In the opening statement of HIS debate, atheist Sean Carroll
commented that naturalism is a proven fact. Naturalism is the belief that
everything is caused by natural laws whose source and support are neither
designed or intelligently conceived. Instead, they just ARE!
To support this, Carroll claimed that science has found
nothing that validates the existence of anything that lies outside of the purview
of science.
Of course, this claim is ridiculous. It is like saying that
nothing exists beyond what I can see. This is not to deny the value of sight or
of science. However, it is a recognition of the fact that, as there is no
evidence that existence is limited to what can be seen, there is also no
evidence that existence is limited to what science can detect.
Nevertheless, Carroll offers the mind-brain distinction that
Christians use. We claim that the physical brain is like a TV. It can receive a
non-material message or program from beyond itself but is distinct from the
message.
Is it possible that the material brain is also distinct from
the non-material mind? Why not? However, Carroll denies this possibility. Why?
Simply because no one can explain the mechanics of the interplay between the
two!
However, their existence is not the same as understanding their interplay. While we admittedly are at a loss to explain this interplay, there are also many other things we cannot explain – the activity of sub-atomic particles, the nature of light, time, matter and space and the origin of life – this fact shouldn’t disqualify the mind-brain distinction, no more than it should disqualify science.
However, their existence is not the same as understanding their interplay. While we admittedly are at a loss to explain this interplay, there are also many other things we cannot explain – the activity of sub-atomic particles, the nature of light, time, matter and space and the origin of life – this fact shouldn’t disqualify the mind-brain distinction, no more than it should disqualify science.
It is even paradoxical that Carroll should demand such a
thing. He already acknowledges that science and observation cannot the directly
detect the presence of spiritual realities, yet he disingenuously demands that
we must prove the spiritual with these tools alone.
Nevertheless, against Carroll’s confident assertion, there
are many indications that materialism cannot explain all of the facts within
its domain – freewill, consciousness, the inability of neuro-scientists to
stimulate an assortment of cognitive responses, NDRs, an overwhelming array of reported
spiritistic experiences, and even the origin of the “natural” laws and the fine-tuning
of the universe.
What makes Carroll’s assertion even more questionable is the
lack of evidence that ANYTHING has ever been caused naturally without
intelligence and design.
Instead, Carroll needs to be pressed for any scientific
evidence that “natural” laws even exist. Perhaps, instead, they proceed out of
the Mind of God.
No comments:
Post a Comment