Pages

Monday, August 07, 2006

The nullifidian funny farm

Recently, Loftus decided to showcase a man who lost his faith as a result of paranoid schizophrenia. Now he’s followed that up by showcasing a man who lost his faith as a result of stroke.

I’d just like to thank Loftus for reminding us that no one in his right mind would ever reject the Christian faith.

Point taken.

32 comments:

  1. With all due respet, Steve, such people deserve our sympathy. However, they should not be exhibited to demonstrate a point, either. That is, as we say, 'off.'

    The problem with an ill person is that one feels an awful cad critiquing them. That said, we shall all die. And while some of us may be lucky enough to go quickly, these days more and more people linger on. My grandmother died of cancer. She took a year to die, by the end, she was in very great pain.

    Her faith never wavered. After all, how could she deny the God who had kept her for so long and who would shortly wipe the tears from her eyes.

    From Augustus Toplady to Evan Roberts , William Cowper to John Marshall, Christians have suffered from physical complaints. All Christians will, ultimately, die, as is they way of all flesh:
    'The Paths of Glory lead but to the grave.' Some of us will suffer from mental illness, others will be robbed of powers that once they possessed, even revelled in. At the end, one of my relatives could remember nothing but her father's advertising jingle. But her heart was hid with Christ on high.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Funny punchline.

    I think a deeper meaning can be inferred should one choose to do so -- that faith is a function of brain activity, and when brain activity is impaired, faith can be shut off. There is no immaterial "spirit stuff" keeping your faith compartmentalized away from the health of your physical brain.

    And that is simply an interesting thought...better hope your brain keeps puttering along fine, or else...

    ReplyDelete
  3. And that is simply an interesting thought...better hope your brain keeps puttering along fine, or else...

    Granting you your premise, what do you do with Near Death Experiences, where people are brain dead, but when brought back to life are able to remember things vividly? Just courious.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Daniel,

    I hardly think that you can prove a direct realtionship. I am sure that there are many variables involved.

    My grandmother went quite senile in her old age. She couldn't even recognize her own children before she died. Yet her faith continued strong. In fact when she spoke of Christ it was the only time she made sense.

    Sure there are instances where someone completely loses their mind and loses their faith. But you are hardly exempt from not losing your mind and hence your faith in secular naturalistic science. Let's hope your brain keeps puttering along.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Someday Pastor Jeff said:

    "Granting you your premise, what do you do with Near Death Experiences, where people are brain dead, but when brought back to life are able to remember things vividly? Just courious."

    Yes. I'm curious too. Especially curious about how people tend to have NDEs that conform to whatever religious preconceptions they had in life.

    christians see heaven/hell
    muslims see allah
    hindus see all sorts of weird stuff
    and so on and so on...

    Interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  6. christians see heaven/hell
    muslims see allah
    hindus see all sorts of weird stuff
    and so on and so on...


    What about the atheist who sees heaven or hell?

    BTW: since you made the point, would you care backing up the above with data?

    Also, I'm glad your curious as well, since nothing you said answered the question.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Someday Pastor Jeff,

    Its obvious you haven't done your homework or consulted the literature on this subject.

    http://www.near-death.com/

    Thousands of articles/blogs have been written on these matters. Educate yourself, my young newbie.

    What of the christian who has the NDE of seeing the FSM?

    That is the question you should be asking....

    ReplyDelete
  8. Its obvious you haven't done your homework or consulted the literature on this subject.

    You are correct, but that is besides the point. Everything you have said so far, as I said earlier, does not address the issue Daniel Morgan brought up. Can you give an account for NDE - brain dead people, seeing things and coming back to life and talking about the experience.

    I'm currently taking a class with Gary Habermas, who has done extensive research on this subject and has co-authored a book with J.P. Moreland on this topic.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Someday Pastor Jeff said:

    "Can you give an account for NDE - brain dead people, seeing things and coming back to life and talking about the experience."

    Consult the literature. Nobody can "account for" this yet. (gotta love that "account for" phrase though! Thank you presupps!!!)

    Fascinsating topic...so are ghosts. Especially Holy ones! Can you give an account for why the Holy Ghost is now usually called the Holy spirit instead?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Consult the literature. Nobody can "account for" this yet. (gotta love that "account for" phrase though! Thank you presupps!!!)

    I know this might be hard for you, but wouldn't a good conclusion be, that we are more than material beings, which would be in conflict with what Daniel had stated?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Being "brain dead," and having a NDE, and then talking about it when one awakens...does not prove that we are 'more than material.' all is shows is that we don't fully understand the way the brain works yet, and that we possibly do not have the tools or the knowledge to measure "death" as accurately as we'd like.

    Capiche?

    ReplyDelete
  12. “Being "brain dead," and having a NDE, and then talking about it when one awakens...does not prove that we are 'more than material.'”

    First, you should take a look at the subject of veridical NDEs before you make any premature conclusions. In it of itself, it doesn’t prove anything per se. However, it does put the materials against the wall.

    Capiche?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thats

    ...*materialist against the wall

    ReplyDelete
  14. "And that is simply an interesting thought...better hope your brain keeps puttering along fine, or else..."

    Daniel,

    Does it really make you feel intelligent to know that the only reason you are an atheist is because the impersonal, mechanical laws of physics are just making the chemicals and other brain matter in your head fizz that way?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Beef said:

    "First, you should take a look at the subject of veridical NDEs before you make any premature conclusions. In it of itself, it doesn’t prove anything per se. However, it does put the materials against the wall."

    How so?

    What I said before applies DIRECTLY to what you're bringing up:

    "Being "brain dead," and having a (veridical) NDE, and then talking about it when one awakens...does not prove that we are 'more than material.' all it shows is that we don't fully understand the way the brain works yet, and that we possibly do not have the tools or the knowledge to measure "death" as accurately as we'd like."

    There are some materialists who do look at theories of the mind existing 'outside' of the body, a sort of "universal mind" idea. Because if you want to get all 'new agey' about it, we are all connected at the atomic level anyway. There is no distinct "me" and "you" with NOTHING in between.

    Because we do not understand consciousness yet, from a scientific perspective, does not make it a "non-material" thing.

    We can keep looking for the answers, or we can say:

    "Duh, I donno...must be God didit."

    ReplyDelete
  16. Craig said:

    "Does it really make you feel intelligent to know that the only reason you are an atheist is because the impersonal, mechanical laws of physics are just making the chemicals and other brain matter in your head fizz that way?"

    Do you "need" to feel special or "intelligent?" Why?

    ReplyDelete
  17. We can keep looking for the answers..., but the Christian can at least provide an answer. That does mean you stop looking and assessing the data, but the Christian can provide an answer, which goes against your statement that "Nobody can "account for" this yet.

    ReplyDelete
  18. uncleremus said:

    Because we do not understand consciousness yet, from a scientific perspective, does not make it a "non-material" thing.

    We can keep looking for the answers, or we can say:

    "Duh, I donno...must be God didit."

    ************************************

    Aside from the fact that this is not the argument for dualism, notice that remus is doing the very thing he faults the Christian for. He faults the Christian for God-of-the-gaps reasoning, but he himself resorts to Godless-of-the-gaps reasoning.

    "Duh, I dunno...but there must be some materialistic explanation out there, soon or later. So he is using his presumptive materialism and scientific ignorance (deferring presently unanswerable questions to the allegedly omniscient science of the future) to putty the gaps in his secularism.

    ReplyDelete
  19. FYI. Gary Habermas gave a lecture on the topic of NDEs this past April at an apologetics conference. The audio is online as Part 1 and Part 2 titled "Near Death Experiences as Empirical Evidence Against Naturalism."

    He also did a radio Q&A here with Part 1 and Part 2.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Steve beat me to the punch!

    uncleremus said:

    “There are some materialists who do look at theories of the mind existing 'outside' of the body, a sort of "universal mind" idea.”

    You mean…immaterial? A materialist who believes in the immaterial?

    "Because if you want to get all 'new agey' about it, we are all connected at the atomic level anyway."

    Who is getting 'new agey'? Veridical NDEs are a problem for the materialist—getting 'new agey' like such as you do only makes your position less tenable.

    “There is no distinct "me" and "you" with NOTHING in between.”

    I’m humored, but do expand.

    “Because we do not understand consciousness yet, from a scientific perspective, does not make it a "non-material" thing.”

    Science of the gaps?

    “We can keep looking for the answers, or we can say:

    "Duh, I donno...must be God didit."”


    Or we can erode in our philosophical naïveté and say "Duh, I donno...must be nature didit."

    ReplyDelete
  21. Funny stuff.

    Does it really make you feel intelligent to know that the only reason you are an atheist is because the impersonal, mechanical laws of physics are just making the chemicals and other brain matter in your head fizz that way?

    Does it really make you feel intelligent to watch a child with Down's Syndrome and say the reason that she has it is because of the personal, immaterial whims of God?

    Sometimes I feel happy in believing that I'll se my wife again after I die. Though this makes my brain "fizz" more pleasantly, the sad truth is that we return to the dust, and become as we were before we were born -- inanimate matter.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Daniel and Pinto, you've both missed the point.

    The point is that intelligence is an illusion in your worldview. The reason you are an atheist has nothing to do with you analyzing the Christian faith and coming to a rational conclusion that it is a false worldview. Your brain just did what the laws of physics made it do. The realm of intelligence and rational thought is nothing more than an illusion created by the firing of synapses in your brain.

    Likewise, you cannot fault Christians for holding to an irrational worldview. We're just doing what nature makes us do.

    By the way, that sadness you feel when you see a child with Downs Syndrome (and the resulting anger you feel toward the God you know exists, though you try to convince yourself that he doesn't because sometimes he does things that you don't understand), it's just an illusion too. You don't feel that way because there is really something objectively or intrinsically wrong with a child having Downs Syndrome. That's just the blind, impersonal force of nature at work on your brain creating a reaction inside you that has absoluting nothing to do with reason or ethical judgements.

    Sounds like a hum-dinger of a worldview. I think I'm ready to deconvert now...

    ReplyDelete
  23. Uncleremus, with reference to your question:

    'Can you give an account for why the Holy Ghost is now usually called the Holy spirit instead?'

    The answer, laddie, is that language usage has changed since 1611.'Ghost' in 1611 retained a little more of the meaning of its Germanic root 'Geist', which includes among its meanings spirit in general, whereas tody the meaning of 'ghost' has narrowed so that it refers now simply to the earth-bound spirits of the dead. Thus, modern Bible translations use Holy Spirit rather than Holy Ghost because Ghost in order to avoid creating the mental image of a see-through spirit of a dead person.

    Does that help you?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Craig,

    The point is that intelligence is an illusion in your worldview.
    In the same sense that consciousness is, I suppose. But we experience both and our perception of both is certainly far from illusory. Intelligence in your worldview is what? Magic pixie dust?

    The reason you are an atheist has nothing to do with you analyzing the Christian faith and coming to a rational conclusion that it is a false worldview.
    Um, okay...?

    Your brain just did what the laws of physics made it do.
    There's an interesting field that I study -- kinetics. You know what chemical kinetics is all about? Collisions of atoms/molecules. You know why I mention this? Because in the same sense that you want to make everything determined with respect to physics, you gladly accept the Goddish sort of determinism. What doesn't occur in your worldview, though, that does in mine is stochastic behavior, from the perspective of one system/participant in a system. That is, the experiences that I have do indeed shape my brain and worldview. Those experiences are the end result of moving matter, sure. But, the "collision" where I ran into these experiences (problem of evil, for starters) was quite fortuitious and unpredicted. I was going along quite happily as a Christian -- a youth pastor at a nearby church, no personal issues.

    Funny how chance hands me an experience that shaped me as faithless, but not you...yet. There is no good reason for you to get cocky, ol' boy, as you may wake up godless one day yourself, as millions like you have done throughout antiquity.

    The realm of intelligence and rational thought is nothing more than an illusion created by the firing of synapses in your brain.
    In the same way that man creates machines that perform functions that are useful to him, so nature has created a thinking machine that isn't "illusory" to those inside it, and it is certainly quite functional and useful. Are you done with your "I don't like the consequences of materialism" spiel yet?

    Likewise, you cannot fault Christians for holding to an irrational worldview. We're just doing what nature makes us do.
    Doofus, I am part of nature. If I am able to affect your thought processes, nothing "supernatural" has occurred, and it is still all physical. This is the typical sort of protest I encounter from theists, but it holds no water.

    By the way, that sadness you feel when you see a child with Downs Syndrome (and the resulting anger you feel toward the God you know exists, though you try to convince yourself that he doesn't because sometimes he does things that you don't understand), it's just an illusion too.
    By the way, the faith you have when you read the Bible and worship in church (and the resulting despair you feel toward the void you know exists, although you try to convince yourself it doesn't because sometimes life is hard and impersonal and cold and death is scary and you want to hold on to the memory of loved ones), it's just an illusion, too. And, just as all physical events can, this firing of synapses can shut down, or be shut down, by external processes.

    You don't feel that way because there is really something objectively or intrinsically wrong with a child having Downs Syndrome.
    Wrong? Perhaps you didn't get that what I offered you was reductio ad absurdum. You attempted to point out the internal inconsistencies in my worldview, and I returned the favor. There is certainly something wrong with a worldview that you think is more "logical" because personal, immaterial forces induce the world around us, versus impersonal, physical ones. The value judgment is internal to your own worldview... just as "intelligence is an illusion" is internal to mine.

    That's just the blind, impersonal force of nature at work on your brain creating a reaction inside you that has absoluting nothing to do with reason or ethical judgements.
    You're stepping off the porch now. And there's a big dog called philosophy that might eat you. Better get back on the porch and criticize the impersonal and cold nature of the universe (although in this reality, you are purposely reducing our experiences and perceptions in order to attempt to devalue them, which is a fallacy), and not goof up and say that ethics doesn't result from actions and choices, which are quite harmonious with a physicalist worldview.

    Besides, it is actually much less unsettling to look at mutations in DNA as resulting from blind, mute, uncaring physics than as resulting from an all-seeing, all-loving, all-powerful Being, is it not, Craig? It's quite absurd in the latter case, and in the former case, you can still empathize (as can other animals) and thus feel bad for a person in that situation (or any other).

    Sounds like a hum-dinger of a worldview. I think I'm ready to deconvert now...
    Craig, I'm glad you're at least honest enough to admit that your feelings about reductive materialism are what keeps you from honestly appraising its truth value, versus immaterial supernaturalism. Do you think, as a Christian, that I didn't (and still don't, at times), share your dire feelings about the state of reality? As you well know, though, we have no reason, in looking out at this ginormous, incomprehensibly large universe, to think that it should make us feel "fuzzy" inside, or make our brains "fizz" that way, if you prefer.

    And in looking at Christianity with an unblinded eye (having been on both sides of the fence), I find much less hope within it than I was deluded (by my own brain chemistry) into thinking was there before (thankfully, neurochemistry is not a closed system).

    ReplyDelete
  25. Loftus wrote:
    ---
    You ought to be ashamed of yourselves for the title of your original post.
    ---

    I enjoy watching Loftus yet again assert a morality upon others when he has no basis in his worldview to do so.

    Loftus, c'mon. The most you can say is, "I don't think you should..." not "You ought..." There is no "ought" in your worldview.

    This isn't to say that I would have posted what Steve said. It is only to point out that your objection to it serves to further theistic claims, not atheistic claims.

    ReplyDelete
  26. John W. Loftus said:

    Hiraeth said, However, they should not be exhibited to demonstrate a point, either.

    You guys are indeed stupid, aren't ya? These team members wanted to tell their story. That's right, they wanted to tell their story. Don't you understand? THEY WANTED TO TELL THEIR STORY!

    In both cases no one else would give them the time of day. That's right, NO ONE ELSE WOULD GIVE THEM THE TIME OF DAY No Christian wanted to hear their story, to listen or understand. So they came to me. Had Christians showed them they cared then it might have been a different. But they didn't, and now you aren't either.

    8/08/2006 6:24 AM  

    John W. Loftus said:

    You ought to be ashamed of yourselves for the title of your original post.

    ***********************

    Ah, nothing like the pungent aroma of feigned indignation.

    The caring thing to do would be to treat this as a matter for private pastoral counseling.

    Those are suffer from mental disorders are in a state of diminished responsibility, and, as such, should not be give a public platform.

    Unfortunately, the line of no return has already been crossed.

    These two team members directly attributed their loss of faith to their respective mental disorders. They made that the centerpiece of their case against the Christian faith.

    The fact that Loftus, who, presumably, is not out of his mind, would think that's a swell argument for apostasy says everything about his standards, or lack thereof, and nothing about mine.

    Shame on you, John!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Loftus, old man. These wallahs did not come anywhere near me, so I respectfully suggest that you can't bash me with this. I have talked with people in the Church who have suffered from mental illness and worse and tried to be a good listener and counsellor.

    As I said over the poor chap with schizophrenia, a chap whose mental state is impaired may not be the best judge of whether his story should be made public, nor indeed, of his own interests. If I knew a person who is currently suffering from mental illness, I would NEVER, even if he asked me to, disclose any details about him, nor would I use him to prove a point, even if he wanted me to.

    Yes, I weep for them and am more than willing to talk if I know the circumstances. But when you roll out the victims, you more or less rule out debate, as the first person to say something that might be a little insensitive is then whacked with the billy-club of outrage.

    I am not stupid, Mr. Loftus, I have a heart and have lost relatives and friends to fairly ghastly ends that have left them a shadow of their former selves at death. If I ever found their stories used as ammunition in another man's feud, I should be apalled. Thus I am apalled and sickened by your behaviour.

    Still, when I attempt to steer a middle course and am thus insulted, I see the bankruptcy of your own moral view. What ends, I ask, can justify such means? As it is, when a bloody stump is waved beneath my nose, I dismiss the waver as addicted to theatrics, especially when he is waving someone else's stump.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Steve,

    So what if I have some pretty low recruiting standards over here at DC? These are difficult days for the godless. I'm going to be visiting a few local mental hospitals and a prison to see if I can tell someone else's story on my blog. I'm sure there are others out there that need my help. They just need a listening ear and an understanding heart. Something you know nothing about, you unfeeling monster! Hey, I'm a compassionate human being. These folks have no where to go, even Christians wouldn't take them in (what does that tell you about Christianity?). Well, if you know of anyone who is unstable please let me know. I have a spot for them at DC...

    ReplyDelete
  29. Daniel: In the same sense that consciousness is, I suppose. But we experience both and our perception of both is certainly far from illusory. Intelligence in your worldview is what? Magic pixie dust?

    Craig: Uh, Daniel… you’re not supposed to admit that my reductio of your worldview was valid. It doesn’t bode well for your position. But thanks... you just made my job a lot easier.

    And just as an FYI, but there is no such thing is pixie dust in the Christian worldview. See that’s the thing about atheists. In order for them to critique Christianity they have to misrepresent it by making stuff up in order to critique it.

    Daniel: Um, okay...?

    Craig: Yes, Daniel, that follows. If the laws of physics determine the worldview you hold, debating worldviews makes no sense. Trying to point out defects and deficiencies in opposing worldviews is pointless. The difference between an atheist and a Christian is akin to shaking up a bottle of Pepsi and a bottle a Mt. Dew and letting them go. Chemical reactions are not rational, Daniel. Do Mentos and Diet Coke reason with each other when you mix them together? Do they exchange arguments? Does one ever persuade the other?

    Daniel: There's an interesting field that I study -- kinetics. You know what chemical kinetics is all about? Collisions of atoms/molecules. You know why I mention this? Because in the same sense that you want to make everything determined with respect to physics, you gladly accept the Goddish sort of determinism. What doesn't occur in your worldview, though, that does in mine is stochastic behavior, from the perspective of one system/participant in a system. That is, the experiences that I have do indeed shape my brain and worldview. Those experiences are the end result of moving matter, sure. But, the "collision" where I ran into these experiences (problem of evil, for starters) was quite fortuitious and unpredicted. I was going along quite happily as a Christian -- a youth pastor at a nearby church, no personal issues.

    Craig: Hmmm… kinetics sounds very interesting, what with all the collisions of molecules and things. I’d be interested in seeing the problem of evil interact with your brain in a laboratory. Is that some kind of surgical procedure you do by cutting open somebody’s head? What is the molecular structure of the problem of evil? Is it made up of Manganese? Argon? Molybdenum? Cobalt? I bet Lithium is one element it’s made of.

    Also, there’s a big difference between the determinism of your worldview and the predestination of Christianity. The personal God of the Bible predestines according to a divine plan and purpose. Determined events have meaning in the Christian worldview. In your worldview, determined events… well, they just happen. And they are neither good nor evil. When a rock falls off a cliff and collides with another rock on the ground and splits it in half, did it do something morally wrong? What are the ethics of a lemon juice/baking soda volcano?

    Daniel: Funny how chance hands me an experience that shaped me as faithless, but not you...yet. There is no good reason for you to get cocky, ol' boy, as you may wake up godless one day yourself, as millions like you have done throughout antiquity.

    Craig: Yes, Daniel, we’ve heard all about your deconversion story. And nobody is impressed by it. Many people have deconverted from the faith and you’re not the first. But don’t forget that many people have also converted TO the faith from atheism and other worldviews, even in the midst of hardship. And then there are plenty of Christians who have experienced far worse things than what you have experienced and who remained steadfast in their faith. So your experience is pretty insignificant, in that regard, though it no doubt seems significant to you.

    Daniel: In the same way that man creates machines that perform functions that are useful to him, so nature has created a thinking machine that isn't "illusory" to those inside it, and it is certainly quite functional and useful. Are you done with your "I don't like the consequences of materialism" spiel yet?

    Craig: Yes, we’re all living in the Matrix! Remember, there is no spoon, Daniel.

    Your worldview is like going to a magic show to watch David Copperfield make an elephant disappear. You know that the trick is really just an illusion using mirrors, a curtain, and some smoke, but you still choose to believe the elepant really disappeared because, hey, it sure didn't seem like an illusion!

    Let the reader keep this in mind the next time Daniel refers to things like fairy dust, a magical being, a cartoon universe, etc. when trying to critique Christianity. Remember this is coming from a guy who holds to a David Copperfield worldview.

    Daniel: Doofus, I am part of nature. If I am able to affect your thought processes, nothing "supernatural" has occurred, and it is still all physical. This is the typical sort of protest I encounter from theists, but it holds no water.

    Craig: And your statement about the supernatural begs the question. How old are you, by the way? I'm just asking because my toddler sister says doofus.

    Daniel: Wrong? Perhaps you didn't get that what I offered you was reductio ad absurdum. You attempted to point out the internal inconsistencies in my worldview, and I returned the favor. There is certainly something wrong with a worldview that you think is more "logical" because personal, immaterial forces induce the world around us, versus impersonal, physical ones. The value judgment is internal to your own worldview... just as "intelligence is an illusion" is internal to mine.

    Craig: Yes, we can all see very clearly what your strategy was: I already reduced your worldview to absurdity, so you resorted to the ol' problem of evil in hopes that nobody else would notice. First, what you offered was hardly a reductio of my worldview because you didn't include all the pertinent data (e.g., that God, in his wisdom, has a morally justifiable reason for the existence of evil in the world, for starters). You, on the other hand, granted that my reductio of your worldview was valid. You just scoffed at it and accused me of not liking the consequences of materialism (which by the way, reductios are all about revealing the consequences of worldviews, and you're right, I don't like the consequences of materialism because the end result is the destruction of intelligibility).

    And value is just as much an illusion as intelligence and reason in your worldview as well. In your worldview, children are of no REAL value anyway, let alone a child with a disease. Would you like to be the one to tell a parent of a child with Downs Syndrome that the value of that child is just an illusion? That’s a burden I would not want to have. At least in my worldview human beings have value that isn’t illusory, and such things as diseases can be explained in the context of a fallen universe resulting from sin.

    Daniel: You're stepping off the porch now. And there's a big dog called philosophy that might eat you. Better get back on the porch and criticize the impersonal and cold nature of the universe (although in this reality, you are purposely reducing our experiences and perceptions in order to attempt to devalue them, which is a fallacy), and not goof up and say that ethics doesn't result from actions and choices, which are quite harmonious with a physicalist worldview.

    Craig: Sorry Daniel, but people with imaginary intelligence make imaginary judgements of behavior and value. But you're welcome to pretend all you want. Add to that the is/ought problem, and your physicalist worldview is as dead as a slab of meat, and that big dog called philosophy (I think his name is Hume) will be eating good.

    Daniel: Besides, it is actually much less unsettling to look at mutations in DNA as resulting from blind, mute, uncaring physics than as resulting from an all-seeing, all-loving, all-powerful Being, is it not, Craig? It's quite absurd in the latter case, and in the former case, you can still empathize (as can other animals) and thus feel bad for a person in that situation (or any other).

    Craig: Not really, Daniel. In a world of nothing but atoms and molecules colliding with each other, I hardly see how one collision is morally good and another is morally evil. A mutation is just the result of another one of those collisions, just matter in motion. And whether or not you feel empathy for a person with a mutation just depends on whether or not your brain keeps puttering along just fine (Remember that? And just how exactly do you tell when your brain is and isn't working fine? Does your brain tell you? Then you might wanna consider the source.)

    And I'm a little curious... does your dog feel empathy for you when you stub your toe on the bedpost?

    In the Christian worldview, the world is not just matter in motion. Good and evil are real things, not a couple of David Copperfield's illusions. And all events, both good and evil, work together as part of God's divine plan.

    Daniel: Craig, I'm glad you're at least honest enough to admit that your feelings about reductive materialism are what keeps you from honestly appraising its truth value, versus immaterial supernaturalism. Do you think, as a Christian, that I didn't (and still don't, at times), share your dire feelings about the state of reality? As you well know, though, we have no reason, in looking out at this ginormous, incomprehensibly large universe, to think that it should make us feel "fuzzy" inside, or make our brains "fizz" that way, if you prefer.

    Craig: Sorry, Daniel, but I don't change worldviews just because my feelings get hurt. Maybe that's something you would do. No, materialism does not provide the preconditions necessary for intelligibility, and this is why I reject it. You have admitted this much in saying that intelligence really is an illusion, even though it doesn't "feel" like an illusion to us. Sure, it may be the case that you and I are trading arguments and having intelligent discourse. Sure, it may be the case that you really do make ethical judgements. But your materialist worldview cannot account for the reality of these things. It does not provide the preconditions for knowledge, which is why you have to pretend that it does. I, for one, choose not to live with a worldview of smoke and mirrors.

    My work here is done. The folly of your worldview should be evident to all. Feel free to have the last word if you wish.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Sowder,

    It does not provide the preconditions for knowledge, which is why you have to pretend that it does. I, for one, choose not to live with a worldview of smoke and mirrors.

    My work here is done. The folly of your worldview should be evident to all. Feel free to have the last word if you wish.


    Now, let's review (me bolded, you italicized)
    The point is that intelligence is an illusion in your worldview.
    In the same sense that consciousness is, I suppose. But we experience both and our perception of both is certainly far from illusory. Intelligence in your worldview is what? Magic pixie dust?

    From this statement, Sowder concludes (strawman-style) that I am conceding to irrationality. The folly of his non sequitur should be evident to all.

    Thanks for the last word.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I would like to say something here. I am the "whack-job", as you seem to be implying, who lost his faith as a result of paranoid schizophrenia. Right now, I am symptom free, and my faith hasn't seen fit to make a come-back. I also don't appreciate your use of the term "funny-farm". It's cruel and insensitive. Do you refer to institutions for the mentally retarded as "retard farms"? Considering that none of you have walked my path, who are you to judge me? I noticed that you conveniently omitted the "tortures of the damned" that that illness put me through, and that a "merciful, loving, Father God" permitted! Have you ever considered asking the question why God would allow something in a believer's life that would drive him away from his presence? If I wasn't "in my right mind" as you put it, who permitted me to go out of my mind? Do you think I asked for paranoid schizophrenia? And don't play the "mental illness is caused by sin" card. You'll get thrown out for double-dribble on that one! If you are curious as to the many reasons why why I walked out of this religious chicanery, visit my blog "The Permarian Mindscape"(www.permscape.blogspot.com)

    ReplyDelete