This post provides some possible answers to
questions raised in the last half of the article referenced in my previous blog
post.
Why is it that [the non-theist] assumes that there is this universal, immaterial, abstraction called reason which binds all men to itself?
Reason is not universal. Reason is not
immaterial. Reason is not abstract, but it does seem to be so.
Reason is a pattern of thought that can be instilled in the human brain
and engaged in to arrive at useful conclusions. The mind is what the
brain does, and the brain is material. As reason is just brain states, it
is also material. It does not equally bind all men. When one's
brain is instilled with reason well-employed, useful conclusions seem to be
more possible than otherwise.
How can [the non-theist] justify those reasons without first assuming the validity of the laws of logic?
iPhones and toothpaste. To refer back to
the previous post on knowledge: by
asking what would we expect if rationality were false, testing if that is what
we find, and failing that test. Could it be false "just right"
so that we can't tell? Sure. Just
as the theist cannot know God exists, we all cannot know reason valid. But
if it is invalid, if it is false, it is false in a way that doesn’t prevent
iPhones and toothpaste. It is false in a
way that doesn’t matter.
If there is no God and this is a completely materialistic universe, then there are no such things as “thoughts.” One might characterize them as chemical reactions, firing neutrons, atomic explosions in the cerebral cortex, or even as involuntary spasms caused by the secretion of brain gas. But one shouldn’t call them thoughts. And one should certainly not trust them.
Thoughts are just brain states. The word
thoughts is a definition for brain states. I can understand that if one
defines thoughts as immaterial, if one internalizes that definition as true, then the emotional reaction could
lead to a strong opinion that one should not call them thoughts, that one
should not trust them. But I do not
think this is a problem with the naturalist world view. It is but a difficulty in communication and
understanding between the theist and the non-theist.
So we have no way of actually thinking true thoughts.
That is a belief of agnostics, some of which
are non-theists.
That being the case, why even believe that we have brains? Why assume that we are assuming?
It is always possible to be mistaken about
anything. If evidence points that way, so be it. If no evidence
points that way, it is meaningless. It doesn't matter if we don't have
brains as long as the brain model allows us to manipulate our reality, where
reality is that which we seem to perceive.
Without God we have no justification for the concepts of goodness, truth, and beauty.
That only has merit when you define good as
that which aligns with God, truth as that which is testified by God, and beauty
as that which is pleasing to God. There are plenty of non-theistic
definitions of these things. Good behavior is that
which asymmetrically promotes the greatest moral value. Moral value
is subjective to brain states which are material. Truth is testimony that
aligns with perception. Beauty is that which when perceived results in
dopamine excretion. Conceptualizing these things is a material brain
state.
Criticism best follows understanding
Comments