In an
article written for the Council of Secular Humanism, Richard Carrier attempts to define naturalism:
”I've encountered many formulations in this direction, but I believe, on careful analysis, they all reduce to the same definition, the one with which I began, now formally stated: naturalism is true if everything that exists is causally reducible to the nonmental.
“Why do I believe that? Let me briefly outline my position. A mental object is anything that exists that is distinctive of the contents or activity of a mind. The most obvious examples are thoughts, perceptions, and emotions. By contrast, the most obvious examples of the nonmental are anything that is simply matter or energy or space or time (and any arrangement of those or anything categorically similar to them). So, for example, if everything that exists, including thoughts, perceptions, and emotions, is causally reducible to different arrangements of matter-energy in space-time, then naturalism is clearly true. That all leaves open the possibility of ambiguous cases, which would have to be worked out case by case. Otherwise, when all the causes sufficient to produce a mental effect are themselves nonmental, the mental is causally reducible to the nonmental. This definition allows the possibility of irreducibly mental things (like epiphenomena), so long as those things are fully and completely caused to exist by nonmental things (like brains).
“I propose that anyone who believes the above is a naturalist and that any claim to the contrary is a claim to the supernatural. The supernatural thus always involves some sort of mind over matter.”
Testability”Supernaturalists now make every effort to place their beliefs beyond meaningful test precisely because their beliefs have failed countless tests—indeed, most have been decisively refuted. This is evidence of the desperation of their position but not of the untestability of more honest supernatural claims. As an obvious example, young Earth creationism is not only abundantly testable, it has decisively failed every test. Science has conclusively, and empirically, ruled out this supernatural claim. So believers retreated by constructing a new supernatural claim, old Earth creationism, which is harder to test. We should not forget where this debate began: they proposed a supernatural claim, that claim was testable, we tested it, our tests refuted it. Only then did they dig around for another supernatural claim that was harder to rule out empirically. Thus, insofar as Old Earth creationism is untestable (even if you grant that it is—I don't), it's not untestable because it's supernatural. It's untestable because believers specifically made it that way in order to avoid the risk of being trounced by the evidence.”
Exactly none of this argument addresses the existence of a First Cause for a rational universe. These types of arguments abound amongst materialists, but they are strictly strawman arguments, easily defeated within the home turf of materialist, idealist dogma; what they do not address is the issue that is most basic, a rational First Cause, because that falls well outside the ability of naturalism / materialism to resolve: an idealist philosophy of matter is helpless in realms where matter does not exist. There is no material, empirical testability possible in the metaphysical realm, an eventuality that Carrier does not address, even in the least.
Differentiating Natural from Supernatural”Hence, I propose a general rule that covers all and thus distinguishes naturalism from supernaturalism: If naturalism is true, everything mental is caused by the nonmental, whereas if supernaturalism is true, at least one thing is not.”
Carrier apparently presumes that this definition will be supported ultimately by empirically locating a physical
“thought lump” or
“intent chunk” somewhere within the material brain. If there is no thought lump or intent chunk, then there would at least be
thought energy or
intent energy, since matter and energy are all there is in a materialist universe. Or perhaps the ionic energy which has been already identified is actually sentient, intelligent and intentional on its own. At any rate, it will have to be one of these, because there is nothing else from which to choose, as is determined by the premise of exclusive materialism, not by the accumulation of experience or data.
This is scientism, idealism, and mysticism all rolled into one. It is mystical because the belief relies on something that is unknown and possibly unknowable as the basis and fundament of the belief system. It is unjustified, empirically; it is therefore anti-idealist, showing the idealist philosophy to be non-coherent and false: the idealist philosophy is founded upon an anti-idealist principle. This internal contradiction is fatal to the philosophy.
Uncaused causers: the human effect.Humans cause things to happen that are not preordained by natural laws, things that in fact use certain natural laws to counter-act other natural laws. For example, gravity is overcome by applying energy to blades designed using the Bernoulli principle – wings. While birds do this naturally, humans do this on purpose, consciously and intentionally designing and manufacturing devices to accomplish the goal of heavier-than-air flight. These intentions are produced in the mind.
It is the premise of Naturalism / Materialism that the mind is totally a function of the material brain. Carrier says,
” when all the causes sufficient to produce a mental effect are themselves nonmental, the mental is causally reducible to the nonmental.”
Since the brain is composed of organic structures that implement electrochemical discharges, which are merely directional flow of ionic charges, then thoughts and the cause of thoughts must necessarily be found within those boundaries, if Carrier is correct in reducing mental to material.
The premise seems to be that without ionic discharge, there is no mind, as is seen materially at death. At death, the ionic discharge ceases, and even though the organic structure is still there, the mind stops as far as other minds can determine. Since the mind stops when the ionic discharge stops, then the mind either is dependent upon the ionic discharge, or it
IS the ionic discharge.
But if the mind is only
dependent upon the ionic discharge, then the mind is something other than the discharge, and something other than the organic structure of neurons (the brain). That cannot be, if naturalism / materialism is correct: a non-material causer is ruled out
a priori. Therefore, for materialism, the ionic discharge necessarily
is the mind, since that is what ceases at death, correlating with the cessation of the mind.
What is there about ionic charge flow that leads to the prediction of sentience, consciousness, intentionality, and purposeful invention and creation of devices to defeat natural laws? Actually there is nothing in an extra electron, much less a missing electron in an ion which predicts such things. Nor are such predictions forthcoming from swarms of ions, or batteries and power stations would be highly intelligent.
Further, what would cause us to think that an electron or ion flow would cause itself? If the cause of intellect is charge flow, then what causes the charge flow? Are ions uncaused causers, and if so, what evidence is there that would lead us to think that is so? This goes directly in the face of known behaviors of electrons and electrically charged particles.
In fact, thinking that ions are intellects or mini-intellects at work has no basis in science or in logic. There is no empirical evidence to support the claim, and the idea itself is no solution to the uncaused causer issue. It seems more parsimonious to claim that the unattached mind is the uncaused causer rather than electrical currents, and that the mind commands the flow of the electrical charge, just as it commands the direction of sentience and intentionality in the rational thought process.
Parsimony aside, it is known that the mind can intentionally force a rewiring of the brain to occur. This is, in fact, mind over matter in an intentional causation process. It is no breech of logic to presume that if the mind can change the electrical pathway, it might be able to initiate the electrical discharge as well. In fact, being challenged to solve a mathematical problem results in the mind focusing itself in a certain analytical mode, presumably resulting in electrochemical discharges caused in that pursuit, and – as MRI buffs know – increased blood flow caused to certain areas of the brain; i.e. the mind - whatever it is - is the cause of this material activity. The challenge comes first; then comes the resulting mental activity that is seen to be physical. The mind apprehends, then comprehends, then sets the work into motion, causing the activity.
If consciousness were not required, then math problems would be solved at the electron level, and the conscious mind notified later, if at all. Moreover, since the conscious mind would be only “notified” of what the real mind is doing, then it could have no control in directing the information flow or thought process being carried on below or before the conscious level. A math problem could be solved and communicated electronically without any need for a conscious mind.
In other words, consciousness, intellect and purposeful abstract thought is not required if mental activity is only ionic discharge through parallel networks. But In fact, consciousness, intellect and purposeful abstract thought require controlling the ionic discharge with an outside force, because the thoughts occur and are controlled by conscious processing. Thus consciousness, intellect and purposeful abstract thought are not explained by a naturalist / materialist mind, self-contained at the material level.
Materialism contains no explanation for the
uncaused causer of non-entropic human behavior short of denial of that behavior and the associated mental processes. Neither electrical charge flow nor mass of any type give cause to predict sentience, free will, abstract thought, intentionality or other characteristics of behavior that are unique to humans and certain other living things – but never found in raw mass or raw energy taken in isolation or together in any combination. So basing a philosophy around such a premise is not a rational approach.
This is a more in-depth analysis than will likely be encountered from any naturalist or philosophical materialist proponent. When this is challenged, it will not be with empirical data, experimentally gathered and replicated. And that is yet another defect in naturalist / materialist thought.
