Quote:
Originally Posted by psyang
A big hurdle with the materialist point of view is that it removes free will. If you are a materialist, your phrase "I don't see why you think this" becomes nonsensical. peter12 has responded because that is how the confluence of stimuli and atoms have combined. He had no other choice. Rationally, it removes any possibility of argument.
While I don't fully support peter12's position, I think I understand what he is getting at. When he talks of loneliness and wondering, he Basically, the argument is that neurons,, on their own, must act in a particular way. And from that, that free thought requires something more - a soul, or whatever.
|
This is the fundemantal problem with Christianity, and why it has gotten in the way of science.
In order for Heaven and Hell, and the Resurrection, to make any sense, there must be a 'soul', something beyond the physical chemistry of our bodies.
But everything that science and evolution teach us disputes this. The argument that animals don't feel emotions is silly - anyone who observes them for any period of time will refute the notion. However, the need for a soul, demands that we must separate humans from the other animals.
The result is arguments such as the free will issue. Why can't neurons generate free thought?
What is the difference between free thought and life itself? The chemicals in a live cell don't equate to life, yet life exists.
Either
everything goes back to 'because that is Gods will', or
everything does not.
Continuing to draw new lines in the sand, after science removes the prior lines, is not a valid argument.