>MP>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"
>
>I was not trying to make a distinction between "all is particles" and
>"at the most fundamental level, all is particles". I mean "all is
>matter", ie. even intelligence and personality.
>
>In any event, the atheist would have to explain how "At the most
>fundamental level, all is matter, but at a higher level, we have
>intelligence and personality". It must follow that "intelligence and
>personality" are themselves "matter".
>
There is a distinction between the belief that "all is particles"
and "at the most fundamental level, all is particles." When you
say you mean "all is matter" - in which sense do you mean it,
in the first or second sense? I mean, it is one thing to say that
intelligence and personality are completely _derived_ from
matter, and quite another thing to say that they actually _are_
matter. The latter seems non-sensical while the former seems, at
the very least, plausible. What exactly do materialists mean
when they say "all is matter"?
You claim that if it can be shown that "at a fundamental level all is
matter but at a higher level we have intelligence and personality", then
if follows that intelligence and personality are themselves "matter". If
this is the sense in which materialists believe that "all is matter",
then their claim is not self-refuting. Because then your statement that
their claim is "just particles" really means only that their claim's
existence is derived from the existence of matter, not that their claim
is the _same_thing_ as matter. I may claim that my word processor is
"all electronics", because at a low level, my word processor can be
explained through electronic interactions. However I shouldn't then go
around saying that word processor documents have no real meaning because
"all is electronics".
As for requiring the atheist to explain how the higher-level
non-material can be derived from the lower-level material, it
does not seem clear to me that the atheist should be required
to hold the burden of proof. Indeed, the word processor
illustration gives us some understanding about how higher level
objects could emerge from low-level components. Perhaps then
the burden of proof should rest with those who wish to claim
that intelligence and personality can not be derived from
the unintelligent and impersonal.
>Presumably they would say that "intelligence and personality" are more
>complex "matter", but in the final analysis they would still be
>matter.
I suspect they may claim intelligence and personality derive their
existence completely from matter, but in a sense be different from
matter. So they would only be matter in the sense that they are
completely dependent on matter for their existence, which is a weak
sense. Perhaps this is not the materialist view? I'm not sure.
Certainly I've know a number of atheists who hold a view similar to the
one I've expressed.
>MP>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.
>
>I presume this is from Mark? I don't recall using the word
>"ludicrous". As far as I can see, all you would get is more complex
>and higher organised matter. If you wanted to call this "intelligence"
>then you could. It is not clear to me where assigning meaning comes
>from in a materialistic system
I used the word "ludicrous" to paraphrase what you had said. Forgive
me if this word does not accurately reflect your intent.
What do you mean "all you would get"? Certainly you would get more
complex and higher organised matter, but you would also get intelligence.
Your argument would be analogous to stating that putting circuit boards
together and magnetic blips on a hard disk doesn't give you a word
processor, it just gives you more complex and more highly organised
electronics. Who says it has to be either/or - why not both?
As for assigning meaning - isn't this what we do in our heads? When
we ask what a word means, someone illustrates the concept, we form
a model of the concept in our head, and we say that we now understand
what the word means. This idea of meaning isn't incompatible with
the materialist is it? Or do you mean something more by "meaning"?
>My other point was that the materialists statement "all is matter" is
>self-refuting, because if it is true, then its opposite "all is not
>matter" would be equally true?
Why would its opposite be true? Again, it depends what is meant
by saying "all is matter". With the understanding I have outlined
above, its opposite certainly is not true.
>MP>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".
>
>Gould defined "philosophical materialism" as "the postulate that
>matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual
>phenomena are its by-products." (Gould S.J., "Ever Since Darwin",
>1977, Pelican, p24)
Exactly. They do not claim that all mental and spiritual phenomena _are_
matter, but that they are completely derived from (by-products) and their
existence depends upon (stuff of all existence), matter.
>Well this was my point. That matter cannot be all.
But according to your quote, they don't claim matter is all in the sense
you seem to want to mean it, rather they claim that the existence of all
is derived from matter, which is a slightly different claim.
By the way, for the record, I am not properly a materialist (I am
probably closer to one than some other people). However I do not believe
materialism is a view point easily refuted.
Yours in Christ,
Mark Phillips.