Atheism is reasonable, and Christianity is not

[Ygrene Imref]

Matt Dillahunty has clarified the atheist position with the following gumball analogy, which I have paraphrased:

Suppose there exists a gumball machine, and we don't know how many gumballs are inside it. If you told me that there were an even number of gumballs in the machine, then I would reject your assertion. Your assertion is rejected on the grounds of insufficient evidence, and I am not claiming that there is an odd number of gumballs. The fact of the matter is that we don't know and can't know how many gumballs there are, and so any positive assertion is unreasonable.

This is why most atheists are the "lack of belief" type of atheist. Some of these atheists might positively assert that Jehovah cannot exist, but this is usually because of the fact that Jehovah is often saddled with self-contradictory properties. Make Jehovah's properties self-consistent, and most atheists will not positively assert that he does not exist.

Those atheists who do assert that no gods exist are (hopefully) operating under the null hypothesis. For example, we might say that adding racing stripes to a vehicle will not make it go faster. This is not a declaration that experiments have been performed to conclude this, but rather that, by the null hypothesis, this is the default position. So, in that sense, when atheists say that there are no gods, they are (hopefully) speaking formally under the null hypothesis.

If an atheist were to say that there are definitively, absolutely, positively no gods, then they would be unreasonable. For if they were not saying this under the umbrella of the null hypothesis, then they must be declaring it as some conclusion. But most of us can agree that there is no argument which will soundly and validly conclude that there are positively no gods.

But now that we've clarified this, we should turn our attention to the Christian and see that they are unreasonable. The vast majority of theistic arguments are only suited to advance deism, which allows for the existence of one, many, or infinitely many deities. While all of these arguments are flawed, they are at least deductive, whereas Christian-specific arguments are rarely, if ever, deductive. Proving to the satisfaction of an atheist that Jesus rose from the dead does not definitively disprove the existence of Zeus or Thor.

So if a Christian cannot argue beyond the existence of potentially many generic deities, then - just like the atheist - the Christian would be unreasonable to positively assert that Zeus, Thor, and the countless other deities definitively do not exist. Yet, Christian creed demands that this declarative statement is made.

Even if the Christian were to successfully prove the existence of a supreme deity, there is nothing that can be done to show lesser deities do not exist. And gods like Thor certainly are lesser deities, since they are not said to be omnipotent or omniscient. Their existence cannot be disproved.

This means that Christianity is fundamentally unreasonable. Christianity cannot be defended logically, but must be believed by faith. And faith is not a path to the truth: just look no further than Islam.

Humans made "Christianity," as it were, confusing and lame. God Himself never said there were no other "gods," He said that [if you want Him to be your god,] there can be no other gods before him.

There was a day when people understood the simple truth that we are not alone in this creation - that there are entities that are of higher class and constitution that humans on all sides. Even in the time when these entities allegedly walked the earth as gods - in the presence of other humans - the Hebrews still kept the Most High as their God.

In fact, the Exodus was a direct assault and show of power on behalf of the Most High God - specifically targeting the "power" of specific prominent gods of Egypt.

So yes, as you have said in many words, perhaps the colloquial god of the faiths are not the same gods people think they are - or, rather, the people do not know who their god actually is (sort of how one does not know what god s/he is putting trust listed on currency.)

 

[Silmarien]

I've read one translation of the Bhagavad Gita, and I bought a different translation with more commentary that I haven't started. There are things that don't quite fit together in my mind regarding freewill. My reading of the Gita suggested that we are metaphysical observers watching our bodies and brains do their thing. So why have a religious text telling people what choices to make when there is no freewill? I think it actually does make sense, but it is hard for me to conceptualize. The Gita is like a force acting on the reader who has no freewill... or something like that LOL It is hard for me to think about.

Haha! I have a copy that my brother picked up at some point, but the thing is 50 years old and looks about twice its age. I opened it, read about three words of the introduction, and shut it again. I'll probably need to find a version that's a bit more user-friendly. And less yellow.

 

[Dirk1540]

Humans made "Christianity," as it were, confusing and lame. God Himself never said there were no other "gods," He said that [if you want Him to be your god,] there can be no other gods before him.

There was a day when people understood the simple truth that we are not alone in this creation - that there are entities that are of higher class and constitution that humans on all sides. Even in the time when these entities allegedly walked the earth as gods - in the presence of other humans - the Hebrews still kept the Most High as their God.

In fact, the Exodus was a direct assault and show of power on behalf of the Most High God - specifically targeting the "power" of specific prominent gods of Egypt.

So yes, as you have said in many words, perhaps the colloquial god of the faiths are not the same gods people think they are - or, rather, the people do not know who their god actually is (sort of how one does not know what god s/he is putting trust listed on currency.)

Elohim (El Elyon) - God most high, the creator of created Elohim (sons of God, beney elohim). Similar to Elohim (El Elyon) creating humans. Correct my rusty memory if I'm wrong. I messed up the Hebrew a little while ago in another thread referring to this. I was looking brilliant after the post, until Silmarien called me out on the Hebrew lol.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Elohim (El Elyon) - God most high, the creator of created Elohim (sons of God, beney elohim). Similar to Elohim (El Elyon) creating humans. Correct my rusty memory if I'm wrong. I messed up the Hebrew a little while ago in another thread referring to this. I was looking brilliant after the post, until Silmarien called me out on the Hebrew lol.

I'd say you are right; I won't split hairs.

El Elyon - similar to saying "God 'God'est", or "God Highest/The Most High God."

However, this is not His name; it is His title. His actual name is the One you shouldn't use in vain. I wouldn't call my mother "Katherine," her name is "mom" to me. Likewise with His name. He is referenced as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; that is who I mean.

There is another principality that is considered "high," which is the god (unfortunately) some people worship when they say "god" - often without knowing it. And, like the real God of gods, it goes by many names and titles that have been reused and attached to "deity" in human history.

Too, too much to go into for now. But, I always empathize with atheist questions about an unreasonable god because they have a point. The entity many of us think is god is actually an image.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Believe it or not, I enjoyed those parts too. LOL It's a puzzle.

I very much agree. If you investigate the construction and juxtapose it to other traditions, some strange associations appear. Semitic peoples seem to stress Sacred spaces divided from Secular ones to a much greater extent than most other people do. The court structure of the Tabernacle and the accoutrements tell stories (even leaving out the possibility of an Elohist vs Priestly account thereof).
As an example, the Almond symbolism. We see Aaron's rod bearing almond flowers (and according to Jewish tradition, both bitter and sweet almonds depending) along with the probable influence of an almond tree on the structure of the Menorah. This is interesting as the Almond is an ambigious plant for YHWH to be associated with, a nutritious food but with bitter almonds, easily poisonous before centuries of sustained breeding later. Egyptian priests were poisoned by bitter almonds if found to have neglected their duties for instance and Pliny wrote of the difficulty of leaching the bitterness from them.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

...oh, I would NEVER say that you're incoherent, Silmarien.

Finally? I thought you had already read it all. Why was I think'n that?

Ecclesiastes and Job are good to start out with, but keep in mind that Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Job together kind of make up the essence of the Old 'Wisdom' literature. But, Ecclesiastes is one of my favorite books, too. (Go figure, right? It couldn't possible be because I'm into philosophy or anything. Na, that couldn't be it at all! )

Ecclesiastes is also the favorite book of my wife, and she has an interesting story in how it is this very book that (existentially speaking) played a part in her first becoming a Christian and even in her meeting me.

Also, have you seen the Bible Projects 6 minute animated video on Ecclesiastes? If not, it's awesome! I'll just post it here anyway, since it's one of my favorite little pieces of artsy biblical entertainment (and education, of sorts.)

Peace!

Ecclesiastes is one of my favourite books as well. My wife dislikes it though, especially when I say "All is Vanity!" - in her defence, I probably quote it too often. The Afrikaans is far more emotive and closer to the Hebrew; literally 'chasing after wind'. It has strong parallels to Stoic or Epicurian thought in places, although that may be confirmation bias on my part.

 

[Dirk1540]

Ecclesiastes is one of my favourite books as well. My wife dislikes it though

Wow that's the 1st time I've ever heard of a person not liking Ecclesiastes.

especially when I say "All is Vanity!" - in her defence, I probably quote it too often.

Ok that explains it. I'm no stranger to the torment of listening to you go on & on. Lol just kidding.

 

[com7fy8]

So if a Christian cannot argue beyond the existence of potentially many generic deities, then - just like the atheist - the Christian would be unreasonable to positively assert that Zeus, Thor, and the countless other deities definitively do not exist. Yet, Christian creed demands that this declarative statement is made.

I don't even spend time on making any assertions about Zeus and others. But there could be demonic beings who have somehow gotten humans to give them these names, for all I know.

But I am mainly about if and how I experience God and God proves Himself to us. One can claim some logic for God, but who does the person really consider God to be? Who and how is that person becoming because of God in the person?

Even if the Christian were to successfully prove the existence of a supreme deity, there is nothing that can be done to show lesser deities do not exist. And gods like Thor certainly are lesser deities, since they are not said to be omnipotent or omniscient. Their existence cannot be disproved.

But God knows. And God is personal, interested in personally sharing with us and proving Himself to us in His love >

"Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us." (Romans 5:5)

This means that Christianity is fundamentally unreasonable. Christianity cannot be defended logically, but must be believed by faith.

I go with how our Apostle Paul says we need "faith working through love." (in Galatians 5:6) This is what I am busy with. I don't know enough about what is considered to be Christian logic, so that I could say it can or can not prove God.

But . . . just because you have not found any logic which proves God, this does not prove that there is no such logic I would say that you can only say that the people you have shared with have not given you proof. Even if there is logic, most of all we need how God proves Himself in us, by how He changes a person "from the power of Satan to God" (in Acts 26:18), and changes us into the image of Jesus. And this includes how Jesus gives us rest for our souls >

"'Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.'" (Matthew 11:29)

And I have been told that I could be just making an imaginary friend, getting my own self to experience that there is Jesus. And, of course, I can't prove with logic that I am not. But . . . I did not ever think of changing myself to become more and more gentle and quiet and experiencing personal sharing with God in His gentle and quiet love >

"rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God." (1 Peter 3:4)

Yes, this is right in the Bible, and I did read this and think about how I needed to have a "gentle and quiet spirit" . . . how this would be so better than the turmoil and confusion which was in me. But I did not get myself to change, like this. Can I prove this? I would say it is reasonable that humans produced by chance developments of atoms and molecules would not naturally be selected to write an idea about having a "gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God." Considering all which humans' attention could be busy with doing, I consider it is reasonable or logical that they would not somehow come up with the idea of there being God and pleasing Him, if He did not exist. How, ever, could physical molecules, if there were only physical existence, produce themselves into supposing there is some Being who is non-material and personally loving and sharing?

If you are busy with survival of the fittest, finding food and security, how do you come up with this? Yet, this is in God's word, and there are religious and philosophical people who are not Christians, but they have somehow gotten some realization that it is good to be deeply quiet. I can see how ones have at times needed to stop and be quiet, in order to not be discovered by some dangerous creature; so they might start to think that in quietness is safety . . . not always and necessarily in fleeing and fighting; but then they would need to somehow get to experiencing, too, that there is God who is pleased by our being gentle and quiet in His love. We need for God, in our quietness, to share with us > Christian quietness is not only what we produce, ourselves, but this comes with being in personal sharing with God in His love.

And yes there are counterfeits. I can produce my own version. Always I need how God makes the difference.

And faith is not a path to the truth: just look no further than Islam.

Well, Christian faith is "faith working through love." (in Galatians 5:6) A number of people claiming to be Christians have not exactly been about "faith working through love."

So . . . then . . . if you say what you have found Christians to be doing . . . who have you been sharing with? Our own character can have us filtering out people and things according to our purposes and motives. There are things I hear and read, which ones say are true about Christians; yet, their description is about what I find to be counterfeit. In case a person is depending on only logic for belief, this is counterfeit. I think there is logic which might help . . . but what kind of logic? "Logic" might not be the right word; but maybe I should say "understanding" what we are observing and experiencing.

 

[KCfromNC]

Seems like you didn't even read what I wrote. Again.

Thanks for the substantive reply.

And yet the android must be conscious because we don't know that it's not?

If you want to assert this it might make sense to back it up with something.

You're very confused. Comparing materialism and supernaturalism is like comparing apples and oranges. There are plenty of naturalists out there who are not materialists.

Please point me to non-materialist approaches neurologists have found successful. Peer-reviewed medical journals or textbooks used in accredited medical schools, please.

 

[KCfromNC]

did you just make an argument that materialism is not practical?

No I was just pointing out the standard you brought up for determining consciousness isn't actually used by anyone ever.

 

[Silmarien]

Please point me to non-materialist approaches neurologists have found successful. Peer-reviewed medical journals or textbooks used in accredited medical schools, please.

Perhaps @Quid est Veritas? can help you, as this is his field, not mine. But how about psychology as a field? Reductionist materialism is dangerous, because all of psychology gets reduced to neuroscience and society at large decides that drugs are the answer to everything. Take a look at this article.

Problems also creep in when neuroscientists make unfounded materialistic assumptions based on flawed experiments. The Benjamin Libet experiment is a prime example, and one we've certainly got scientific reason to doubt now. The whole debate over free will continues to be a disaster zone of metaphysical assumptions based on an obsolete 19th century view of reality. Not assuming materialism is different than assuming non-materialism. It shouldn't take 30 years to reverse bad science.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You were actually parroting what reductionists really do say, so I assumed you really knew their arguments! I find the whole project extremely unscientific and unphilosophical, unbearably arrogant, and devoid of any real interest. Trying to explain all of reality in terms of a simplest common denominator when we have a very limited understanding of how the universe works is a fool's errand.

But yeah, I spend an inordinate amount of time on philosophy of mind these days, since I think this is where naturalism really collapses into incoherence. It's very easy to be a non-practicing theist, but when I switched over to practicing, agnosticism crept back in and competing worldviews had to be eliminated.



From a metaphysical angle... I'm not sure. Much of philosophy of mind seems to be more post-metaphysics. And my knowledge of the intricacies involved is mostly gleaned from philosophers' blogs rather than full-length books. I've only glanced through what's available in the book preview, but William Hasker's The Emergent Self might be a good option for you. It seems to be a good rundown on all the options in play and his own conclusions are a theologically informed emergentism.

...now I want this book but I've already bought four in the last week or so.



Yep, precisely this! Polkinghorne actually reintroduced me to the field, despite being a physicist himself. I like his dual-aspect monism, though I seem to be moving more in the direction of emergent dualism myself.

Hi Silmarien,

Ok. I just finished reading William Hasker's essay, so I think I have a basic idea about the things you've been talking about lately, or at least about a few of them. His essay has taken me beyond Cartesian Dualism and Basic Materialism and given me Christian Materialism, Emergent Materialism and Emergent Dualism to think about. (Any others?)

Obviously, I'm not familiar with all of this anywhere near where you are, but I'm trying to think about how Jewish, pre-Christian views of unified human nature fit into all of this. I'm tempted toward a Christian Materialism (as I understand it from what Hasker has said briefly in the essay), but Emergent Materialism provides some explanatory power that the other positions do not.

So, I don't know yet. Interesting stuff, though.

 

[Silmarien]

Hi Silmarien,

Ok. I just finished reading William Hasker's essay, so I think I have a basic idea about the things you've been talking about lately, or at least about a few of them. His essay has taken me beyond Cartesian Dualism and Basic Materialism and given me Christian Materialism, Emergent Materialism and Emergent Dualism to think about. (Any others?)

Obviously, I'm not familiar with all of this anywhere near where you are, but I'm trying to think about how Jewish, pre-Christian views of unified human nature fit into all of this. I'm tempted toward a Christian Materialism (as I understand it from what Hasker has said briefly in the essay), but Emergent Materialism provides some explanatory power that the other positions do not.

So, I don't know yet. Interesting stuff, though.

Well, to start with, there's substance dualism and property dualism. Substance dualism is largely linked to Cartesian dualism these days, but there are other forms like Thomistic dualism (though I know nothing about it except for the crazy terms they use). Property dualism is more popular right now, and includes emergentism and a handful of other views, often held and defended by a single philosopher.

Then you've got your monisms. Idealism, physicalism, neutral monism, dual-aspect monism, and probably others I don't know about. Panpsychism is a personal favorite.

Hasker distinguishes between emergent materialism and emergent dualism? Emergent materialism is a form of dualism, so unless he's distancing himself from the materialists, I don't really understand the distinction.

What do you like about Christian materialism?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, to start with, there's substance dualism and property dualism. Substance dualism is largely linked to Cartesian dualism these days, but there are other forms like Thomistic dualism (though I know nothing about it except for the crazy terms they use). Property dualism is more popular right now, and includes emergentism and a handful of other views, often held and defended by a single philosopher.

Ok. That's good know. I'll look these concepts up for further details.​

Then you've got your monisms. Idealism, physicalism, neutral monism, dual-aspect monism, and probably others I don't know about. Panpsychism is a personal favorite.

...AND i THOUGHT EPISTEMOLOGY and AXIOLOGY WERE COMPLICATED!!!!!! (What was that thing Susan Powers used to say in her work-out videos?)

Hasker distinguishes between emergent materialism and emergent dualism? Emergent materialism is a form of dualism, so unless he's distancing himself from the materialists, I don't really understand the distinction.

Yes, Hasker makes a distinction between the two, and of emergent materialism he says:

...emergent materialism is actually rather similar to [basic, non-emergent] dualism in that it acknowledges a whole range of distinctively mental properties quite different from the properties normally ascribe to material things and does not try to explain or “reduce” the mental properties in terms of ordinary physical properties. The difference from [basic] dualism is that emergent materialism does not invoke a soul, specially created by God, as the locus of these mental properties. Instead the mental properites are properties of the material configuration itself, but properties of this very special (emergent) kind, which are not found in simpler arrangements of physical stuff. (p. 253)​

Then he goes on to explain two or three of the major problems with emergent materialism, and takes his subject matter then into a talk about emergent dualism, which as he states, has more explanatory power.

Reference
Hasker, William. (2006). Philosophical contributions to theological anthropology. In J.K. Beilby Editor, For Faith and Clarity (pp. 243-260). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

What do you like about Christian materialism?

Well, for one, I started my philosopohical journey as a kid (or young teenager) by way of Carl Sagan's COSMOS series, and ever since then I've had the suspicion that the universe is what it is and not much more, and this has been a separate consideration from my youthful (but naive and very elementary) ideas about religion that I also had as a kid.

Later, when I fully encountered the Bible at age 17, I became newly aware that there is some “thing” which Christians call a 'soul,' and that somehow, I had one of these things apart from my basic biological nature. Unfortunately, nothing is simple, and it wasn't too long after that in my study of the Bible that I came across the earlier Jewish viewpoint on mind and body, and I found that early Judaism saw the body, spirit and soul as a unified concept (as explained in the brief article below—something of which I'm sure you already know, but here it is anyway).

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/body-soul/

Obviously, even at that time, and with just these considerations alone, it was enough to make my head spin. And I have wrestled with this stuff ever since, trying to decipher between a simple or dual type view on all of this.

Then, if that wasn't bad enough, I took my philosophy degree and of course, I hit upon some of Plato's 'forms' along with ideas in Descartes' Meditations. I also come across Howard J. Van Till's theory about “The Fully Gifted Creation,” which seems to take Sagan's view and add a pinch of God to it, although indirectly and without what seems to be much, if any, dualistic fanfare. I also have a book by the Christian philosopher Ronald Nash where he states that Paul was “not” a dualist. [Time to throw my hands in the air!!!]

Hence, to make a long story shorter, I still feel that the earlier Jewish view somehow fits “better” with a materialist (even Pauline) view of the world. But, being that my understanding of some of this isn't very developed and I'm still sorting things out (maybe more I'm confused, even), I have a difficult time thinking cogently about ...”spooky dualities” or “Immortal souls (...as in, it's all Greek to me, “PPPLLLBBBTTTT” [baby talk]). And thus, assuming I even understand any of this right, Christian Materialism just sounds more....how do I say this …. “realistic.” But, what do I know? I mean really. What do I know at this point? {Now, give me another spoon of that Gerber carrot mush!}

So, any ideas (or comments, critiques, filibusters) on this, Silmarien?

 

[KCfromNC]

Perhaps @Quid est Veritas? can help you, as this is his field, not mine. But how about psychology as a field? Reductionist materialism is dangerous, because all of psychology gets reduced to neuroscience and society at large decides that drugs are the answer to everything. Take a look at this article.

An opinion piece in a newspaper by a philosopher? Not exactly the best primary source showing actual neurologists successfully using non-materialist ideas.

But can you identify which non-materialist approach he's saying it successfully used by neurologists? I didn't see any mention of it in the article.

Problems also creep in when neuroscientists make unfounded materialistic assumptions based on flawed experiments. The Benjamin Libet experiment is a prime example, and one we've certainly got scientific reason to doubt now. The whole debate over free will continues to be

Confusing free will with subjective conscious experience isn't really doing much to inspire confidence either.

 

[Silmarien]

An opinion piece in a newspaper by a philosopher? Not exactly the best primary source showing actual neurologists successfully using non-materialist ideas.

But can you identify which non-materialist approach he's saying it successfully used by neurologists? I didn't see any mention of it in the article.

There is no such thing as materialist and non-materialist approaches. Materialism is an assumption--it has nothing to do with the way experiments are carried out and everything to do with how they are interpreted. It's almost impossible not to import assumptions into the way you read things, but science really only progresses when it moves beyond that.

I think most people don't understand what non-materialism even is, though. It's not theism, it's not spiritualism, it's not even the insistence that the mind is independent of the brain. Here's an actual neuroscientist who talks about the topic, if you would prefer that to a philosopher. (I am not sure if he's a naturalist non-materialist, but he's not a religious one.)

And here's an interesting abstract which criticizes reductionist materialism. (Their characterization of dualism is a strawman since what they refer to as "non-reductive materialism" is effectively property dualism in disguise, but conceptual confusion set aside, this is what I would consider naturalistic non-materialist science.)

Confusing free will with subjective conscious experience isn't really doing much to inspire confidence either.

The topic was materialism and neuroscience, not subjective experience. You're the one who asked the question in the first place, so please keep up. Materialism ultimately denies both free will and the reality of consciousness.

 

[Silmarien]

Hence, to make a long story shorter, I still feel that the earlier Jewish view somehow fits “better” with a materialist (even Pauline) view of the world. But, being that my understanding of some of this isn't very developed and I'm still sorting things out (maybe more I'm confused, even), I have a difficult time thinking cogently about ...”spooky dualities” or “Immortal souls (...as in, it's all Greek to me, “PPPLLLBBBTTTT” [baby talk]). And thus, assuming I even understand any of this right, Christian Materialism just sounds more....how do I say this …. “realistic.” But, what do I know? I mean really. What do I know at this point? {Now, give me another spoon of that Gerber carrot mush!}

So, any ideas (or comments, critiques, filibusters) on this, Silmarien?

I really don't know enough about substance dualism to say just how well it fits in with the modern scientific understanding--I have serious doubts, but I also only know the Cartesian model. But yeah, I'd agree that none of it is terribly biblical, though I'm not sure materialism in its current form is any better. It doesn't view body, spirit, and soul as a unified concept, but says instead that only body exists. I imagine Christian materialism would be a bit different, but you'd need to explain it to me first. I haven't read Hasker.

Dual-aspect monism sounds closest to the biblical view to me, since it implies that the brain has both physical and mental properties rather than that the mind exists as a separate entity from the body. It seems to take the Cartesian divide, collapse it, and return us to a more integrated picture of mind and body. As far as I'm concerned, the error of materialism is that it still relies upon the very dualism that it critiques, so if we're going to reject Descartes (and we should), might as well do so fully.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I really don't know enough about substance dualism to say just how well it fits in with the modern scientific understanding--I have serious doubts, but I also only know the Cartesian model. But yeah, I'd agree that none of it is terribly biblical, though I'm not sure materialism in its current form is any better. It doesn't view body, spirit, and soul as a unified concept, but says instead that only body exists. I imagine Christian materialism would be a bit different, but you'd need to explain it to me first. I haven't read Hasker.

...I just pulled up this little 'cheat-page' from Wikipedia, and it seems that substance dualism is basic, Cartesian dualism, while property dualism is a “sub-branch of emergent dualism.” And from what I can see of the rest of this introductory material [**cough**], I would've done better to have opened Pandora's Box. Now, I see why I shyed away from metaphysics for the most part.

Anyway, from what Hasker says, Christian Materialists (CM) don't by any necessity affirm that “everything that exists is material.” Nor does this mean that CM are in any way Naturalists. So, these two points alone seem to say that something is definitely different than from what our secular compatriots would believe about the qualities of the world. Then, Hasker says something which almost sounds Aristotelian, that CM believe God is Spirit, has created the nature and physical properties of the world and “acts causally on things and persons within the world.” (p. 251). ...and I'm going to stop there for now because that is already a lot for me to think about. The point I'd like to bring in is that, from my initial understanding, the duality that might exist here isn't between the mind and the human body, but between the human body, including it's brain...and the total Spirit of God. What do you think so far?

Dual-aspect monism sounds closest to the biblical view to me, since it implies that the brain has both physical and mental properties rather than that the mind exists as a separate entity from the body. It seems to take the Cartesian divide, collapse it, and return us to a more integrated picture of mind and body. As far as I'm concerned, the error of materialism is that it still relies upon the very dualism that it critiques, so if we're going to reject Descartes (and we should), might as well do so fully.

That's a good point, and seems to parallel what I was thinking about above...at least to some extent. Although , I'll have to read Hasker closer on this. Personally, I like this monism idea from Polkinghorne you've brought up. It too sounds like a candidate for consideration.

 

[Silmarien]

The point I'd like to bring in is that, from my initial understanding, the duality that might exist here isn't between the mind and the human body, but between the human body, including it's brain...and the total Spirit of God. What do you think so far?

That sounds a bit like one of my favorite dualistic positions, though one I thought would have been heretical from a Christian perspective, so... maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Or... maybe not. Basically the transcendentalist approach, by which the brain is operating like a radio antenna and channeling something external instead of itself producing it. Maybe processing it to form something new. It's often taken in a very pantheistic direction, but you could also toy with the idea that there is an individual soul which is produced over time. I don't believe in ensoulment, but this type of approach is intriguing.

You could take it in a Platonic direction and posit some passive Form of Mind engrained within the nature of reality, but I suppose you could also look at it as another aspect of God actively sustaining everything in being. I'm not sure if that's the sort of thing you're talking about with Christian materialism, though?

 

[KCfromNC]

There is no such thing as materialist and non-materialist approaches. Materialism is an assumption

Earlier in the thread you said there were arguments in favor of materialism, but now you're saying it is instead an assumption. Weird how hard it is to get a consistent story.

I think most people don't understand what non-materialism even is, though. It's not theism, it's not spiritualism, it's not even the insistence that the mind is independent of the brain.

I get suspicious when people can't just explain what something is and instead have to explain why attempts to define it keep failing. It is almost as if it isn't really anything at all - kinda like the supernatural.

Here's an actual neuroscientist who talks about the topic, if you would prefer that to a philosopher.

I tried to make it through the first few answers but there's not much there. Lots of hope that things might change in the next few decades but nothing with actual results - except for his faith that telepathy is real, of course. Was there anything specific in the interview you want to discuss? Peer-revieiwed experimental results using whatever non-materialist approach you think he's in favor of would be ideal.

And here's an interesting abstract which criticizes reductionist materialism.

That's nice, but the question isn't about reductionist materialism being right or wrong. It was about actual results from non-materialist approaches to studying the mind.

The topic was materialism and neuroscience

Yep. Still waiting for anything showing that non-materialist assumptions generate useful results.

Materialism ultimately denies both free will and the reality of consciousness.

This is a lie.