When pressed to explain himself regarding his deity, Einstein insisted he meant no personal God but rather "Spinoza's God, the order and harmony of all that exists." Apparently, this gets under the skin of a lot of religionists, including Prof. Collins. Why? Because Spinoza was among the earliest to dismantle the infantile, anthropomorphized concept of the deity most humans accept. As Collins writes in respect of one of the books (Think Least of Death) , by Steven Nadler:
"His first sentence pulls no punches: 'Every day billions of people devote a significant amount of time to worshipping an imaginary being'.
Adding:
"Mr. Nadler exposes this anthropomorphized God- who commands, judges and governs -- as a superstitious fiction. Mr. Nadler here is speaking for or paraphrasing Spinoza- but there is no doubt he endorses these teachings."
Which is accurate, as any intelligent human would do. I've also noted the limits and absurdity of embracing supernatural constructs before, while skewering an earlier essay by Collins against materialism e.g.
wherein he tried to claim:
"the humanist-materialist argument against Christianity has arguably weakened over the past century"
Collins in this current go- round insists:
"Like all materialists, Spinoza can't demonstrate that free will and objective good and evil do not exist, nor can he disprove a God distinct from nature or a soul that lives beyond the body."
Failing to grasp that it isn't the job of the materialist to "disprove" these extraordinary claims, but of theists, religionists to prove them - or at least provide the necessary and sufficient conditions for their acceptance.
Robert Baum, in his textbook, LOGIC, pp. 469-70, correctly observes that n-s conditions are practical replacements (in logic) for causes. In other words, instead of saying or asserting "x caused y", one stipulates that a, b are necessary conditions for x to exist at all, and c,d are sufficient conditions for y to have been the sole effect of cause x.
Baum’s reasoning is clear (ibid.): because “cause” (generic) can be interpreted as proximate or remote, or even as the “goal or aim of an action” and is therefore too open-ended, ambiguous and construed in too many different ways. Thus, “cause” is too embedded in most people’s minds with only one of several meanings, leaving most causality discussions unproductive and confused. If my “cause” and your ‘cause” in a given argument diverge, then we will not get very far.
Because of this one uses the more neutral term “condition” and specifies necessary and sufficient ones. The latter terms are specifically meaningful in the context of determining causal conditions, and hence, causes. If one eschews them, then one concedes he is incapable of logical argument incorporating the most basic affiliation with cause or causation.
Also as I noted in my Physics Today essay, e.g.
Readers' thoughts on science and religion: Physics Today: Vol 71, No 6
What we atheists actually say is that the whole idea of God is redundant – logically unnecessary – because it doesn’t help us to model any physical systems or make verifiable, empirical predictions that pertain to the natural world. The exact same can be said for the "soul".
The point then is it doesn't matter that "these things are not subject to physical measurement" . If one is to take them seriously then at least basic logical prerequisites must be established. Or, in the words of atheist philosopher A.J. Ayer - in Language, Truth and Logic (p. 158):
"The fact people have religious experiences is interesting from the psychological point of view, but it does not in any way imply there is such a thing as religious knowledge. The theist - like the moralist- may believe his experiences are cognitive experiences, but unless he can formulate his knowledge in propositions that are empirically verifiable, we may be sure he is deceiving himself."
Collins' biggest misfire is perhaps when he claims (ibid.):
"Spinoza elevated the materialist methodology of modern science into a metaphysics. His system appeals to the reductive 'naturalism' of the modern outlook and to the militant atheism that is particularly strong among evolutionary biologists. Mr. Nadler, with Spinoza, wishes to convince us that the universe of matter, necessity and appetite can be ethical."
Well, not only ethical but moral, as I've shown in a previous post:
Nor is this a "heavy lift" if humans have no free will. Like the concept of a redundant supernatural 'God', Collins is obsessed about humans purportedly having no free will. Like many Xtians he's unable to see how that computes. Perhaps the best explanation was offered by a Mensa member, Mark Chmielewski.
According to Mark (Mensa Bulletin, July, 2013, p. 24) our belief that we’re actually determining our actions in real time is an illusion generated by recourse to a set of pre-programmed algorithms in the prefrontal cortex. He observes:
“The main functions of the prefrontal cortex involve planning responses to complex and difficult problems. It takes past events stored in those billions of neurons and present experiences, runs them through brain-created algorithms and sends a response to the body – which acts accordingly.”He goes on to note that the brain occupies its first 10 or so years learning by “creating synapses for everything in the person’s life”. The brain then uses those pre-engendered synapses and fine tunes later behavior, emotions and planning over the next 10-15 years. What’s the final product? Well, it’s an “electrical-chemical computer that runs the body both consciously and unconsciously”. This enables the person to react to real time situations based on brain responses using input from previously created algorithms. The bottom line:
”every living human being’s decision is based on past information assimilated by the brain. The responses come from the brain based on the perceived situation.”
No comments:
Post a Comment