Science leads materialist atheist to reject atheism

[BobRyan]

Why Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor Stopped Being a Materialist Atheist | Evolution News

There we find this statement

"Despite what a lot of materialist philosophers say, materialists often pretend that they are defenders of science, but when one looks with any kind of scrutiny at what modern science is telling us about nature, materialism is a completely inadequate framework to understand any of that. As just as a simple example, one of the basic principles of the materialist way of understanding nature is the concept of causal closure. What materialists say is that in nature, every physical effect has a physical cause … (00:08:38)."​

So it always comes back to that - how much "talent" is there in rocks, dust, gas, sunlight... to eventually come up with a human brain that then understands the history of its own self as rocks,dust,gas, sunlight.... creates computers and sends probes into deep space.

== and to avoid some "spin doctoring" that others might want to add ===

My argument would be that -- it appears that the observations in nature that he was noticing - were opening his eyes to the science facts regarding the level of complexity involved in a human brain - and exposing the lack of explanatory power in material atheism to account for the level of complexity in the human brain that science was exposing

==============

Stanley Miller and life coming from a "lifeless rock" interview and context.
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/...LoaVtAfamX8-1629298708-0-gqNtZGzNAeWjcnBszQMR

 

[BobRyan]

All of evolutions problems and all of the atheist's problems "could" be chalked up to "well our science just is not good enough yet... our discoveries not good enough yet" and one could play that game for an unending number of life times ...

Or more likely - it really is wrong, it relies on the wrong answer for explaining what we see around us today.

==== noticing a few things that "exist" in that linked article in the OP -

"In college, I was a biochemistry major and I must admit that even when I was an atheist, I had some questions about the adequacy of a materialist view to explain nature. For example in biochemistry, I just couldn’t understand how these incredibly elegant and complex biochemical pathways could simply actually be the result of atoms and molecules kind of bumping into each other. (00:04:34)"

"In medical school I fell in love with the brain, and I felt that neuroanatomy and neurophysiology was really the philosopher’s stone for understanding the human mind, for understanding human existence,"

"I have gotten involved in quite a few public discussions and debates about various aspects of science and various aspects of metaphysics, particularly as regards philosophy of the mind and neuroscience as regards Darwinism and evolution,"

"My problems with materialism go back a long ways. I felt early on, even when I was an atheist, that materialism had a tough time explaining biology. That there were so many examples of incredibly elegant purposes in biology…

"It’s become very clear to me as time has gone on, that materialism also cannot explain the mind"
===============================

Quotes provided because "I just know" someone here will want to blame all that on me at some point as if I am the materialist atheist that converted to Christianity -- I am the messenger (starting this thread) who does not object to the point this guy is making.

hmmm

... his observations in nature - his growing appreciation for what science is able to show about the complexity of biology and the human mind - lead him to conclude that the origins story he had been holding to in material atheism lacked explanatory power that would be needed for the vastly complex result that new advances in science was revealing as it made ever more detailed observations in nature possible.

yeah... "that"

 

[Bradskii]

Or more likely - it really is wrong, it relies on the wrong answer for explaining what we see around us today.

I'll agree with that. Will you do the same?

 

[Yttrium]

All of evolutions problems and all of the atheist's problems "could" be chalked up to "well our science just is not good enough yet... our discoveries not good enough yet" and one could play that game for an unending number of life times ...

Or more likely - it really is wrong, it relies on the wrong answer for explaining what we see around us today.

False dichotomy. Science is a tool for everybody, most certainly including religious people.

 

[loveofourlord]

All of evolutions problems and all of the atheist's problems "could" be chalked up to "well our science just is not good enough yet... our discoveries not good enough yet" and one could play that game for an unending number of life times ...

Or more likely - it really is wrong, it relies on the wrong answer for explaining what we see around us today.

What evolution problems? You mean PRATT's? it's one of the best understood science.

 

[pitabread]

how much "talent" is there in rocks, dust, gas, sunlight...

That is a gross misinterpretation / strawman of the subject in question.

We did go over this repeatedly in the science subforum, but I suppose it didn't take.

 

[pitabread]

Just noticed this is a DI write-up. That explains a few things.

And reading the full piece, it seems like little more than personal incredulity at work here:

In college, I was a biochemistry major and I must admit that even when I was an atheist, I had some questions about the adequacy of a materialist view to explain nature. For example in biochemistry, I just couldn’t understand how these incredibly elegant and complex biochemical pathways could simply actually be the result of atoms and molecules kind of bumping into each other.

...

It’s become very clear to me as time has gone on, that materialism also cannot explain the mind. I think we can get into that in some detail. But it’s also clear that materialism fails miserably in explaining physics. 20th and 21st century physics is completely inconceivable from a materialist framework.​

 

[NxNW]

Another flimsy 'first cause' argument? Another example of failing to understand that mysteries are not miracles.

 

[BobRyan]

I'll agree with that. Will you do the same?

Agreed! when something is wrong - it gives wrong answers.

The problem of getting dust,gas,rocks and sunlight to come up with a human brain over time - is an obvious one.

 

[NxNW]

The problem of getting dust,gas,rocks and sunlight to come up with a human brain over time - is an obvious one.

I'm unaware of anyone making a claim that such a thing happened.

 

[BobRyan]

Just noticed this is a DI write-up. That explains a few things.

This first thing it explains is "willingness let this information out into the public"

And reading the full piece, it seems like little more than personal incredulity at work here:

In college, I was a biochemistry major and I must admit that even when I was an atheist, I had some questions about the adequacy of a materialist view to explain nature. For example in biochemistry, I just couldn’t understand how these incredibly elegant and complex biochemical pathways could simply actually be the result of atoms and molecules kind of bumping into each other.

​

I agree that it is the science revelation of layer of complexity on top of layer of complexity that a neurosurgeon would be prone to appreciate - and then having to always refer that back to "stuff that rocks,dust,gas, and sunlight can do all by themselves" - as some point that party line started to appear weak to that material atheist .

It’s become very clear to me as time has gone on, that materialism also cannot explain the mind. I think we can get into that in some detail. But it’s also clear that materialism fails miserably in explaining physics. 20th and 21st century physics is completely inconceivable from a materialist framework.

Here again what he calls "very clear" I have at times called "incredibly obvious"

 

[BobRyan]

Another flimsy 'first cause' argument? Another example of failing to understand that mysteries are not miracles.

Stop and think about that for a second - couldn't "any ol' wrong answer" adopt that same "out"?

 

[BobRyan]

I'm unaware of anyone making a claim that such a thing happened.

Hmmm... shall we go to the classic "abiogenesis" experiment and the "lifeless rock" statement we find in a certain interview with one of those scientists?

 

[pitabread]

I agree that it is the science revelation of layer of complexity on top of layer of complexity that a neurosurgeon would be prone to appreciate - and then having to always refer that back to "stuff that rocks,dust,gas, and sunlight can do all by themselves" - as some point that party line started to appear weak to that material atheist .

Like I said, we've been over this. You're just strawmanning.

And since it didn't take the last time we discussed this, there is probably little point going through it again.

Here again what he calls "very clear" I have at times called "incredibly obvious"

It's an appeal to feelings, which is the running theme in that write-up.

 

[durangodawood]

Why Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor Stopped Being a Materialist Atheist | Evolution News

There we find this statement

"Despite what a lot of materialist philosophers say, materialists often pretend that they are defenders of science, but when one looks with any kind of scrutiny at what modern science is telling us about nature, materialism is a completely inadequate framework to understand any of that. As just as a simple example, one of the basic principles of the materialist way of understanding nature is the concept of causal closure. What materialists say is that in nature, every physical effect has a physical cause … (00:08:38)."​

So it always comes back to that - how much "talent" is there in rocks, dust, gas, sunlight... to eventually come up with a human brain that then understands the history of its own self as rocks,dust,gas, sunlight.... creates computers and sends probes into deep space.

If the material origins of consciousness are too mind-blowing for you, why in the world would you leap to an explanation thats even more mind-blowing?

 

[BobRyan]

That is a gross misinterpretation / strawman of the subject in question.

We did go over this repeatedly in the science subforum, but I suppose it didn't take.

That's where I show one of the atheist scientists involved in the classic abiogenesis experiment - responding enthusiastically to the "lifeless rock" characterization even as he points out that imagineering a solution where life life to hitchhikes it's way here is not really a good speculative solution.

 

[BobRyan]

Like I said, we've been over this. You're just strawmanning. .

If only I was the author of this article - then we could ignore all the details in the article itself and simply "blame it on me".. I agree that would be a pretty sweet solution.

 

[FireDragon76]

Why Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor Stopped Being a Materialist Atheist | Evolution News

There we find this statement

"Despite what a lot of materialist philosophers say, materialists often pretend that they are defenders of science, but when one looks with any kind of scrutiny at what modern science is telling us about nature, materialism is a completely inadequate framework to understand any of that. As just as a simple example, one of the basic principles of the materialist way of understanding nature is the concept of causal closure. What materialists say is that in nature, every physical effect has a physical cause … (00:08:38)."​

So it always comes back to that - how much "talent" is there in rocks, dust, gas, sunlight... to eventually come up with a human brain that then understands the history of its own self as rocks,dust,gas, sunlight.... creates computers and sends probes into deep space.

Why would it require talent? That shows a misunderstanding of how natural selection works.

The nature and origin of consciousness are mysteries that evoke wonder and curiosity in some, but why should we assume that ancient stories about a bronez-age mesopotamian religion and its anthropomorphic, all-too-human deity are the answer?

 

[BobRyan]

If the material origins of consciousness are too mind-blowing for you, why in the world would you leap to an explanation thats even more mind-blowing?

1. wake-up call 1. I am not the author of the article or the materialist atheist admitting that science led him out of atheism and into Christianity.

2. An infinite actor producing a finite yet highly complex result (human brain) - is not a all "mind blowing" -- but a less-than-nothing start point with all the properties to produce a human mind... yeah.... mind blowing ... even to that materialist atheist

 

[BobRyan]

Why would it require talent? That shows a misunderstanding of how natural selection works.

The nature and origin of consciousness are mysteries

Can't all "wrong answers" appeal to that out?

For the materialist atheist -- he needs a pathway from "lifeless rock" to "human brain" and needs to be able to call that "science" and not religion or imagineering.