Despite being an atheist, some of the best deconstruction of materialism can be found in Hume’s witting. Without an acceptance of transcendental properties such as logic, reason, or morality (all of which can only be justified through a personal deity), the basis for so-called knowledge is defeated by the materialist’s own axioms.
“Thought/Logic is predicated upon empirically verifiable chemical reactions.”
How delightfully ironic! For the very assertion that thought and logic rest on chemical reactions presents a paradox it cannot escape. Like a serpent devouring its own tail, this assertion is caught in a self-destructive loop.
We can measure the brain's activity, yes; we can map neurons and chart their responses. But can we measure the essence of a thought? Can we dissect the purity of a logical conclusion from the mess of electrical impulses? Here, science meets its limit.
Thus, the claim that thought and logic are mere chemical reactions collapses under its own weight. It is a declaration that, if true, cannot be proven, and if capable of being proven, could not be trusted.
Hi Scipio, I was expecting you! 😵💫Yes, you phrase it well. I work with "chemical reactions" flavored by traumatic brain injury, which is also empirically verifiable, and I lean rather heavily toward intuitive reasoning because part of the analytical seems to have gotten fried. My phrasing is not always so good.
Intuition can operate incredibly fast. It can also prove incredibly wrong. From what I can tell, it must be continuously primed, the quality of the result depending upon the quality of the priming, and results must be examined carefully and skeptically. I would guess that these philosophers began with their intuitions and didn't follow through.
I can appreciate to some degree, though, what might have happened to them. In my wanderings, through places where good church-people would never, ever venture (except Carl Teichrib), I experimented with atheism a couple of times, trying it on for size. It didn't fit. It was irrational. BUT. It felt so good to be part of the "in crowd" for once, the scientific in-crowd, until the hangover set in.
These philosophers don't seem to have encountered that last part, the hangover, or they were able to overcome it. They likely were primed differently than I was.
I have to wonder if churchoholics and bibliolaters aren't caught in a similar trap. But if I think too much about that my brain might explode, so I'd best stop there.
thinking about the 24/7 help desk and how one person might “ask” on a regular basis and another might have to hit rock bottom before asking for help… our western culture elevates not asking for help (“self” sufficiency) especially for men… I think sometimes we are positioned in the path of people that need help.
Yes, I saw that about the Shroud of Turin. Interesting. But it is the nature of modern science, with its hypotheses and theories, to draw conclusions (propose theories) based upon limited empirical evidence, subject to falsification, and then upon further examination to falsify those conclusions based upon new evidence and to try, try again. There is no known end to this loop, because we don't know what we don't know.
But that's science, and it's hard to make a living that way without a benefactor. So scientists abandon science -- opinion works just fine instead and forget about falsification -- but keep the name, "discovering" whatever the benefactors pay for. I'm sure I'm oversimplifying, but that's the quick reply version.
Then there's scientism, but I'm not awake enough to comment on that this morning.
Great piece.
Despite being an atheist, some of the best deconstruction of materialism can be found in Hume’s witting. Without an acceptance of transcendental properties such as logic, reason, or morality (all of which can only be justified through a personal deity), the basis for so-called knowledge is defeated by the materialist’s own axioms.
“Thought/Logic is predicated upon empirically verifiable chemical reactions.”
How delightfully ironic! For the very assertion that thought and logic rest on chemical reactions presents a paradox it cannot escape. Like a serpent devouring its own tail, this assertion is caught in a self-destructive loop.
We can measure the brain's activity, yes; we can map neurons and chart their responses. But can we measure the essence of a thought? Can we dissect the purity of a logical conclusion from the mess of electrical impulses? Here, science meets its limit.
Thus, the claim that thought and logic are mere chemical reactions collapses under its own weight. It is a declaration that, if true, cannot be proven, and if capable of being proven, could not be trusted.
Hi Scipio, I was expecting you! 😵💫Yes, you phrase it well. I work with "chemical reactions" flavored by traumatic brain injury, which is also empirically verifiable, and I lean rather heavily toward intuitive reasoning because part of the analytical seems to have gotten fried. My phrasing is not always so good.
Intuition can operate incredibly fast. It can also prove incredibly wrong. From what I can tell, it must be continuously primed, the quality of the result depending upon the quality of the priming, and results must be examined carefully and skeptically. I would guess that these philosophers began with their intuitions and didn't follow through.
I can appreciate to some degree, though, what might have happened to them. In my wanderings, through places where good church-people would never, ever venture (except Carl Teichrib), I experimented with atheism a couple of times, trying it on for size. It didn't fit. It was irrational. BUT. It felt so good to be part of the "in crowd" for once, the scientific in-crowd, until the hangover set in.
These philosophers don't seem to have encountered that last part, the hangover, or they were able to overcome it. They likely were primed differently than I was.
I have to wonder if churchoholics and bibliolaters aren't caught in a similar trap. But if I think too much about that my brain might explode, so I'd best stop there.
Thank you!
thinking about the 24/7 help desk and how one person might “ask” on a regular basis and another might have to hit rock bottom before asking for help… our western culture elevates not asking for help (“self” sufficiency) especially for men… I think sometimes we are positioned in the path of people that need help.
I can't speak for everyone, but that has been my experience. And then I need help so that I don't end up making things worse for them!
Yes, I saw that about the Shroud of Turin. Interesting. But it is the nature of modern science, with its hypotheses and theories, to draw conclusions (propose theories) based upon limited empirical evidence, subject to falsification, and then upon further examination to falsify those conclusions based upon new evidence and to try, try again. There is no known end to this loop, because we don't know what we don't know.
But that's science, and it's hard to make a living that way without a benefactor. So scientists abandon science -- opinion works just fine instead and forget about falsification -- but keep the name, "discovering" whatever the benefactors pay for. I'm sure I'm oversimplifying, but that's the quick reply version.
Then there's scientism, but I'm not awake enough to comment on that this morning.