oxygen and hydrogen end up resulting in water and heat, right? There's some underlying rule(s), principle(s), propensity(s), or whatever you wish to call it, that causes them to behave this way. That predictive relationship you described is something real, not just our description of what's happened to occur whenever we've been watching, correct? Our materialist would agree that if there was nobody around to describe the results, the same rule(s) of behavior would still be in effect, and oxygen and hydrogen atoms would still make water and heat, I presume?
posted on 01.20.2006 8:35 PM39
Wow, straw men are fun! And 6 of them make for 6 times the fun.
posted on 01.20.2006 11:34 PM40
Joe,
"In case you are not aware of it, the theory you are positing is called eliminativism.""
Well, thank you for the lecture, but let me repeat the question: Physical brain states (which are mental states) can affect subsequent physical brain states (which are mental states). What's impossible about that?
"Eliminativism says that since mental state are brain states, entities such as beliefs, desires, and sensations do not exist."
This reads, "Since mental states are brain states, mental states do not exist, which means brain states do not exist."
See why I can't make heads or tails of it?
"Where did our conception of rationality come from? Did we just make it up? Is it purely subjective or does it have an objective component?"
Well, since the principles of human rationality are nothing more than exceptionless patterns, who is to say? Rational consistency seems to be valuable because the universe appears to be consistent. Now, please don't lecture me on why it *must* be objective. We've actually had part of that conversation before. You cannot change the fact that rationality is founded upon unjustified assumptions. That's just the way it is. Call it a paradox, call it a contradiction, you still can't deny it. So, to answer your question as I've done before: You might as well quit asking because the answer is apparently not knowable.
"Please note for the record that it was not me (a Christian) who says that no self-respecting atheist would say that hat no infinite beings exist, but Ed (a fellow atheist)."
Okay, perhaps I should have explained myself, or perhaps I should change the way I classify myself. In my experience, "agnostic" connotes indecision between particular revealed religions. Most people these days who refer to themselves as agnostics seem to be the type who will convert to something eventually but are putting it on hold while they party. So, I generally accept "atheist" to mean both "one who thinks there is no god" and "one who finds the concept of revelation untenable but by the same token can ultimately neither affirm nor deny the supernatural." Perhaps you object to this latter version of "atheist," which I apply to myself. However, I'm fairly certain that folks like Dawkins and Dennet fit the latter description, and am also fairly certain that you have referred to them (at least Dawkins) as "atheist." Hopefully that clears things up.
posted on 01.21.2006 1:22 AM41
By the way eliminativism is one of the least well-accepted physcalist positions, even by reductionists.
posted on 01.21.2006 1:31 AM42
Ed:
Hey, Ed, is Limburger cheese true or false? Or neither?
How about your computer keyboard? Is it rational or irrational? Or is the question not applicable?
How about the state of Wyoming? Is Wyoming true or false? Or is that a meaningless question?
What about the particular arrangement of liver spots on Jesse Helms' back? Is that arrangement true or false, or neither?
posted on 01.21.2006 8:12 AM43
I'm trying to get at something a little deeper here. What I'm trying to say is, it's not just incidental each time when oxygen and hydrogen end up resulting in water and heat, right? There's some underlying rule(s), principle(s), propensity(s), or whatever you wish to call it, that causes them to behave this way. That predictive relationship you described is something real, not just our description of what's happened to occur whenever we've been watching, correct? Our materialist would agree that if there was nobody around to describe the results, the same rule(s) of behavior would still be in effect, and oxygen and hydrogen atoms would still make water and heat, I presume?
1. Yes I believe the materialist who is not a subjectivist would believe that observing is not necessary for matter to exist (most theists accept this as well).
2. As to where this exists, I'm not really sure. My feeling is that the 'combine to form water' is a property of oxygen and hydrogen. But this property only 'emerges' when the two are together. Likewise a huge cloud of water has properties that do not emerge when you only have a few molecules of water to look at.
3. I do believe reality has some more fundamental logic. 1+1=2 no matter what the universe is made of, it is a logical truth that you don't even need matter to know is true. Quite frankly I'm a bit at a loss how to go any more with that.
posted on 01.21.2006 4:16 PM44
Joe C
"Our cognitive faculties have resulted from blind mechanisms like natural selection, working on sources of genetic variation such as random genetic mutation, yet are reliable for distinguishing between truth and false aspects of reality"
I asked this on the other thread and the precise issue is raised here:
Does a human sperm cell have cognitive faculties? Does a human egg cell have cognitive faculties?
Does a human egg cell at the moment of fertilization have cognitive faculties? Does a single cell human embryo that hasn't divided have congnitive faculties? What a 2 cell human embryo? What about a 100 cell embryo? A 1000 cell embryo?
If the answer is "no" to any of these questions, but is followed a "yes" answer, where did the cognitive faculties come from if not from chemicals in egg/sperm/embryo and chemicals from the mother?
Please provide some positive evidence to support the answer.
Failure to address this query would seem to be an admission that atheists are, well, correct in their understanding of the existence of rationality without guidance from deities, while Christians are, well, making it up as they go along (and misrepresenting others who are not doing so as playing the same "I believe" game that Christians choose to play).
posted on 01.21.2006 8:48 PM45
I don't know if my brain-state does not allow me to follow Joe's reasoning, if it relegates me to the status of dumb-ass, or if his thought is so far removed from "normal" logic as to make it gibberish to everyone. I'm really confused on that, but one thing that I am not confused about is how homo-centric we all are (of course, to be expected). Let me seize on Joe's Number 4:
"4. Evolution is a blind process that has no teleology; whatever behavior works is the behavior that survives. Yet ethical norms of behavior should not be based on what works or what will lead to survival but should be based on concepts not found in nature (even though nature is all that exists)."
Massive assumption here.
First off, how does Joe know that evolution has no teleology? How does he know that evolution is not the mechanism by which all things are possible. Why does he assume that evolution is damned by God when it may, in fact be God's method of controlling things.
But the second sentence is the real buster. From a man-view, it is still arguable. But change the context to that of a non-human animal, and it rings ridiculus.
What is an ethical norm for a lioness? Is she fraught with moral quandary that she has just killed the slowest and sickest wildebeest? What ethical weight must bear on the mind of a fox which has just eaten the grouse's chicks, not four days old? Does the crow feel remorse and guilt as it cleans the bones of a slower fellow crow in the middle of the highway? What good are ethics in the rest of nature, if nature is all there is?
Is Joe saying that all of evolution may apply to the animals, but not to man?
In a dog-eat-dog world, what need has a dog for ethics? "Whatever behavior works is the behavior that survives. Yet ethical norms of behavior should not be based on what works or what will lead to survival but should be based on concepts not found in nature."
Joe could advise us on the church our dog could join. Or he could admit that ethics would kill us were we not human.
The reason we have ethics, and the reason that they work for humans is, first, that we are thinking animals, and second, that we are thinking social animals. Ethical behavior has been for us something that enhances survival, it works in a social context, in a context of complicated primate socialization, and has less to do with religion or morals than it does with cooperation and diplomacy.
But even today, we have no ethics (to speak of) when we crack open a hen's egg in the frying pan (aborting a fetus for breakfast). We have no ethics in our cattle feedlots or slaughterhouses. Ethics is quite often absent in our national policies, in our personal relationships, in business dealings. Which might lead one to ask if perhaps ethics is one of the those elusive brain-states alluded to earlier? In other words, we have ethics when they serve a purpose. That purpose is advancement, feeding, sex, or what ever it works for. Whatever contributes to our survival. "Whatever behavior works is the behavior that survives."
posted on 01.22.2006 10:02 PM46
First off, how does Joe know that evolution has no teleology? How does he know that evolution is not the mechanism by which all things are possible. Why does he assume that evolution is damned by God when it may, in fact be God's method of controlling things.
Actually, if you'd read this site a bit more, you'd know that what you've just described *is* what Joe believes - that evolution is teleological and God's method of controlling things. In this entry, he was writing down what the atheist would think about evolution, you know, like he said he was doing.
posted on 01.22.2006 10:13 PM47
This is why it was not good for Man (or men) to be alone. You guys really get quite carried away.
Joe, Your 6 examples lead to a greater point that athiests generally hold simultaeous beliefs that are mutually exclusive. Each of your examples contain 2 beliefs that if held together are impossible. But you've made the classic error of "I'll tell you what you think, and why you're wrong." Athiests fancy themselves as wise, so they're sure to take quick offence.
Jim, That St. Paul guy! Glad to see you read him. He also wrote something about "the wisdom of the world is foolishness in God's sight."
KTK, God Bless you for giving me the clue to my complete failure in geometry. Pi=3.0. I knew my mathematics professor was a complete heathen, I just didn't know why! But you're a smart fellow, I'll bet you can find Biblical evidence to the contrary if you try.
Love your site Joe. Keep up the good work.
posted on 01.22.2006 10:56 PM48
But you've made the classic error of "I'll tell you what you think, and why you're wrong." Athiests fancy themselves as wise, so they're sure to take quick offence.
I don't think one has to fancy themselves wise to take offense at an argument constructed along these lines. I'm sure Christians don't like to be told what they believe either. As usual Joe's argument falters because he cannot seem to untangle evolution as a scientific theory from atheism or materialism (all different things that can sometimes overlap but do not have to always)
posted on 01.23.2006 9:37 AM49
1. Yes I believe the materialist who is not a subjectivist would believe that observing is not necessary for matter to exist (most theists accept this as well).2. As to where this exists, I'm not really sure. My feeling is that the 'combine to form water' is a property of oxygen and hydrogen. But this property only 'emerges' when the two are together.
I'd say there's a little more to it than that, because the same property emerges every time, which is clearly not incidental, so there's also some rule(s) that determines how they will work together, but this isn't really a major point.
Now, none of this should be troubling to any actual materialist, I wouldn't think. No materialist has difficulty with the idea that in addition to material, there also exist laws, norms, or principles, that, while not material themselves, are real, and together with the material, play causal roles in what happens.
But, what happens when we apply the same idea to a baseball score? I think Zachary would be quite happy to describe the baseball score as roughly analagous to the predictive relationship between hydrogen and oxygen - a law - possessing a real, but non-material existence, and still having a real effect on the world. But would our materialist?
Now, one could avoid this by postulating that while the predictive relationship between oxygen and hydrogen is a real, objective, non-material causal principle (or principles), the score is just a description of how the players and fans behave in the game. But in that case, the analogy between them is false. So, that's the first problem that I see.
Second, I see an issue with saying that the score exists as a "description" of something. The problem is that a description is every bit as much a mental quantity as a baseball score. What then is a description? If we say that the description exists as a description, we've got a potential infinite regress here, and no resolution of how the score exists in terms condusive to our materialist. We can say that the score exists as an actual, non-material predictive relationship.
We can say that the score exists as a real, non-material, causal entity, like the predictive relationship between hydrogen and oxygen. Or we can say that the score simply is the brain-states of players and fans in the "game", and electric signals running to the respective lightbulbs on the "scoreboard", rather than a real principle that predicts and relates them. The former would be Joe and Zachary's position, the latter is simply semantical relabeling of the material entities involved and would support their contention that under materialism, the score doesn't actually exist.
Here's the fundamental problem. Given any hypothetical entity, you have three options, on the face of it. You can say that it exists objectively, that it exists subjectively, or that it doesn't exist. Both you and KTK implicitly went the subjective route when describing the game and the score in terms of propositional content, he referring to the game as a "fact about" the physical entities, and you calling the score a "description of" them.
Here's the fundamental problem, as I see it. Our materialist wants to avoid saying that things like a baseball score don't exist, or that they simply are the material objects involved, because he knows that this is eliminativism, and he wants to avoid it. On the other hand, he doesn't want to say that things like a baseball score have their own, non-material, but still objective and causal reality, because then he's not a materialist. So he needs to find a third way, something "in between". The one apparent option is