On Tue, 20 Jun 1995, Mark Phillips wrote:
>
> Stephen argued that the atheist viewpoint is self-refuting. I think
> it is not, or at least, not in the way he suggests.
>
> 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.
>
>