Who is Irrational Now?
There’s the idea that over time all matter becomes self-aware. Yes, this is what they posit.
The implication of this strain of thought is that at some point matter becomes alive and conscious.
So we left with rocks that can reason? And tables that are aware of you?
The best that can be said is both are non-living matter we humans are aware of but that’s it; it doesn’t work in the same way in the other direction.
The pair doesn’t exist in the way we understood it to mean; that is they can’t be present as they don’t have life; and by extension cognizance.
There’s no be am or are about it.
Listen to what scientist Roy Varghese says; once you understand the nature of matter, of mass-energy, you realize by its nature it could never become aware, never think, never say I.
But the atheist position is that at some point in the history of the universe, the impossible and inconceivable took place.
Undifferentiated matter (here we include energy) at some point became alive, then conscious, then conceptually proficient; then an ‘I’
Matter…… has none of the properties of being conscious and even given time cannot acquire such properties.
You could say the issue of consciousness has become a real problem for those with atheistic views.
Even Richard Dawkins recognizes this saying; neither Steve Pinker nor I can explain human subjective consciousness or qualia.
On the subject Steve Pinker is honest enough to admit; beats the heck out of me.
As physicist Nick Herbert puts it; all we know about consciousness is that it has something to do with the head, rather than the foot.
Because it can’t be explained by science there’s this modern tendency to think it’s an illusion, that it doesn’t exist.
Cambridge psychologist, think he’s out of his league, reckons that as nothing in the physical world can have the features that consciousness seem to have, then it cannot exist as a thing in the physical world.
The starting point for most atheists is; all of life is physical so thinking is nothing more than chemical reactions in the brain.
If that’s the case why put any store in it?
See in the rush to write off consciousness they make absurd claims like all life is physical then lock themselves in as they can’t distinguish between the organic and inorganic thus they make a mockery of what constitutes life in the process.
They end up hoisted by their own petard really and that’s the reason for all the weird philosophies we see spring up.
Speaking of these materialist scientists someone makes a good point; why would they come up with a theory so contrary to normal experience.
And just who in their right mind would trust the thinking of scientists who tell us there is no such thing as thinking?
Philosopher Galen Strawson concludes about the denial of consciousness; it is surely the strangest thing that has ever happened in the whole history of human thought.
…..that the power of human credulity is unlimited, that the capacity of human minds to be gripped by theory, by faith is truly unbounded.
It reveals the deepest irrationality of the human mind.
The last word goes to Norman Geisler who provides some great insight.
If intelligent beings can’t create anything close to the human brain why should we expect non-intelligent natural laws to do so?
It’s down to the question of to be or not to be, isn’t it?