Stephen wrote:
>The atheists view is self-refuting. If fundamentally there is
>no personality and all is "particles", the the atheist's assertion
>itself is just "particles". How does an atheist derive personality
>from the "impersonal", intelligence from the "uinintelligent" and
>meaning from "particles"?
>
>If all is matter and indeed "the brain secretes thought like the liver
>secretes bile", then what is the essential difference between thought
>and bile? Why should the atheists thought=bile be preferred to the
>theists thought=bile?
>
>Indeed, it seems to me that if the materialist's assertion that
>"matter is all" is true, then the assertion itself is just matter.
>But then so would the opposite assertion "matter is not all" be also
>matter. However in that case an assertion and its opposite, would at
>the most fundamental level be equivalent. But if something and its
>opposite are both equivalent they must both be false. It seems the
>only way out of this dilemma is to maintain a non-material external
>category of meaning that can decide which assertion is true and which
>is false. But in that case the assertion "matter is all" is false,
>anyway.
>
>Is there a philosopher in the house? <g>
I am not a trained philosopher but I would still like to critique
your argument.
In your first paragraph, there is a subtle difference between the
claim "all is particles" and the claim "at the most fundamental level,
all is particles". I imagine many atheists would hold to the latter
rather than the former. So they would claim: "At the most fundamental
level, all is particles, but at a higher level, we have intelligence
and personality"
Secondly, you seem to suggest that it is ludicrous to
think that personality and intelligence be derived from the
impersonal and unintelligent. It is not clear to me why it should
be thought ludicrous. Vinegar is not bubbly. Bicarbonate of Soda
is not bubbly. Yet when you put them together, you get bubbles.
It is not clear to me that you could not obtain intelligence from
unintelligent subcomponents.
Secondly, there is a subtle difference between the claim "all is particles"
and the claim "at the most fundamental level, all is particles". I
imagine many atheists would hold to the latter rather than the former.
So they would claim: "At the most fundamental level, all is particles,
but at a higher level, we have intelligence and personality"
I don't know the precise nature of materialist's claims. Certainly
if "matter is all" is true in a strict sense, then it can't _be_true_
because the whole notion of truth is a non-material one and hence
denyed the status of existence. However, perhaps materialists don't
believe "matter is all" in the strict sense, but rather, in the sense
of "all that is has matter as its foundation". For example, they might
believe that truth, though non-material, has existence - but this is only
because there is a material world out there. Take away the material and
you are left with nothing, not even logic. I'm not sure I agree with
this view, but I think it is more defendable than the picture you
described.
What do people think?
Mark.