In my previous blog posting regarding the logical consequences of material monism, I showed that it is self-contradictory because it asserts that all of human experience is merely the compelled effects of the physical properties of matter. I also mentioned my latest discovery in the blogosphere of Sam Harris' assertion that he is a robot -- a mindless automaton of the universe. But there are more.
A second example of an atheist robot is found in the writings of Stephen Hawking. A material monist, such as Hawking, believes there are no "minds," just physical brains. So then, it is no surprise, when in the following link, (Hawking: There is No Heaven), Hawking declares that we are merely "meat computers," i.e., we are just like our familiar desktop computers, except that our brains are composed of meat rather than silicon.
To my knowledge, Hawking has not disavowed man's free agency, though he openly sacrifices his rationality on the altar of the goddess Tyche ("chance"). Hawking states in the above article, "Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing. It is a matter of chance which we are in."
Science predicts no such thing.
We have already pointed out previously (here) that the "nothing" of Hawking is most definitely something. It is a configuration of quantum fields (which is something) that have a total energy balance of zero -- but to say that a configuration of matter with zero energy (and even the reference point for zero energy is conventional) is "nothing" would be akin to saying the assets of a person with net worth zero is "nothing" in spite of the fact that it is merely that the value of his many assets is equal to the amount of his debts. It is remarkable what nonsense such brilliant men will utter!
Then we also have Hawking's appeal to "chance." "Chance," of course, is the correlate of lawlessness, the unexplained, or stuff from the surd. As it turns out, no physical experiment has shown the existence of "chance." Atheists worship it nonetheless. Be that as it may, if it were "chance" that decided in which universe Hawking found himself, it is also "chance" that dictates his every action -- Hawking can have no waivers. It would follow that Hawking's "reasoning" itself would be the result of random events dictated by quantum dynamics. He would not be a "free thinker"-- as many atheists tout -- but a mindless robot uttering random propositions dictated by lawless "chance." So much then for Hawking's rationality and denial of God.
The same analysis applies to all self-contradictory freedom-denying atheist "robots." On the atheist worldview, there is no transcendent reality -- the material universe is all there is. In this case, man is nothing more than a part of the material universe and thus totally governed by material laws. Mindless matter grants no waivers.
In Christianity, on the other hand, there is an ultimate reality that transcends the world -- the Transcendent Triune God. Only on the presupposition of theism is man free from physical determinism, since he is the creation of a transcendent living Triune God who has created the physical world and has created man with a nature that is not totally physical -- but physical and spiritual. Man's created spirit is not ruled by material laws and his will is independent of those laws. It is the seat of rationality, of self, and of the will. Christian theism is the only worldview that accounts for all of human experience, that breaks the shackles of material monism, and accounts for the rationality of man.
Showing posts with label physical determinism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label physical determinism. Show all posts
Monday, July 25, 2011
Monday, June 27, 2011
Invasion of the Atheist Robots
In recent postings, I have written on the logical consequences of material monism. Material monism is self-contradictory -- it asserts that all of human experience is merely the compelled effects of the physical properties of matter. But this is the same as the assertion that things turn into their opposites -- by way of magic. Examples are: life from lifeless matter, minds from mindlessness, logic and mathematics from a-logical and a-mathematical matter, and morals from amoral matter. And for some, freedom emerges from physical compulsion.
There are two types of these "rational" monists.
The first type of monist (of which Richard Dawkins is an example), is one who asserts that he is free. We have dealt with that conceit here. The other group (of which William Provine is an example, discussed here) follows the logical consistency of their presuppositions, reject the miracle of Dawkins, and deny that they are free. This follows easily, since once a mechanism. . .always a mechanism. Thus, they use their rationality to deny their freedom, and so deny their own rationality. In short, they use rationality to deny rationality!
In perusing the blogosphere, it appears that the ranks of atheists promoting man as a mere robot without freedom from physical determinism are swelling.
The newest self-proclaimed robot I have discovered is Sam Harris. Harris's rejections can be found here:
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/free-will-why-you-still-dont-have-it/
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/morality-without-free-will/
In both of those essays, Harris supposes he is engaging in a rational argument. . .but one compelled by physics! Remarkable! In the second article above, Harris argues for morality compelled by physics! Yet another absurd miracle! To say that a purely material system (such as Harris in Harris's atheistic materialism) is logically and morally obligated to act a certain way is absurd. Matter is only "obliged" to act according to physical laws. Because of this, robots cannot exhibit moral or rational acts. Nonetheless, Harris asserts that he is a robot. And all of this is arrived at via a viciously circular argument rooted in the metaphysical bias of material monism.
A particularly muddled remark occurs at the end of the first article, viz., "the illusion of free will is itself an illusion."
Here by Harris's analysis, we have a supposedly rational conclusion which is itself an illusion compelled by physics. But what could it mean? If the illusion is an illusion, then on the normal meaning of the word "illusion," the "false appearance of free will" is itself a false appearance -- normal usage would either take Harris as contradicting himself or suggesting a rather nonsensical infinite regress of illusions. He has committed a faux pas -- perhaps though (in analogy with his illusion illusion), he would prefer he had committed a faux faux pas.
The issue of human freedom from physical causation extends deeper than ethical issues, such as the repudiation of moral choices and human responsibility. Even Searle in Rationality in Action has written, inconsistently with his naturalism, that rationality presupposes free will. To state it briefly: Naturalism cannot even account for the illusion of rationality, as there would be no “reason.” Yet, Harris expects us to rationally follow his reasoning -- or maybe he doesn't. Could it be that Harris is not the author, but rather a mindless robot?
But such is the absurdity to which atheism descends -- rather than worshiping their Creator, they worship "omnipotent" matter by way of their prideful faith in the "rationality" of "omnipotent" science. A rationality and science which is inexplicable in a purely material reality.
Romans 1:18-19 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
Romans 1:25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
There are two types of these "rational" monists.
The first type of monist (of which Richard Dawkins is an example), is one who asserts that he is free. We have dealt with that conceit here. The other group (of which William Provine is an example, discussed here) follows the logical consistency of their presuppositions, reject the miracle of Dawkins, and deny that they are free. This follows easily, since once a mechanism. . .always a mechanism. Thus, they use their rationality to deny their freedom, and so deny their own rationality. In short, they use rationality to deny rationality!
In perusing the blogosphere, it appears that the ranks of atheists promoting man as a mere robot without freedom from physical determinism are swelling.
The newest self-proclaimed robot I have discovered is Sam Harris. Harris's rejections can be found here:
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/free-will-why-you-still-dont-have-it/
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/morality-without-free-will/
In both of those essays, Harris supposes he is engaging in a rational argument. . .but one compelled by physics! Remarkable! In the second article above, Harris argues for morality compelled by physics! Yet another absurd miracle! To say that a purely material system (such as Harris in Harris's atheistic materialism) is logically and morally obligated to act a certain way is absurd. Matter is only "obliged" to act according to physical laws. Because of this, robots cannot exhibit moral or rational acts. Nonetheless, Harris asserts that he is a robot. And all of this is arrived at via a viciously circular argument rooted in the metaphysical bias of material monism.
A particularly muddled remark occurs at the end of the first article, viz., "the illusion of free will is itself an illusion."
Here by Harris's analysis, we have a supposedly rational conclusion which is itself an illusion compelled by physics. But what could it mean? If the illusion is an illusion, then on the normal meaning of the word "illusion," the "false appearance of free will" is itself a false appearance -- normal usage would either take Harris as contradicting himself or suggesting a rather nonsensical infinite regress of illusions. He has committed a faux pas -- perhaps though (in analogy with his illusion illusion), he would prefer he had committed a faux faux pas.
The issue of human freedom from physical causation extends deeper than ethical issues, such as the repudiation of moral choices and human responsibility. Even Searle in Rationality in Action has written, inconsistently with his naturalism, that rationality presupposes free will. To state it briefly: Naturalism cannot even account for the illusion of rationality, as there would be no “reason.” Yet, Harris expects us to rationally follow his reasoning -- or maybe he doesn't. Could it be that Harris is not the author, but rather a mindless robot?
But such is the absurdity to which atheism descends -- rather than worshiping their Creator, they worship "omnipotent" matter by way of their prideful faith in the "rationality" of "omnipotent" science. A rationality and science which is inexplicable in a purely material reality.
Romans 1:18-19 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
Romans 1:25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
The Abolition of Morality, the Abolition of Man
In issue #82 of Philosophy Now, there is a series of articles on atheistic moral theories. These are categorized as the familiar "moral relativism" and "moral skepticism." These theories deny objective or absolute morality and embrace subjective and relative moral judgment ("different strokes for different folks").
Nevertheless, at bottom, all of these atheistic theories have a common presupposition of human autonomy and, thereby, a teleological (action for the sake of an end) basis for their ethos -- be it the variety of pragmatism, utilitarianism, relativism, errantism, or fictionalism. All of the discussion depends upon man having the ability to be guided by utilitarian goals (an act is "good" based on what it achieves) and ability to choose among alternative actions according to subjective (dependent upon the subject) or relative rules (such as mere societal conventions).
But! Since atheistic monism and human autonomy are antithetical, none of these philosophical discussions are rational. They are irrational at their very core! On their worldview, man cannot make choices, but only acts as he must. Therefore, the teleology that their moral theories assume is merely a phantom.
Of particular note is the article by Richard Garner titled, "Morality, the Final Delusion." Garner bites the bullet and compares the existence of morality with the existence of God. Taking his lead from Richard Dawkins, he is bold enough to say that belief in morality is the "Morality Delusion!" Thus we see that in the end, the atheist makes his bold assertions concerning his metaphysics using the supposed power of "his" autonomous reason. But such "rationality" -- which, again on his worldview, can only be the irresistible effect of matter obeying the fundamental laws of quantum mechanics -- is not reason following resistible fundamental laws of logic. There are no fundamental laws of logic in a universe ruled solely by the fundamental laws of physics.
The atheist's irrational faith in his rational autonomy is the final and only area of philosophy he will maintain to the bitter end. It would be remarkable if Garner would logically assert the concept of the "Logic Delusion!" To assert such is obviously delusion in itself. But it is the inescapable consequence of monism. Such are the pretensions and self-contradictions of atheism.
Nevertheless, at bottom, all of these atheistic theories have a common presupposition of human autonomy and, thereby, a teleological (action for the sake of an end) basis for their ethos -- be it the variety of pragmatism, utilitarianism, relativism, errantism, or fictionalism. All of the discussion depends upon man having the ability to be guided by utilitarian goals (an act is "good" based on what it achieves) and ability to choose among alternative actions according to subjective (dependent upon the subject) or relative rules (such as mere societal conventions).
But! Since atheistic monism and human autonomy are antithetical, none of these philosophical discussions are rational. They are irrational at their very core! On their worldview, man cannot make choices, but only acts as he must. Therefore, the teleology that their moral theories assume is merely a phantom.
Of particular note is the article by Richard Garner titled, "Morality, the Final Delusion." Garner bites the bullet and compares the existence of morality with the existence of God. Taking his lead from Richard Dawkins, he is bold enough to say that belief in morality is the "Morality Delusion!" Thus we see that in the end, the atheist makes his bold assertions concerning his metaphysics using the supposed power of "his" autonomous reason. But such "rationality" -- which, again on his worldview, can only be the irresistible effect of matter obeying the fundamental laws of quantum mechanics -- is not reason following resistible fundamental laws of logic. There are no fundamental laws of logic in a universe ruled solely by the fundamental laws of physics.
The atheist's irrational faith in his rational autonomy is the final and only area of philosophy he will maintain to the bitter end. It would be remarkable if Garner would logically assert the concept of the "Logic Delusion!" To assert such is obviously delusion in itself. But it is the inescapable consequence of monism. Such are the pretensions and self-contradictions of atheism.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Inexplicable! And That's No Lie!
Every fact of human experience is proof of theism and, therefore, a disproof of atheism and, thereby, also of agnosticism. This is the transcendental argument for the existence of God -- God exists because of the impossibility of the contrary.
The other day I was pondering the slogan that some people make about our former President, "Bush lied, people died."
But what is this human act called "lying"?
First, lying requires intentionality. A lie is to knowingly utter a statement contrary to the truth in order to deceive. In this regard, the slogan above is a claim that Bush intentionally said there were WMD in Iraq, while he knew there were none. Thus, the slogan is an extraordinary claim since most of the world's leaders and intelligence agencies believed Iraq possessed WMD. Regardless of why the nearly worldwide agreement on intelligence data was faulty, without that moral dimension, speaking or believing a falsehood is not a lie -- it is merely an error. Otherwise, students answering examinations incorrectly are the biggest group of liars in all of creation.
Moreover, lying is a sin! Sin is the breaking of God's commands. But for atheists, lying could not be considered a sin, since to them, there is no God. In that case lying becomes "good" or "bad" according to situational relativism. Of course "good" or "bad" is not absolute to the atheist -- "good" or "bad" means "good" or "bad" in terms of consequences for oneself or the conventions of one's social group.
For many of the godless, lying is a means to an end. But this brings us to the crux of the problem for atheists.
The laws of physics have the property that they have no memory of the past and no goal for the future. They are "ignorant" of the past and "blind" to the future (to use the usual anthropomorphizing of an insensate material universe) . The atheist worldview of materialism embodied in the laws of physics states that the future depends only upon the state of reality now. This implies two things:
It is further inexplicable that man as an absolute physically determined system can utter a false description of reality in order to deceive and attempt to alter, influence or otherwise elicit a desired response from other humans to achieve a self-centered goal. Man's mental states, being no more than mere results of "random" quantum mechanical fluctuations, can then have no causal efficacy -- they cannot cause electrons to swerve from their paths. Mental states are to the physical brain as a person's shadow is to the body. As a result "mental" states cannot alter physical brain states, just as the body's shadow cannot produce body motions.
"Lying" as an immoral act rests upon the presuppositions of mental causation, logical laws, human free agency, intentionality, and moral laws, none of which would exist in a purely physical reality.
The very act of lying is impossible and inexplicable in a Godless reality. So then, the human act of lying is proof of God. On the other hand, the atheist believes in things -- such as lying -- that his fundamental presuppositions deny. Such are the contradictions of atheism and its self-refuting pretensions.
The other day I was pondering the slogan that some people make about our former President, "Bush lied, people died."
But what is this human act called "lying"?
First, lying requires intentionality. A lie is to knowingly utter a statement contrary to the truth in order to deceive. In this regard, the slogan above is a claim that Bush intentionally said there were WMD in Iraq, while he knew there were none. Thus, the slogan is an extraordinary claim since most of the world's leaders and intelligence agencies believed Iraq possessed WMD. Regardless of why the nearly worldwide agreement on intelligence data was faulty, without that moral dimension, speaking or believing a falsehood is not a lie -- it is merely an error. Otherwise, students answering examinations incorrectly are the biggest group of liars in all of creation.
Moreover, lying is a sin! Sin is the breaking of God's commands. But for atheists, lying could not be considered a sin, since to them, there is no God. In that case lying becomes "good" or "bad" according to situational relativism. Of course "good" or "bad" is not absolute to the atheist -- "good" or "bad" means "good" or "bad" in terms of consequences for oneself or the conventions of one's social group.
For many of the godless, lying is a means to an end. But this brings us to the crux of the problem for atheists.
The laws of physics have the property that they have no memory of the past and no goal for the future. They are "ignorant" of the past and "blind" to the future (to use the usual anthropomorphizing of an insensate material universe) . The atheist worldview of materialism embodied in the laws of physics states that the future depends only upon the state of reality now. This implies two things:
- There is absolutely no teleology in physical systems -- there is no goal-orientated direction.
- The future is compelled by laws of physics channeled via irrational quantum chance.
It is further inexplicable that man as an absolute physically determined system can utter a false description of reality in order to deceive and attempt to alter, influence or otherwise elicit a desired response from other humans to achieve a self-centered goal. Man's mental states, being no more than mere results of "random" quantum mechanical fluctuations, can then have no causal efficacy -- they cannot cause electrons to swerve from their paths. Mental states are to the physical brain as a person's shadow is to the body. As a result "mental" states cannot alter physical brain states, just as the body's shadow cannot produce body motions.
"Lying" as an immoral act rests upon the presuppositions of mental causation, logical laws, human free agency, intentionality, and moral laws, none of which would exist in a purely physical reality.
The very act of lying is impossible and inexplicable in a Godless reality. So then, the human act of lying is proof of God. On the other hand, the atheist believes in things -- such as lying -- that his fundamental presuppositions deny. Such are the contradictions of atheism and its self-refuting pretensions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)