Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 13:42:11 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> To: Joshua Lee <yid@softhome.net> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020911133432.P45696-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <20020911082653.408b7c76.yid@softhome.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Joshua Lee wrote:
> > > A computer programmer cannot account for computer programms, because
> > > they are composed of moving electrons that have nothing to do with:
> > > printf ("Hello world.\n");
> >
> > Computer programs are not electrons. They are non-material, a set
> > of instructions. Anyway, your point was?
>
> My point is that just as in computer science there are layers of
> abstraction, so too in psychology, etc. There's no reason to reject
> psychology because of the existence of neurons, according to the
> scientific accounting. It especially does not demand only a certain faith as you claim.
I don't think you have even understood the argument. The argument was
directed specifically at naturalism. Naturalism cannot account for human
reason since only physical causes can be invoked in explaining human
behavior. On a naturalist worldview, human beings are just machines, and
as such reasoning is just an illusion. All reasoning is just the
outworking of the electrical-chemical reactions in the brain. The human
brain could never transcend nature with anything that resembled "reason".
> > > > naturalist, he has no reason to be a naturalist. He must also say
> > > > that other people's beliefs in God are also only the result of
> > > > electro-chemical responses in the brain. He could never know
> > > > whether or not he was right, since every attempt to reason his way
> > > > to the truth is just more electro-chemical responses in the brain,
> > > > and hence, the results of *these* reactions are also suspect.
> > >
> > > If this is an example of your "superior xtian reason", I'll have
> > > none of it. ;-)
> >
> > You know, you could, if you have a point to make, put your money where
> > your mouth is and point out how the argument is fallacious if you
> > really think it is. Your comment hardly counts as a refutation.
>
> See above. Your reduction is absurd.
Reductions are supposed to be absurd! That's why they are called
"reductio ad ABSURDUM" arguments. They are employed to reduce an
opponent's argument to ABSURDITY. Get it?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020911133432.P45696-100000>