Archive for the ‘naturalism entails determinism’ Category

Research has demonstrated that there is a distinction between the mind and the brain

January 6, 2010

Research has demonstrated that there is a distinction between the mind and the brain. One study had brain surgeons open up the skull of brain surgery patients to expose their gray matter. The researchers then electrically stimulated the area of the brain which lifts the right arm. They stimulated it and the arm lifted without the patient’s permission. Then the scientists instructed their patients to resist the lifting of the arm when they stimulated the same spot in the brain. They stimulated that area, and all the patients could resist the lifting of their arm.

Michael A. Robinson, God Does Exist!, Author House 2006, pp.98-99

Advertisements

Even as rigorous a determinist as Karl Marx spoke with a withering scorn which only the presupposition of moral responsibility could justify

October 22, 2009

Even as rigorous a determinist as Karl Marx, who at times described the social behavior of the bourgeoisie in terms which suggested a problem in social physics, could subject it at other times to a withering scorn which only the presupposition of moral responsibility could justify.

R. Niebuhr, in C.S.Lewis, Miracles, 1959, p.43

I am furious at being entangled in a confounded philosophy which my mind cannot refrain from approving and my heart from denying

September 24, 2009

I am furious at being entangled in a confounded philosophy which my mind cannot refrain from approving and my heart from denying.

Diderot, a philosphical naturalist and rationalist writing to his beloved, Spohie Volland.

in Os Guiness, Dust of Death, 1974, p.353

His materialist reductionism rendered ‘love’ meaningless along with ‘choice’ and yet something within him rebelled against it.

Naturalism undermines induction (the premise of science)

September 8, 2009

If all that exists is Nature, the great mindless interlocking event, if our own deepest convictions are merely the by – products of an irrational process, then clearly there is not the slightest ground for supposing that our sense of fitness and our consequent faith in uniformity tell us anything about a reality external to ourselves…Our convictions are simply a fact about us-like the colour of our hair. If Naturalism is true we have no reason to trust our conviction that Nature is uniform.

C.S. Lewis, Miracles, pp.105, 109

[Lewis C.S., "Miracles:
A Preliminary Study," [1947], Fontana: London, 1960, Revised Edition, 1963, reprint, p.109] 

Naturalism undermines knowledge

September 8, 2009

Naturalism holds that perception and knowledge are either identical with or a byproduct of the brain; they arise from the functioning of matter. Without matter’s functioning there would be no thought. But matter functions by a nature of its own. There is no reason to think that matter has any interest in leading a conscious being to true perception or to logical (that is, correct) conclusions based on accurate observation and true presuppositionsWhy should whatever that matter is conscious of be in any way related to what actually is the case? Is there a test for distinguishing illusion from reality. Naturalists point to the methods of scientific inquiry, pragmatic tests and so forth. But all these utilize the brain they are testing. Each test could well be a futile exercise in spinning out the consistency of an illusion.

James W Sire

THE UNIVERSE NEXT DOOR by James W Sire, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, pp.93-94

Naturalism kills man

September 8, 2009

…man is a machine, and that in the whole universe there is but a single substance differently modified.

La Mettrie

If matter is all there is, then we are machines  and thus dead because we are robots. Freedom is an illusions and morality a pretense covered by secret power plays.

Naturalism – Man is not valuable at all

September 7, 2009

Did naturalism give an adequate reason for us to consider our-selves valuable? Unique, maybe. But gorillas are unique. So is every category of nature. Value was the first troublesome issue. Could a being thrown up by chance be worthy?

Second, could a being whose origins were so “iffy” trust his or her own capacity to know? Put it personally: If my mind is conterminous with my brain, if ‘I’ am only a thinking machine, how can I trust my thought? If consciousness is an epiphenomenon of matter, perhaps the appearance of human freedom which lays the basis for morality is an epiphenomenon of either chance or inexorable law. Perhaps chance or the nature of things only built into me the “feeling” that I am free but actually I am not.

James W. Sire, The Universe Next Door, Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988, p. 83.