No, I was addressing “an atheist”, not you specifically. Of course, if you are an atheist, my challenge would be pertinent to you.
Again, I didn’t use the Hoyle analogy quote, I used a different quote, where there was no analogy. And I agree, and have agreed that natural selection is not just random.
There were 5 instances of “you” in the paragraph you wrote in response to me. Is English not your native language?
You did earlier, remember? Or likely not.
Um, not everything is about you! And starting with mentioning “an atheist”, obviously to then say “you” would be turning to address the unidentified atheist, directly. This is actually done in English.
Yes, I have used Hoyle’s 747 analogy here at times, but the quote I did, which was said to be referencing Hoyle’s analogy, was actually about a super-intellect monkeying with physics, etc., there was no analogy in it.
Stop lying, because I made no such claim.
Quote the claim in which you say I was referencing that analogy. I’ll ask again, is English not your native language?
Quote me explicitly claiming there was an analogy in it. Prediction: no response, but a Gish Gallop to a new rabbit hole. Am I right?
That was hyperbole, certainly I wasn’t claiming you said that.
I was responding to you referencing “Hoyle’s analogy”, you didn’t say which one, and the only one I know is of a tornado producing a 747 in a junkyard. Perhaps you know of, and meant a different analogy?
I said you mentioned “Hoyle’s analogy”, and I meant there was no analogy in the quote I gave. You didn’t explicitly say there was “an analogy in it”, but certainly you seemed to be saying there was an analogy in Hoyle’s quote you had in mind.
I can’t think of a single thing you’ve written here that isn’t hyperbolic, particularly your claims to know who has expertise in which subject, that you “did actually know about ATP/ADP before coming here, I did know how cells use it,” that a postdoc “was a leader in his department,” that his adviser approved of the only paper of his you’ve cited despite not being an author, etc.
Quote one thing you’ve written about science (particularly the actual evidence) here that you’d bet your house on. What you try to pass off as hyperboly, I call lying.
And talking to God as if he’s real didn’t do it for me, either. And “If you are real, reveal yourself to me” doesn’t require faith, you don’t have to believe, to do this.
Well, “those who ask, receive” isn’t about getting a right question, certainly. And as far as “believe”, was that propositional? And similarly with “faith”, I would prefer the word “trust”, which is relational, not propositional. As in “who are you, Lord?” and then I started to get results I had been seeking, by knowing God more, not by seeking faith directly. And then Paul’s second prayer was “Lord, what do you want me to do?”, to look for and listen for the next step of obedience. Through obeying, we see God at work, and what he can do, this does build faith. Signs and messages are fine, but as I mentioned, I even got a sign I asked for, and that somehow didn’t increase my faith. I do recommend keeping at it, there are dry spots, for sure. But it’s not earned, and certainly I don’t want to just tell myself stories! But reading apologetics helped, as I mentioned, there is good evidence to be examined, but again, that doesn’t compare to actually getting to know God, to having a relationship…
But I was responding to you saying this: “I assume that both our perceptions and thoughts are connected to reality, and further, that you, I, and Darwin for that matter, reason based on nothing more.” So this is not at all mentioning that our reason is fallible, though I agree that it is. But this statement you made was, as you say, an assumption, and we need a defense of this statement, it needs to be more than an assumption.
Having looked it up, he still doesn’t know.
I, for one, have reached the point of having nothing more to say on the subject. If he ever gets back to evolutionary biology, I may return.
You know what an assumption is. You want to play this game, bye for now.
Yes, our reasoning is fallible, I acknowledge this. Though I wouldn’t call an imperfect conclusion, valid reasoning.
Well, “it is not a stretch” is not very convincing! People do believe they are agents, that they are the source of their thoughts. The courts agree, “movement of atoms in my brain made me do it” is not going to fly. Only the materialists think this is a delusion. Imagine that! It reminds me of Hinduism, where an illusion, inside an illusion, is trying to convince me that I myself am an illusion. Why should I believe you, or the Hindu?
As C.S. Lewis points out, “The description we have to give of thought as an evolutionary phenomenon always makes a tacit exception in favour of the thinking which we ourselves perform at that moment. … our present act, claims and must claim, to be an act of insight, a knowledge sufficiently free from non-rational causation to be determined (positively) only by the truth it knows.”
And, because you are such a pathetic, filthy, little liar, you are going to just keep acting like no one has already addressed that very silly argument. (tl;dr if one is a source compatibilist then there is no conflict between concluding that someone’s brain atoms made them do something, and that they are responsible for their actions).
I don’t expect anything approaching an intelligent response from you, but maybe some other dualist will suggest an answer this question, because I have yet to see a good one:
Consider the proposition that all mental activity is the result of brain activity. To the dualist who also believes in libertarianism and that free will does not exist in that scenario: What does an immaterial thing called a “soul” contribute to the situation that results in us being more “free” than the soul did not exist? If we assume brain activity to be deterministic, then it is possible the effects of a soul are not determined. But, it appears to me, all that would do is introduce more randomness to the process. How does randomness make us free? Or is there some other possible effect of a soul that I am overlooking?
You keep saying this as if there is a point; you need a lawyer. The courts do not care one way or another if the movement of atoms in the brain made you do it, because that has nothing to do with the legal test for insanity. If you did the crime, you go to the slammer whether you have libertarian free will or not.
That our brains are material does not require that there is no agency. It is not just a matter of passively following the movement of atoms in the brain - our thoughts also constantly and actively drive neural connections. Musical and other training can produce measurable physiological changes. The brain is an interactive organ.
This can easily be explained by the fact that it appears that Lewis only studied ancient philosophy (as part of the “Greats”), and not more modern philosophy. Meaning that his philosophical worldview was more than two millennia out of date, even for his time.
This is of course the same archaic thinking that infects Lee’s every claim recently, so it is hardly surprising that he harps on about it.
Lee, like Lewis before him, simply attempts to ram the modern world into millennia-old pigeonholes, rather than attempting to restructure this framework to fit the modern world (as more competent philosophers do).
Their thinking is rife with concepts and trains of thought that have no currency in the modern word – and when they’re trotted out, seem baffling to the uninitiated, or the equivalent of “because Aristotle said so” to those who know the source of those claims.
How’s it different from “my immortal soul in the beyond made me do it”?
[Lee Merrill]
Yes, our reasoning is fallible, I acknowledge this. Though I wouldn’t call an imperfect conclusion, valid reasoning.
OK, so Lee Merrill’s argument is not that imperfect processes like those in evolution could not produce the reasoning that we see in humans and animals? I thought that was his argument.
[Lee Merrill]
Well, “it is not a stretch” is not very convincing!
I do not expect to convince Lee Merrill – I am not that wildly optimistic.
I was just trying to understand what he was saying about evolution.
People do believe they are agents
…
The courts agree,
…
Only the materialists think this is a delusion.
…
It reminds me of Hinduism,
…
Why should I believe you, or the Hindu?
OK, so Merrill really wants to have the Same Old Argument About Free Will.
Count me out – I was just trying to understand what his argument was about evolution.
So please explain to me how that’s going to fly in court, or point me to where someone else explained that, and that this explanation went unaddressed. And if I did address it, the next step would be to respond to what I said, not to claim victory, as some here do.
But that’s just the point, claiming you can escape punishment because “movement of atoms in my brain made me do it” is not going to work. And it might be noted that Arminians object to source compatiblism on the grounds that this idea of free will is not really free, and I agree. Though I’m not an Arminian.
Well, people generally do consider the soul to be the author of their thoughts, and reasoning, and freely authored, when they are valid. And the alternative to the soul not existing appears to be determinism. And some believe free will is ultimately random, I disagree, I don’t consider determinism and randomness to be the only alternatives. When people say “I’ll write a book!” they aren’t thinking something random happened, they think they really came up with this idea. So I believe we can be real authors of thoughts, and reasoning, because our reason comes from a self-existent reason. Though I can’t explain the mechanics of how we think! No one can. But I don’t conclude that we need to sit down in a puddle of tears and give up, it’s good to examine the foundations, and see how far we can get.