Naturalism has a problem. It is called the person. I am not speaking of the flesh and bones that makes up each one of us in the human race. What I am talking about is the non-physical part of our being – that which gives us the ability to think, choose, and feel (emotions). Now some may say it is the brain that causes us to think, choose, and feel. I beg to differ. I do not dispute that the chemical makeup of the brain changes when we think, choose, and feel – I simply suggest that the brain is not the primary cause.
Naturalist will usually disagree with me on this point. They would suggest the brain is the primary cause of thinking, choosing, and feeling. However they have at least two major road blocks which I have yet to hear satisfactory answers. First, if they are consistent with their idea that a natural/physical world is all that exists then humans are predestined to choose certain things – we must dance to our DNA – so to speak. Second, if they allow the human to have some non-physical component then they betray their naturalistic worldview. For how can the non-physical evolve from the physical?
Christianity has a satisfactory answer to the question of personhood. Humans are physical and non-physical beings. God, who is spirit, created man with a physical body and a soul. The soul, or spirit, interacts with the physical body and visa-versa. The human soul can think (with the brain as its control center), choose, and feel emotion.
Sadly the problems you list are only ones that you yourself have created. You presuppose the existence of a soul which bases your entire point on an argument for which there is no evidence.
Indeed, humans do have the greatest cognitive function on the planet. We are self aware, which is a rare thing indeed – but we’re not the only creatures on Earth who are.
This increased cognitive function (or ‘mind’, whatever you wish to call it) is certainly not based on a soul. Instead it is simply the path humans (and a handful of other creatures) have taken on the road of evolution. We grew smarter so that we could survive. Physically, humans aren’t very good; the range of animals that can tear us apart with ease is legion. To counter that, we simply got smarter, we learned how to use tools, we learned the value of teamwork and a stable society and we simply kept on going.
Hey Matt,
Let me ask you this . . . would you agree that you and all humans have the ability to make choices?
Also, you suggest I “presuppose the existence of a soul”. I guess what I am asking the naturalist is this, If humans are merely a machine (that is completely physical) how do you account for emotions and the ability to choose?
-Randall
Emotions are, as shown in a laboratory, simple chemical reactions in the brain. These reactions are translated as emotions and, again, help us to survive.
Endorphins, for example, are released when we are happy and secure which what the whole point of living is. Therefore, in part, because it feels good to be happy and secure we strive for decisions and circumstances which supply that. Similarly, the pain generated by our very own nervous system is a very nasty thing to experience at times – therefore we work to avoid or minimise situations in which pain is felt. Such as cutting ourselves accidentally with knives, breaking an arm or getting eaten by a lion.
The ability to choose is simply life itself, we are driven by hard wired imperatives to live and we make choices based on that. We do not wish to die, we do not wish to feel pain. We wish to be fed, warm and secure and what we do in life is based on those things (and others but I’m sure you get the general idea).
Whereas, if there were an omniscient god then we would have no ability to choose, simply because if he was omniscient then he knows what choices we supposedly make which makes free will no more than a thin illusion since those decisions are set.
I’m not sure I understand. Do endorphins cause happiness or does happiness cause endorphins?
Endorphins are what is released in the brain whenever circumstances that are beneficial to the body are encountered. For example, when you’re having fun or you’re doing something generally pleasurable then endorphins are released which make you feel pretty good.
Matt, you didn’t answer my question. In your example you use the phrases “doing something generally pleasurable” and “feel pretty good”. The former you say triggers the endorphins and the former you say is caused by the endorphins. You can’t have it both ways.
I phrased it poorly.
Through the evolutionary process, the human body has come to learn what is good and what is bad for it. Certain circumstances are good for it’s continued well being (give or take, it’s a general rule and some specific things can fool the body) and when the body encounters something that it knows it is good for it, it will release chemicals in the brain which make the person feel good and happy.
At the risk of going on a tangent – How do you define “good” and “bad”?
Also, lets talk more about this idea of choosing. You suggested in your first post that choices are merely intinctive reactions toward survival (if I understand you correctly). But how about non survival choices. Say for instance, your choice to respond to my blog. How do you explain that?
Good and bad are aspects based on survival of the species, a field called Evolutionary Ethics. I could explain it but people have already done it for me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_and_evolutionary_psychology
As for non-survival choices, that’s a sort of incorrect term. Choices aren’t necessarily based on survival, they’re based on favourable circumstances. The way I was brought up and my life experiences changed the development of my brain in such a way that I enjoy the discussion of this field, for example.
Genetics is one thing but it is only a part of what makes a person what he or she may be. Upbringing during childhood, while the brain is still forming and developing, is another.
But in your view – isn’t “upbringing” nothing more than the way your parents are genetically wired?
No, for their own upbringing was shaped to a great degree by their environment and life experiences.
That just pushes the problem back – it doesn’t solve it.