10.22.07

the inconsistency of philosophical materialism

Posted in Atheistic Errors at 10:25 am by Brian Schuettler

Philosophical Materialism is based on the concept that the Universe is solely a material dimension and that all phenomena (i.e. reality) in the Universe are strictly the result of the material interactions of the separate physical ‘bits’ comprising it - all operating in accordance with ‘natural’, immutable laws  of the universe and not exhibiting, or being the subject of, ‘consciousness’. In other words, the universe was considered to be strictly deterministic and causal in operation - a gigantic ’super machine’ so to speak

Philosophical materialism specifically rejects the concept of an essential wholeness or interconnectedness between all the ‘parts’ comprising the Universe, let alone of an overlighting ‘consciousness’ pervading that universe. Religion and spirituality are considered to be just “superstitious nonsense” of a bygone era. Non-physical phenomena which cannot be ‘objectively’ verified are considered to be “unreal” or “non-existent” and “all in the mind”.

Philosophical materialism postulates that all consciousness (including human consciousness) is a direct result of the workings of a physical ‘brain’ and as such physical ‘death’ results in the destruction of the consciousness associated with that physical body. In other words there is nothing beyond death and as such “death is final”.

Because Philosophical Materialism totally rejects out of hand the concept of a ‘Creative Principle’ overlighting the existence of the Universe, it relies almost entirely on Darwin’s Theory of Evolution to explain how life began on Earth and subsequently evolved. In essence, the respective theories rely on each other as their ‘raison d’etre’. (i.e. reason to be)

Philosophical Materialism is at the core of western scientific methodology and with the apparent success of that methodology in explaining much of the known universe (as defined by Philosophical Materialism) and the resulting ‘invention’ of modern technology, the philosophy has come to define Western civilisation - imbuing that culture with a materialistic view of reality which few question and which now pervades most cultures.-Alex Paterson

Given that nothing beyond the material universe can be understood to be “real” the question arises as to how so many, indeed all, subscribers to philosophical materialism can use language to explain themselves and their “reality” that is so obviously outside of their “reality”. Words like truth, beauty, love, fellowship, social values, empathy cannot have any objective meaning within such a mindset. An interesting article in today’s First Things by Dr. John D. Martin entitled An Alien Grace:

The existence of a transcendent moral law, however, is exactly the notion that such intellectually consistent materialists as William Provine and Francis Crick categorically reject, in a demonstration of philosophical coherence rare for materialists. If materialism is true, Provine admits, there is no good and evil—or, in this context, no reason to prefer the Doctor to the Daleks. Even the preference for one’s own species has no rightful place in a philosophically consistent materialist’s mind. As Richard Dawkins has noted, “Universal love and the welfare of the species . . . are concepts that simply do not make evolutionary sense.” Dr. Who knows that evolution is a “fact, fact, fact!” but still—unnaturally and inexplicably—he cares for another species. Ours, as it happens.

If the materialist account of man’s origins, nature, and fate is correct, then James D. Watson, co-discoverer of DNA, is right to characterize “Love your enemies” as one of the “two stupidest sentences” in the English language. (“The meek shall inherit the Earth” claims the other spot.) In a materialist cosmos, there is simply no justification for showing mercy to an enemy, except possibly out of fear of retaliation if you don’t.

That the protagonist of BBC’s flagship science fiction series so dramatically rejects these truths is remarkable. Throughout most of its long history, the Dr. Who series has operated as a sort of stealth propaganda mechanism for philosophical materialism. Yet it seems unable to accept the full implications of that philosophy.

> http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=877

09.10.07

Ain’t That Right, Mr. Hitchens?

Posted in Atheistic Errors at 12:20 pm by Brian Schuettler

” The effectiveness of Hitchens’ book is also undermined by the large number of errors it contains, many so glaring that they will be picked up by even a casual reader with some knowledge of history and theology.  The Gnostic gospels are not of the “same period and provenance” as the canonical Gospels, but were written several decades later; the “synoptic” Gospels are not synonymous with the “canonical” Gospels; “Q” is an assumed source for the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, but not Mark and John; the process of deciding which books to include in the New Testament was not one in which “many a life was horribly lost;” “the Vulgate” was what the Reformers were trying to get away from, not what they were attempting to translate the Bible into; Luther declared “Here I stand, I can do no other” at Worms, not Wittenberg; John Adams was not a slaveholder, nor was T. S. Eliot a Catholic; the amount of wood from relics of the True Cross would not be sufficient if gathered together to recreate the Cross, much less create a “thousand – foot cross;” Christians have never practiced animal sacrifice, nor did the Arian heresy teach that the Father and the Son were “two incarnations of the same person;” the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption were promulgated in 1854 and 1950, not 1852 and 1951; the Lateran Treaty was signed seven years after Mussolini marched on Rome, not after he “had barely seized power;” Maryland never prohibited Protestants from holding office, and condoms are not a “necessary” condition for preventing the transmission of AIDS, or else celibates would all be infected.  Given all these errors (and many more), there is no reason to accept anything Hitchens writes on his own authority, and he offers no authority other than his own for most of what he writes.

Hitchens’ errors extend even to fields in which he claims to be an expert.  This self-professed admirer of Evelyn Waugh describes Sebastian Flyte of Brideshead Revisited as being “heir to an old Catholic nobility.” In fact, Sebastian was the younger son, with little prospect of inheritance, and the Flytes became Catholic only when Lord Marchmain converted to marry his wife.  As luck would have it, the very paragraph following the one sentence Hitchens quotes from Brideshead begins: “Sebastian always heard his mass, which was ill-attended.  Brideshead was not an old established centre of Catholicism.” All the humor in Hitchens’ book is similarly unintentional, such as reading about Christianity’s supposed obsession with sex in a book with page after page discoursing on such topics as the evil of virginity, the horror of circumcision, and “the hideous consequences of the masturbation taboo.”

But what of Hitchens’ major arguments?  Is there a persuasive core buried beneath the errors and falsehoods?  Even Hitchens admits there is not.  The book eschews philosophical argument in favor of anecdote, with the reader offered a parade of horrible religious extremists to contemplate.  But such argument does not prove that religion is false or that God does not exist.  As Hitchens acknowledges, “I do not say that if I catch a Buddhist priest stealing all the offerings left by the simple folk at his temple, Buddhism is thereby discredited.” Exactly.  The fact that some horrible things have been done in the name of religion, and that some repulsive men have professed religious belief, does not disprove the existence of God, or show that religion is a malign force. ”

Hitchen’s Hubris:  http://www.takimag.com/site/article/hitchens_hubris/

Is there an editor or researcher in the room?

« Previous entries ·