|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Apr 20, 2013 20:09:25 GMT 10
Naturalism holds within in it a great contradiction:
If all causes are material in nature--then what is the source of human rationality?
J.B.S Haldane once wrote "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true... And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."
Don't get me wrong. If you are an atheist, I suspect that you are highly confident if not absolutely certain that at least most of the time you are free, rational, morally responsible, and conscious. These are not tangential or inconsequential issues; they are fundamental to what it means to be human.
But if naturalism is true, you are very likely wrong on all these counts. This isn't just my opinion, but the opinion of some very noted atheists, as well.
Atheist philosopher, John Searle wrote: "Physical events can only have physical explanations, and consciousness is not physical, so consciousness plays no explanatory role whatsoever. If, for example, you ate because you were consciously hungry, or got married because you were consciously in love with your prospective spouse, or withdrew you hand from the flame because you consciously felt pain, or spoke up because you consciously disagreed with the main speaker, you are mistaken in every case. In each case the effect was a physical event, and therefore must have a physical explanation."
Naturalists may try to show you are physically determined by tracking certain types of reactions in the brain specifically. You might be able to crack open my laptop, and find the data that translates my words onto this page. But you will not find the thoughts behind the words in my computer, because those thoughts are in my mind, not in the instrument I use to communicate those thoughts.
I repeat, naturalism is deficient in terms of correlation.
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Apr 20, 2013 22:16:25 GMT 10
So ... who are the "naturalists"? Is "naturalism" a newly-minted code word for "secularism" or "atheism"?
It's quite remarkable how you North Americans see the world in Manichean terms of Good v Evil, and your religiosity reflects this. Not your theology - there are some sensible people of faith in North America but next to the shrill cacophany of fundamentalist extremist Manicheism that emanates from the cashed-up and media-savvy God Inc crowd, the voices of moderation and reflective and prayerful thinking are muted and whispered. So when the truth is whispered and lies are brayed raucously and loudly, little wonder that the truth gets not much of a hearing.
So now we have the dreaded "Naturalists". Forgive us ignorant Antipodeans, Dib. We're so far from the rest of the world down here sandwiched between the Pacific and Indian Oceans that we can't keep up with these faddish neologisms emanating from the Land of God Inc with its cashed up emporiums called mega-churches.
What in God's Name are "Naturalists" and why should we take your strident anathemas against them seriously?
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Apr 20, 2013 22:25:19 GMT 10
No Pim,
Not all atheists are naturalists, but all naturalists are necessarily atheists.
Naturalists are a very specified type of atheist.
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Apr 20, 2013 22:27:36 GMT 10
You can only think due to electrical and chemical reactions. So what? That means your thought process would have as much complexity as the amount of 'fizz' in a soda pop can. |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Apr 20, 2013 22:36:04 GMT 10
That means your thought process would have as much complexity as the amount of 'fizz' in a soda pop can. Nonsense. Read up on higher brain function evolution. I have. I happen to know that there is no such thing as 'a brain', per se. And the brain is a system, not a 'thing'. Systems imply designs. |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Apr 20, 2013 22:41:19 GMT 10
While you're at it, look into electro-shock-therapy and psychotropic drugs, I think you'll find that electrical and chemical interference does in fact alter consciousness. No, it alters what facilitates consciousness. The subject is still self-aware. |
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Apr 20, 2013 22:46:46 GMT 10
Nonsense. Read up on higher brain function evolution. I have. I happen to know that there is no such thing as 'a brain', per se. And the brain is a system, not a 'thing'. Systems imply designs. Well, actually the brain is an organ.Not sure about yours, though. This design nonsense you keep referring to. If your God is responsible for design, why did he "design" paedophiles? |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Apr 20, 2013 22:55:23 GMT 10
Stating the obvious that it is an organ doesn't contradict the fact that it is still a system, slarti. It's composed of 4 components. The Cerebrum, Cerebellum, limbic system, and the brain stem. The limbic system is the least rational, and yours is overused. P.S. God didn't create pedophiles, people chose to become pedophiles...(Perhaps they 'evolved'.  ) |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Apr 20, 2013 22:56:38 GMT 10
No, it alters what facilitates consciousness. The subject is still self-aware. Are you self aware when on the operating table?  Why do people dream when others would claim they are 'unconscious'? |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Apr 20, 2013 23:02:58 GMT 10
Awareness and consciousness aren't necessarily the same thing, Phil.
Are you a brain, or are you an ego who has a brain?
Who is this disembodied 'I'?
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Apr 20, 2013 23:11:46 GMT 10
Your brain is a system where different functions, (such as your limbic system) are constantly competing for exclusive control.
When control changes hands, like when your limbic (fight or flight) takes over, how is it that you are still aware of your 'being'?
You still think you are in control, but you've been given a playschool steering-wheel.
(I've been reading a lot of psychology books, lately)
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Apr 20, 2013 23:12:36 GMT 10
There is no disembodied "I". By the way, do you think only humans are self-aware? What about cats, dogs, sheep, guinea pigs, cows, horses, dolphins? What about orangutans? I don't. I never excluded them, either. But I am aware of human's exclusive ability to 'design' and 'create'. |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Apr 21, 2013 0:20:09 GMT 10
Yet you are arguing that only man has been given consciousness as a gift from a God? Exactly when did I argue that? Truth is, man doesn't have enough knowledge, religious or otherwise, to comment on that. |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Apr 21, 2013 0:25:00 GMT 10
It seems that the brain is truly multi-tasking. Even better than a concurrent computer operation. Struth Unfortunately the cortex doesn't do a particularly good job of knowing when it's been pushed out of the driver's seat. This is how our brain operates: Suppose there is danger like you jump because you see a snake on the path. Your cortex rationalized that you jumped because you saw the snake, but what REALLY happened was your limbic system reacted first, and then your cortex rationalized reasons for why the jump was caused. But for you, it was all one thought process. 2 separate functions of the brain, yet only 1 consciousness. There is a little man at the switch (your consciousness) deciding who is in charge, and when. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2013 20:42:58 GMT 10
Isn't naturalism another word for nudism?
We have been to a nudist beach, it was perfectly natural and in no way immoral. Naked is the way God created us!
|
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Apr 28, 2013 0:06:34 GMT 10
Aren't we all?
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Apr 28, 2013 1:38:25 GMT 10
That's the 'naked' truth |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2013 2:28:54 GMT 10
I find this an interesting website, especially the scripture page showing evidence that naturism is pure and God oriented: www.naturist-christians.org/ |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Apr 28, 2013 3:50:22 GMT 10
That's all well and good, Matt.
But this is a thread about NATURALISM.
Please stay on topic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Apr 28, 2013 4:17:34 GMT 10
I find this an interesting website, especially the scripture page showing evidence that naturism is pure and God oriented: www.naturist-christians.org/--St. Augustine. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2013 21:06:52 GMT 10
I find this an interesting website, especially the scripture page showing evidence that naturism is pure and God oriented: www.naturist-christians.org/--St. Augustine. The Gospel is all about love. In fact, the word "Gospel" could be replaced by "Love" and it would make total sense. The Love of Jesus! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2013 21:39:20 GMT 10
The Gospel is all about love.
According to your bullshit book (and your vivid delusional imagination that goes with blindly believing that bullshit book) it is all about some despot imaginary god making threats to either become his/her/it's sychophant or be burnt in agony for ever and ever and ever.
Now what is loving about that sort of nasty, sadistic shit? |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Apr 28, 2013 23:56:17 GMT 10
"If you believe what you like in the Gospels, and reject what you don't like, it's not the Gospel you believe, but yourself." --St. Augustine. The Gospel is all about love. In fact, the word "Gospel" could be replaced by "Love" and it would make total sense. The Love of Jesus! Actually the word "Gospel" means "Glad Tidings", or "Good News". It's not a manuscript you can twist around to feel better about yourself, Matt. |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Apr 28, 2013 23:57:30 GMT 10
The Gospel is all about love.
According to your bullshit book (and your vivid delusional imagination that goes with blindly believing that bullshit book) it is all about some despot imaginary god making threats to either become his/her/it's sychophant or be burnt in agony for ever and ever and ever.
Now what is loving about that sort of nasty, sadistic shit?You haven't spent much time reading it, have you? |
|
)
