Materialism (championed by Darwinists) makes reason Impossible.

[DOC]

Well, at least that is one of the claims in the book "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. Many of you should know of this book as it is the focus of my Evidence thread in the History Forum. The book says this on page 129.

"...if materialism is true, then reason itself is impossible. For if mental processes are nothing but chemical reactions in the brain, then there is no reason to believe that anything is true (including the theory of materialism). Chemicals can't evaluate whether or not a theory is true. Chemicals don't reason, they react.

This is supremely ironic because Darwinists---who claim to champion truth and reason---have made truth and reason impossible by their theory of materialism. So even when Darwinists are right about something, their worldview gives us no reason to believe them---because reason itself is impossible in a world governed only by chemical and physical forces."

 

[Aepervius]

...if materialism is true, then reason itself is impossible. For if mental processes are nothing but chemical reactions in the brain, then there is no reason to believe that anything is true (including the theory of materialism). Chemicals can't evaluate whether or not a theory is true. Chemicals don't reason, they react.

Emphasis mine.


He got it at least that HALF right , the half underlined. The problem is that he switch to a NON sequitur immediately. There is no itnermediate step between brain=chemical and No reason. The fact that chemical themselves do not reason do not matter, as it is the complexity and the interconnectivity which do the job.

His reasonning is about as stupid as : chemical do not do calculus, therefore computer do not exists. This is naturally ignoring that the proper chemicals, dopped by the proper other chemicals, lead to something we are calling semi conductor, which in turn properlly placed lead to NAND & NOR gates, which leads to all sort of calculating agates, and RAM.

The same hold for what gives us the illusion of reason : chemicals builds cells, which in turn are neurons, glial cells, and their structure and itnerconnectivity and massive parallel running lead to reasonning.

He demonstrated nothing except his incredulity. Which is really nothing but a base fallacy.

Anyway if he claim that the brain is not only chemicals and complex molecules, then it is up to him to demonstrate this claim. Good luck with that. This is probably even LESS LIKELY than your 500 pages humongus thread to be demonstrated true.

 

[Aepervius]

BY the way I find it highly ironic that you are not capable to see the gigantic LOGIC LEAP he is doing, despite , if I remmember correctly, you claiming having done logic course.


ETA: but then again I took english course, and behold my (cough cough) incredible good (cough cough) skill at English .

 

[sadhatter]

I give this the biggest, most cat like, open mouthed yawn in the history of bored reactions.

 

[DOC]

He got it at least that HALF right , the half underlined. The problem is that he switch to a NON sequitur immediately. There is no itnermediate step between brain=chemical and No reason. The fact that chemical themselves do not reason do not matter, as it is the complexity and the interconnectivity which do the job...

So the interconnectivity of chemicals is the source of reason in your opinion?

 

[TimCallahan]

So, tell me, DOC, is this going to be yet another of those threads in which you come on like gang-busters only too disappear from the thread once the going gets rough? Oh, and do respond Aepervius' point about the non sequitur in the reasoning of Norman Geisler and Frank Turek.

 

[Nonpareil]

if mental processes are nothing but chemical reactions in the brain, then there is no reason to believe that anything is true (including the theory of materialism).

Non sequitur fallacy.

/thread

 

[Aepervius]

So the interconnectivity of chemicals is the source of reason in your opinion?

Very simply summarized : yes. The massive interconnectivity between neurons and the system supporting it. That and the fact that if you touch slightly or massively that network, you can do reproducible damage to the personality of the persons, or their ability to reason. (see article on brain damage, and the woman would could not recognize her own arm (or leg?)).

 

[Nonpareil]

Very simply summarized : yes. The massive interconnectivity between neurons and the system supporting it.

Before DOC gets the chance to mischaracterize this response, Aepervius is saying that the aforementioned system makes thought possible, and the ability to reason is a byproduct of thought.

(I think. Please correct me if I'm wrong, Aepervius)

 

[DOC]

Very simply summarized : yes. The massive interconnectivity between neurons and the system supporting it. That and the fact that if you touch slightly or massively that network, you can do reproducible damage to the personality of the persons, or their ability to reason. (see article on brain damage, and the woman would could not recognize her own arm (or leg?)).

So you believe intelligence comes from non-intelligent neurons?

 

[Aepervius]

Before DOC gets the chance to mischaracterize this response, Aepervius is saying that the aforementioned system makes thought possible, and the ability to reason is a byproduct of thought.

(I think. Please correct me if I'm wrong, Aepervius)

Yep correct. What we call reasonning is an emergent behavior, and frankly from what I read from more knowledgeable persons , in reality an illusion given by parallel processing, and most probably a conglomerat and not a "single" directing entity.

 

[TimCallahan]

Attack the messenger starting already. And this topic is relatively deep so it will take some time.

Well, you do have a history of abandoning threads when the questions press you too hard. The thread you started on the divine origin of natural disasters is a case in point.

Now, if you think that "mind" is something separate from "brain," rather than mind being what brain does, explain to me why people find it hard to think once someone has taken a baseball bat or a lead pipe to their skull.

 

[Aepervius]

So you believe intelligence comes from non-intelligent neurons?

You are attempting to do a BINARY differentiation. Nearly as if you wanted to railroad to a point : here is a frontier beside there is no reason and above there is reason. Just a feeling mind you, maybe not what you had in mind.

The reality is almost certainly not matching this : you are along the scale and the size of the network , increasing the complexity. What we get at the end is extremly complex and self refrential, but in nature not much different than a very simple network. In other word going from the single neuron to the full brain, a continuum of complexity, probably matching at some point a continuum of "reason".

 

[Aepervius]

Well, you do have a history of abandoning threads when the questions press you too hard. The thread you started on the divine origin of natural disasters is a case in point.

Now, if you think that "mind" is something separate from "brain," rather than mind being what brain does, explain to me why people find it hard to think once someone has taken a baseball bat or a lead pipe to their skull.

Heck you don't need to be that violent : a pair of nice perky 85C boobs are usually enough to shift me into a brain-dead/salivating state (ETA or rather drooling).

 

[Aepervius]

PS: good night I'll see DOC cogitation on the subject tomorrow morning.

 

[DOC]

The book cited in post #1 goes on to say this on pgs. 129-130.

"Not only is reason impossible in a Darwinian world, but the Darwinist's assertion that we should rely on reason alone cannot be justified. Why not? Because reason actually requires faith. As J. Budziszewski points out, "The motto 'Reason Alone!' is nonsense anyway. Reason itself presupposes faith. Why? Because a defense of reason by reason is circular, therefore worthless. Our only guarantee that human reason works is God who made it.""

 

[NewtonTrino]

If this is the best christian apologists can come up with then their goose is cooked.

 

[Foster Zygote]

"...if materialism is true, then reason itself is impossible. For if mental processes are nothing but chemical reactions in the brain, then there is no reason to believe that anything is true (including the theory of materialism). Chemicals can't evaluate whether or not a theory is true. Chemicals don't reason, they react.

This is supremely ironic because Darwinists---who claim to champion truth and reason---have made truth and reason impossible by their theory of materialism. So even when Darwinists are right about something, their worldview gives us no reason to believe them---because reason itself is impossible in a world governed only by chemical and physical forces."

That has to be one of the stupidest statements I've ever read.

 

[Nonpareil]

reason actually requires faith.

No.

a defense of reason by reason is circular, therefore worthless.

No.

 

[Mashuna]

The book cited in post #1 goes on to say this on pgs. 129-130.

"Not only is reason impossible in a Darwinian world, but the Darwinist's assertion that we should rely on reason alone cannot be justified. Why not? Because reason actually requires faith. As J. Budziszewski points out, "The motto 'Reson Alone!' is nonsense anyway. Reason itself presupposes faith. Why? Because a defense of reason by reason is circular, therefore worthless. Our only guarantee that human reason works is God who made it.""

Do you feel embarrassed to be supporting a book that is obviously gibberish?