Some time ago I was taken aback when I heard Richard Dawkins say, without any apparent discomfort, that he had thought philosophy a waste of time until he met Dan Dennett. The trouble is that his approval of Dan Dennett was closely allied to his agreement with him. This, it seems to me, is a deeply troubling trend. While I understand that scholarship tends to be a full contact sport, and that not a little blood is spilt in the prosecuting of it, the condemnation of something that you do not understand, without any attempt to understand it, is, in general, to be deplored. I have sometimes made an exception in the case of theology, defending Dawkins against Terry Eagleton’s criticism that he had not studied Duns Scotus and Aquinas on epistemology, but Eagleton’s warning is not something that should be simply dismissed. Here is what he said:
What, one wonders, are Dawkins’s views on the epistemological differences between Aquinas and Duns Scotus? Has he read Eriugena on subjectivity, Rahner on grace or Moltmann on hope? Has he even heard of them? Or does he imagine like a bumptious young barrister that you can defeat the opposition while being complacently ignorant of its toughest case?
As it happens, I don’t think anything in Eagleton’s specific suggestions in his review would really have helped Dawkins come to terms with the debate between faith and unfaith. If Eagleton thought there was something worthwhile that would really have challenged Dawkins’ criticisms, then he needed to become much more specific than simply to show off his learning.
But this does not diminish the importance of knowing something of your opponent’s strongest case before crowing too loudly about having consigned him to the dustheap. I am reminded of this by two blog posts that were published today or late yesterday, one by Massimo Pigliucci, the other by Bart Ehrman. Professor Pigliucci dismembers Lawrence Krauss’s dismissal of philosophy in an interview in the Atlantic Monthly, whereas Professor Ehrman takes Richard Carrier to task for his rather over the top dismissal of the former’s book, Did Jesus Exist? The Sophists of ancient Greek, perhaps the first self-help gurus known to history, promised to teach their acolytes how to make the weaker argument appear the stronger. Scholarship, however, is supposed to lead to the truth, and sort out the criteria by which the truth in various fields is established, and — while I have indulged in it myself from time to time — brash dismissals of one’s opponents is not the best way through the maze of question and counter-question that can be put on practically any topic you care to name.
To start with Bart Ehrman, I have to say that he was his own worst enemy here. By making the standing of historical views depend on the qualifications of those holding them, especially in the context of the free-for-all of the internet blogosphere, Ehrman, unfortunately, was simply asking for trouble — and he got it! Richard Carrier’s response is largely taken up with swordplay on this point in particular: who is an expert in this field and who is not. And Ehrman’s response (linked above) not only takes some umbrage at Carrier’s double-barrelled attack on his Jesus book, but indicates points at which, indeed, he had been mistaken or unclear, and he corrects the impression that some of these left in Carrier’s mind, acknowledging mistakes where made, or providing the larger context which is not always clear in his book, but also finding fault with some of Carrier’s positions argued in response to Ehrman’s book. It is only fair to say that Ehrman’s response is, by and large, marked by scholarly politeness and dignity, and shows an earnest desire to reach the truth.
One of the places where I think Ehrman goes seriously wrong is in his estimation of the importance of the quest for the historical Jesus. He first points out that his Jesus book is written
for lay people who are interested in a broad, interesting, and very important question. Did Jesus really exist? I was not arguing the case for scholars, because scholars already know the answer to that question.
This strikes me, in the context where he is arguing the point, a bit of special pleading. He can’t use that “scholars already know the answer to that question” as an excuse for writing a book that does not present the scholarly evidence, for that is what is in dispute by those who disagree with him, and to claim that this is something that scholars already know, without saying precisely what it is they think they know, is worryingly misleading. It is as though all he has to do is to show, in particular, that the most egregiously amateurish of the mythicists are wrong, and lump more scholarly astute mythicists in with them, to dismiss the whole lot. And this simply won’t do. While I haven’t read the whole of Ehrman’s book, it is not clear to me that he makes any clear distinctions between the credibility of the various people who support a mythicist understanding of the Jesus stories. Nor does he seem to ask himself some elementary questions about philosophy of history here, problems that are raised with some pointedness by Stephen Law in his argument about how to sort out history from non-history in narratives deeply influenced by the myth-making imagination, as the gospels are.
As Hermann Detering says in his review of Ehrman’s book, rather pointedly entitled, “Prof. “Errorman” und die nichtchrislichen Quellen” (“Prof. “Errorman” and non-Christian sources”), Ehrman’s arguments are basically religionist, and the importance he attaches to there actually having been an historical Jesus is to a large degree religiously motivated, whatever his status as a believer or nonbeliever. As he says, Ehrman claims not to be an apologist:
Und doch kein Apologet! Ehrman will als reiner Historiker verstanden werden, der sich ausschließlich für historische Evidenzen interessiert.
“And yet not an apologist! Ehrman wants to be understood as a pure historian, who is interested exclusively in historical evidence.” Yet in an interview (not linked or identified), says Detering, Ehrman said the following:
Jesus’ teachings of love, and mercy and forgiveness, I think, really should dominate our lives, on the personal level, I agree with many of the ethical teachings of Jesus and I try to model my life on them, even though I don’t agree with the apocalyptic framework in which they were put. [italics in original article]
– which, surely, is an astonishing point for an historian to make! But, never mind, says Detering:
wir wollen es Ehrman vorerst abnehmen, dass er vorurteilslos an die Sache herangeht, auch wenn der Ton, den er in seinem Buch und in vorangegangenen Interviews gegen die Mythizisten, die er mit Holocaustleugnern vergleicht (S. 5), anschlägt, für akademische Verhältnisse etwas zu gereizt und ungehobelt klingt.
which, in my translation, goes as follows:
for now [for the time being] we will assume that Ehrman approaches the facts without prejudice, even when, in his book, and in previous interviews against the mythicists, by comparing them with Holocaust deniers, the tone struck is a bit too edgy and vulgar for academic contexts.
The point here is that, popular book or no, Ehrman still has a scholarly responsibility to maintain some kind of proportionality of language; and the kinds of emphasis he places on academic qualifications and honours, and the out-and-out affirmation of the importance of Jesus’ message for the shaping of one’s life, seems to be in conflict with his claim to be working as a dispassionate historian. He still seems, in other words, whatever his belief status, to be working in accordance with believers’ presuppositions about why it is important to establish that there is a real historical Jesus. But what Ehrman fails to note is that most scholars working in the field approach it with religionist presuppositions, so when he speaks of a scholarly consensus here, the religious background against which he speaks, constitutes a problem for his historical claims. As Detering says:
Was letztlich zählt, sind ohnehin nicht nur die guten Absichten oder der jeweilige weltanschauliche Hintergrund, sondern die besseren historischen Argumente.
Or, in English:
Anyway, what counts in the end is not only good intentions or the prevailing ideological background, but the best historical arguments.
And there are good reasons for supposing that Ehrman’s religionist prejudices are still playing a role in dictating his historical conclusions.
In answering some of these questions, it seems to me, philosophy of history is essential, whatever R. Joseph Hoffmann might think. There are too many assumptions being made as to what constitutes reliable historical evidence, especially in contexts where supernatural or other wondrous events are deeply embedded in narrative sources upon which most of our historical information on particular subjects, like the existence and character of Jesus, are based. And this brings me, not unnaturally, to my second concern in this post: namely, Lawrence Krauss’s seriously uninformed comments about philosophy.
I have already, some time ago, mentioned Stephen Hawking’s announcement of the death of philosophy which he goes on immediately, a few pages later (in The Grand Design), to contradict by doing some philosophy himself. Indeed, the importance of philosophy for science should be abundantly evident to anyone — even an outsider — who considers what the status of the hypotheses of string theory ought to be, or how it is that science progresses, and on what scientific theories are based, and how they are confirmed. It is all very well to say that science works, as it does; it is quite another thing to defend the more comprehensive account of reality that the success of science underwrites. Not only how do we know what we know, but in more comprehensive terms, what does knowing this say about the nature of the reality of the universe that we know in this way: these are questions in need of answers. We are still left, whether we like it or not, with a dichotomy between the view from nowhere, that is, the view of the universe within which each person’s point of view is an objective fact about things, and the perspective of the individual knower whose view is, in the view from nowhere, simply one amongst many viewpoints, and yet, in some sense, ineliminable — since it is through such single viewpoints that our larger scientific understanding of the universe is known.
These are questions that, for instance, Susan Haack addresses with such precision and insight in her book Evidence and Inquiry. Where do we draw the line between subjectivity and objectivity? When can we say that a scientific theory has been proved, and moves into place as something of a touchstone for the truth of other things we discover about the world? And how do scientific theories become orthodoxies against which new discoveries have to strive mightily for acceptance in the face of the guild’s tendency to protect its turf? As Pigliucci points out in the blog post linked earlier:
Indeed, as physicist Max Plank famously put it, “Science progresses funeral by funeral,” because often the old generation has to retire and die before new ideas really take hold.
The isolation of science as the ultimate arbiter of what can be said is simply to make such progress impossible, for progress happens when science is seen as one part of the quest for knowledge and understanding. To dismiss philosophy because it makes no progress in the scientific sense — but it does progress — is merely to confuse apples with oranges, as Pigliucci points out. Indeed, the question of how science progresses is itself an historical or philosophical question, not a scientific one, as a look at studies like Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions or Philip Kitchers, The Advancement of Science, should be enough to show. Kitcher’s essay, “Seeing is Unbelieving“, is a helpful discussion of the role that other disciplines play in providing the more comprehensive resources for creating our understanding of the world and of ourselves, with science as only one thread in a complex critical endeavour, using inferential rigour, of understanding ourselves and the world. As Kitcher says: “After all, the natural sciences have no monopoly on inferential rigour.”
Indeed, Richard Dawkins’ hyperbolic praise for Lawrence Krauss’s new book, by suggesting that it will play a role in our generation not unlike that played by Darwin’s Origin is simply to misunderstand why the Origin changed the way we think, and why Krauss’s book won’t. And it should be remembered that philosophy plays its role even when those who disparage it pay it no attention. These are cultural pursuits. Science is not above culture in some almost magical sense, but it is part and parcel of the culture in which it plays its role, and in which that role needs to be justified again and again. Playing the scientistic game — using that word in a sense that I had thought never applied — though I am coming to think differently — is peculiarly unproductive in the task of trying to show how and why science is important, and providing reasons for supposing this to be true. Science may win because it works. That is a plausible thesis to argue. But it could lose its high profile role because it believes itself to be the only game in town, and unwilling to participate in the cultural process in terms of which ideas and beliefs are assimilated and become influential. It simply will not do to suppose that only science counts.
The problem that Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett have is that they don’t know what philosophy is. Science, metaphysics, and history are methods of inquiry and there is a philosophy of science, philosophy of metaphysics, and philosophy of history, I suppose. Dawkins and Dennett consider metaphysics a branch of philosophy and don’t understand metaphysics at all. The following quotes prove this because neither of them understands the metaphysical solution to the mind-body problem.
“In its scientific or philosophical sense, it [materialism] refers to a theory that aspires to explain all the phenomena without recourse to anything immaterial—like a Cartesian soul, or“ectoplasm”—or God. The standard negation of materialistic in the scientific sense is dualistic, which maintains that there are two entirely different kinds of substance, matter and…whatever minds are supposedly made of.” (Daniel Dennet, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomena, p. 302)
“A dualist acknowledges a fundamental distinction between matter and mind. A monist, by contrast, believes that mind is a manifestation of matter—material in a brain or perhaps a computer—and cannot exist apart from matter. A dualist believes the mind is some kind of disembodied spirit that inhabits the body and therefore conceivably could leave the body and exist somewhere else.” (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, p. 180)
The only theories Dawkins and Dennet grasp are materialism and dualism. They leave out idealism, but more significantly they leave out the solution judged to be true by Catholic philosophers and theologians. What is that solution? (Ans. .yretsym a si tI)
Pingback: Science, Philosophy and Culture « New Evangelist, David Roemer
I’ll go along with the idea that some philosophy has a purpose as far as science is concerned. A bit like the blades in a Swiss Army Knife, very useful for the right purposes. On the other hand the Swiss Army Knife of philosophy also has ‘blades’ which are extremely specialised and may serve no practical purpose at all. Does anyone use the ‘parcel hook’? When was the device for removing stones from unicorns’ hooves ever used (poetic license)?
The Public Relations problem with Philosophy seems to me to be that there is no methodology to settle disputes about which particular strands of Philosophy are valid, or even what ‘validity’ means. While I acknowledge that I am ‘doing philosophy’ by asking the question, why is it that the One True Philosophy has not yet emerged, or alternatively why an OTP cannot?
As long as there is going to be thought there will have to be philosophy. I consider mathematics and logic to be specialized branches of philosophy. Of course we need to use evidence and experimentation to shave down the bedrock of thought into a decent representation of reality, but we cannot even begin if there is no method of thought to start upon.
I am not too disappointed in Dawkins for not possessing a thorough knowledge of philosophy, biology is an extensive enough field as it is. The appropriate response, I think, is to point out the specific flaws rather than demand greater scholarship. I find myself reminded of a certain Catholic apologist demanding a complete understanding of the works of Aquinas before allowing any criticism of his religion at all, while being mysteriously silent about what the answers to be found there actually are.
All science is philosophy.
Not all philosophy is science.
Of course, what Dawkins refers to is the non-evidenced navel-gazing brand of philosophy which does nothing more than serve as a platform for someone’s opinions and/or wild guesses. There’s a subbranch of that kind of philosophy that is known as “theology”.
@ Kevin
It is reasonable to call theology a subbranch of metaphysics. It is also true that metaphysics isn’t based on evidence gained from the senses (seeing, hearing, etc.) But this does not mean there is no evidence. The evidence that humans are embodied spirits, for example, is that humans have free will. Is saying humans have free will “navel-gazing”?
Evidence not obtained from our senses, would be obtained how? Is your god emitting energy waves at a frequency picked up by molecules in brain cells or perhaps molecules of some pheromone-like substance that attach to cell-surface receptors? Please do tell us how this works.
@ Michael Fugate
How do we know we have free will and conscious knowledge? There is no answer, but you can say that we know because we can make ourselves the subject of our own knowledge. Another way of saying it is that humans can transcend themselves.
Evidence.
Eric, I thoroughly enjoy your posts, and check in on them almost daily. However, in this case, I am a bit troubled by your defense of Ehrman’s response vs. Carrier:
Having read Carrier’s post carefully, I see he spends 3% of his essay addressing the credentials issue and 52% addressing ten (10) errors of fact in Ehrman’s book: The Priapus Bronze, The Doherty Slander, The Pliny Confusion, The Pilate Error, The “No Records” Debacle, The Tacitus Question, The “Other Jesus” Conundrum, That Dying-and-Rising God Thing, The Baptism Blunder, and The Dying Messiah Question. In addition, Carrier spends nearly 20% of the essay addressing methodological absurdities on display in Erhman’s book.
I agree with your note that Carrier blasted Ehrman’s book with both barrels, but it appears to me that it was deserved. For Erhman to admit in his rebuttal post, as you phrase it:
is, I think, to admit he wrote carelessly.
Further evidence for how badly Erhman’s book may have been can be found in a series by Earl Doherty here.
Dave Fischer, nothing that I say suggests that Carrier’s criticisms were not just. However, I think you will find that throughout his assessment, the question of expertise plays a very large part, since he continues to condemn Ehrman for his sloppiness, carelessness, lack of knowledge, etc. etc. Since I haven’t read the book, and am not an expert in the field, I cannot say whether the very stern line taken by Carrier is justified, even if some of his criticisms are. As I say, I understand that academic controversy can be, as I said, a “blood sport,” and I have sometimes indulged in it myself. I cannot say that this is the best way to shed light on a subject, and I think, on reflection, that Richard Carrier would have done the truth a service by powering down a little bit on the rhetoric, and simply pointing out the errors or perceived errors with which he was concerned. The blogosphere, of course, tends in encourage hard-headed commentary, and sometimes it is deserved, but I do think that Ehrman did explain the reason for some of the perceived errors. For example — and I don’t know this to be the case — if Ehrman was speaking of a lack of documentation in Palestine, then Carrier’s attack regarding Ehrman’s ignorance about the wealth of documentation in Egypt loses much of its force. Would it not have been better to speak more circumspectly, instead of saying this:
Ehrman points out that in the context in the book, the geographical limitation to Palestine is (or should have been) evident, and perhaps a gentler response would have been appropriate.
However, having said this, I have to say that Ehrman is his own worst enemy in this case, since in his HuffPo piece he places so much emphasis on competence and credentials, and I can understand why someone like Carrier should have responded as he did. I certainly do not defend Ehrman in this case, and my references to Detering indicate other concerns that we should have regarding Ehrman’s scholarship.
Kevin, #4, theology is not a sub-branch of philosophy, though theologians sometimes use philosophy as a tool to achieve theological ends — and that is not the kind of philosophy that Dawkins was referring to.
Yup, philosophy is useful, it progresses, it is even indispensable. As has been pointed out repeatedly, we cannot really stop doing philosophy – even just arguing about when an argument is valid is philosophy, so everyone does it all the time. Full agreement!
But I have found, when I used to visit his blog more regularly, Massimo Pigliucci a very obnoxious and unhelpful defender of philosophy. With the zeal of the convert, he stresses the importance of philosophy wherever he can and tries to corral science into an a ridiculously narrow circumscription.
Essentially, if you ask him, it is only science if a bunch of people in a university ivory tower conduct a double-blind experiment while wearing lab coats. But if one of them takes off the lab coat, hops on their bicycle, cycles home, hears a strange sound, hops off, and takes a look at the bicycle to figure out, using empirical evidence, hypothesis testing and logic, what that sound means, that is not science. Nor is a naturalist a scientist, by the way. Oh no sir, we cannot define science that widely, where would we end up?
Conversely, if you ask him, philosophy is of course not limited to a bunch of people in a university ivory tower having profound discussions on the nature of reality while wearing turtle-neck sweaters and brown jackets. Oh no sir, we cannot define philosophy as narrowly as science, where would we end up? See, if a country discusses a reform of their penal code, they aren’t doing politics, they are doing philosophy!
Seems inconsistent, or silly? Well what do you know, you don’t have a Ph.D. in philosophy, so your opinion is obviously unqualified.
The best thing, however, is his reasoning to dismiss the claim that science provides evidence against the existence of gods. It boils down, if you dig deep enough through the layers of obfuscating language, to granting the exclusive privilege of being able to move goalposts and shift the burden of evidence to everybody who tacks the word “religion” onto their claims, while denying that privilege to those making claims without using that magical word. He is actually on the record, on his blog, with the argument that the sentence “science disproves homeopathy” is essentially correct until somebody claims that homeopathy works through the grace of god instead of physical processes, at which point all the studies showing homeopathic remedies to be mere placebos suddenly become somehow irrelevant and a scientist would be arrogantly overstepping the bounds of their profession by saying aforementioned sentence.
@ Michael Fugate,
Are you admitting that humans have free will?
I really don’t agree with this idea that philosophy is only a cultural pursuit. I don’t think most philosophers who do it would consider it worth the trouble if they thought that was true. Philosophers want to produce theories that are true, that accurately describe the world, which is the same thing that scientists want to do. So, philosophy and science have the same goal. To some extent they differ in their subject matters, but only in the sense that philosophers generally deal with subjects that are still complete theoretical messes, e.g. Semantics, Ethics, Philosophy of Mathematics, Metaphysics of the non-stupid kind, etc…. If scientists feel like they are capable of taking on those subject matters, they’re free to go ahead, but with the theoretical questions still such a muddle, what hope do they have of finding something and understanding what they’ve found. Then there are sciences that have persistent methodological and theoretical problems. Hence, Philosophy of Physics, Philosophy of Linguistics, etc…. Much of Philosophy of Physics is indistinguishable from Theoretical Physics, so Krauss dismissing it is just sheer nonsense. Maybe he should pick up a few issues of Philosophy of Science and see what people in Philosophy of Physics are doing. Your example of Philosophy of History is relevant here. Ehrman is having this debate with Carrier and it doesn’t seem like either of them (both fine historians) is bringing any clear idea about historical evidence to the table. That’s something that models of historical evidence like Bayesian ones or something else could do. So, I don’t think that philosophy is a different pursuit than science, but it’s still an important one until scientists are capable and willing to take on these questions.
What does transcend oneself even mean? We assume we have the ability to make choices and self awareness because we can observe these things with our senses interacting with our brains. Gods are not needed and they add nothing to our explanations. How do you tell the difference between a thought generated through sensory experience and brain function and one put there by a god? How do you tell the difference between a mutation caused by a god to achieve a result like human consciousness and one caused by heat or chemicals or transposable elements? How do you tell the difference between a book revealed to the author by a god and one that isn’t?
@Michael Fugate
We know that we have free will and conscious knowledge, but how do we know it. We can’t see it or touch it. I can think of three explanations: 1) We know it because we know it. 2) We know it because we can make ourselves the subject of our own knowledge. 3) We know it because we can rise above ourselves (transcendence).
All that matters is truth, not our fragile egos. Carriers attack on Ehrman was savage but deserved, but that does not stop my huge respect for Ehrman as a person. I hope that Ehrman brushes off the attack, goes off and then comes back with a better defense of an historical Jesus if he can, if not, he must concede to the truth.
As for Dawkins, his judgement is often brilliant, but he does have the occasional lapse, as I’m sure we all do. I once, foolishly, attacked philosophy with the same anger, because so much of philosophy is pure nonsense. But to emphasize the importance of philosophy which is not nonsense, I’ll list at least three important philosophies: natural science, critical thinking and scepticism.
Daniel Lafave. (14) When I said “These are cultural pursuits,” I was including science in its scope. Science is a cultural pursuit, and it can do things well and badly; it does not simply transcend other things that we do as cultural beings. In fact, a lot of science is really of the pseudo variety, and the principles worked out by philosophy of science (such as Hawkings’ “model dependent realism”) is one aspect of our understanding of science, and its role in the culture, how it operates, and what constitutes truth in scientific contexts. By speaking of “cultural pursuits” I of course include science and philosophy in the range of that description, and was not separating philosophy into another dimension. Culture includes both critical and creative pursuits, and of course, they intersect. It diminishes us greatly by supposing that science is somehow omnicompetent.
David Roemer, may I suggest that you do a bit of philosophy of mind, philosophy of logic, and some epistemology before indulging in grand comprehensive statements (which apparently brook no response) like: “We know that we have free will and conscious knowledge, but how do we know it. We can’t see it or touch it.” That ‘know’ is really just spinning its wheels, and your three choices, while they may fly in the context of a 200 level course — you will have comments in the margins, though! — you need to give some context in what is and has been said about what it means to know.
Alex SL:
Well, I’m not sure that Pigliucci is obnoxious as such, and sometimes it seems to me what he has to say is worth attending to. Knowledge, expecially the understanding provided by philosophy is not an all or nothing affair, and is only as good as its arguments. Sometimes, Pigliucci has things on offer that are quite helpful. Sometimes, as you say, not. I take it that arguments are far more important than character when it comes to achieving the truth, so it’s best to cut him some slack. Go over his blog Rationally Speaking and you will find quite a few gems from time to time. But of course he’s on the defensive, because there seems to be widespread idea that philosophy is a useless enterprise. I don’t think it is. In fact, most of what people do in the atheist blogosphere is philosophy, plain and simple, and some of it is very bad philosophy indeed. We do need reminding of this from time to time.
If you are trying to be comprehensive then you’ve missed out:
4) We know it, but our knowledge is delusional
5) We think we know it, but know only part.
This illustrates one of my criticisms of philosophy – there are many arguments about free will (does it exist? what is it? is it compatible with determinism?) – but philosophy does not appear to contain the methodology for resolving the arguments.
Hasn’t this principle – that “scholars already know” been the basis of all Ehrman’s popular works? I haven’t read the most recent book, but I recall that in at least one of his earlier (popular) books, Ehrman noted that the reason for writing it was that there was a scholarly consensus about the subject matter that seemed to be unknown to the public (at least as represented by the students entering his classes).
Further, as I understand it (which is only to a limited extent, as this is not my area of expertise, and I welcome correction), Ehrman does here present the scholarly consensus on the subject. While “scholars already know the answer to that question” is certainly too strongly stated, partly for reasons already suggested regarding the status of ‘knowledge’, it doesn’t seem wildly inappropriate for a scholar writing a popular book just to present that consensus if it is add odds with popular (mis)understanding.
David,
Why don’t you answer the questions with answers instead of cliches. Think long and hard about them, analyze them, instead of just saying “I know my god exists, therefore there has to be something that my god does – oh yeah, scientists done understand the brain completely….” It is “god of the gaps” thinking and will come back to bite you.
I can conjure up images in my brain that are just as real as if I saw them with my eyes or heard them with my ears. I have no problem with a naturalistic explanation of these images , why do you have a problem with it?
@ Michael Fugate
What is an image? What is your “naturalistic explanation”? I do not have a supernatural explanation. I consider it a mystery.
However, the mystery leads to the existence of an infinite being. Since we don’t know what images and other mental beings are, humans are embodied spirits and finite beings. But finite beings need a cause. Hence, an infinite being exists.
Eric, I agree that Carrier should have toned down his vitriolic tone, which is why I recommended Doherty’s commentary on Erhman’s book. It takes apart the errors and omissions much more civilly.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, Ehrman’s response to Carrier addresses the first two or three of the ten issues in Carrier’s post, and then implies that the same goes for the rest of Carrier’s arguments. However, Carrier starts with the smallest problem and builds to the biggest issues at the end. So Erhman never addresses the most important problems. How convenient. Now people can talk about how calming Ehrman’s tone has been, without realizing the problems are still there.
A new study in Science shows that religion is cheap and easy – it is what one does when one does not think.
What is my naturalistic explanation? a trillion neurons acting in a network of interrelationships. You don’t know what an image in your brain is, but you can imagine an “infinite being?”
I have spent countless hours in churches where the pastor or priest says “What is you god calling you to do?”, but how do you know? What is the methodology? How do you listen for a god’s call? Why is someone who claims that their god told them to kill is thought to be insane, but someone who claims their god told them to feed the poor is thought to be sane?
@ Michael Fugate
You seem to be saying: An image is a trillion neurons acting in a networks of interrelationships. There is no evidence for this. A trillion neurons has a mass and volume. Does an image have a mass and volume? An image is a mental being that the human mind creates. Mental beings only exist when someone is thinking about them.
There is no point in explaining my reasons for believing God has communicated himself to mankind to someone who can’t see there is no evidence supporting materialism. There is also no point in explaining why God exists.
Thank you David Fischer, I’ll have a look at Doherty. He certainly does a thorough job — having taken a brief glance at the list of separate posts going through the book chapter by chapter.
I should add that I did not think (nor did I suggest) that Ehrman’s response to Carrier is exhaustive. Indeed, given the fact that of the errors Carrier indicates, Ehrman has only addressed a few, and in those cases has apologised for a number of errors or misdirections, it is clear that one has to read Ehrman with caution.
David Roemer. You say that an “image” is a mental “being”. How do you know this? I look at my computer screen, and I know that the image on it is the product of electrons in a material substrate. How do you know that mental images are not similarly material? Exceptionally complex, no doubt, but then the electrochemical structure of the brain is indeed complex, far more complex than my monitor.
There are all kinds of evidence for it – read some neurobiology. What do you think happens when you look at a tree – does the tree transport itself into your brain? How does your brain form the image of the tree? Trillions of neurons, that’s how. Many species have much more complex eyes and simpler brains than we do. Check out something like a mantis shrimp. Come on David think for yourself, don’t cop out with “it’s a mystery.” It just isn’t – because you don’t know or have taken the time, doesn’t mean that nobody knows.
When a tornado slams into the midwestern US killing 10 people and destroying 100 houses, what are the first things out of the survivors’s mouths, “it’s a miracle, it’s god’s will I survived, god must think my work on earth is not done, etc.” If these people thought about it for 10 seconds, they would realize if their god saved their life and their house, then their god killed their neighbors and destroyed their houses. They also wouldn’t put another trailer in a flood plain without a basement in a town with no hospital or fire department or emergency alert system, and on and on. But since they go no farther than ” it’s god’s will” they just keep making the same mistakes over and over again. Infinite beings, hah.
Krauss’ apology to some philosophers, if not all.
Thanks for the link, Bob. I’ll look at it before I go to bed.
Finally something we can agree on.
@ Michael Fugate
Your comment brings up two different questions. Knowing that a tree is green means more than that light is entering my eye and a signal is goint to my brain. It means there is an awareness of this. What is this “awareness”?
After seein the tree, I can close my eyes and create an image of the tree in my mind. What is an image?
The answer judged to be true by rational people is that there is no answer to these two questions. It is a mystery. Were you aware of this possible solution and answer before I told you? Didn’t you always think the choice was between dualism and materialism?
The problem with Krauss’ apology is that his list of philosophers is Popper and Kuhn. Popper’s best works are from the 50s and Kuhn’s are from the 60s. That’s fifty years ago. Beyond that, Kuhn had no training in philosophy and was deeply bad at it. Kuhn is a perfect example of how bad of a philosopher you get if you combine a physicist with a historian. Popper was a somewhat better but he’s a much less significant figure in that period than Carnap, Hempel, Hanson or many others. I don’t have any problem with people making informed criticisms, but when the only philosophers he can think of worked fifty years ago, it’s hard to take this seriously at all.
I did Philosophy for a couple of years at Uni and read a fair bit of it for my enjoyment, though I steered clear of the technical stuff. My moment of enlightenment came from reading Wittgenstein, Ryle and Austin, after which it became clear to me that philosophers weren’t talking about the world, they were talking about how to talk about the world. Which I agree is a useful and sometimes essential activity — just as long as you don’t mistake it for actually providing information or establishing empirical facts about anything but language. Because as soon as you do, you immediately fall victim to the kind of risible nonsense that Krauss and Dawkins are quite rightly poking fun at. THAT kind of philosophy is simply the sound that words make when they’re being tortured.
@ David Roemer #33
There is no mystery. When you ‘look’ at a tree you are aware of your visual sensations. Neurophysiology has gone some considerable way into showing how the patterns of light falling on the retina are processed into signals such as ‘edge’ and ‘area of contrast’ etc. and these signals are routed through up to 40 different pathways in the brain, picking up associations with previously seen objects, until the signals are all reintegrated into the conscious awareness of a tree. Visual defects, and optical (brain) illusions, show that your ‘awareness’ of the tree is a limited self-constructed interpretation of sense impressions.
Similarly, closing your eyes and imagining the tree is merely reconstructing the sketchy memories of those processed sense impressions; it seems ‘real’ but the sense of reality is misleading. Study a tree, go home and try and draw it. Unless you have been thoroughly trained to do so you will find it almost impossible to regenerate a sketch which looks anything like the original tree looked.
The feeling of reality of the images is compelling, but the experience is less than the actuality.
Consciousness is both medium and content. We observe the contents of consciousness but not the medium itself. That’s a bit like an eye trying to look at itself. However, we can observe the medium indirectly. We know that the medium for consciousness is the brain, but we don’t know yet how the brain generates consciousness.
That puts consciousness very much in the natural world, not apart from it. Religious mystics try to do the impossible, trying to observe the medium of consciousness directly. Whereas reason already allows us to know what the medium is, and it’s part of the natural world.
@Egbert,
Human beings have a drive to know and understand everything. When animals have nothing to do, they go to sleep. When human beings have nothing to do, they may ask questions: What is consciousness? Why is the sky blue? What caused the Big Bang? When you say that there is a “natural explanation” for consciousness, I think you mean the human beings evolved from animals. No?
The bodies of humans evolved from animals, but not their souls. The soul is the metaphysical principle that makes humans equal to one another and superior to animals. To atheists, the soul is just an idea. But to rational people, the human soul is spiritual. The reason the human soul is spiritual is that consciousness and free will can’t be defined or explicated. It is a mystery. In other words, humans are embodied spirits.
Your idea that there is a “natural explanation for consciousness” has no evidence supporting it. This is not to say that consciousness is supernatural. Supernatural means “above nature.” An infinite being is above nature, but the human mind is very much part of nature.
Two problems, here. First, there is evidence for “a natural explanation for consciousness”. It may not be definitive, but evidence exists. What “has no evidence” is the ‘soul’ you talk about; merely defining things as inexplicable or “mystery” does not constitute ‘evidence’. Second, this paragraph seems self-contradictory. If indeed “the human mind is very much part of nature”, then there should be nothing preventing a natural explanation thereof.
@ greg byshenk
I stand corrected. There is some evidence for materialism, but not as much as there is for idealism (the body is an illusion). The evidence for the humas soul is that slavery is unlawful, but it is okay to own and kill animals. Humans are a different category of being than animals.
This creates a paradox or contradiction. You and me are equal to one another, but at the same time different from one another. The principle that makes us equal is the soul or form.The principle that makes us different is the body or matter.
The natural explanation for the human mind is that there is no explanation. It is a mystery. Just because a human asks a question, doesn’t mean there has to be an answer. We don’t know about the human mind from our senses. We don’t see or hear free will. We know we have free will and conscious knowledge because we can make ourselves the subject of our own knowledge.
Everything ethical applies to the natural world. Humans are physical animals with desires just like other animals, especially the desire to live and not die. All ethics is about surviving and flourishing and avoiding dying and suffering, that’s it.
What humans do is conceptualize the world in terms of concepts, otherwise known as language. With language we create concepts like equality or justice, these don’t exist in any other way. What theists do is a categorical error–transferring concepts or ideas into substance, because that is a very human mistake to do.
Even atheists routinely make this fundamental categorical mistake, confusing mind as substance. Mind is not a substance but a concept to describe a physical process that happens in reality. We don’t know how that physical process is generated, but we do know it is a physical process, and it interacts with the rest of the physical universe.
The human mind has a four-fold structure. At the lowest level is observations, which requires paying attention. At the level of inquiry, humans ask questions and invent answers. This requires intelligence. At the level of reflective judgment, humans marshal the evidence and decide whether a theory is true. This requires being rational. The fourth level is deciding what do with our bodies. This requires being responsible.
This raises a host of questions. What are images? What is truth? What is the relationship between myself and my body? What are concepts? What is the conscious knowledge of humans as opposed to the sense knowledge of animals?
At the level of observation, humans are attentive, intelligent, rational, and responsible animals. At the level of inquiry, the above questions are asked.
Egbert’s statement above is an attempt to answer the mind-body type of question. It is a bright idea, but there is no evidence supporting it. It is irrational, like thinking the universe is 6,000 years old.
There is also evidence that Egbert is failing at the level of intelligence. He does not seem to grasp or understand the theory that the human mind is a mystery. He only understands materialism and dualism. Dualism is the idea that spiritual substances exist. Since there is no evidence that spiritual substances exist, materialism must be true. In Egbert’s mind the choice is between believing that atoms and molecules exist or ghosts exist.
@ David Roemer #42
Ingest a suitable amount of ethyl alcohol and your ability to observe, inquire, judge and decide what to do are impaired, if not temporarily stopped. Metabolise the alcohol and your abilities return. I think that is some evidence of the material nature of the brain and the material nature of the processes (the mind) that occur within it. I believe your four-fold structure of the mind is inadequate, by the way.
Does science (methodological naturalism) fully understand ‘the mind’, ‘consciousness’, or ‘free will’? Not yet, but progress so far is promising. Promising enough to recognise that while there are ‘unknowns’ there is no requirement for ‘Mysteries’.
@ DiscoveredJ
We know there is a connection between the mind and the brain. The question is: What is the connection? What progress has been made in science that sheds light on this connection? I know that we know more about the brain now than we did 100 years ago, but the question is about the connection between the brain and the mind.
Let’s focus on the difference between animals and humans. Are animals aware of their knowledge? Do animals ask questions? Do animals decide what is true? Do animals decide what do to with their bodies?
From my discussion with atheists, their answer are: Yes, Yes, Yes, and No. In other words, they attribute to animals all of the functions of the human mind except free will. What is so special about free will? Atheists say: Free will is an illusion. Even humans don’t have free will.
Obviously, resorting to personal insults won’t save you, David. I know your posts are highly deceptive, questionable and apologetic.
David Roemer’s mind is addled and his thinking is suspect because he was dropped on his head as a child.
I invite you to prove that this is false David.
But be warned that if you do I will say that your answer presupposes that your mind is not made of rice pudding and that you would be able to recognize a valid argument even if it fell out of the sky and hit you on your already terribly abused noggin.
So just by answering you refute yourself.
But to prove my claim all I have to say is “David, prove to me that the only purpose of your brain isn’t to keep the sides of your skull from touching each other”.
Which you can’t, for the above reason.
And of course I have a good reason for claiming that there is an ongoing electrical fire in your head – your were dropped on your head as a child.
Is the above argument reasonable ?
No, of course not, it’s utter bullshit, just like all your arguments.
(Thanks to Stephen Law at stephenlaw.blogspot.ca)
@ David Roemer #44
We’ve not yet agreed a definition of ‘mind’ but even so there has been plenty of work which shows that the ‘mind’ and the brain are very closely identified. The trend is towards the ‘mind’ emerging from what the brain does. Evidence:
a) Damage, disease and drugs affect the brain in specific ways, and the mind is affected in specific ways too. Damage the visual areas of the brain and the mind can no longer form images, and so on. This suggests both the brain and mind are material.
b) There is a one to one physical mapping between touch sensors in parts of the body and specific parts of the brain (and many other sensors too). Since the same part of my brain will become more active when my hand is held as the same parts of your brain will become active when your hand is held, and we both report that our hands are held, this suggests that the connections between brains and minds are similar too.
c) FMRI and similar scans reliably map activity in brain areas to reported thoughts and feelings.
d) If you equate the ‘mind’ with conscious thoughts, then there have been an overwhelming number of studies which have shown how much of what we do and consciously think is determined by the adaptive unconscious, so although you may feel that your thoughts spring directly from your ‘mind’ this is just the result of a great deal of prior unconscious brain processes.
This convinces me that the mind is just part of what the brain does. It does not have a separate existence.
I don’t accept that humans are anything other than animals – although obviously we have greater abilities in some cognitive areas than other species (and less in other areas too). Evolutionary studies are very useful for teasing out the differences and similarities between species.
Free Will is a distraction in the debate unless you define what you think Free Will is. If it is decision or choice between alternatives, then it exists for us and many other animals. If you mean that Free Will is choice made with no external compulsion, same again. If you mean that Free Will is choice made free of prior causes and effects, then I think Free Will is an illusion. I would say that many people (atheists or believers) argue whether or not Free Will and determinism are compatible.
Those of you debating David Roemer are clearly wasting their time since he does not know what he is talking about. Of course, you are welcome to debate, but there does come a point — doesn’t there? — of diminishing marginal returns. David, as to the relation between brains and minds, all you have to do is see what happens when the brain atrophies, as in Alzheimer’s Disease, or what happens when you drink too much alcohol, as someone has already pointed out. The relation is immediate and one-to-one. The mind is a function of the brain, and when the brain dies, you die too. This is so obvious as scarcely to be worth mentioning.
Corio37. Yes, linguistic philosophy was about languange and conceptual engineering, if you like, but philosophy is a very different activity now, even though it retains the conceptual analysis aspect, it extends much more broadly in contemporary forms of naturalism. A good source of insight into this broad change in English-speaking as well as some Scandanavian philosophy is to be found in Philip Kithcher’s essay on “The Naturalists Return” (Philosophical Review, 1992).
The request that I define “mind” and “free will” shows a lack of understanding of what I am trying to explain. We can comprehend human beings because we know everything that we do and everything that happens to us. However, we can’t define or explicate what a human being is. Human beings are indefinabilities that become conscious of their own existence. Another way of putting this is that humans are embodied spirits.
You understand dualism, which is the theory that there are immaterial substances.
You have a blind spot about materialism. You think all the scientific knowledge we have about our bodies shed light on the question: What is a human body?
My advice is to go back to my original post (#1) where I quote Dennett and Dawkins. Don’t you see that these professional atheists don’t even understand the solution judged to be true by Catholic philosophers?
Ok David, you have convinced me that the Catholic Church must be the arbiter everything; what other organization could have huge numbers of its employees rape children for decades and still not only remain in business, but have governments pay for its leader’s visits?
Centuries, Michael, centuries.
It’s as old as the church itself.
“Sex, Priests, and Secret Codes – The Catholic Church;s 2,000 Year Paper Trail of Sexual Abuse” by Father (yes he is a Catholic priest) Thomas P. Doyle ISBN 1-56625-265-2 documents sexual abuse by the RCC for as far back as records are available.
@ steve oberski and Michael Fugate
One of the reasons I believe in God is that the Enlightenment gave us the horrors of the French Revolution, imperialism, racism, eugenics, World Wars I and II, and the Nazis and Communists. This is what happens when people don’t fear going to Hell.
Well I have personally had enough of David Roemer’s barking madness.
@David Roemer
And 2 millenia of child fucking is what you get when you do “fear going to Hell”.
David Roemer: One of the reasons I believe in God is that the Enlightenment gave us…
David, that’s not an argument for God. At best it’s an argument against strict adherence to a totalitarian ideology, which seem to be at the root of much of your cited evidence.
And making claims that certain things are *mysterious* and then preceding to claim to know things about it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense – how about just admitting that you don’t know and leave it at that? Anything more and you’re simply making an argument from ignorance, are you not?
As for the connection between the mind and brain, and the examples given (alcohol, degenerative brain disorders) there is a ready explanation of how these changes to the brain affect the mind on a naturalist hypothesis of the mind, but I notice no attempt at sketching such a thing out for your favoured hypothesis – you merely punt to mystery.
Doesn’t that indicate to you that perhaps your hypothesis is at something of a disadvantage here?
@riandouglas
Humans observe that they can move their hands about anyway they want, and ask the question: What is the relationship between myself and my body? The question is not: Is there a relationship between myself and my body? Humans don’t ask that question because we observe that there is a connection.
There are four possible answers: 1) Dualism (no evidence at all). 2) Materialism (more evidence than for dualism because atoms and molecules exists). 3) Idealism (more evidence than for dualism and materialism). 4) It is a mystery (so much evidence that rational people judge this answer to be true).
David Roemer: Humans observe that they can move their hands about anyway they want, and ask the question: What is the relationship between myself and my body? The question is not: Is there a relationship between myself and my body? Humans don’t ask that question because we observe that there is a connection.
Yes, humans can ask themselves illformed and illinformed questions.
And you answer your question in your description of it – we can move our hands about – we are our bodies, and that is the relationship.
David Roemer: There are four possible answers: 1) Dualism (no evidence at all). 2) Materialism (more evidence than for dualism because atoms and molecules exists). 3) Idealism (more evidence than for dualism and materialism). 4) It is a mystery (so much evidence that rational people judge this answer to be true).
Actually David, materialism appears to be the only position with evidence. Idealism is a joke, and your fourth possibility simply indicates a state of knowledge and not an explanation in itself – a mystery is how we describe something we have no evidence or explanation for.
If you want to claim that the mind is unexplainable, then you’ll need to actually argue for that position raher than punting to mystery – but once you do you’ll seemingly have undercut all of your claims about knowing anything about minds (because they’re a complete mystery to you).
Eric, sorry for feeding the troll
@riandouglas
You don’t grasp the difference between science questions and questions that come from our ability to make ourselves the subject of our own knowledge. Saying the Big Bang is a mystery is not an explanation of the Big Bang. Science has a tremendous track recond of success and will discover the explanation for the Big Bang eventually. What is a mental being? What is truth? What is the relationship between myself and my body? These questions are entirely different.
This is an intelligence failure, not a matter of evaluating the evidence, because atheists never acknowledge the “fourth possibility.” You are discussing it only because I am telling you about it. Before me, you were unaware of this answer because you read only people like Dawkins, Dennett, etc. and went to schools like Yale, Harvard.
I went to a Catholic college, and was taught about form (soul) and matter (body). I learned that the human soul is spiritual. People who go to Yale and Harvard think, quite ignorantly and stupidly, that the soul is by definition a spiritual thing.
David, you really are beginning to stretch my patience. You have every right to your beliefs, but you cannot use your beliefs to call other people stupid. You ask lots of questions, but you seem ignorant of most philosophy. You have learned your Aquinas, and you take him as an authority, but why do you do so. Form and matter are Aristotelian conceptions, and there is very little reason to think in terms of essential being any longer. That is not the way that science operates, and science, you will have to admit, has made quite a success of thinking of the world in other than Aristotelian terms. Of course, I understand that you think you are right, but you can’t just say that you are right; you must try to give reasons for thinking this, which you have yet to do.
Besides, there is a contradition in your last paragraph:
That won’t do as it stands. If you believe that the soul is spiritual, and people from Yale and Harvard believe that it is spiritual, in what sense are they ignorant and stupid? Don’t you believe the same thing? I think your words have a tendency to run away with themselves. You must do better than this.
@Eric
I said that people from Harvard and Yale think that the soul is spiritual by definition. The soul (form) is the principle that makes humans equal to one another and the body (matter) is the principle that makes humans different from one another.
From the insight that humans are embodied spirits we can say that the human soul is spiritual. Harvard and Yale graduates don’t even understand the theory that humans are embodied spirits. This is an intelligence failure, a blind spot about a particular thing. They think saying humans have souls is the same as saying humans are embodied spirtits. They also confuse these metaphysical insights with dualism.
David: You don’t grasp the difference between science questions and questions that come from our ability to make ourselves the subject of our own knowledge.
Trying to rule out questions from the purvey of “science” has poor track record David.
David: What is a mental being? What is truth? What is the relationship between myself and my body? These questions are entirely different.
How are they different David?
How do you know when you have a successful explanation for any one of them?
David: This is an intelligence failure, not a matter of evaluating the evidence, because atheists never acknowledge the “fourth possibility.”
Absolute rubbish. I acknowledge that some things remain mysteries. Unlike you however, I don’t simply assume that “mystery” is the only reasonable explanation. A mystery is something to spur further investigation, not a reason to stop and consider things completed.
Davad: Before me, you were unaware of this answer because you read only people like Dawkins, Dennett, etc. and went to schools like Yale, Harvard.
Don’t presume to know what I’ve read or where I studied. Don’t also presume to know the state of my mind.
Dabid: I went to a Catholic college, and was taught about form (soul) and matter (body). I learned that the human soul is spiritual. People who go to Yale and Harvard think, quite ignorantly and stupidly, that the soul is by definition a spiritual thing.
And yet you give no evidence that this “form” is real. Being a Catholic I suppose you claim a Thomistic metaphysics, but you seem to be doing a very poor job of it. Perhaps you yourself ought to read a little more about what you supposedly belief before trying to educate others?
Since there doesn’t seem to be a reason to beleive that a Thomistic metaphysics is actually real, I see no reason to accept your claims regarding form.
@riandouglas
The following is a quote from a major textbook in biology. The author only grasps two theories: dualism and materialism. He doesn’t understand the metaphysical solution that the mind-body problem is a mystery. It is an intelligence failure, not a matter of ignorance. The author has come across the idea that there is no solution to the mind-body problem. But he could not understand it.
“And certain properties of the human brain distinguish our species from all other animals. The human brain is, after all, the only known collection of matter that tries to understand itself. To most biologists, the brain and the mind are one and the same; understand how the brain is organized and how it works, and we’ll understand such mindful functions as abstract thought and feelings. Some philosophers are less comfortable with this mechanistic view of mind, finding Descartes’ concept of a mind-body duality more attractive.” (Biology, 4th edition, p. 776 )
David, I don’t actually care about what a particular biologist might claim.
That someone is ignorant of the varieties of beliefs about dualism which abound doesn’t mean that those they’re ignorant of are automatically viable.
I am somewhat familiar with hylomorphic dualism, as put forward by modern Thomists such as Oderberg. I’ve read Oderberg’s Hlemorphic Dualism” paper a couple of times, and am part way through his “Real Essentialism”. I’m also part way through Feser’s “Aquinas”. I find that Essentialism seems to confuse mental concepts for things with objective reality, and as such I don’t find any reason to actually accept their claims, or yours.
David, I commented on your blog so as not to continue cluttering up Eric’s with your claims.
@riandouglas
You may be familiar with metaphysics, but Niel Campbell, the author of a biology textbook used by 65% of biology majors does not. Either do Dennett and Dawkins as the following two quotes show. All these two so-called philosophers understand is dualism and materialism:
“In its scientific or philosophical sense, it [materialism] refers to a theory that aspires to explain all the phenomena without recourse to anything immaterial—like a Cartesian soul, or“ectoplasm”—or God. The standard negation of materialistic in the scientific sense is dualistic, which maintains that there are two entirely different kinds of substance, matter and…whatever minds are supposedly made of.” (Daniel Dennet, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomena, p. 302)
“A dualist acknowledges a fundamental distinction between matter and mind. A monist, by contrast, believes that mind is a manifestation of matter—material in a brain or perhaps a computer—and cannot exist apart from matter. A dualist believes the mind is some kind of disembodied spirit that inhabits the body and therefore conceivably could leave the body and exist somewhere else.” (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, p. 180)
David: You may be familiar with metaphysics, but Niel Campbell, the author of a biology textbook used by 65% of biology majors does not.
So what David?
Does their ignorance mean that your position is correct?
Do, it does not.
Does their ignorance mean that you don’t need to put forth your view and argue for it?
No, it does not.
David: Either do Dennett and Dawkins as the following two quotes show. All these two so-called philosophers understand is dualism and materialism:
Perhaps Dawkins is unfamiliar with Thomistic metaphysics, but I would hesitate to make the same claim against Dennett. Even if that is the case, so what? That doesn’t make your metaphysics any more real.
Thomistic metaphysics does not seem to be a very commonly held view amongst Philosphers, so perhaps you could be a little more charitable towards people who are discussing, at a popular level, the more common dualistic view?
Finally, given the way in which you actually describe your position, it doesn’t actually sound as if you understand what it is you’re talking about – your claims lack clarity and often seem to contradict each other. For instance:
“I learned that the human soul is spiritual. People who go to Yale and Harvard think, quite ignorantly and stupidly, that the soul is by definition a spiritual thing.”
You learnt that the soul is spiritual, but other people ignorantly think that the soul is spiritual – it’s nonsense!
@riandouglas
That humans have souls and that the soul is spiritual are two different insights. Dennett, Dawkins, Harvard graduates don’t understand this. They think the human soul is spiritual by definition. It shows people who don’t believe in God don’t know what they are talking about.
David: That humans have souls and that the soul is spiritual are two different insights.
The former being false, the latter, relying upon a false claim as it does, is irrelevant.
David: Dennett, Dawkins, Harvard graduates don’t understand this.
Yet you’ve not actually shown this David.
The quotes of Dawkins and Dennett you produced were in popular works, and were addressing the more common view – that of Cartesian Dualism.
What you’re really doing is whining because your own view is not commonly held and was not therefore addressed.
David: They think the human soul is spiritual by definition.
David, you don’t seem to be making sense again.
You claim the soul is spiritual, correct?
So where exactly is the problem?
I understand that the Thomistic metaphysics you are attempting to argue for is different from Cartesian Dualism, but it is still something like substance dualism, in that the soul/form supposedly continues after the death of the body.
David: It shows people who don’t believe in God don’t know what they are talking about.
If that’s the case, then the vast majority of people who do believe in God don’t know what they’re talking about, since Cartesian Dualism appears to be a far more commonly held position.
And since you can’t seem to coherently present your position, can I assume that you don’t know what you’re talking about too?
David, you’re arguing a minority position, and complaining that it is not being addressed in popular level works. And for some reason you’re blaming the authors for this, rather than accepting things and then trying to raise the profile of your position so that it gets taken more seriously.
And David, your last comment is completely irrelevant.
All of the prominent “New Atheists” could have completely failed to address Hylemorphic Dualism, and even be completely ignorant of it, and you’re position would still be no more attractive. In fact, Ed Feser seems to have tried to make this very point in “The Last Superstition”, and yet it seems that Thomistic metaphysics assumes some things which I’m not inclined to accept as real
@riandouglas
I gave three quotes from intelligent, educated people in works that are published and widely read that prove they don’t understand or know Catholic metaphysics. They don’t understand or know the theory that the human mind is a mystery. They only understand materialism and dualism.
Can you show me a quote from an atheist refuting this? Something like this: Materialists say blah blah blah. Dualists say blah blah blah. Thomistic metaphysics says blah blah blah.
David: …prove they don’t understand or know Catholic metaphysics
It proves that they were addressing the more commonly held and defended notion of Cartesian dualism.
It doesn’t prove that Catholic metaphysics is correct.
David: Can you show me a quote from an atheist refuting this?
Indeed I can. It’s from me from a comment above:
” I find that Essentialism seems to confuse mental concepts for things with objective reality, and as such I don’t find any reason to actually accept their claims, or yours.”
The distinctions made between essence and existence and between act and potency are confused, and require one to assent to claims which seem to assume the mental takes priority over the material, and this not only seems confused, but also appear to be an instance of smuggling your conclusion (ie. “God exists”) into your initial premises.
The essence/existence and act/potency distinctions are a fundamental part of Catholic/Thomistic metaphysics, and it appears that they’re confused at a fundamental level.
There seems no reason to take the metaphysical observation which are based upon this apparently shaky foundation as “real” in any meaningful sense.
@ riandouglas
I’m aware of quotes like that and they are perfectly reasonable. Another example is the socialist and atheist Sidney Hook who said metaphysics doesn’t have any content. Also, the atheist and Nazi collaborator Martin Heidegger can’t be accused of not understanding essence and existence. The atheist John Dewey probably understand essence and existence, too
However what Hook, Heidegger, Wikipedia, and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy don’t understand or know or pretend they don’t is the logical or formal structure of the cosmological argument for God’s existence: Finite beings exist, therefore, an infinite being exists.
Likewise Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and most atheists don’t understand or pretend they don’t understand the insight that humans are embodied spirits. I have already given quotes from Dennett and Dawkins quotes proving this, but this is another quote from another atheist:
“This book proposes a theory of consciousness that stays carefully on the functional level and does not to try to ‘explain’ how awareness could have emerged from a material thing such as a brain. I believe that we might someday understand how this came to be. However, in my opinion, our present intellectual and scientific resources are not sufficient to give us even the beginnings of such a theory.” (Merlin Donald, A Mind So Rare, p. 9)
Notice that Donald doesn’t say he disagrees with Catholic philosophers who say the mind is an unsolvable mystery and that humans are embodied spirits.
I see why some say not even to attempt to engage with you David. your interpretation seems to be wilfully perverse. Donald states “I believe that we might someday understand how this came to be”, which very much does “disagree[] with Catholic philosophers who say the mind is an unsolvable mystery.” If it is, as you suggest, an unsolvable mystery”, then it isn’t one “that we might someday understand [solve]“.
@ greg byshenk
I’m not saying atheists don’t disagree with Catholic philosophers. I am saying they do not understand or pretend that they do not understand Catholic philosophers. Donald is a case in point for two reasons: 1) He doesn’t acknowledge the philosophy that the mind is an unsolvable mystery. He only knows about the philosophy whereby people “explain” how awareness emerges from the brain. 2) He doesn’t mention why Catholics think the mind-body problem is unsolvable: Our knowledge of the mind does not come from our senses; it comes from our ability to make ourselves the subject of our own knowledge. In other words, it is not a scientific question, where there is a lot of success.
David, please! Why on earth should Merlin Donald take Catholic thinkers into consideration? He’s dealing with things as they are thought about by neuroscientists and philosohers now, not about how cognition was understood by Aquinas and later Roman Catholic scholasticism. There is no reason why he should take this into account. And Donald does argue that mind and consciousness is something that science is beginning to know more about — by scientific means. Starting off with the mysterian position is neither scientific nor rational. The future lies with those who are willing at least to ask the question and to experiment. The idea that the mind and consciousnness is an unsolvable mystery is a challenge to people who do not think that it is or need be, and Catholics can give no sound reason for supposing that this position is true. It is just, like so many of your comments, simply a declarative conviction that what you are saying is true. There is no reason to accept it; nor is it rational simply to give up on attempts to understand what you think is an unsolvable mystery.
@Eric
The reason that Merlin Donald, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett should acknowledge the Catholic position is that by not doing so they expose themselves to the accusation that they don’t understand the insight that a human being is an embodied spirit.
Do you understand the difference between the following two observations? 1) Humans beings have free will. 2) The sky is blue.
Answer: We know the sky is blue from our sense of sight. We don’t know how we know humans have free will.
Oh, come on David, you can do better than this! First of all, your question about the two observations is dumb. Sorry, it just is. The sky is blue to us, because our eyes respond to the “visible” spectrum (that is, visible to us), and the gases in the atmosphere (mainly nitrogen) absorb the blue light (other wave lengths pass through unaffected) which is then scattered in all directions, and so it appears blue to us. As to the first question. We don’t know that humans have free will. That is a matter still in dispute.
As to the claim that Dawkins, Dennett, et co. “expose themselves to the accusation that they don’t understand the insight that a human being is an embodied spirit” — I don’t think they’re going to be very concerned. It’s not an insight if it’s not true, and it’s not clear that it is. For Aristotle, where Aquinas got most of his philosophy — he added all the wrong parts, turning Aristotle into a Christian manqué — human beings are animated bodies. Unlike inert things like rocks and piece of iron, they were alive. But the form of the body in the case of human beings is the ψυχή (psuché) or, life, conciousness, self. Life is the animating form of the body. Bound as he was to Plato’s metaphysics, at least in part, he thought the rational part of the ψυχή may be capable of immortality. But, of course, we know that reason and emotion are integrated. The animating form of the body is integral to the living being, and there is no reason to suppose that it survives the death of the body. No reason at all. If you’ve ever watched the animated form of a human body descend into imbecility through Altzheimer’s Disease, you know that, like everything else about us, we are a living whole. One part of us cannot do without the other. Once the brain is damaged the mind is damaged along with it. Stop dreaming medieval dreams and join the 21st century.
@Eric
Catholics consider free will and the existence of fossils observations of equal status. The first observation gives rise to the question: What is the relationship between ourselves and our bodies? The second observation gives rise to the question: Why are there fossils?
Atheists have the theory or insight that free will is an illusion. Creationists have the theory that the fossils are 6,000 years old. Both theories have no evidence supporting them. Catholics think that people who judge those theories to be true are irrational.
David: The first observation gives rise to the question: What is the relationship between ourselves and our bodies?
This question contains within it the conslusion you want to reach – that we are separate from our bodies. But that does not actually seem to be the case in reality. We are our bodies, as I pointed out previously – you’re assuming that they’re separate without actually arguing for it.
David: Atheists have the theory or insight that free will is an illusion.
Well, it depends on what you mean by free will and which atheists you’re talking about, since the range of positions is quite broad, as you’d expect from a group who only agree on a single data point – there are no gods.
If you are talking about libertarian free will, then that position appears to be incoherent, and results not in “choice” but in undetermined randomness. At best it seems you need to invoke something like Present Luck in order to explain just how it is your choices have meaning
@Eric
Humans have the drive to know and understand everything. All humans ask the question: What is my body? or What is the relationship between myself and my body? We ask the question because we want to understand it. The question does not contain in it the conclusion we want to reach.
Let me pose some more questions that human beings ask:
1) Consider knowing that this page is black and white? What is this “knowing.”
2) After I look at a rose, I can close my eyes and create an image of the rose in my mind. What is this image? Does an image have mass? Does it have a volume?
3) What is truth? What is the difference between a mind that thinks the earth goes around the sun and one that thinks the sun goes around the earth?
The theory that free will is an illusion is held my many atheists. I use the following quote to prove that atheists have bad judgment. This is an important part of the reasons I believe in revelation. If atheists gave good reasons for not believing in the Bible that would be an obstacle to faith. The reason being that non-believers may just have better judgment than believers. This is the quote:
“Free will is commonly interpreted to mean ‘the power of directing our own actions without [total] constraint by necessity or fate.’ The conviction that human beings are endowed with such a power is pervasive, even more so than a belief in the human soul…As a philosophical concept, free will is like an onion whose skin has been completely peeled away: at its core, it ceases to exist. (Lee M. Silver, Challenging Nature: The Clash of Science and Spirituality, p. 59)
David: 1) Consider knowing that this page is black and white? What is this “knowing.”
Consider an electronic device which knows whether a page is black or white. This knowing is entirely material in nature.
David: 2) After I look at a rose, I can close my eyes and create an image of the rose in my mind. What is this image? Does an image have mass? Does it have a volume?
David, this is a great example you’ve given, since we can refer to the analogous situation of a digital camera which, after having captured an image of a rose can bring the captured image up on a display device.
Such an image is stored in the camera’s memory. In an analogous fashion, the image in your brain is also stored in the relationship of neurons. In both cases, the storage medium certainly has mass and volume.
David: 3) What is truth? What is the difference between a mind that thinks the earth goes around the sun and one that thinks the sun goes around the earth?
What is the difference between a computer which calculates positions geocentrically and one which does so heliocentrically? Any difference is entirely physical in nature.
I’m always mystified when people like yourself bring up this sort of example as evidence for the “immaterial” nature of the mental, without considering that the very thing they’re using to try to make their point – your computer – actually refutes those claims (unless you want to posit that computers also have “souls”)
David, instead of trying to “prove” things by producing quotes which don’t appear to support your contentions, perhaps you should try actually arguing for your position instead?
@riandouglas
A computer is not aware of its knowledge that a page is black and white. Bulls can see red, but are they aware of this? Has any bull ever said, “Yes, I am aware of the fact that the cape is red.” Knowing that something is red means more than that light is entering the eye and a signal is going into the brain. It means an awareness of it. What is this awareness?
The image produced by a camera has mass and volume. A black and white photo consists of white paper and silver particles.
David: A computer is not aware of its knowledge that a page is black and white.
This knowledge can however, be fed into other processes, and decisions made on account of it. The knowledge can be captured in a complicated feedback mechanism.
David: Bulls can see red, but are they aware of this? Has any bull ever said, “Yes, I am aware of the fact that the cape is red.”
Besides the fact that bulls are colour blind, you appear to be trying to make a qualitative difference out of what seems to be a quantitative one – the level of self awareness seems to be a continuum rather than a discrete thing which only homo sapiens sapiens have.
David: Knowing that something is red means more than that light is entering the eye and a signal is going into the brain. It means an awareness of it. What is this awareness?
Well, you’re the one making out that this awareness is something special, you tell me what it is. Or is this another “mystery” that you’ll posit as evidence of your failed belief system?
David: The image produced by a camera has mass and volume. A black and white photo consists of white paper and silver particles.
And the image you imagine of a rose consists of the relationship between neurons in your brain, their firing patterns etc.
David, please explain how it is that your argument is anything more than “I don’t understand how it could be so, therefore it can never have an answer, therefore God” – a classic argument from ignorance and personal incredulity.
@riandouglas
The crux of my argument is that there is a difference between questions that arise because of things we observe with our senses and questions that arise because of our ability to make ourselves the subject of our own knowledge.
The scientific method has always worked in the past, and we can assume it will always work in the future. Eventually, we will understand what caused the Big Bang.
There is no track record of success with questions like: What is an image? It helps to remember that when animals have nothing to do they go to sleep. Only humans ask questions. Just because a human asks a question, doesn’t mean there is an answer.
David: The crux of my argument is that there is a difference between questions that arise because of things we observe with our senses and questions that arise because of our ability to make ourselves the subject of our own knowledge.
And that argument has failed. We observe things. Some of those things are sense experiences brought about by external cues (ie. seeing, hearing), some of those things are internal experiences (ie thoughts feelings). Our “concious” observes or processes both of them, and the act of processing them seems to actually be “conscioussness”.
David: There is no track record of success with questions like: What is an image?
This is rubbish. Using fMRI we’ve actually imaged the visual cortex and reproduced what the eyes were sending there, reproducing the image being seen.
Just because you’re not aware of something, or cannot imagine how something could be, doesn’t make you right.
David: It helps to remember that when animals have nothing to do they go to sleep.
You’ve obviously not had many pets David. Dogs and cats, when they have nothing to do will often “annoy” you, wanting attention. Or they’ll play with one another. Or any number of things. You’ve repeated this mistaken claim a number of times, and you really ought to stop – it’s quite simply false.
David: Only humans ask questions.
This also seems to be false, as those other animals with quite high cognitive function also appear to ask questions and analyse the world. They do so less than humans, but that they do so indicates that this is a quantitative rather than qualitative issue.
David: Just because a human asks a question, doesn’t mean there is an answer.
This is correct as far as it goes. What you are relying upon, however, is your own ignorance, biases and personal incredulity. You seem unaware of neuroscience and philosophy of mind. You are, as Eric observed, stuck in the middle ages and are refusing to move forward.
After all, just because something has no explanation at present, doesn’t mean there is no explanation
@ riandouglas
What you call “internal experiences,” I call transcendence. Humans transcend themselves because they know they have free will and conscious knowledge. Humans can make themselves the subject of their own knowledge.
We already know the mind and the brain are connected. This is not the question. The question is: What is the connection?
The human mind has four levels: observations, intelligence, rationality, and free will. Animals have sense knowledge, but not the conscious knowledge of humans. Yet, atheists say the animals pay attention, ask questions, and decide what is true. However, animals don’t have free will. Either do humans because free will is an illusion, according to atheists.
David: I call transcendence. Humans transcend themselves because they know they have free will and conscious knowledge. Humans can make themselves the subject of their own knowledge.
Fantastic – we’re getting some place, although not the place you want to go.
“Internal experiences” can be explained by simply referring to feedback loops in the brain, and thererore there is no reason nor need to invoke the “mystery” you desperately want to be true.
David: We already know the mind and the brain are connected. This is not the question. The question is: What is the connection?
You’ve been given the answer which most strongly reflects the evidence – that the mind is “what the brain does”. You don’t like that answer and so you resort to arguing from ignorance and personal incredulity.
David: The human mind has four levels: observations, intelligence, rationality, and free will.
If you say so. I suspect this run afoul of reality, however, in that intelligence and rationality are related, and making decisions can’t really be separated from that (nor from emotions, which you fail to include in your 4 levels).
This looks to me like a bare assertion, and one which is false.
David: Animals have sense knowledge, but not the conscious knowledge of humans.
They don’t seem to have the same quantity of conscious experience, but they do appear to have the same quality of conscious experience – we don’t do anything differently, just more.
David: Yet, atheists say the animals pay attention, ask questions, and decide what is true.
“Atheists” don’t say this – this would be obvious to you if you had any inclination to actually find out about reality David.
David: However, animals don’t have free will.
Well, if you define free will as something that humans have but other animals do not, then this is true by definition. However, whatever it is that humans have that allows us to make choices (ie. whatever “free will” actually amounts to in practice) appears to be possessed by other animals, and so you’re either mistaken or are talking about something that is irrelevant to the discussion.
David: Either do humans because free will is an illusion, according to atheists.
What do you mean by free will?
Do you mean the capacity to make choices based upon deliberation? Then humans and other animals have that.
Do you mean the capacity to make choices outside of the causal chain (libertarian free will)? Then that concept appears to be incoherent, and appeals to it equally so.
@raindouglas
A feedback mechanism is a biological process. You are saying that consciousness is a biological process. I can comprehend consciousness because I have it. But I can’t define or explicate it. There is, however, a kind of poetical definition of consciousness: It is the ability to turn in on oneself and catch oneself in the act of existing. It is a fundamental human experience that is expressed by the saying: I think, therefor, I am. There is nothing desperate about thinking of this as a mystery.
There is no evidence at all that human consciousness is a biological process. The sense knowledge of animals is a biological process. If you deprive an animal of oxygen it will lose consciousness.
That “the mind is what the brain does” is just a theory. I don’t see any difference between this theory and the theory that “a human is a collection of molecules” or “free will is an illusion” or “consciousness is an epiphenomena.” There is no evidence supporting this theory. There is no way I can argue against it except by saying that there is no evidence. Thinking a theory is true when there is no evidence is irrational.
You said, “What do you mean by free will? Do you mean the capacity to make choices based on deliberation? Then humans and other animals have that.” How can a collection of molecules make choices? Your theory is that humans are collections of molecules? No?
My guess is that you are trying to have it both ways. You don’t want to deny that humans have free will because there is no evidence of this. On the other hand, you don’t want to lose your atheist friends by saying humans have free will. So, you come up with the idea of “libertarian free will.”
David: You are saying that consciousness is a biological process.
I am indeed, since this is what the evidence points towards. We interupt the brain processes and “consciousness” ceases as well. This is better explained by the mind being what the brain does, than any sort of dualism, even of the “mystical” variety you refuse to try to explain or understand further.
David: I can comprehend consciousness because I have it. But I can’t define or explicate it.
You know what it is like to experience consciousness, or to be conscious.
David: There is, however, a kind of poetical definition of consciousness: It is the ability to turn in on oneself and catch oneself in the act of existing.
And here we have you referencing a feedback loop in your very act of trying to claim such things cannot explain consciousness – thank you for continuing to undermine your own position.
David: There is nothing desperate about thinking of this as a mystery.
Actually there is, since you avoid any attempt to try to understand it. To you it a mystery a priori. It is not comething that you’re demonstrated, nor is it something that you appear even to have investigated.
Clinging to it as you are reeks of desperation.
David: There is no evidence at all that human consciousness is a biological process.
If you say so. But then again, you are ignoring the evidence which indicates it is a biological process. General anasthetics act on biology, and they turn consciousness off, therefore there is evidence for consciousness being biological, and you are shown to be either ignorant or self serving in your treatment of the topic (or both).
David: The sense knowledge of animals is a biological process. If you deprive an animal of oxygen it will lose consciousness.
If you deprive a human of oxygen it will lose consciouness. Humans are animals.
David: That “the mind is what the brain does” is just a theory.
Actually, it’s more a collection of hypothesis, but saying it is “just a theory” doesn’t do justice to the evidence. While not quite as well supported, your comment is reminiscent of creationists who claim evolution is “just a theory”.
David: I don’t see any difference between this theory and the theory that “a human is a collection of molecules” or “free will is an illusion” or “consciousness is an epiphenomena.”
Good for you. Perhaps you ought to read what the people investigating these phenomena have to say, rather than simply assuming you’re correct?
David: There is no evidence supporting this theory. There is no way I can argue against it except by saying that there is no evidence. Thinking a theory is true when there is no evidence is irrational.
I’m glad you say this, since you are admitting that not only do you have no contrary evidence, no evidence in favour of your position, but that your actualy position is predicated upon your ignorance of the current state of knowledge regarding various topics (neuroscience etc).
Thanks for the frank admission David, though I doubt you meant it like that
David: How can a collection of molecules make choices? Your theory is that humans are collections of molecules? No?
Computers make choices all the time. Other animals make choices all the time. Once more we see that you are relying upon a qualitative difference between humans and other animals (and silcon chips) which quite frankly doesn’t exist in reality.
David: My guess is that you are trying to have it both ways. You don’t want to deny that humans have free will because there is no evidence of this. On the other hand, you don’t want to lose your atheist friends by saying humans have free will. So, you come up with the idea of “libertarian free will.”
And yet I still don’t understand what YOU mean when you use the term “free will”. It’s a dodge, but given your lack explanation for your position, not a surprise.
I will claim that if by “free will” you mean something like the “Libertarian” or “contra causal” free will as put forward by philosophers, then it appears to be incoherent and I don’t accept that humans have that. If by free will you mean something along the lines of “compatibalistic free will” as put forward by other philosophers, then humans (and other animals, and possibly some computer programs) may have that form of free will.
David, given you apparent lack of familiarity with common Philosophical terms like “Libertarian Free Will”, and ignorance concerning the state of science and philosophy on minds and brains, I would suggest you do some fairly serious reading before you make the claims that you currently are, as they are based more on your own ignorance rather than upon solid arguments and evidence.
*sigh* Sorry for feeding the troll Eric.
According to Cartesian dualism, there is a little spiritual man behind the eyes that controls the body like a stage coach driver controls a team of horses. The only evidence is that our body is something that we have. Dualism is irrational because we also know that there is only one being, not two. A team of horses and driver are two beings. A much better theory than dualism is that the mind-body problem is a mystery.
There is nothing dualistic or mystical about this theory. One of the properties of being is unity. To be is to be one. A stamp collection is not one being, a stamp collection is many beings. Likewise a collection of molecules is many beings. I exist, and I am one being not many beings.
You are saying this theory is a “sort of dualism” because of the way this theory is expressed. We express it by saying that humans are indefinabilites that become conscious of their own existence. Another way is to say humans are embodied spirits.
I have no definition for free will. We don’t see or hear free will. We know we have it because we can make ourselves the subject of our own knowledge.
Asking me to define free will is like saying humans don’t have it. Suppose someone is collecting minerals and arranging them according to their color. They build a chest of drawers and label each of the drawers one of the colors of the rainbow: red, yellow, green etc. They put a red mineral in the red drawer, yellow mineral in the yellow drawer, etc. One day they find a white minerals, and say “White minerals don’t exists.” Such is the reasoning of those who deny humans have free will.
David: A much better theory than dualism is that the mind-body problem is a mystery.
That’s not a theory, that admitting a lack of knowledge and explanation.
Your “theory” has no content.
David: Likewise a collection of molecules is many beings. I exist, and I am one being not many beings.
And yet even on your “theory” you are also a collection of molecules, so you are many beings.
David: You are saying this theory is a “sort of dualism” because of the way this theory is expressed.
I’m not saying it’s a type of dualism – that’s what proponents of your position claim. I posted a link to an essay titled “Hylemorphic Dualism” above.
Your position IS a sort of dualism.
David: We express it by saying that humans are indefinabilites that become conscious of their own existence.
Which is to say nothing, since you refuse to actually try to define what consciousness is. You leave it all to “mystery”, and wonder why no one takes you seriously.
David: Another way is to say humans are embodied spirits.
For which there is no evidence in favour of, and legitimate evidence against.
David: I have no definition for free will. We don’t see or hear free will.
So you have no idea what you are talking about when you use the term “free will”, but you will happily claim that humans have it and other animals don’t?
That’s nonsense David.
David: We know we have it because we can make ourselves the subject of our own knowledge.
And just 1 sentence later you provide the beginnings of your definition of “free will”. It’s not often someone contradicts themselves so quickly.
David: Asking me to define free will is like saying humans don’t have it.
This is completely false David. To say that humans don’t have contracausal/libertarian free will is to say that they do no have the ability to choose which is uninfluenced by the causal order.It is to say that their ability to choose is compatible with a deterministic view of reality.
David: One day they find a white minerals, and say “White minerals don’t exists.” Such is the reasoning of those who deny humans have free will.
Actually, your analogy would be closer if you were to change it so that the new minerals were “Grue”, and the person claiming “Grue” minerals exist refuses to actually indicate what they mean while continuing to assert that “Grue” minerals exist.
David, this is getting a little bit silly. You refuse to actually think about your position, claim that it is the only rational position to hold, but punt to mystery at the first sign of trouble. It’s ridiculous!
David Oderberg, one of the foremost defenders of modern “Essentialism” states:
“I leave to one side the difficult issues surrounding causation and the conservation of energy, for exploration at a later time. It may be that conservation laws simply do not apply when mental activity is involved; or it may be that conservation does apply, but that the soul never creates new energy, and instead merely regulates the distribution of conserved energy already present.” Oderberg, David S. (2009-01-22). Real Essentialism (Routledge Studies in Contemporary Philosophy) (p. 292). Taylor & Francis. Kindle Edition.
David, it appears that your claims that the relationship between the mind and the body is inherently mysterious is not shared by those who defend the same view, else why would Oderberg speculate on the actual nature of the relationship above?
@riandouglas
I don’t think Oderberg has views similar to mine. The soul is the metaphysical principle of form applied to humans. It is the principle that makes humans equal to other humans. The idea of a metaphysical principle or incomplete being creating energy is nonsense.
I don’t agree that the theory that the human mind is a mystery has no content. The content is we know something because we know that it is unknowable. It is a paradox, to be sure. You have to put on your thinking cap to grasp it. I didn’t invent this theory. I was taught it at the Catholic college I went to.
David: I don’t think Oderberg has views similar to mine.
Oderberg defends Thomistic metaphysics, so in principle he has similar views to you. In practice your views appear far more confused and illthought than his.
David: The soul is the metaphysical principle of form applied to humans. It is the principle that makes humans equal to other humans. The idea of a metaphysical principle or incomplete being creating energy is nonsense.
In Thomistic metaphyisics it is also the rational motivating principle:
“On the other hand, since some of the operations of the intellectual soul are not material, it can exist without its embodiment in matter.” Oderberg, David S. (2009-01-22). Real Essentialism (Routledge Studies in Contemporary Philosophy) (p. 256). Taylor & Francis. Kindle Edition.
So, since the operations of the immaterial soul must inform the material body, there must be some kind of interaction between this immaterial “metaphysical principle” and the material, even though the “person” is supposed to be a unity. This interaction would need to take place in the brain, since that is the material organ which originates movement in the body, and which collects sensory experiences (and stores memories, etc), and so this interaction ought to be empirically detectable, and it is this that Oderberg is referring to.
David: I don’t agree that the theory that the human mind is a mystery has no content.
Of course you don’t agree – because to agree would demonstrate that your hypothesis is mistaken.
David: The content is we know something because we know that it is unknowable.
Except that we don’t know that it is unknowable David. You are asserting that it is unknowable, but you’re not arguing the case, nor are you engaging with the current thinking on this, from both neuroscience and philosophy.
And this is the entire content of your theory?
Little wonder you’re confused David.
David: It is a paradox, to be sure. You have to put on your thinking cap to grasp it.
I suspect you had to take your thinking cap off David. A paradox is not something to be celebrated, but rather something to be investigated. You have simply thrown up your arms and proclaimed victory, however.
David: I didn’t invent this theory. I was taught it at the Catholic college I went to.
Well, it seems that you were taught it very poorly, especially as you seem to have no engagement with others who argue the same metaphysical position. You appear to have simply accepted what you were told without thinking about it, and therefore you are unable to explain the “theory”, nor do you appear capable of defending it.
@riandouglas
Do you grasp the difference between these two questions: 1) What is the relationship between myself and my body? 2) Why is the sky blue?
Do you understand why the following proposition is irrational: 1) Only those proposistions that can be experimentally verified are meaningful.
David: Do you grasp the difference between these two questions:
I suspect you want to claim that the latter is open to empirical/scientific study while the former is not, but you haven’t demonstrated this to be the case.
However, the latter question includes the admission of the mental, something you strenuously assert is not available for scientific investigation, while the former assumes without argument that the self and body are separate.
So David, I’m not sure what you’re getting at, and I suspect you aren’t either
David: Do you understand why the following proposition is irrational: 1) Only those proposistions that can be experimentally verified are meaningful.
Indeed – the tired old argument against logical positivism. Of course it depends on what you mean by terms like “eperimentally verified” and “meaningful”, and if we are to amend it by saying only those propositions with empirical content that can be experimentally verified/tested” we end up with something which is not quite so self refuting.
What is you point David? You’ve been yammering on about the relationship between the self and the body, and asserting that this relationship is mysterious, but you have avoided any actual argument for that position. Not only that but you have consistently refused to address evidence and arguments to the contrary. And further, you don’t even seem to understand the position you claim to be arguing for, as evidenced by the quotes from Oderberg.
@riandouglas
According to logical positivism, only those statements that can be empirically verified are meaningful or true. Thus, my statement that the human mind (paying attention, asking questions, deciding what is true, and deciding what to do with our bodies) is a mystery is not true.
Logical positivism is easily refuted. Can you empirically verify that only those statements that can be empirically verified are true? Just as I can’t verify empirically that the human mind is a mystery, logical positivists can’t verify logical positivism. This means that logical positivism is just a rule. Why should I follow this rule?
David, I’m not arguing for logical positivism. I’m arguing that we ought to take epistemology seriously.
There are solid philosophical arguments supporting science as means of obtaining knowledge about reality. What you are really saying now, it seems, is that you do not want to apply this to your own beliefs about the world – is that correct?
If indeed you are arguing this, you appear to be arguing that your epistemology is so “loose” as to allow anything to be called knowledge, and all because responsible approaches to epistemology do not let you believe whatever you wish and call it knowledge.
This does not seem to be a rational approach to take – to throw away solid methodology if and when it conflicts with cherished beliefs, for no solidly argued reasons.
@riandougals
Science is one method of inquiry, and metaphysics is another method of inquiry. Epistomology is the study of knowledge and includes the study of metaphysics and science.
Whether you admit it or not, you are prejudiced against metaphysics. An example of a metaphysical observation is that humans have free will and the conscious knowledge of humans. Metaphysics insights are humans are finite beings, humans are embodied spirits, humans are a composition of form (soul) and matter (body), etc etc.
David: Science is one method of inquiry, and metaphysics is another method of inquiry. Epistomology is the study of knowledge and includes the study of metaphysics and science.
Thanks for the definitions David – I am aware of what they are.
David: Whether you admit it or not, you are prejudiced against metaphysics.
An accusation without any evidential support offered – just like your other bold claims.
If I was prejudiced against metaphysics, I wouldn’t be reading books on it, I wouldn’t be discussing your metaphysics and how it is unsupported by the “physics” (ie. science).
David, you seem to be getting even more nonsensical.
David: An example of a metaphysical observation is that humans have free will and the conscious knowledge of humans.
Yet you have stated in the past, on this blog, that you have no idea what free will is, so you are in no position to claim that humans have “free will”.
David: Metaphysics insights are humans are finite beings, humans are embodied spirits, humans are a composition of form (soul) and matter (body), etc etc.
Many of these “metaphysical insights” have empirical content, and are therefore amenable to scientific investigation. Things such as humans having a “rational nature”, a soul, which directs their bodies. This is exactly the problem that Oderberg was discussing above, which you failed to understand.
David, throughout this exchange you’ve asserted so many things as being the case, but have failed to argue for any of them. You’ve also failed to engage with critiques of your position, simply repeating your assertions over again. You’ve claimed that X’s (humans) have property Y (free will), but have refused to indicate just what it is you mean. You have punted to mystery as if it were something to be applauded rather than something indicating further investigation is needed – to you a “mystery” is the end of the line.
In short, you don’t seem to understand your own position, cannot clearly describe your position, and appear to have no interest in actually defending your position.
Since you appear to have no interest in honestly discussing anything, and appear to want to make your assertions unchallenged, why should anyone bother responding to you?
@riandouglas
We are getting closer and closer to the truth:
David: I can comprehend free will, but I can’t define it. Riandouglas: You have no idea what free will is and can’t say that humans have it.
David: Metaphysics and science are two different methods of inquiry: Riandouglas: Metaphysics is unsupported by physics.
David: Dualism is irrational. Riandouglas: You think the human soul directs the body.
David, please don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t say “metaphysics is unsupported by physics” I said that your metaphysics is unsupported by the sciences. This would be a part of taking epistemology seriously – don’t make outlandish claims you cannot demonstrate to be probably true in some fashion.
Also, this last comment of yours simply illuminates your apparent foolishness. You claim you can comprehend but not define free will – in other words you have a feeling, but you don’t have any idea what it is. This is poor reasoning.
Also, Thomism has the “rational nature”, the form, the soul, carrying out immaterial functions such as rational thought. If you do not actually hold to a Thomistic metaphysics, and you do not actually hold that the mind is inherently immaterual, then your hypothesis seems to be unecessary. If you do actually hold to a Thomistic metaphysics, then the “rational nature”, the soul, is indeed claimed to inform or motivate the body, and you have problems with how this could be the case.
It seems that you want to have your cake and eat it to – you want your metaphysics to include the immaterial, but you don’t want to have to explain how this can be the case. This is, again, poor reasoning.
So please, David, if you remotely care about having a discussion, attempt to clarify what it is you’re arguing for, present some actual arguments for it, and we can carry on. As it is I feel I’m arguing against little more than assertions, ignorance and incredulity.
David, is this not similar to your position?
“In the disembodied state, I continue to exist; that is, the person that is me persists despite my physical death – which is the separation of my form from my matter – even though one of my constituents, namely my body, does not. What this means, then, is that my death results in the person that Iamcontinuing to exist as my chief part, namely the part by virtue of which I am specifically different from any other kind of animal. When the body my soul informs ceases to exist, as surely it does at some time, the person I am dies but does not thereby cease to exist; hence death and cessation of existence, for entities like us, are not the same event. I persist both as a person and as the form that once was the form of the body that was a part of that person. My soul is the bearer of my identity as a person, but I am not, and was never, nor will ever be, strictly numerically identical with my soul.” Oderberg, David S. (2009-01-22). Real Essentialism (Routledge Studies in Contemporary Philosophy) (p. 258). Taylor & Francis. Kindle Edition.
If not, where do you differ? Do you claim that the human “form”/”soul” does not continue to exist after the death of the matter that makes up the body of the person?
@riandouglas
St. Thomas never said the soul carries out immaterial functions such as thought, I don’t think. The soul is the principle or incomplete being that makes humans equal to one another and the body is the principle or incomplete being that makes humans different from one another.
Christian doctrine is that God raises the dead at the end of time, body and soul. The idea that the soul separates from the body when we die makes no sense to me.
David: St. Thomas never said the soul carries out immaterial functions such as thought, I don’t think.
Yeah, he did:
“It must necessarily be allowed that the principle of intellectual operation which we call the soul, is a principle both incorporeal and subsistent. For it is clear that by means of the intellect man can have knowledge of all corporeal things.
…
Therefore the intellectual principle which we call the mind or the intellect has an operation “per se” apart from the body. Now only that which subsists can have an operation “per se.” For nothing can operate but what is actual: for which reason we do not say that heat imparts heat, but that what is hot gives heat. We must conclude, therefore, that the human soul, which is called the intellect or the mind, is something incorporeal and subsistent.” ST 75.2
According to Aquinas, the soul carries out intellectual activities, as Oderberg points out.
David: The soul is the principle or incomplete being that makes humans equal to one another and the body is the principle or incomplete being that makes humans different from one another.
If this is all the “soul” is, then by way of a little but of thought, a material body can fulfil this purpose – all humans share large segments of DNA, are of the same species, were born the same way, and are the result of the same evolutionary process, so humans can be said to be “equal”. Humans, however, have different bodies consisting of different DNA, different life experiences, occupying different regions of space, made up of different atoms, therefore all humans are different from one another.
The “soul” seems superfluous for this purpose.
David: Christian doctrine is that God raises the dead at the end of time, body and soul. The idea that the soul separates from the body when we die makes no sense to me.
Once again you appear to misunderstand your own doctrine David.
According to Aquinas and later Thomists, the soul is immortal, subsistent, immaterial, incorruptable:
“We must assert that the intellectual principle which we call the human soul is incorruptible.
…
Wherefore the heavenly bodies, since they have no matter subject to contrariety, are incorruptible. Now there can be no contrariety in the intellectual soul; for it receives according to the manner of its existence, and those things which it receives are without contrariety; for the notions even of contraries are not themselves contrary, since contraries belong to the same knowledge. Therefore it is impossible for the intellectual soul to be corruptible. ST 75.6
That which is incorruptable exists immortally, ergo when the body dies the “soul” must continue to exist, and assuming there is a general resurrection, the “soul” would be reunited with a body (it could not be the same body for a number of reasons).
As I’ve pointed out David, your claims appear to be confused and you don’t seem to actually understand what it is you are arguing for. Your last comment only serves to highlight this observation.
@riandouglas
I don’t agree with any of the quotes from St. Thomas you have showed me.
I got all of my ideas from the 24 credits in philosophy and theology at a Catholic college and the books I’v read by Catholic philosophers. I haven’t made any of it up. Your statement that I am confused don’t know what I am talking about implies that you don’t understand Catholic philosophy.
This is what I have been saying all along. Atheists don’t understand the insight that humans are embodied spirits. They only understand dualism and materialism.
David: I don’t agree with any of the quotes from St. Thomas you have showed me.
So you don’t agree with Aquinas, even though you claimed earlier you did.
You don’t agree with Thomistic metaphysics, even though you are apparently defending it.
You are confusing David.
David: I got all of my ideas from the 24 credits in philosophy and theology at a Catholic college and the books I’v read by Catholic philosophers. I haven’t made any of it up. Your statement that I am confused don’t know what I am talking about implies that you don’t understand Catholic philosophy.
The fact that you don’t actually understand Catholic philosophy, as I’ve pointed out by demonstrating that Aquinas and others hold views you dont, indicates that you don’t understand Catholic philosophy.
David: This is what I have been saying all along. Atheists don’t understand the insight that humans are embodied spirits. They only understand dualism and materialism.
David, you are again asserting without argument or evidence that humans are embodied spirits. You say you don’t agree with Aquinas or Oderberg concerning the ramifications of this assertion, you then fail to clarify what your position actually is.
I’ve asked you repeatedly to clarify what it is you are claiming, and to actually argue for it, and you continue to avoid doing so. You have referenced Aquinas, who does not actually support your position.
Since you have failed to clarify your position, continue to assert points without bothering to argue for them, and continually claim that “atheists don’t understand”, when I have demonstrated to you that I have a better understanding of Thomistic metaphysics than you do, I fear I have no other option than to consider you a troll who is ignorant of what it is he thinks he is arguing for, and only comments to preach, not to discuss, and therefore should be ignored and/or mocked.
I’d be happy if you could show that I’m mistaken in this David, but so far you appear to be completely uninterested in any sort of rational discussion.
So please – clarify your position (no, your position is not that of Aquinas, or any other Catholic philosopher I’m aware of, since you appear to traipse far from orthodoxy, as I’ve shown). Argue for your position, don’t merely assert it and then proclaim that I don’t understand it. Actually engage in discussion!
*sigh* From past experience, I fear that you are nothing more than the troll you currently appear to be, and that your idiotic and confused claims should be laughed at rather than engaged with.
David: The idea that the soul separates from the body when we die makes no sense to me.
Those 24 credits of study, and the books you’ve read don’t seem to have done you any good David.
From The Catholic Encyclopedia:
“In the language of the creeds and professions of faith this return to life is called resurrection of the body (resurrectio carnis, resurrectio mortuoram, anastasis ton nekron) for a double reason: first, since the soul cannot die, it cannot be said to return to life; second the heretical contention of Hymeneus and Philitus that the Scriptures denote by resurrection not the return to life of the body, but the rising of the soul from the death of sin to the life of grace, must be excluded.”
So, the soul cannot die but the body can, so after the deathy of the body, the soul is separated from the body, indicating that the position which makes no sense to you appears to be Catholic doctrine.
Since it’s been demonstrated a number of times that you’re mistaken regarding Thomistic metaphysics and Catholic doctrine and philosophy, I hope you’ll perhaps show a little more humility and accept the possibility that it might be you who doesn’t understand things
Sorry, this is the correct link to the The Catholic Encyclopedia article referenced above.
David: I have no definition for free will.
Again, from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
” The teaching of St. Augustine is developed by St. Thomas Aquinas both in theology and philosophy. Will is rational appetite. Man necessarily desires beatitude, but he can freely choose between different forms of it. Free will is simply this elective power. Infinite Good is not visible to the intellect in this life. There are always some drawbacks and deficiencies in every good presented to us. None of them exhausts our intellectual capacity of conceiving the good. Consequently, in deliberate volition, not one of them completely satiates or irresistibly entices the will. In this capability of the intellect for conceiving the universal lies the root of our freedom.”
and
“The essential feature in free volition is the element of choice–the vis electiva, as St. Thomas calls it. There is a concomitant interrogative awareness in the form of the query “shall I acquiesce or shall I resist? Shall I do it or something else?”, and the consequent acceptance or refusal, ratification or rejection, though either may be of varying degrees of completeness. It is this act of consent or approval, which converts a mere involuntary impulse or desire into a free volition and makes me accountable for it.”
It seems to me that Catholic doctrine and philosophy does indeed attempt to define free will, so your ignorance of it is just more evidence that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Shall we continue?
@riandouglas
Just to keep the record straight, you may know more about Thomas Aquinas, but I am basing my comments on what is called modern Thomism.
Also, the evidence that humans are embodied spirits is that dualism, materialism, and idealism have very little evidence supporting them.
There is no point in continuing because I consider it a fundamental observation that humans have free will. It is sure as the observation that the sky is blue. You do not agree that humans have free will.
Free will means humans are responsible for their actions. You admit that humans are attentive, intelligent, and rational. However, you attribute these levels of the human mind to animals even though there is no evidence that animals are aware of their knowledge, ask questions, and decide what is true.
David: Just to keep the record straight, you may know more about Thomas Aquinas, but I am basing my comments on what is called modern Thomism.
No you’re not David. Oderberg and Feser are both proponents of “modern Thomism”, yet your position is not similar to theirs.
Since you have failed to provide any clarity of what your position actually is, you’re free to make it up as you go along – as you are ably demonstrating.
David: Also, the evidence that humans are embodied spirits is that dualism, materialism, and idealism have very little evidence supporting them.
You’ve failed to address the evidence that the mind is what the brain does.
You’ve also failed to provide positive evidence in favour of your position.
You’ve also failed to indicate that (Cartesian) dualism, materialism, and idealism, combined with whatever your position is, is exhaustive.
You’ve also failed to clarify just what it is you mean when you say “embodied spirit”, since you do not appear to mean the same thing that Thomists (both modern and historical) mean when they use the term.
In short, you’ve present a vague and confused set of claims with no arguments or evidence supporting them.
So, since ancient and modern Thomists don’t have the same views as you – that souls separate from bodies when those bodies die, for instance, or that souls carry out intellectual activity – you’ll actually need to clarify and argue for just what it is that you mean by “embodied spirit”.
David: There is no point in continuing because I consider it a fundamental observation that humans have free will. It is sure as the observation that the sky is blue. You do not agree that humans have free will.
David, you haven’t even bothered to tell me what you mean when you say “humans have free will”. It is ridiculous of you to now claim that I don’t agree with you, since neither of us, it seems, knows what we’d be agreeing to.
David: Free will means humans are responsible for their actions.
Finally you actually decide to indicate what you’re talking about.
I agree that in this sense humans have free will.
David: You admit that humans are attentive, intelligent, and rational.
I accept the evidence that indicates this is the case David.
David: However, you attribute these levels of the human mind to animals even though there is no evidence that animals are aware of their knowledge, ask questions, and decide what is true.
I attribute these things to other animals to a level commensurate with the evidence that they plan, analyse situations, care for each other, learn from each other. To claim that there is no evidence of this is to ignore reams of evidence from animal behavioural studies.
I agree that there is no point in continuing if you’re going to continue to argue from ignorance, fail to clarify what you mean, attribute things to me that I have not claimed and assert things without evidential support. If you intend to start carrying on a reasonable dialog, then we can attempt to do so.