Desperation of the Atheist/Materialist Philosophers

'Credible Philosophers' Attribute Consciousness to Inanimate Objects Like Rocks and Tableware

After the failure of all previous philosophical attempts to explain consciousness, the philosophers go off the deep end. Read it all there.

New Mexico is Bullied Into Retaining "Science Facts" Which are Ideology

New Mexico changed references that previously were asserting that evolution, the Age of the Earth, and AGW are "scientific facts".

New Mexico Has Deleted Basic Science Facts From Their Education Standards

References to climate change, the age of the Earth and evolution have been removed

Apparently all Hell broke loose as "scientists" and "educators" and legislators swarmed furiously, demanding the "scientific facts" be restored.

And so they were:

New Mexico Restores Evolution And Climate Change to Education Standards After Scientists Protest

Victory!

The concept of science as testable empiricism per Bacon, Locke, Newton, Maxwell, Boltzman, Carnot, Joule, Hume, Einstein, Feynman is now merely history, at least as far as the Atheist "science fanboys" are concerned. None of the three concerns - climate change, age of the earth, evolution are empirically testable, and at best are supported by unprovable processes of suspicious applicability.

Climate change is probably not happening, since the concept has required data modifications such as an added slope, a denial of historical data, cherry picked data sources, and questionable measurement methods, fudged data and manipulated measurements (at the cold end) and far insufficient earth coverage. Icons of climate change such as ice melt at the poles and sea level rise don't support the premise. The population of polar bears is increasing. Desertification is not increasing, it is decreasing.

The age of the earth is "determined" by the use of radio-active decay in certain layers or layer substitutes. The decay presumes that the daughter ions of the decay process did not exist at the time of the creation of the layer, an assumption which is not in the least provable nor reasonable to assume. It also assumes a totally continuous and predictable decay from parent to daughter, an assumption that is not only not provable but has known, proven exceptions. All premises for earth's age are indirect, proxy measurements, where the proxies are highly questionable.

Evolution is supported by untestable "Just So Stories" which are hypotheses that not only are not testable, but also change from time to time. Incompatible data is placed into a category called "Problematica" where it is subsequently ignored. Descent is no longer thought to expand species, but under "cladistics theory" descent collapses into "clades" of similar sister groups. The Cambrian Explosion completely deflates the concept of descent from a common ancestor, since all main categories of living things occur at roughly the same geologic time, and none of these categories spawns new, unrelated categories, even over the projected "millions of years". What actually is observed is the elimination of categories of creatures, creatures which first appear fully formed, not partially evolved.

All of these "sciences" are non-empirical, non-Enlightenment, non-testable hypotheses which happen to be useful to Atheism. Atheism and the self-worship of man as the intellectual apogee of the universe is the unprovable religious cant of most "scientists" and sufficient numbers of educators and legislators to save the Materialist Ideology from being called what it is: not actual scientific, objective, provable knowledge.

In fact, Materialism is itself an unprovable premise, one which leads directly to "No Free Will" and when examined is found to be logically non-coherent. That fits well with Atheist ideology.

Contra Materialism: Outside the Null

The existential null proposition (primary, ultimate, non-contingently necessary state) is not that stuff exists [1] for no reason. It is that there is no reason for stuff to exist. In other words, material non-existence is logically the natural state, and material existence is not.

If the null position is that material existence just “exists”, then the complexity of the "fact" of necessarily existing materiality requires explanation. That can’t be the null proposition or state, because “nothing” is a less complex state and demands no explanation.[2]

One might argue that there actually is a compelling fundamental reason for material existence, and that is to maintain the principle of Cause and Effect, which, despite Hume’s contrary proof, is the basis for empirical examination and discovery within material existence. Cause and Effect defines and delimits what we can know about physical existence. But of course that would place that principle – or any other choice of principles - prior to the material existence, and why should that principle exist all alone, even without any existence to justify it? Further it supposes that there is a prior necessity involved: that of the creation of material existence being necessarily caused precisely in order to support a pre-existing principle. And this, in turn, suggests a deeper cause which created that necessity. The existence of a deeper cause outside and beyond the null violates the null if we are to maintain Materialism and not presuppose a deeper agency. We have to retreat from this hypothesis.

So we now return to the null proposition and ask why it has been violated with the actual material existence which we experience. Perhaps nothing actually does exist. The Field Theory of Quantum Mechanics suggests that mass does not exist as solid particles. What appears solid is actually knots of local energy fields which behave locally in manners which lead to physical principles such as inertia and momentum (mass). This comports with the concept of energy = mass x constant. If there is no fundamental “hard” mass and only energy in various contexts, what does that say about existence? Are we deluded by our perceptions of hardness, heaviness, texture, color, rigidity, etc.? Or do those things exist, perhaps as a deception, yet with material qualities? Do we exist within an algorithm, one which manages energy to appear as hard particulate existence?

If that could possibly be the case (and there is not much reason to think otherwise), then there are some possible conclusions to be made. First, the algorithm is not recursive, providing the same “thing” over and over but in bigger sizes, and shapes as in Chaos Theory: the universe is not likely to oscillate in and out of existence. Second, free will does exist, empirically and culturally/legally. Living creatures, some of them at least, choose their paths. They remain hosted within the constraints of the algorithm, being within bodies which are algorithmically realized and animated. But the choice and intellect occur outside of the deterministic algorithm.

At this point, the observation stalls at the issue of how (not whether) independent, non-algorithmic choice, thought, agency and rational analysis can exist, when everything else is algorithmic (Darwin’s Horrid Doubt).

There appear to be (at least) two separate types of existence which arise beyond the null hypothesis: algorithmic energy, and non-algorithmic free minds.

For anything to have emerged beyond the null hypothesis, some sort of leverage or causal factor must exist (and to exist continuously in order to prevent reversion into the null state). What can we know about this, without engaging in unprovable [3] hypotheses? We know that the causal factor must exist non-materially (prior to the creation of material existence), and has the power, ability, and incentive to overcome the null state. We know that the non-material causal factor has the power, incentive and ability to create energy and the algorithm for its existence and functions, and the power, incentive and ability to create independent minds. Further we can observe that independent minds can have some control over algorithmic energy constructs.

All of this presumes that we are not delusional and deluded and that we recognize, of course, that the delusional cannot prove that they are not delusional. The recognition of the possibility of delusion is the purpose for which free minds created Aristotelian logic and its offspring, objective Baconian empirical science. These are independent processes by which consistency, coherence and accuracy of thought can be maintained.

If [Null state], THEN [no conditions are required to create or maintain the state}
IF [not Null state], THEN [external leveraging agent];
IF [external leveraging agent], THEN [make your own conclusion].

Materialists will likely argue that there is no “proof” possible for the obvious resolution of this bare bones logic. That the “non-material” cannot be shown to exist as a possible state. But this depends upon the presupposition that material, Empirical science is the arbiter of both material existence and material non-existence. It is not; here’s why: empirical science requires experimental testing of hypotheses deduced from inductive observations of material instances. E.g., every swan observed has been white (induction), therefore the next swan to be observed will be white (deductive hypothesis). Instances of non-existence cannot be materially, experimentally tested, and are not subject to material, Empirical testing. Claiming Empirical science as the arbiter for non-existence is a blatant Category Error.

Thus Materialists have no case to make regarding the logic shown above.

It is logically internally coherent to claim that the material existence we enjoy is fully dependent upon a non-material existence, a non-material agent, to cause the state to rise into material existence rather than merely remain in the null state. And the material state is also fully dependent on the non-material agent for maintaining continuous existence through time in order not to revert back into the null state.

This is not intended as a rigorous theodicy; it is a demonstration of logic existing outside of the Philosophical Materialist necessity paradigm, and being immune to materialist claims. There is no reason or force within the null state which could cause or allow the formation of the materialist state. The null state (no material existence) is stable, consistent, and without any reason whatsoever for allowing the material state to arise. The necessity of a deeper cause should be obvious.


Notes:
1. By “exist” and “existence” is meant the physical existence which is recognized by Philosophical Materialists. I.e., All that exists is physical (tangible, measurable, tactile, etc.).

2. The null state can also be demonstrated by the requirement of zero (0) in order for information to exist: a series of ones (1111111) without zeros has no meaning.

3. Logically non-coherent, violating Aristotelian form or Reductio Ad Absurdum.

An Analysis of the Purely Physical Mind and Rational Thought

A proposition has been made regarding the totally physical operation of rational thought. We’ll look at the premises and conclusions made in support of this proposition. This will be somewhat lengthy, especially since I include the entire article, just below.

Why I'd like my Christian friends to consider that rational thought is a natural phenomenon
Some people try to prove the existence of the supernatural by talking about our minds. The claim is basically that, unless there is some supernatural involvement, we could not trust our own reasoning processes. If our minds work by electrical and chemical processes, why should we trust their results?

I'm posting both as a Christian and as a computer scientist. Computer science is my profession and has been for many years. I can tell you confidently that computers work by purely natural means, and we trust the results we get from them every day. If I asked you to multiply 327 x 418, how many of you would trust your own minds, and how many of you would use a calculator?

Here is why I think it matters: if you visit the atheist forums on the internet, you will meet so many ex-Christians who were (once, long ago) totally sold on the idea that either the Bible was infallible or the earth was 10,000 years old (or both). My argument here is not meant for those Christians who believe that the Bible is infallible or the earth is 10,000 years old. It is meant for those Christians who engage in and largely accept scientific findings as honestly derived and trustworthy. Young earthers are at risk of being picked off by atheist snipers because they believe things that are increasingly difficult to defend. In the same way I believe that insisting on a supernatural explanation for consciousness will become increasingly difficult to defend. And it's probably a peripheral issue, hardly worth risking your faith for it. I expect that all Christians -- and all people of good conscience -- want the truth of a matter. And so I'd like you to hear out my reasons why I believe that rational thought is a natural phenomenon.

There is an argument that our minds cannot be based on electrical and chemical processes. And when I have heard that argument, there is usually some reference to the mindlessness and randomness of the particles or chemicals involved. I will grant you that an electrical impulse in itself is not intelligent. But that's not the question. There's a context to those electrical impulses and those chemical signals, and it's a living organism.

Let's define an organism as a biological entity where the electrical and chemical processes are directed towards the well-being of the system that contains them. That's a working definition; it might stand refining but let's start there.

Let's also start with a process that most people would agree is natural: digestion. Why exactly should the food we place in our stomach be put to use in strengthening our bones and other tissues? How does a totally irrational system like our digestive system manage the that? Consider our food going through the refining processes and the distribution system to get to the point where it strengthens other parts of us. A totally random chemical process could never manage it. But our stomachs are not totally random. There are biological processes that govern that. The chemistry in our stomachs is part of an engineered system that works toward a specific purpose and goal.

Let's move towards the topic of how our minds work. Why exactly should our minds conclude that 2 + 2 = 4? Let's set aside the background questions about what words mean and what numbers mean, and let's look at the question in the same way that a calculator would. Once the mind has been trained in the basic knowledge of what numbers are and how to add them, we get the right answer: 2 + 2 = 4. We get the right answer reliably ... unless we're sleepy or distracted or there are other perfectly naturalistic things going on with our minds. (The problems -- once we trace their causes -- tend to support the idea that there are biological causes behind how our mind works.) The reason our minds work is not because there are random electrical impulses in our brain. Instead, the electricity and chemistry in our brains is an engineered system that works toward specific purposes and goals.

This is not said to diminish the amazing quality of our minds and of consciousness. It is not said to argue against knowing God with our minds. It is said in a quest for truth, and because I believe that the day will come - and sooner rather than later - that those who hold out for a supernatural component in consciousness will become a target for atheist snipers.

Let’s pare this down into bite sized chunks:

Objective: Prove that the operation of the mind is not supernatural.

Premise 1: Computers work purely by natural means.

Premise 2: Let's define an organism as a biological entity where the electrical and chemical processes are directed towards the well-being of the system that contains them.

Premise 3: Digestion: But our stomachs are not totally random. There are biological processes that govern that. The chemistry in our stomachs is part of an engineered system that works toward a specific purpose and goal.

Conclusion: The reason our minds work is not because there are random electrical impulses in our brain. Instead, the electricity and chemistry in our brains is an engineered system that works toward specific purposes and goals.
[QED?]

Discussion of the Argument:

Computers as a premise
Computers do nothing, even under power, without being externally directed to function toward a certain objective, which is determined externally to the computer. A computer has no initiative; it does not set out on its own to consider its maker, or the poverty of the designs of previous computers as observed in computer boneyards. Computers do not set out on their own to connect to anything else, or to communicate responses to inquiries they receive. Computers merely respond to intelligent inputs, and they do so deterministically, as defined in their hardware and software, designed by external intelligent minds. (This had better be the case, or computers would make poor tools; they'd be more like extremely stupid employees).

Until a computer is instructed and configured to perform a function, it does nothing but sit in an idle loop, blindly and dumbly awaiting input from external intelligence, or even not-so-intelligent sources. Given an electric glitch to the logic, a computer is more apt to produce gibberish than it is to perform fluid flow simulations.

Computers are not autonomous agents, and neither are computerized robots. They will not decide moral problems unless specifically programmed to do so, with the morals of the programmer, not the computer. Computers do not ask whether moral principles exist as objective axioms, based on the computer's skepticism and a need to disprove.

Taken through a reversed chain of cause and effect, then, computer operation can easily be traced back to forces directed by intellect, mind and creative agency. So as far as computers are concerned, the question of material source remains grounded in the question of the nature of intellect, mind and agency, all of which are external to the computer.

Computers do not function purely materially; they require external intelligence.

Digestion as a Premise
The premises of directed processes in a living organism and particularly the autonomy of digestion, both refer to something which is different about “life”. The recognized existence of life presumes the existence of “something” which specifically is not present in either dead organisms which were quite recently alive, nor in deterministic mineral existence which has never been alive at all. That difference which defines “life” as opposed to death might be described by its animation, directed toward objectives such as self-preservation, reproduction, etc. But it is not explained
by animation, because neither the nature of animation, nor the source of the animation are explained, nor are the directed forces which control the animation. Directed animation is merely an interim effect of being alive, of “life”. The source of directed animation is acquired solely from parents: life comes only from prior life, as even evolutionary Atheists admit. Life is not produced ad hoc from dead minerals or in dead minerals, contra any unprovable “common ancestor / First Life” speculation.

The source for life has no physical characteristics which provide a purely physical ‘essence” that can be examined physically using empirical techniques; it has neither mass nor energy; there is no physical lump called “life”, much less a lump of its source. Yet it creates directed operational forces which are far different from the entropic "four forces of physics" [note 1] which take over in the deterministic decomposition of ex-organisms.

So again we can see that living organisms, when subjected to analysis by reversing the chains of cause and effect, also arrive ultimately at non-physical causation. Premises 2 and 3 do not support the conclusion.

The Conclusion
The argument’s conclusion, that the brain is engineered to operate “toward specific purposes and goals”, actually does not preclude the necessity of non-physical preconditions for that operation. But it does seem to limit the mind to deterministic operation, unless one of the purposes is to generate a mind which is emergent from the physical structure. But that defeats the idea of purely material operation, so that is excluded, and determinism of the brain is conclusive in this argument. The argument also fails for the following reasons:

First, purely physical operation toward those ends does not account for the initiative to attack abstraction due solely to the desire to do so, and for no other reason. There is no “purpose or goal” within the physical neuronal structure which causally induces such pursuits as the comprehension of paradox, dilemmas, self-evidence, and comprehension itself.

Because comprehension, thoughts and concepts are not physical lumps amenable to be analyzed empirically, then when considered reductively (physically), they are reduced to mere information which is contained in the relationships of biochemical electric discharges to each other. The essence of that transient operation is that the neurons are somehow induced to form carriers which are somehow modulated with information from somewhere, which presents only when multiple carriers somehow work in conjunction to coordinate a congruence of discharges such that the result produces the complete information for the apprehension by … the mind. Again the mind is found to be external to the physical operation and not contained within it.

A neuron is not a mind, it is a biochemical semiconductor switching device (sometimes containing logic devices – AND/OR functions - and multiple inputs). There is nothing about a neuron or a large group of neurons which suggests nondeterministic agency or mental independence of a mind. The idea that mind “emerges” from the wiring of multitudes of neurons is unsustainable, using known facts of neurology. Logic circuitry is not a mind; it is totally deterministic, without curiosity or self-awareness even remotely possible.

As for emergence of complexity from large quantities, an ocean does not create an emergence beyond wetness which is produced from a single drop of water. Animals did not emerge because of Deep Time. And mind, agency, creativity, qualia and comprehension cannot be shown to emerge from large accumulations of neurons.

A single neuronic discharge contains just one bit of information, hardly an abstract “idea” or useful concept. For rational thought there has to be the force generation by an overall coordination by intelligence which controls neuronal operation (just as with bit flow in a silicon based computer). And again there is no lump of intellect lodged in the brain to be materially analyzed. So again, the reverse analysis of prior cause and effect terminates in a non-material entity.

The argument that the mind and rational thought are physical entities derived from the processes of the physical brain is not sustainable. Especially and specifically given the origination of all life processes, including mind itself, in nonphysical existences which, despite being nonphysical, are causal in life, agency, mind and comprehension.

Notes:
1. The four forces of physics are weak, strong, gravity, electromagnetism. A potential fifth might be found in Dark Energy, but is not yet identified.

Materialism and Meaning

Philosophical Materialists continue to insist that if something exists, then it is material. This includes all mental activities, concepts, abstractions and their meanings. If something exists, then it has characteristics which describe it physically, including the physical laws which it necessarily obeys. So we would need to know some things about, say, "meaning", if we are to describe its material essence, using the tools of voluntarily materialist empirical science.

I need to know what the physical characteristics of "meaning" consist of, so that I can learn to recognize it when I stub my toe on it, or find a sliver of it jammed into the palm of my hand. Fortunately there are features which physical things have in common. Here are a few features that one would expect to be characteristics of a physical "thing", and must surely apply to "meaning":

Molecular structure: is "meaning" a single molecule, like DNA, or is it a molecular composite, like amino acids? Perhaps it is a less complex structure like hexane or even water? Is "meaning" carbon based, or silicon based, sulfur based, or uranium based?

Does "meaning" occur in a stable state? If it is always a compound, what is the state diagram of compound (melt point, vapor point, plasma characteristics)? Having an accurate state diagram would be necessary to distill the liquid "Truth" from vaporous "meaning", so a eutectic point would be necessary to know.

Is "meaning" a gas at 25 degC, or is it a solid? Does it crystallize? Is it an acid? Or a base? Or a precipitate like a salt?

How is a specific "meaning" filtered from the general substance called "meaning"? Is "meaning" conveyed by shape alone? Or is "meaning" found in the different melt points when "meaning" is compounded with "Truth", "Lies", "confusion", etc.? Or is "meaning" to be found in how many chlorine atoms bind to it, vs. how many oxygen and hydrogen atoms?

Perhaps, since "meaning" is a strictly physical entity, the specific "meaning" is found in the mass of the chunk of "meaning" being observed? So there must be a code for different specific meanings which come in different masses. For example, it might look like this:

Various lumps of morals;
chunks of justice;
puddles of Truth;
pots full of consciousness;
tanks full of intellect;
buckets of conscience.

Perhaps "meaning" is marketable by weight? "Deep meaning" naturally would be too expensive for the common man?

It likely is able to be mined, probably like diamonds? If this is the case, then there would be some nations more wealthy in "meaning" than other nations, and "meaning" would be a valuable national resource. There would be trading for "meaning" on the commodities markets, and possibly black markets would arise for stolen "meaning".

I need the answers to these issues, before I can accept with confidence that the physical existence of "meaning" is an objective fact.

Now it is possible that "meaning" does not even exist at all. That has many ramifications for knowledge and science which I won't go into here. But perhaps "meaning" is purely imaginary? Then all we have to do is to break open the great balls of imagination lying around to look inside for "meaning". It might take special micrography.

Perhaps "meaning" exists only when we manufacture it from its sub-elements and components. Then there must be a material list which exists that references these components and where they are to be obtained and at what price. Every person would have to manufacture his own "meaning", unless he purchases a bag full, or a case-lot of "meaning" from a "meaning" vendor.

And in fact, many Atheists such as Dawkins do make the claim that "meaning" doesn't exist in the universe, so we have to manufacture our own. Yet others such as Sagan claim there is meaning in observing the universe, which apparently does in fact contain "meaning". So maybe "meaning" is just a waveform in a specific field from which "meaning" and "anti-meaning" sometimes pop up, then cancel each other out unless they are on an event horizon, and some "meaning" escapes?

I'm certain that the materialists here can fill in the specific empirical facts regarding the physics of "meaning". I'm anxiously awaiting that. I could use a kilo of "meaning". I'll bury it out back for emergencies such as presidential elections and other Leftist riots.

Materialism According to James Clerk Maxwell

James Clerk Maxwell produced the first actual unification in physics, that of magnetism and electricity. Maxwell's equations are studied by every physics student. But lesser known is his position on Philosophical Materialism, or his ability as a poet. Evolution News has the occasion and Maxwell's response in brilliant verse (read it twice, it's better with each reading):

British Association, Notes of the President's Address

In the very beginnings of science, the parsons, who managed things then,
Being handy with hammer and chisel, made gods in the likeness of men;

Till Commerce arose, and at length some men of exceptional power
Supplanted both demons and gods by the atoms, which last to this hour.

Yet they did not abolish the gods, but they sent them well out of the way,
With the rarest of nectar to drink, and blue fields of nothing to sway.

From nothing comes nothing, they told us, nought happens by chance, but by fate;
There is nothing but atoms and void, all else is mere whims out of date!

Then why should a man curry favour with beings who cannot exist,
To compass some petty promotion in nebulous kingdoms of mist?

But not by the rays of the sun, nor the glittering shafts of the day,
Must the fear of the gods be dispelled, but by words, and their wonderful play.

So treading a path all untrod, the poet-philosopher[1] sings
Of the seeds of the mighty world -- the first-beginnings of things;

How freely he scatters his atoms before the beginning of years;
How he clothes them with force as a garment, those small incompressible spheres!

Nor yet does he leave them hard-hearted -- he dowers them with love and with hate,
Like spherical small British Asses[2] in infinitesimal state;

Till just as that living Plato, whom foreigners nickname Plateau,
Drops oil in his whisky-and-water (for foreigners sweeten it so),

Each drop keeps apart from the other, enclosed in a flexible skin,
Till touched by the gentle emotion evolved by the prick of a pin:

Thus in atoms a simple collision excites a sensational thrill,
Evolved through all sorts of emotion, as sense, understanding, and will;

(For by laying their heads all together, the atoms, as councillors do,
May combine to express an opinion to every one of them new).

There is nobody here, I should say, has felt true indignation at all,
Till an indignation meeting is held in the Ulster Hall;

Then gathers the wave of emotion, then noble feelings arise,
Till you all pass a resolution which takes every man by surprise.

Thus the pure elementary atom, the unit of mass and of thought,
By force of mere juxtaposition to life and sensation is brought;

So, down through untold generations, transmission of structureless germs
Enables our race to inherit the thoughts of beasts, fishes, and worms.

We honour our fathers and mothers, grandfathers and grandmothers too;
But how shall we honour the vista of ancestors now in our view?

First, then, let us honour the atom, so lively, so wise, and so small;
The atomists next let us praise, Epicurus, Lucretius, and all;

Let us damn with faint praise Bishop Butler[3], in whom many atoms combined
To form that remarkable structure, it pleased him to call -- his mind.

Last, praise we the noble body to which, for the time, we belong,
Ere yet the swift whirl of the atoms has hurried us, ruthless, along,

The British Association -- like Leviathan worshipped by Hobbes,
The incarnation of wisdom, built up of our witless nobs,

Which will carry on endless discussions, when I, and probably you,
Have melted in infinite azure -- in English, till all is blue.

James Clerk Maxwell

Notes:

1) Possibly a reference to Tyndall.
2) Insider nickname for members of the British Association.
3) Joseph Butler (1692-1752), influential English bishop, theologian, apologist, and philosopher, a proponent of natural theology.

The Paradox of the Set of All Sets

The famous Bertrand Russell paradox which destroyed the attempt by him and Whitehead to outline the totality of mathematics, was just this:

The set of all sets cannot contain itself, so it is not the set of all sets.

This brings to mind a note to myself which recently re-surfaced, which said,

All things which exist are physical;
the source of all physical things is physical.

This statement of Philosophical Materialism is just as logically incestuous as the Russell Paradox. Is it actually the case that the source of all physical things is a physical thing which created itself, ex nihilo? And of course, subsequently created all other physical things?

In other words, all other physical things couldn't exist until and unless the first, creating physical thing created itself, under Philosophical Materialism and Atheism.

Where in nature do we see something come into physical existence without an identifiable prior causal existence? Even a quantum field is required in order to produce particle pairs, according to the Copenhagen understanding of quantum physics. Either particles are created by energy, or particles actually are energy (Quantum Field Theory). But what sort of a physical "thing" would the first, self-creating energy/particle be? What gives a probability field a positive value?

That is the paradox which surrounds the underlying theory of Philosophical Materialism, which is a necessary subset of Atheism - the rejection of a non-material creating entity. To drive the nail further home, the only valid evidence under the physicalist, Philosophical Materialism constraint is empirical data which is obtained in disciplined experimental fashion, successfully replicated, peer reviewed (for whatever that is worth), with open data for public examination of methods and results.

Can this empirical evaluation be done with regard to the "first self-creating physical thing"? Or even "any self-creating physical thing" That would require creating an absolute void containing not even any quantum field, much less radiation or outside particles. Then how, within this logically and actually empty environment could the creation, ex nihilo of course, be induced? Be replicated? It cannot be done. It is an effect without a cause outside itself, so there is no prior cause available to initiate the effect.

This seems almost too simple to avoid the truth of it. But it is not apparent to Atheists, who need the concept of physical self-creation and Philosophical Materialism in order to protect their chosen worldview. But they should have to admit that both logic and empirical evidence fail to indicate any value to support their choice. Why do they not admit to this, but rather claim the opposite: to have logic and evidence for their belief? There is only one remaining possibility, outside of insanity, and that is emotional neediness for their Atheism to be true.

Atheists have a choice:

A physical thing can and did create itself, as the source of itself, the cause of itself. (Not a property of known physical things; never observed; not inducible; a theory out of desperation).


Or,
Physical things always existed. (Infinite regression)

Or,
Physical things are illusions or delusions. (self reference).

Philosophical Materialism, and therefore Atheism, fail logically and empirically.

Atheism Is Good: Daylight Atheism

Adam Lee at Daylight Atheism claims that Atheism is necessary… for the Good of mankind.

”In fact, I’d go further and say that a politically active, engaged atheist movement is a force for good in the world. The more success it enjoys, the more potential it has to benefit everyone. As such, it deserves our support and advocacy, even when it may stumble or go astray.”

Atheism is not doing a very great job for the Chinese, the Russians, the Cubans, the Venezuelans, etc. Atheism allows any cultural desecration and mass annihilation because it contains no proscriptive moral principles whatsoever. So the first statement here is obviously false, is oblivious to the lack of principles in Atheism, and to the specific documented history of Atheism as a governing morality.

”In what ways is atheism a force for good? There are so many answers to this question. I could write about people suffering nightmarish trauma from their fear of hell, or people with mental illness who are treated with prayer and exorcism instead of medicine. I could write about children in faith-healing sects who suffer and die from curable ailments, or the crushing burden of guilt and shame over sex, or cults that box all their members into a narrow, rigidly defined role in life. Defeating all these pernicious beliefs, and offering an alternative path to people harmed by them, is a positive good.”

"Nightmarish trauma from their fear of hell"? Histrionic much? These issues are dredged largely from the overheated Atheist imagination of their prevalence, and is belied by the lack of their actual prevalence and by the miniscule import which they present as social issues. Plus, most of these are being fought by responsible religious organizations devoted to them, not by Atheists.

”As well, I could say that atheists do good deeds in the world. I could write about atheists who support each other in community, or who’ve given money and time to help the needy. I could even say that atheism contributes to peace around the world. “

Atheists do support each other, until one of them crosses the line and thus becomes a target as a heretical abomination (Antony Flew comes to mind). As for giving anything, Atheists are known to donating the equivalent of two Latte’s per month to charities, and AtheoLeftists are known for not paying their taxes, too. Without principles for morality, behavior becomes just whatever you can get away with.

As for contributing to peace, yes, Atheists have declared war on entire classes of people, wiped them from the face of the earth, and declared peace after their pogroms have suppressed all dissent, with dissenters either dead or in gulags far from reporters and visibility. The Kulaks and other peoples are now "at peace". People making the “Atheist peace” claim have been termed “useful idiots” by real Atheists.

”I could write about all these things, but I won’t. The better answer is more fundamental: because atheism is the acknowledgement of reality, and reality matters.”

Already completely out of touch with documented, historical reality, yet he is claiming “reality” as an exclusive feature of Atheism. No; because for Atheism, reality doesn’t actually matter; the false narrative that it matters is what matters. Because what is emerging in this narrative is the principle of Philosophical Materialism, which cannot be proven under its own principles to be what it claims: the true, limiting principle of reality. The entire rest of reality doesn't matter to Atheists.

”There are many liberal religions that don’t perpetuate the evils I listed. There are believers who’ve built hospitals, who’ve marched for justice, who’ve helped to feed and clothe the poor. I don’t scorn them for their activism. But I do insist that even their ideas, however laudable they may be, are ultimately based on things that are unreal: the promise of another life beyond this one, the idea that prayer and scripture-reading can be used to discover truth, the belief that morality consists of obedience to the decrees of an unseen being.”

And here it is: pure denialism without hope of proof, assumed to be axiomatic and the actual truth without any hope of evidence, logic or empirical testing for confirmation. It is, in fact, a metaphysical position which is not reducible to physical evidence. Because it is presented as Truth, without proof, it is a religiously held blind belief, one that has no basis in reality OR the charge of "unreality".

”Even if taught with the best intentions, these beliefs subtly denigrate reality. They encourage us to focus not on the here-and-now, on the tangible and the real, but on some other realm that’s held up above this life.”

Actually that is exactly what Atheism does. Atheism makes the claim of knowledge, as this author does, that there positively is no existence which is not physical. In its naïve form, as this Atheist produces, reality is solely material, cause and effect (contra Hume), and deterministic. That "reality" is held up above and supreme to the observation that reality contains non-deterministic, untestable, unmeasurable features such as non-deducible existence of consciousness, intellect, qualia, etc., all necessarily derived from minerals deterministically according to Materialist Atheism. Reality which is artificially limited to physical existence cannot explain these, and that is not due to immature science. It is because these things are not causally produced (or they would be merely automatic responses, easily Reproduced), and it is thus because science cannot produce hypothetico-reductive-falsifiable laws which can be validated objectively regarding these effects.

” Even when they call for social action, they promote the belief that evil and suffering are in some sense necessary, part of a greater plan that’s beyond our grasp.”

There is much that is beyond the grasp of the artificially limited comprehension of Atheist ideologists. That doesn’t mean that these esoteria are false. It merely means that they are ideologically constrained from objectively considering them.

” And just when it’s become most crucial that we collectively make the right decisions if humanity is to survive and flourish, they assert that beliefs based on ancient folk tales, wishful thinking, and nebulous personal conviction are just as good as, if not better than, beliefs founded on science, evidence, and reasoned reflection.”

Here it is: the Ad Hominem rejection of non-Atheism using prejudicial pejoratives, followed by the admiring, even worshipful abeyance to Scientism and personal elitist opinion. Both Scientism and subjective opinionation are anti-rational. Especially when they are directed at moral principles under the influence of the moral VOID of Atheism. And it is most egregiously dangerous when it is directed at "humanity", for the GOOD of all the herd.

”The great moral conflicts of the next hundred years must be settled on the basis of what’s true, not just on who believes more fervently.

Whups. This statement directly contradicts the contiguously previous statement. Scientism/Opinion cannot produce anything which is True, especially and particularly regarding morals. So it's EITHER Truth OR Scientism/Opinion. One could ask the Kulaks how it worked out for them, except they were eugenically mass murdered by the Scientific Atheists under Lenin. (For the Good of Humanity, no less). And it actually is not “who believes what more fervently”. Under Atheism it is purely the Will To Power; belief is not an issue.

”Even when we aim at the right ends, letting faith guide our steps will always lead to diverted and wasted effort, will always threaten to trip us up and lead us down blind alleys, and will always breathe life into the very fundamentalisms that pose the threat in the first place.”

Atheists love the word, “fundamentalism”, because they infer from it that there are evil principles involved which keep them from what they really want, and what they want is for everyone else to be exactly like them: government to be Atheist; society to have no rules; tolerance of all behaviors except dissent of course, which is the only evil. So having “fundamental” principles for one’s behavior goes directly counter to the moral anarchy of the Atheist VOID and its children: totalitarian control of the masses, for their equality and their own GOOD. Under Atheist total control it has been demonstrated sufficiently that only the elites actually get the perquisites and the freedom to use them; the Other gets squashed under the “equality” dictated top-down. Those are the consequences of Atheist fundamentalism.

”Most of all, faith keeps us from what’s real.

In a sense, this statement is correct, but not in the manner intended. Faith in Scientism, Materialism, the personal supremacy of the Atheist-elitist mind, these faiths do keep the Atheist from comprehending the fullness of reality. This happens by restricting the concept of reality to the sensorily perceived mechanical superset of universal existence (our visible, touchable physical world), and the restricted ability to hypothesize and deduce outside that ideological, arbitrary limitation. The perceivable universe is now known to be just a subset of what is actual (probably consisting of all quantum waves with no mechanical component at all at the common sublevel). And even at the perceptible level, the ability to apply cause/effect is limited to certain categories of existence.

Atheists probably acknowledge the sub-existence: invisible atoms, subatomic "particles", quantum energies, and so on. But Atheists refuse to acknowledge any higher existence than themselves. And this despite the multi-dimension theories of strings, and the multilevel verification theory of Godel, not to mention the Russell paradox which mathematically demonstrates the inability to have a superset which is the defining truth for all subsets. Atheists are not the top superset, regardless of their beliefs.

The Atheist assertion of what’s “real” and what’s "important" is, to say the least, myopic and self-centered. At worst, it is a deception being practiced upon credulous believers, not unlike what a cult would proclaim as truth to their credulous believers.

The cosmos is beautiful enough as it is, deep enough as it is, glorious enough as it is; we need no small human fantasies to embellish it, nor a dusting of mythology to confer it all with meaning.

And here we have the unsubtle revelation that there is no actual meaning in the Atheist worldview. That then, is the reality which he has been going on about. There is no meaning, so he wants everyone to accept whatever manufactured meaning he applies to their existence. Again, a claim reminiscent of historical Atheist governing principles.

”The real story of how everything came to be and where we fit into the grand picture is more spectacular and awe-inspiring than any religion, and it has the virtue of being true.”

If he is referring to the evolutionary Modern Synthesis of Darwinian principles, then that is known to be not even accepted by the evolutionary elites in the Atheist/Materialist community. That’s fail #1. Not so spectacular, beautiful, or awe inspiring. The second is his declarations of superiority superlatives in order to appear to degrade all non-Atheist beliefs. And again, he mistakes his proclamation to be Truth – or at least he wants the reader to make that mistake.

Embracing reality in all its fullness, unclouded by false hope or illusion, is the most profound of all the gifts that atheism has to offer the world.”

He is actually blinded by the false hope and illusion of his belief in religious Scientism and Philosophical Materialism. And he uses this delusion as support for his claim that Atheism is Good. In all, he has presented no actual material evidence and no deductive logic for his case, and that results in his case being presented as a religious sermon or worse, a set of blind beliefs without basis in actual material fact declared true, despite the failure of the materialism espoused.

The irony of Atheism is that it produces exactly the intellectual tyranny which it claims to be fighting, and there is more than ample historical data to support that knowledge. Yet Atheists persist in producing false testimonies like this, as if there exists no history of Atheist control of societies and science for them even to consider. Whether that is due to ignorance or evil is up to the observer to decide.

In the final analysis: there is NO document containing The Official Atheist Moral Principles; there are no such things Moral Principles which are common to all Atheists, or even most Atheists. And thus there is no Atheist definition for Good or Evil. Therefore, no Atheist can legitimately claim to be Good Without God: that is irrational.

This Atheist article is based on the following premises, which are presented as axiomatic:

1. Materialism is true;

2. Atheism is Good;

3. External Fundamental Principles for behavior are evil;

4. Non-Materialists are delusional.

Each premise is demonstrably false under logical analysis:

1. Materialism is interally non-coherent, being unable to prove its own premises under its own arbitrary limitations.

2. Atheism has no common definition for GOOD; therefore the term is either non-existent for Atheists or is purely relative and unusable.

3. Atheism has no common definition for EVIL; therefore the fundamentals of belief systems cannot be evil. Further, unrestricted behavior under Atheism more closely resembles traditional conceptual EVIL when its historical consequences are considered.

4. Rejection of a non-coherent, unprovable, arbitrary ideological claim is not irrational, it is logical.

John C. Wright Defines Materialism

After recently conversing with an avowed "skeptic" who refused to define either the term "physical" or the concept of the set of existences which are "non-physical, it is interesting to come across Wright's help for Materialists by defining the term for them. And he cannot resist some consequences of that definition:

"If mind arises out of matter, therefore mind is an external while matter an essential, because the matter stays the same while the mind changes. So by definition, the fundamental essence of man, his substance, cannot be mind."

There needs to a further qualification of MaterialISTS, that containing the caveat that no argument however well constructed and grounded will convince a Materialist because they are not seeking truth, they are seeking confirmation of their emotional neediness by creating faux "facts", not accepting real facts.

Quick Thoughts on the Multiverse

I actually love Dawkins' claim that the multiverse is the Darwinian approach to solving the issue of the fine-tuning of the universe. The Darwinian approach is purely by imagining connections between distinct observatons, and creating fantasy observations to fill the holes in the observational history.

But there is a logical disconnect even outside the Darwinian fantasy approach, which is this:

Materialist claim:

All things which exist are material (note 1);

The source of all things which exist is therefore material.

This is a direct example of Russell's "Set of All Sets Paradox". When Russell and Whitehead were writing Principia Mathematica, which they intended to explain all mathematical concepts, Russell encountered the paradox whereby a "set of all sets" must also include itself, and therefore could not be a true set of all sets. Paradoxically, there can be no set of all sets.

The materialist claim, above, is paradoxical for the same reason. If the source of all things which exist material, then it must be the source of itself (self-referencing), or have existed forever in infinite time (infinite regression), or else require a non-material source (the claim is false).

The multiverse is an extension of the known universe (actually only partially known), and is an attempt to assert the infinite regression without having to face the usual philosophical disdain for such a claim.

Some try to assert the "material source created itself" position, but unsuccessfully. Hawking required preexisting physical laws which affected a quantum field. Krauss claimed that "coming from nothing" meant coming from the preexisting quantum field or foam or whatever preexisted, which was not material but only pre-material (or something like that). In every case, there is never an actual absence of all concepts of preexistence involved in creation-from-nothing. So it devolves to another infinite regression.

But under Godel's theorems, a hierarchy must exist if knowledge is to be certain. This brings us back to Darwinian Just So Stories, which are created imaginings of connections, fables without evidence, and then considered to actually BE evidence. That is exactly what the multiverse is.

Note 1: This claim cannot be proven materially or rationally; it is an assertion only. The use of this assertion as a premise renders the entire argument to be false. Further, it is part of a Category Error, in which material methodology (required) is used in attempts to claim that there is no material evidence for non-material existence.

Quote of the Day: Feser on Eliminative Materialism

"Patricia and Paul Churchland, [are] two very real professors of philosophy at the University of California at San Diego,… [and their] advocacy of “eliminative materialism”, the theory that beliefs, desires, and other mental phenomena do not exist and ought to be eliminated from our description of human nature and replaced by concepts derived from neuroscience. Hence, on this view, it is, strictly speaking, always false to say something like “I feel anxious”, for “feelings” and “anxiety” are mental states, and there are no mental states according to eliminative materialism, only brain processes." [Last Superstition, pg 229]
…

"The whole eliminative materialist enterprise is founded on the notion that science gives us the only accurate picture of reality. Yet science is in the business of making assertions about the world, developing theories, putting forward explanations, extending our knowledge, and so forth; and every on of these notions is utterly suffused with intentionality, which as we saw... is the central and defining feature of the mind. Insofar as an assertion, theory, explanation or knowledge claim represents, means, "points" to, or is "directed" toward something beyond itself, it is every bit as intentional as the mind is, so that if the mind goes, science goes with it. Indeed, reason in general - another paradigmatically mental phenomenon - goes with it also, and thus so too does any rational argument anyone has ever given, including any argument anyone has ever given or could give for eliminative materialism. Worse, as Hilary Putnam points out, the very notion of truth would have to be abandoned by a consistent eliminative materialist, inextricably tied as it is to the idea of a claim, or belief, or thought that accurtely represents reality. As M. R .Hacker and P. M .S. Hacker put it, the 'eliminative materialist saws off the branch on which he is seated'. In the name of reason, truth, science, he destroys all reason,truth and science.

Eliminative materialists sometimes acknowledge that this may well be, you know, a problem with their position. Their response is to shrug their shoulders and lament that we just don't yet have the resources even to state the theory in an adequate way, since the neuroscientists are still so far from completing their work of discovering all the physiological goings-on that underlie human behavior. But one fine day they'll be through, and then, just you wait. We'll no longer speak in terms of "truth", but rather in terms of what Churchland has called a "successor concept", that will replace truth (though by his own admission he has no idea what this "successor concept" will be. We'll also have "successor concepts" to replace the concept of rationality, and every other concept that science depends on. (Again, don't ask what those might be either, since even the Churchlands don't claim to know.) Presumably we'll also have to have a "successor concept" for the concept of a concept, since talk of "concepts" reeks of intentionality; or rather, I should say, we'll need a "successor something-or-other". Or maybe... well, let's not worry about that now. This Brave New World will be here eventually, and when it is, then all of us, including the Churchlands themselves, will finally know what the hell they're talking about." [Ibid, pg 234]

The Churchlands’ attempt is to eliminate everything which cannot be explained, materially, by redefining it in material terms. Intentionality, agency, and rationality are all not explainable under material terms, so they must be eliminated to avoid explaining them. But this results in non-coherence and gibberish, as Feser points out. Intentionality is a huge probelm for Atheism and evolution.

Sphexism, Physicalism, Syntactical Engines and Semantic Engines, Not to Mention Cognitive Zombies

An interesting article over at Feser's place, with a different approach from the Chinese Room argument, and yet much the same. This time it is the robotic actions of the Sphex wasp as compared to the intellectually exploratory capacities of humans.

"Now, Dennett, perceptive fellow that he is when he wants to be, argues in Chapter 2 of his book Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting that any purely physical system is going to be essentially sphexish. The reason is that qua physical such a system can only ever be sensitive to syntactical properties, and syntactical properties can never add up to semantic properties. Now a non-sphexish creature would have to be sensitive to semantic properties. Hence a purely physical and thus purely syntactic system is inevitably going to be a sphexish system. Dennett thinks it can at least approximate non-sphexishness, however, because a sufficiently complex “syntactic engine” will in his view at least approximate a perfect “semantic engine.” And sphexishly dogmatic materialist that he is, Dennett insists that human beings are purely physical. Hence, though we seem non-sphexish, Dennett insists that we really are sphexish, but -- being exquisitely complex syntactical engines -- in so subtle a way that for practical purposes we can treat ourselves as if we were not.

But as Howard Robinson points out in the introduction to his edited volume Objections to Physicalism, Dennett’s position is a muddle. A purely syntactical engine will not even approximate a perfect semantic engine, because it will fail to be semantic at all. Syntax by itself doesn’t get you imperfect semantics; it gets you exactly zero semantics, just as the ketchup kids use for blood at Halloween time will never get you even imperfect real blood no matter how much of it you pour out. Dennett knows this, which is why (as Robinson notes) he has to resort to the essentially instrumentalist position that our sophistication as complex syntactic engines makes it useful for us to interpret ourselves as if we were semantic engines. But this too is a muddle, for interpretation is itself an act that presupposes real semantics rather than a mere ersatz. Dennett’s further reformulations of his position (e.g. in his paper “Real Patterns”) only ever paper over this fundamental incoherence rather than resolve it, but his dogmatic materialism makes him think there must be some way to make it something other than the reductio ad absurdum that it is.

As is the usual case, the Materialist seeks only to justify his presuppositions, not to investigate and accept logically derived conclusions.

There is magic associated with "complexity" just as the magic which is designated to "deep time": these can turn X into Z, just because. This magical thinking is necessary to bend the mind away from noticing the actual non-material nature of human existence. It can be explained in terms of magical capabilities of complexity and deep time etc. even though there is no possible mechanical cause which is attached; just the magic. It is another symptom of the religiosity of Atheists as they protect their own theory of origins with unprovable, antirational dogma.

Says Feser:

"It is not a kind of inductive inference to the effect that since we usually act unsphexish, we must really be unsphexish (as if further empirical evidence could in principle lead us to revise this “opinion” about ourselves). It is much simpler and more obvious and conclusive than that. It is that we have things sphexish creatures do not have: concepts. End of story. The reasoning isn’t: “We don’t act very sphexish; therefore we must have concepts.” It’s rather: “We have concepts; that’s why we don’t act very sphexish.”

And finally,

Now, you’ll recall from a recent post the notion of a cognitive zombie -- a creature physically and behaviorally identical to a normal human being, but devoid of concepts and thus devoid of the other aspects of rationality. You might think that a cognitive zombie would be sphexish, but that is a mistake. If it was sphexish, it wouldn’t be behaviorally identical to a normal human being, and thus by definition wouldn’t be a cognitive zombie. A true cognitive zombie would be something which would, like a sphexish creature, be devoid of concepts, but which, like a normal human being, would behave as if it had concepts.

The notion of sphexishness thus helps to clarify the notion of a cognitive zombie. If ya think I’m sphexy, then you don’t think I’m a cognitive zombie. A sphexy Rod Stewart on his best day wouldn’t pass for a cognitive zombie. A James Brown sphex machine wouldn’t pass either. People magazine’s Sphexiest Man Alive definitely wouldn’t be a cognitive zombie. The notion of a cognitive zombie is the notion of something as utterly devoid of concepts as the simplest of any of Dennett’s purely syntactical engines, but whose lack of concepts is nevertheless more perfectly undetectable than that of even the most complex and perfect of Dennett’s syntactical engines. Is this notion even coherent? I think not, but that is a topic for another time.

Phillip Kitcher: Same Argument, Different Words.

There is an ongoing intellectual scramble in the Atheist-Intellectualist community ever since the publication of Thomas Nagel’s book, ”Mind & Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False”. The title itself is a slap in the Atheist face, since monism is a necessary belief, and Darwinism is a sacred tenet within that belief.

The Atheist/Materialist response has been widespread and not at all happy with Nagel.

Nagel has been a long time philosopher of differentiation. There is a difference between fact and meaning, between observing and comprehending, between qualia and electron discharge. For the Materialist, there is little if any difference because everything is physical, and thus there is very little motion required to get from fact to meaning, or from observing to comprehending, and so on. In fact, pre-determination of those movements exists, just due to cause and effect of mental input (neurological electrical discharge) to mental output (meaning).

But Nagel says that there is both less and more than that; less certainty of Materialist constraints, and more to the mind than physical determinism.

The most interesting part though is the response of overt Philosophical Materialists. Rather than disprove or refute the allegations against Materialism, they take a different tack.

For example, In response to the attack on his ill-fated book “Universe From Nothing” in the New York Times by David Albert, Lawrence Krauss declared that such questions as cannot be answered by scientists are to be dismissed, because they are "“not interesting”. He was referring to the question of the source of quantum fields and the source of laws governing them, which Krauss insists constitute "nothing", and need no explanation of their source.

When Atheist icon Antony Flew wrote “There Is a God” based on the requirement of a source for the apparent intelligence contained in DNA, the idea was attacked as illegitimate because Flew was to be declared senile for suggesting it. His argument went unanswered, while the intellectuals attacked Flew personally and publically and loudly. The argument is declared illegitimate and the arguer incompetent.

And here, the idea of dualism and the failure of science to provide monist unifying theories as presented by Nagel is attacked by Philop Kitcher in the same vein:

”Dewey, a thinker who understood the philosophical significance of Darwin better than anyone else in the first century after “The Origin of Species,” appreciated two things that are crucial to the controversy in which Nagel is engaged.

First, philosophy and science don’t always answer the questions they pose — sometimes they get over them.”

Brilliant response to any question which might upset the Materialist applecart: just get over it. Forget it. It is not interesting.

”Second, instead of asking what life and mind and value are, think about what living things and minds do, and what is going on in the human practices of valuing.”

Your issue is devalued; therefore it has no value. Because: there is no way for empiricism to answer such issues, so the issues are without value, and we are the arbiters of that. "Get over it!"

”This shift of perspective has already occurred in the case of life. A Nagel analog who worried about the fact that we lack a physico-chemical account of life, would probably be rudely dismissed; a kinder approach would be to talk about the ways in which various aspects of living things have been illuminated.”

Rudely dismissed, yes; rationally, no.

The bottom line is always the same: Materialism is valid and true, because we Materialists declare all other questions to be illegitimate, and refuse to discuss them. At best, all non-material questions must be shown to have material solutions so that they can be addressed under Materialism; otherwise, "Get over it, because we won't answer with any reasoning for why they are false (which we can't prove)".

This frequently is restated as the Burden of Proof, where the material evidence must be presented (and even when it is) or the question is rejected without cause – other than it is illegitimate to ask such things. And as Kircher demonstrates above, even asking what life is and how it jumped into existence from minerals is an illegitimate question. So, "Get over it".

Stated in plain speaking: “I don’t have to tell you why you are wrong; you just are”.

So rather than discuss Nagel’s theory, Nagel is merely declared wrong and that it is illegitimate for him to even think such thoughts.

Fine argument from the Atheists, once again. It demonstrates fully the dogmatic religious nature of Philosophical Materialism and the emotional neediness of Atheism, and the paucity of its intellectual power.

Kircher winds up with the usual Scientism-as-faith recitation:

”Nagel is in the grip of a philosophical perspective on science, once very popular, that the work of the last four decades has shown to be inadequate to cope with large parts of the most successful contemporary sciences.

First delegitimize with the Appeal to Authority which is not even necessarily true of relevant “authorities”, a poisoning of the well. There is no question that science involving sources and fundamental connections has stalled. It’s not a philosophical question, it’s an empirical observation. Physicists admit it.

Because of that perspective, a crucial option disappears from his menu: the phenomena that concern him, mind and value, are not illusory, but it might nevertheless be an illusion that they constitute single topics for which unified explanations can be given.”

Here we go: the questions are illegitimate, “illusions” which empiricism might not be able to answer. So asking the questions is out of bounds and dealing with proposed answers is to be avoided, if it takes articles in the NYT to avoid it.

“The probable future of science in these domains is one of decomposition and the provision of an enormous and heterogeneous family of models. Much later in the day, it may fall to some neuroscientist to explain the illusion of unity, a last twist on successful accounts of many subspecies of mental processes and functions. Or, perhaps, it will be clear by then that the supposed unity of mind and of value were outgrowths of a philosophical mistake, understandable in the context of a particular stage of scientific development, but an error nonetheless.”

So there are categories and subcategories but no general category? That is mathematically impossible, since for every category [X] there is category [!X] and together they have a supercategory. [note 1] What Kircher is proposing (to merely ignore the question) is much less rational than what Nagel proposes (to at least acknowledge it honestly). But it is all that Kircher has left in his arsenal, since his arsenal is filled only with denial of intellectual responsibility to address issues which defeat his Philosophical Materialism.

Further, Kircher does not seem to understand the concept of decomposition which he promotes. Decomposition always goes to cause. And each cause has a prior cause, at least in the material realm and thus also in Materialism. So decomposing the prior causal chain toward a unifying or primary cause is perfectly empirical and scientific. That’s why scientists do it. So Kircher is not even consistent in his invocation of science; he deviates in order to cover for his Atheism, and invents a new definition of scientific pursuit, one which is senseless.

ADDENDUM:
William Carroll makes the following observations regarding Kircher’s assertion of illusion:

“Human beings are biologically one and psychologically one. The physical and chemical processes that are features of human life also possess characteristic unities. Unity does not mean homogeneity. Each of the various natural sciences studies the unity appropriate to its domain of inquiry. The different empirical sciences do function in the ways that Kitcher suggests. But it does not follow that any sense of a wider unity, for example, of a human being as a whole reality, is only an illusion. It is the function of a more general science of nature, traditionally referred to as the philosophy of nature, to describe this wider unity.”

Actually the sciences of chemistry and molecular biology and others have been rather subsumed under the necessities of physics, which is a unification of sorts. But it is empiricism as a limitation which caps the ability of actual knowledge under Materialism.

“Understanding unity in nature is not only a theoretical or speculative concern. If a human being is not one thing—that is, if he or she does not possess an intrinsic principle of unity, precisely as a human being—then no one can really be a cause of his or her own activity. Causal action flows from the nature of things. Human beings think and act; it is not the brain that thinks nor the body that acts. Without real human causal agency—agency that would not exist absent a human being’s being one thing—there could be no human responsibility for any action. In such a scenario, ethics becomes the real illusion.”

And in fact, the top-down sorts of ethics which are invented by Atheist philosophers are actually illusions of ethics, because they refer to a behavior set for the other guy. Atheists have entered the Atheist Void, been stripped of all absolutes, and exit ready to tell the Other what to do. Could it be that the hatred of absolutes, which goes clear back to adolescence, colors the fight against an absolute unity? Not for most, maybe just for the few.

Notes:
Note 1: Even a creating deity has a super category: [creating deity] & [not creating deity] = [existence]. Further, existence has a super category: [Existence] & [nonexistence] = [Existence] because non-existence is an empty set. So existence is tautological.

Deja Vu

Back in 2007, Alan Roebuck at the Conservative Intellectual posted a letter which he had written to the Center For Inquiry.

The Center For Inquiry is an organization based around Scientism and Philosophical Materialism (Naturalism), founded by Paul Kurtz (1). The center wishes to accomplish these objectives:

Fostering a secular society requires attention to many specific goals, but three goals in particular represent the focus of our activities:

1. an end to the influence that religion and pseudoscience have on public policy

2. an end to the privileged position that religion and pseudoscience continue to enjoy in many societies

3. an end to the stigma attached to being a nonbeliever, whether the nonbeliever describes her/himself as an atheist, agnostic, humanist, freethinker or skeptic.

Interestingly, the pursuit of truth and valid reasoning does not appear in their list. And the 3rd objective is not obtainable if the first two are forced onto the rest of us. There are rational reasons that the "atheist, agnostic, humanist, freethinker or skeptic" cannot be trusted; the agression against religions expressed in objectives 1 and 2 are examples. These folks are totally self-unaware in their statements of desired conquest vs their supposed "humanism", where they wish to enforce "empathy".


Roebuck put together a great many of the things which I have been saying here, although I said them well after Roebuck wrote the letter. His letter challenges the Naturalism and Scientism stance of the center, and uses clear logic in doing so. In fact he points to the non-coherent stance of making claims about evidence while having no evidence to support the claims.

To top off the article there is a comment thread in which a Naturalistic defender takes issue with the article, and other commenters try to discuss it with him. His retreat comes at 3:46 pm on 12/22/2007, where he demands evidence for supernatural things. And beyond that he goes completely relativistic: everything is mutable, even his own prior definitions of morality.

But this one issue trumps the rest. Says the Materialist:

"Society is the source of morality. What other possible source is there?"

The first extension of this would be that if society deems Atheists, etc to be outcasts, then it must be morally right to consider them outcasts. I had previously thought that it was merely logical; now I understand that it is also moral. It works for societies who say that human sacrifice is moral, slavery is moral, eliminating certain ethnic groups is moral, so many moral things to consider, if one is an Atheist!

The deja vu in reading all this was palpable.

(1) The center evolved in 2009, when Kurtz was kicked out of his own group. According to Kurtz, it ultimately became focused on "angry Atheism".

Schzophrenia and Physics

Attempting to discuss physical phenomena with Atheists leads to many issues which are based in ignorance of what science is capable of telling us, vs. what science is not capable of telling us.

The following video explains why science knows enough to know that it knows very little.



At a minimum, the idea that the existence within a singularity is physical, as defined by either physics, is wrong.

Theist–Atheist Debate: the General Case.

Moderator:
We are here tonight to debate the issue of whether a deity exists. First, the Theist:

Theist:
If the theory of Cause and Effect is consistent enough to be the basis for empirical science, then it should be consistent enough for the justification of the probability that the universe had a cause which was greater than the sum of the components of the universe itself. If that probability is in fact justified and without empirical or rational refutation, then belief that it might be the case is justified.

Atheist:
I have no God theory, and I don’t have to prove anything. The theist has to provide proof that meets my personal approval, and I only approve of material evidence, because material stuff is all that exists, and no, I don’t have to prove it.
(Audience applause)

Theist:
That refutes my argument…. How?

Atheist:
Your logic sucks.
(Audience applause and laughter)

Theist:
Please provide particulars so we can discuss actual cases.

Atheist:
Your logic REALLY sucks.
(Audience applause and laughter and lighters aflame overhead)

Moderator:
Well, that was quick. Thanks for participating, I think we all learned a lot here tonight.
(Crowd roars and rushes to congratulate the Atheist debater on his clear win)

Blog Analysts:
"Well, the Atheist wiped up the floor with the Theist last night. The Atheist was right on the money with his clear answers, while the Theist logic REALLY sucked".

Naturalism and Agency

There is an interesting problem here. If the First Principles are the axioms that make logic, science, philosophy, rational thought, etc. possible, how were those principles known? They were originally known through observation of the universe and its workings, observations of certain traits that seem universal.

The problem here is the word seem, because the observations are of the inductive sort, and are subject to the inductive fallacy. In other words, the universal material traits could change tomorrow, and logic would no longer have a sound basis.

The validation of the axioms is a different story, though. If one asks, “how would the universe be if the axioms (or any individual axiom) were not universally valid?”, then the truth of the axioms becomes clear despite their inductive base.

This still requires faith, in the sense that we cannot know that the universe will not flip over into chaos tomorrow. So we continue to base our lives around logical axioms in the faith that the universe will continue in its consistent path. This faith is not addressed or even understood by those scurrying about the earth every moment. But it is faith, nonetheless, because it cannot be proved.

Now here comes the interesting part. Many, if not all, modern philosophers subscribe to some sort of attack on humans as uncaused causers, largely because that places humans outside the naturalist progression of cause and effect. Being separate from Cause and Effect is a transcendental, non-naturalistic state, and not to be allowed. Cause and Effect is a First Principle. These same philosophers deny that there is any foundational principle, period. Yet they insist on using Cause and Effect as if it were inviolable, even holy premise.

Cause and Effect is seen to be valid only through observation of a non-living universe. It is clearly seen to be not valid when observing humans acting as independent agents.

This is why these philosophers must insist that free will is a delusion, that electric discharge in the cranial neurons is the cause, not the effect, of thought; otherwise they must admit that there is something at play that is outside of naturalist explanatory power.

Yet the products of free will and agency are everywhere to be seen and used daily, even by philosophers, who (hopefully) use toilets and other products of human agency. So these dogmaticians must deny their own observations in order to preserve their dogmatic attachment to an unsustainable principle. That principle is essential for their underlying faith statement: there is no God.

The Non-Intentional Life

There are some constants in the Atheist / Naturalist [1] worldview, some givens that resemble absolute truths at least within the limits of their worldview. One of these is that the only valid path to knowledge, at least reliable knowledge of any value, is through the empirical scientific process. For them, knowledge from any other source is suspect or worse. This position leads directly to another level, which is the reverence for the principle of Cause and Effect as a universal truth, and as the basis for science, which, in turn, somehow leads them to Atheism. If there exists no supernatural ontology, then everything that exists is just as we see it in the universe – that is the basis of Naturalism and Atheism. It is a big “if”.

As a consequence of the dependence of Naturalism and Atheism on the universal validity of principle of Cause and Effect, certain corollaries become necessarily true, in order to support that conclusion. That these corollaries are true cannot be in doubt under this thought process, because the conclusion which they support has been declared true, an exercise in rationalization. Some of these corollaries follow.

First, life is not a definable substance, and is not different in any way from the individual components that comprise the thing that is said to live. “There is no essence of life, unless it is [the existence of ] DNA”: Massimo Pigliucci. Life is not exceptional to purely material existence, and is fully defined by material causality.

Next, in humans as in all material substance based constructs there is no exceptionality from other material substances. Cause and effect applies to all substances, including humans. This means that every aspect of human functioning is a material effect which has a material cause.

This in turn means that the human does not exhibit any action that is not pre-determined by a chain of causes that go back to the Big Bang. So there is no human ability to decide anything, because every action is determinate beyond the ability of any self-agency to modify. And self does not exist either, because for one thing, there is no reason for a non-agent to be an independent entity, a self. A rock is not a self any more than the boulder from which it split was a self. Self is not a material substance; it cannot exist under the materialist decree.

So humans are without self, without agency, and without intentionality in their actions. If humans think that they have – or are – these things, then they are harboring an illusion or delusion. (Delusion occurs if one believes an illusion). If you doubt that this is a consequence of Atheism / Naturalism, then read the sources at the end of this article.

The typical Atheist response to this state of non-Agency is that the delusion of self and agency works just fine, and is a fine way to live, believing that we have agency in the face of being saddled with Fully Causal Determinism. Some Atheists and Naturalists even claim that there is a small bubble of non-determinism which is available to us, even though Causal Determinism is a universal principle; this allows us a small degree of agency within the constraints of our environmental and genetic histories.

If these ideas are valid, what would be the consequences? Are our actions fully predetermined and without recourse for modification? Or conversely, do the laws of Cause and Effect stop at some short-field locus that actually allows us to have some very limited agency?

Living Fully Causal and Without Self, Except for Self-Delusion.

How can we be self-deluded if there is no self to delude? To self-delude a self, requires a self, and the idea is therefore non-coherent. So that can’t be.

But maybe we are deluded, not by ourselves which do not exist, but by circumstances. What is it that gets deluded? There is no self; the conscious mind merely gets informed of the predetermined, fully caused actions of the neural electrochemical discharges. If the conscious mind is only a register of what has already happened deterministically, yet the conscious mind thinks that it performed those actions, then the conscious mind is, in fact, delusional. And that is necessarily true of all conscious minds. Every mind is delusional regarding its self and agency. And by necessary extension, all the products of the self and agency.

But then the question of self arises again. Something has happened that causes non-entopic activities to occur in the wake of the activities of human mental faculties. If there is no core being that causes those non-entropic activities for which living things are known, then how are they caused (or are they delusions too)? And can I not think, consciously, in a manner to design, to create, to cause things to happen that could not otherwise happen without an agent’s causal force? And things which would not have happened without intentionality? Is the existence of these agent-caused intentional products not real (because there is no agency)? Exactly how delusional are we? And why would we be expected to share the same delusions with countless others, say when we board a plane or ride an escalator, or engage with communication devices? How are universally common delusions implemented - what is their cause? Is it more parsimonious to consider that we share a common, universal delusion, or that we share a common, universal reality?

Consider the other claims of Atheists and Naturalists, specifically the claim to be rational. If they claim universal delusion on the one hand, how can they claim rationality on the other? If they have no self, if they have no intentionality or agency, if their actions are fully causal with their conscious minds merely informed post hoc, how can they be rational? Even if the neural electrochemical discharge is declared the source of rationality, that also is fully caused, deterministic, and without any agency or intentionality, and moreover, why should a material mass of molecules have any non-deterministic capability, much less rationality and self-hood? The Atheist / Naturalist argument must apply to the neurons as well as to consciousness.

So unless the Atheists / Naturalists can produce an argument that provides an exception to their primary argument which universalizes determinism, an argument for a non-deterministic haven which endows themselves with agency even while surrounded with a fully caused and deterministic universe, then their argument fails. And paradoxically, if they do provide an argument for excepting themselves from determinism in order to allow their own rationality, then universal determinism cannot be a valid principle. Either way, full causal determinism fails.

Moreover, if we are merely deluded into the belief that any non-deterministic agency exists, then the reality that we think we have created is also a delusion. Therefore, if the principle of delusion of agency is valid, then delusion becomes a constant and consistent necessity, a state which we cannot differentiate from actual reality if there is any actual reality. Once again the Atheist / Naturalist claim of rationality cannot be valid if we all are deluded. The argument from delusion prohibits rationality.

Empiricism and the Question of Self, Agency and Delusion
Empiricism is an intentional activity; it is the sole source of valid knowledge according to the proponents of universal determinism, the Atheists and Naturalists. Yet that pairing of concepts self-contradicts. Again, without agency to design and perform the experimental analysis which characterizes empirical activity, there could be no meaningful knowledge product issuing from empirical activity. Once again there must be an exception to the principle of universal determinism in order for meaningful information or knowledge to come out of empirical activity. And once again, the principle of universal determinism cannot be valid if knowledge or meaning exists due to the exceptionalism of agent driven empirical activity. Unless of course, empiricism and its products are delusions. So either determinism does not apply to empiricism, or empiricism and knowledge are delusions. Either way, Atheism and Naturalism fail as rational worldviews, since they require both fully causal determinism AND empirical knowledge both to be valid simultaneously.

Why is delusion a part of the Atheist / Naturalist worldview? What are the rational (or non-rational) logic steps that produce the necessity of delusion?

The conclusion comes first by decree: There can be no non-material existence. The support for this conclusion is winnowed and selected for those items which do not contradict the conclusion.

For example the basic conclusion, full materiality of existence is decreed, not observed. Under the decree, certain things cannot exist, things which would invalidate the decree. So when those certain things are seen to exist after having been denied, they must be declared to be delusions.

This process is both non-rational and non-empirical. It is the product of a belief system, one that specifically denies parts of reality that conflict with the basic tenet of the belief. Any invalidating observations are thus delusions, especially if they cannot be defeated empirically.

So in this sense, both Atheism and Naturalism are religious-types of non-empirical belief systems, which actually deny certain aspects of observable reality as delusions, and which are based on faith in concepts derived by rationalization rather than valid logical processes. The fundamental concept – all existence is material only - is decreed rather than observed and it is not even observable, yet it is declared both true and the basis for what is called a rational worldview.

The belief in Atheism / Naturalism is not based in empiricism or rational analysis, it is based in something else: a desire for it to be true.

[Note 1] I use the term "naturalism" here, despite its confusing meanings. While I prefer "philosophical materialism", naturalism is commonly used in some of the "mind" literature, so I will use it here, too.

Sources For Further Reading:

Pinker, Steven; “How the Mind Works”; 1997, WW Norton & Co.

Schwartz, Jeffrey and Sharon Begley; “The Mind and The Brain”; 2002, Harper.

Clark, Thos; “Encountering Naturalism”; Center For Naturalism, 2007.

Huemer, Michael; “Skepticism and the Veil of Perception”; Rowman & Littlefield, 2001.

Martin, Michael; Atheism, A Philosophical Justification; Temple University Press, 1990.

“The Cambridge Companion to Atheism”; Michael Martin Ed.; Cambridge University Press, 2007.

“British Philosophy and the Age of Enlightenment”; Stuart Brown, Ed.; Routledge History of Philosophy Volume 5; Routledge, 1996.

Reason & Analysis; Bland Blanshard; Paul Carus Lectures Series 12; 1962; Open Court Publishing.

Transitions

The difference between an ideology defender and a truth seeker is immense: they are polar opposites. The chasm between them is something that I will now attempt to define. To start, I will elaborate some on my own experience, which was one of going from closed to open, from a perception of dominance to a voluntary position of subservience.

As an Atheist, I had confidence in my own superiority because I had consciously chosen the path of the elites. It works like this: To become an intellectual elite, all one has to do is to utter three little words: “ain’t no God”. By having had the intellect to make this choice, one is elevated to eliteness. But even better, one gets to choose an ethic, a morality, and to choose one that is convenient, one that fits what you do, who you are.

Having chosen a compatible morality, one becomes instantaneously righteous, perfectly moral, perfectly superior to, say, Christians, who cannot ever consistently meet the demands of their morality. The ease with which the self-anointed morality is achieved reflects directly on the character of the self-anointers: only a superior character could be so completely moral, so easily.

A perfectly righteous and intellectual elite then cannot be blamed for exuding self-righteousness; self-righteousness is almost certain for these individuals. This personal elevation has a meaning attached to it: this personal elevation was due to Atheism and to the self-selected morality – so they must be correct, because they work. This means that Atheism is morally correct, and that the morality is intellectually correct. What is not to love about that?

The Atheist has created a personal moral and intellectual superiority that is precious, it is cherished. The self is now highly satisfactory; it must be defended. In order to defend the Atheist self, the Atheist is free to use any position he finds necessary, because the defense of correct things must be correct no matter what it is. So any logic that supports the correct things must be correct. Any logic that does not support correct things must not be correct. The correct things are determined first; the axioms are created in their support.

Thus the logic that Atheists use bears no resemblance to traditional logic or rationality. This is an important feature to remember.

The chasm between ideologists and seekers of truth is binary: it is the difference between closed and open.

My own transition from ideologist to seeker began when I started to listen to other Atheists. Very frequently their positions went against common sense and common decency. I discovered that their self-endowed reputation for logic and rationality was highly disputable. As a logic designer I had some experience with logic. But I didn’t know how to define rationality, how to determine its coverage or its limits, what the actual functional limits of science were or why that was the case. So I had to learn how to think from the ground up. What is rationality? What is logic? How do we know that they are valid? How do we know that anything is valid? Most importantly, how do I construct a valid worldview?

Leaving an ideology can be painful, especially if one’s self-value is heavily invested in an ideology which supports that self-value. Leaving a supportive ideology means losing all the psychological benefits which that ideology bestowed, and it is a fearful loss of one’s internal, core, perceived personal value and self-image. In the case of Atheism, it is a loss of self-perceived superiority in both intellectual and moral eliteness. And what is gained? Only subservience. And not subservience to truth, because for the Atheist there are no absolutes, and that tenet is an Absolute Truth, a moral concept. So losing an ideology can also mean losing a morality, and even if the morality was self-derived, it can be a serious loss, an impediment to any transition. It is not a trade made lightly or without some source of coercion.

In fact, Atheists sometimes rail against subservience and humility: these are declared to be an abomination, a denigration of the human independence and integrity. (These same arguers will, of course, argue that there is no free will and that humans just happened and have no special value). Accepting the humility necessary to acquiesce to truth, when it is found, is not easy to choke down when a person has been basking as an intellectual elite and personally 100% moral in his past existence.

So if we are to use logic to define ourselves, the question becomes, which logic are we to use? Atheist rationalization or traditional rational logic? A seeker of truth has to consider how each logic is supported by its fundamental axioms and how it compares to observed reality both in life and across the universe. Traditional logic doesn’t work for Atheism and Atheist logic doesn’t work for seekers of truth.

The entire purpose of traditional logic is to discriminate against absurdity and falseness. It builds on a fundamental structure of universal validity, and provides methods of detecting fallacy. Logic is exclusive: it excludes falseness in favor of demanding validity. This is diametrically different from the increasingly popular use of inclusive thought and Atheist logic.

Two of the most powerfully deceptive of the inclusive theories are those of evolution and infinite universes. For example, evolution provides for any and all eventualities without exclusion (including no change at all) to have evolved from a single cell, and specifically denies anything to do with the advent of that original single cell. And the infinite universe theory means that anything that is conceivable not only could, but will exist in some parallel universe somewhere… including an orbiting teapot, a Flying Spaghetti Monster, and pink unicorns. This is declared inevitable: the equations defining it are “robust”. This is the new look of science.

But what does it mean to have a “theory of everything” that is, in reality, a theory of anything no matter how absurd? If theories and equations discriminate against nothing whatsoever, then what do they actually prove? Isn’t science supposed to be logic based, and designed, even required, to filter out the absurd? No longer, it appears. Much of science has quietly aligned itself with Philosophical Materialism over the past century, thereby becoming aligned with ideology, an eventuality that was not supposed to happen. When observations now include characteristics of the observer, the objectivity which science prided itself on in its heyday has become subjective. When a legitimate science such as biology becomes subservient to a non-empirical offshoot like evolution, science becomes beholden not to experiment and verification so much as to extrapolated inferences, and predictions retrofit into experimental results. Validity must be taken on the word of experts, who are never reticent to give it (especially biologists). The scientists become authoritarian in their ideology-of-absurdity, as Hawking demonstrates (“Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist”, Hawking says, with the definitude of a religious prophet). Something from nothing is now science, not absurdity. Even Feynman’s “many histories” model of quantum electrodynamics, which Hawking fearlessly applied to the emergent universe, means that histories of our existence are not really known – or knowable – knocking out all prior knowledge, scientific and otherwise. Absurdity is now endemic; a functional ignorance is “scientifically” enforced as an ideology.

So the thinking of the semi-educated is no longer held to the exclusivity of traditional logic; it is watered down with theories-of-anything-no-matter-how-absurd, and their acceptance without observational verification, and merely on the word handed down by the authority of the elites. It is indistinguishable from ideology because it is ideology.

Traditional logic is fighting uphill in today’s culture as well. Tolerance is valued over discrimination, to the point that discriminatory thinking is culturally and legally derogated. So how can discriminatory logic survive in a blatantly anti-discriminatory culture?

I don’t have an answer to this, short of personally defending the discrimination against fallacy as vehemently as I possibly can. And that is the purpose of this blog, which invites rational discussion based on, and held within, traditional principles of logic, and which has those principles explicit in the right hand column.

I’m not certain how to evaluate the difference in moral weight between temperance and truth; I certainly have the capacity to sacrifice the first in intemperate defense of the second. But I will hope for and try to maintain both temperance, and the pursuit of truth through traditional logic. There has to be something that is valid and true in the universe (even Atheists agree functionally as I showed above). Whatever is really, actually valid and true is worth defending, as is the process to find it.