CAN IRRATIONALITY PRODUCE RATIONALITY?
For more great blogs as this one go to Daniel’s blog site at:
This is precisely what atheistic, naturalistic evolution maintains -- that mindless natural selection produced a thinking mind with billions of neurons and trillions of neuronal connections.
Atheist turned Christian, C.S. Lewis, doubted that this was possible. He compared mindless evolution to someone with a damaged brain:
∑ "Whenever you know what the other man is saying is wholly due to his complexes or to a bit of bone pressing on his brain, you cease to attach importance to it. But if naturalism were true then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes. Therefore, all thoughts would be completely worthless. Therefore, naturalism is completely worthless. If this is true, then we can know no truths. It cuts its own throat."
Although I sympathize with his reasoning, I think that it will leave the naturalist undaunted. Why? Because he already believes, based on a mindless process, that our eyes are able to perfectly mirror the physical world! If our eyes can picture or embrace this world, why not also our thinking? If strictly bio-chemical processes can produce vision, why not also thinking?
However, our thinking seems to transcend even what our eyes can do. While our eyes can see, possibly because of deterministic and invariable laws of biochemistry, which do not require freewill, it is much harder to conceive of our thinking in this way.
Thinking can only be of a very rudimentary nature if it is entirely determined by unvarying biochemical forces. This would mean that our thinking is determined by laws locked into predictable patterns.
However, this is precisely what human thought is not! Rather, for thought to discover truth, it needs freedom and flexibility that deterministic laws do not allow. These forces simply repeat the same patterns. Instead, thought has to be able to take wings and break out of its social, biological, and psychological bonds.
I had this experience as I began to grow into Christ. As a new Christian, I had the strange realization that there were thoughts I wanted to think, but could not, places I wanted to take my mind, where it refused to go.
Over the years I have experienced a greater mental freedom to explore and to discover. I think that this is the same freedom an artist experiences.
However, if all thinking is predetermined, then it would have been impossible for me to experience, in such a tangible way, the liberation from my mental prison.
A Logical Restatement
Since a logical restatement provides clarity, let me try to restate what I have been saying above in a logical form:
∑ Premise #1 - Thinking and creativity require freedom of thought
∑ Premise #2 - Materialism –- biochemical laws and causation – provides no basis for freedom of thought.
∑ Conclusion - Our freedom of thought must transcend mere materialistic causation.
Premise #1 - Thinking and creativity require freedom of thought.
We experience freedom of thought and choice. To doubt this is like doubting our most basic perceptions, like doubting our personhood, experience, and perceptions. We’d think it absurd that someone might tell us that we are not sitting by our computer. Likewise, it’s equally absurd to deny our experience of freedom of thought and choice.
Similarly, Leo Tolstoy had written in War and Peace:
∑ “You say: I am not free. But I have raised and lowered my arm. Everyone understands that this illogical answer is an irrefutable proof of freedom.”
Premise #2 - Materialism –- biochemical laws and causation – provides no basis for freedom of thought.
Atheists tend to agree that materialism provides no basis for freewill or our freedom of thought. In “Consciousness Explained,” atheist and materialist, Daniel C. Dennett, acknowledged that materialists deny freewill:
∑ “But recently I have learned from discussions with a variety of scientists and other non-philosophers (e.g., the scientists participating with me in the Sean Carroll workshop on the future of naturalism) that they lean the other way: free will, in their view, is obviously incompatible with naturalism, with determinism, and very likely incoherent against any background, so they cheerfully insist that of course they don't have free will, couldn’t have free will, but so what? It has nothing to do with morality or the meaning of life. Their advice to me at the symposium was simple: recast my pressing question as whether naturalism (materialism, determinism, science...) has any implications for what we may call moral competence. For instance, does neuroscience show that we cannot be responsible for our choices, cannot justifiably be praised or blamed, rewarded or punished? Abandon the term 'free will' to the libertarians and other incompatibilists, who can pursue their fantasies untroubled. Note that this is not a dismissal of the important issues; it’s a proposal about which camp gets to use, and define, the term. I am beginning to appreciate the benefits of discarding the term 'free will' altogether, but that course too involves a lot of heavy lifting, if one is to avoid being misunderstood.”
Another atheist and freewill denier is Sam Harris. In “Free Will,” Harris wrote:
∑ “You can do what you decide to do — but you cannot decide what you will decide to do.”
In other words, we humans are not free to decide or even to direct our thoughts and creative expressions.
Conclusion - Our freedom of thought must transcend mere materialistic causation.
Mind activity seems to transcend deterministic laws of science.
The cause must always be greater than the effect. If the effect were greater, it would mean that some aspect of the effect is uncaused. A rational, omnipotent mind is greater than natural mindless causes. Therefore, what is irrational cannot produce what is rational.
In claiming that we are created in the image of God, the Bible claims that we are more than just material objects or “wet machines,” as some call us. We are endowed with a transcendent dignity and freedom.
One final point: When we deny our God-given dignity, we demean ourselves and the rest of humanity. We relegate ourselves to the status of an animal, albeit sophisticated. However, this comes with great cost. Psychologist James Hillman understandably insists that we have to recover a glimpse of our true identity from the deadening materialistic ways we usually interpret our lives:
∑ We dull our lives by the way we conceive then…By accepting the idea that I am the effect of…hereditary and social forces, I reduce myself to a result. The more my life is accounted for by what already occurred in my chromosomes, by what my parents did or didn’t do, and by my early years now long past, the more my biography is the story of a victim. I am living a plot written by my genetic code, ancestral heredity, traumatic occasions, parental unconsciousness, societal accidents. (“The Soul’s Code: In Search of Character and Calling,” Random House, 6)
When we reject God, we also reject ourselves and the dignity He has given us. In the process, we also reject others and their inherent value. However, after the flood, God had cautioned Noah:
∑ And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” (Genesis 9:5-6, invoking Genesis 1:26-27)
Therefore, when we reject our divine origin, we also reject it in other people and give ourselves unauthorized license to treat them as animals.
EVIDENCE THAT CONSCIOUSNESS DOESN’T REQUIRE A LIVING PHYSICAL BODY
What if consciousness exists apart from a physical body? Many would then have to revise their worldview. They would have to acknowledge the existence of the world of spirits and surrender the worldview that they had held – naturalism, materialism, and perhaps even atheism. Instead, it is easier to dogmatically proclaim that spiritual realities are not within the purview of science.
However, it seems that science can speak to the question of consciousness existing apart from a body:
· Of the 2,060 patients from Austria, the US and the UK interviewed for the study who had survived cardiac arrest, almost 40 per cent said that they recall some form of awareness after being pronounced clinically dead. http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/670781/There-IS-life-after-DEATH-Scientists-reveal-shock-findings-from-groundbreaking-study
· Of those who said they had experienced some awareness, just two per cent said their experience was consistent with the feeling of an outer body experience – where one feels completely aware and can hear and see what’s going on around them after death. Almost half of the respondents said the experience was not of awareness, but rather of fear.
One man was able to recall the events in the hospital with “eerie accuracy” after he had “died temporarily.”
This finding has often been reported but often ignored. Why? Perhaps Dr. Parnia’s response is illuminative:
· “The detailed recollections of visual awareness in this case were consistent with verified events."
· "This is significant, since it has often been assumed that experiences in relation to death are likely hallucinations or illusions.”
These findings are not unusual. Wikipedia reports:
· In a review article B. Greyson refers to Van Lommel's study (as well as other sources) and mentions that there have been "documented and corroborated accurate perceptions by near-death experiencers of incidents that occurred during the time when the brain was fully anesthetized or deprived of blood flow, as during cardiac arrest or respiratory arrest". B. Greyson also mentions that apparently some patients reported events that occurred beyond what their sense organs could perceive and that would have been impossible for them to perceive even in a conscious state. (Greyson, Bruce (2015-11-09). "Western Scientific Approaches to Near-Death Experiences". Humanities. 4 (4): 775–796. doi:10.3390/h4040775.)
· Another review article reports that 41 (12%) of the cardiac arrest patients interviewed provided accounts similar to the Sam Parnia's 2001 study. Also, the same review article. One patient had a conventional out of body experience where he reported being able to watch and recall events during the time of his cardiac arrest. His claims were confirmed by hospital personnel. “This did not appear consistent with hallucinatory or illusory experiences, as the recollections were compatible with real and verifiable rather than imagined events”. (Parnia, Sam (2014-11-01). "Death and consciousness--an overview of the mental and cognitive experience of death". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1330: 75–93. doi:10.1111/nyas.12582)
These findings point powerfully to another reality, a spiritual reality, outside of the physical. If this is so, then the existence of a supreme Spirit Being from which all the spiritual entities derive their existence, becomes very probable.
P. van Lommel concluded:
· How could a clear consciousness outside one's body be experienced at the moment that the brain no longer functions during a period of clinical death with flat EEG?... (the) NDE pushes at the limits of medical ideas about the range of human consciousness and the mind-brain relation. (van Lommel P, van Wees R, Meyers V, Elfferich I. (2001) "Near-Death Experience in Survivors of Cardiac Arrest: A prospective Study in the Netherlands" in The Lancet, December 15; 358(9298):2039–45)
However, such findings are ignored, because they do not fit into the prevailing materialistic paradigm – that nothing exists outside of the physical world. To suggest otherwise opens the door to considerations about the existence of God – an inconvenient and uncomfortable truth.
But there are many other evidences that point to the existence of a spiritual reality:
∑ Accounts from spiritistic cultures
∑ Accounts derived from occult practices – the ouiji board, séances….
∑ Spirit encounters
However, these forms of evidences are also routinely ignored or dismissed, because they do not conform to a materialistic worldview. Some evolutionists have even admitted that God must be resisted at all costs:
∑ We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. (Lewontin, Richard, Review of The Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.)
∑ Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. (Todd, Scott C., "A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates," Nature (vol. 401. September 30, 1999), p. 423.)
There is such resistance to the Christian faith that salvation must be the work of God:
∑ And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will. (2 Timothy 2:24-26)
New York School of the Bible: http://www.nysb.nyc/
No comments:
Post a Comment