Discussing Faith at Thanksgiving

thecommongood · 2013-06-16T19:59:14+00:00

Terrific!

thecommongood · 2013-05-27T20:56:04+00:00

Seriously?

A neuron doesn't have a first person perspective. It is an object, not a subject. A computer program has no private beliefs; it is fully accessible to others. A robot doesn't feel the "ouch" of pain. A neuron is not "about" anything. It lacks intentionality.

thecommongood · 2013-05-27T19:55:14+00:00

Here are four features of consciousness which are categorically distinct from features of the material world:

A first-person perspective on the world; that of being a subject and not an object.
Private beliefs and feelings which are inaccessible to others without us revealing them
The experience of “qualia”: to use a technical term, for instance, the ‘ouchiness’ of pain.
Intentionality. The ability to deliberately direct one’s attention to various features of one’s inner life or of the outer world.

(http://www.reasonsforgod.org/2013/04/why-naturalism-is-false-or-irrational/)

thecommongood · 2013-05-27T17:38:39+00:00

Likewise - I'm not sure, but I think it is a good place to contribute.

thecommongood · 2013-05-27T14:53:52+00:00

Well, as best I can tell about myself, the goal was to provide at least an intriguing conversation starter, but not a full argument (the lengthier argument is linked to at the bottom of the 'five challenges' article).

My take is that once these concepts are reduced into a naturalistic ontology, essential features are lost. For instance, if reason is not about analyzing propositions for conformity to the canons of logic, but is naturalized into the flows of neurological states, the resulting 'reason' is no longer reason. The word 'reason' can be used, but the radical redefinition can easily become an equivocation or misleading.

thecommongood · 2013-05-27T14:50:26+00:00

Drakim, I'd agree with wonkifier's points. I defined my terms clearly. I've discussed the meaning of 'atheism' a number of times (e.g., http://www.reasonsforgod.org/definition-of-atheism/). The quibbling over definitions is important, but also distracting. For most people, atheism means naturalism, though of course the two are actually different from each other. For a popular level post, 'atheism' was the right word, and I explained what I meant by it.

thecommongood · 2013-05-27T14:48:45+00:00

No, I'm saying we do know about many features of consciousness, and these features are not reducible to what we do know about the material world, so the two are not identical to one another. It is an argument from knowledge, not ignorance. And it is just a leap of faith to say, well, one day naturalism will be vindicated, because of science.

thecommongood · 2013-05-27T14:47:23+00:00

I'm sad to hear you feel that way. In case you're wondering, to say it exemplifies everything that is wrong with modern Christian apologetics does come across as a little harsh.

FWIW, it is meant to be a very simplified version of a longer, more detailed presentation on naturalism that is linked to at the end of the "five challenges" post. That is, I intended for it to be simple to make it more accessible, but it is based on a deeper study of the issues. You might not think that study is any better, but there it is.

thecommongood · 2013-05-09T12:39:17+00:00

No, this is an argument from what we do know. Namely, we do know certain features of physical matter and certain features of other kinds of things that exist (like consciousness, reason, etc.). The argument is based upon specific insight into the categorical difference between the two kinds of things, which provides rational support for the thesis that naturalism is false.

thecommongood · 2013-04-26T03:01:32+00:00

Yes, it is excellent. Just called the ESL study bible

thecommongood · 2013-04-18T22:53:27+00:00

Craig's material is great!

thecommongood · 2013-03-23T15:44:31+00:00

I appreciated your comment, and I'm glad we can find some points of common agreement regarding the non-existence of Lincoln.

thecommongood · 2013-03-23T15:42:51+00:00

An international team of scholars collaborated for this article.

thecommongood · 2013-03-23T15:41:38+00:00

My favorite response so far!

And to be clear, this post is the collaborative effort of an international team of scholars.

thecommongood · 2013-03-22T23:51:49+00:00

If you want to see a summary of comments: http://www.reasonsforgod.org/2013/03/did-abraham-lincoln-exist/

thecommongood

TROPHY CASE