Replies

Perhaps if we keep at this long enough we'll find a way to make it clear?

I dunno, A-G. In certain cases, that might be impossible. :^)

But maybe we could try this. It has been alleged (in the article at the top) that on the materialist/physicalist/naturalist view, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between a Karl Marx and a Mother Theresa. And indeed, in terms of this theory (or doctrine -- maybe dogma would be an even better word), there is no difference: Both K. Marx and Mother Theresa are alike in being astronomically complex bundles of very smart chemicals.

So what? Human existence has a physical basis. But that physical basis does not and cannot account for the very real, observable differences between two human beings.

The chemicals cannot tell you that Mother Theresa all her life served Life; and that Marx, a self-described atheist, didn't have very much to say about Life at all. But every time his dogma was tried -- and there have been many attempts to instantiate it in various forms -- human beings died by the millions, and the planet was otherwise laid waste.

The person who refuses to be concerned about such human differences suggests to me that he is suffering from what Cicero called aspernatio rationes, the "contempt for reason." Indeed, such "refuseniks" strike me as being totally irrational ... engaged in a flight from reality.

And yet we see their products. I have particularly in mind the work of Steven Pinker, Richard Lewontin, and Peter Singer. But I'm sure the list could be extended. But yoyu get my drift.

Thanks so much for your wonderful essays today, dear A-G!

But maybe we could try this. It has been alleged (in the article at the top) that on the materialist/physicalist/naturalist view, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between a Karl Marx and a Mother Theresa. And indeed, in terms of this theory (or doctrine -- maybe dogma would be an even better word), there is no difference: Both K. Marx and Mother Theresa are alike in being astronomically complex bundles of very smart chemicals.

This has been rebutted so many times by so many people I can think of no intellectually honest reason for you to reassert it.

The chemicals cannot tell you

What an amazing thing that from milk, consistently, there grows a baby with blood, and tears, and voice, and sight!

But you're right, those fossil stamps, they really are terribly mute about the outer and the inner beauties of this world. When a science thinks that the historian lives in another world, then science has become too big.

[ The person who refuses to be concerned about such human differences suggests to me that he is suffering from what Cicero called aspernatio rationes, the "contempt for reason." Indeed, such "refuseniks" strike me as being totally irrational ... engaged in a flight from reality. ]

Sounds like a pretty rational diagnosis to me..

Could the human mind could be like a car engine.. Timed correctly the engine runs at peak efficiency.. but when the timing is off plus or minus top dead center.. it backfires.. or starts hard.. or has less power.. and other things..

Some car owners have owned "refuseniks".. The car is just not healthy.. If the human person is just mechanical (as some you quoted suggest) it could be a self-fulling prophesy.. denying the very thing that makes them human, their spirit.. The human spirit is Super-DNA or beyond DNA or even RNA.. even as God is SuperNatural..

Does that make sense?.. I know what I mean.. d;-)

Thank you oh so very much for your excellent essay-post!

But maybe we could try this. It has been alleged (in the article at the top) that on the materialist/physicalist/naturalist view, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between a Karl Marx and a Mother Theresa. And indeed, in terms of this theory (or doctrine -- maybe dogma would be an even better word), there is no difference: Both K. Marx and Mother Theresa are alike in being astronomically complex bundles of very smart chemicals.

I see your remarks have met with the predictable disdain - which indicates to me the correspondents reject self-organizing complexity among other things. That is bizarre on the face since self-organizing complexity is a widely accepted model.

In that model the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, new features emerge (such as intelligence in biological life) such that new language is necessary to describe the whole. The same can be said of things made, new language is necessary to describe the thing.

For example, Mother Theresa is greater than the sum of the biochemicals which made up her body much like an automobile is greater than the sum of the parts of which it was made, etc.

Moreover, in the case of Mother Theresa - or the automobile, a particular snowflake or hurricane or whatever - the sum of her "worldline" or consciousness or soul or spirit accrue to her autonomous being as compared to other autonomous biological beings made of the same biochemicals. Likewise a particular car is a unique autonomous entity on its worldline compared to other cars, even of the same make and model, etc.

And yet it is asserted that your point has been "debunked" and you stand accused of "dishonesty". How sad.

Perhaps we should once again research the concepts and models of autonomy, complexity, semiosis, information (successful communication) and intelligence in biological life?