When Anxiety Attacks
7 years ago
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
This will be the last post I do in answer to some of the common reasons for “Why I am not a Christian…” So, following up on part 4, there are a couple of items that I’d like to mention regarding scientific naturalism. One is practical and the other is regarding the lengths to which some highly respected modern thinkers have gone to try to make scientific naturalism a viable option.
First, the practical… let’s think about justice and our justice system. I’ll approach this from a slightly different angle, so bear with me. At what point does a car cease to be the car it has always been? How many parts can you replace and still consider it to be the same car? I mean, ok, you replace the tires and the brakes. You may get a new paint job, but when does it actually become a different car than the one you bought. I mean, if you hang on to a car long enough you do body work, engine work, etc. and there comes a point where you do not actually even have a majority of original parts, much less all of them. At this point, can we actually say that we have the same car that we started out with, unless we assign some non-material essence to the car? In actuality, there comes a point where we have a different car that just happens to have some of the original parts. Now let’s apply this to people…
If matter is all there is, then there is no such thing as a mind or soul. There is a brain. There is a body. But what makes me an individual, who I am, is tied up in the cells of my body: nothing more and nothing less. If that is the case, then at what point to I cease to be the individual I once was. After all, the cells and atoms of our bodies are consistently deteriorating and being replaced by new ones. Even our brains are not, in some manner, the same ones that we had in times past; they have changed and developed through chemical processes and growth to be different than they once were. If this is the case, can we rightly punish one conglomeration of matter (body) for the actions of a previous, different conglomeration (body)? If I commit a crime, and I have no non-material essence to me as a person, then how can my future body be justifiably punished for what my current body does? After all, a massive number of cells in my current body will no longer be in existence in that future body, and there will be a massive number of new cells that took no part in the crime. Is it right to punish all equally? (Think about the implications of this in cases like Nazis who escaped prosecution for 30-40 years. How much of their “war-crime” cells still remain? Why can we hold those new cells responsible for something they had no part in?)
Even our sense of justice requires that there is some non-material essence existing within each person and which continues to exist for the duration of that person’s life. That non-material essence does not fit within a scientific naturalist worldview because it is non-physical. But this non-material essence (soul/mind) is required for justice to truly exist. It is this non-material essence which justice holds accountable for past actions, regardless of whether or not the “criminal” cells remain. Practically speaking, the scientific naturalist stands on very shaky ground in areas of justice. In fact, it seems illogical in a scientific naturalist worldview to believe in justice… legal systems, maybe, but true justice… no. I wonder how many scientific naturalists are able to consistently live with that?
Well, at this point I realize that this blog post will be way too long if I go into the next topic I mentioned at the beginning, regarding the lengths to which some highly respected modern thinkers have gone to try to make scientific naturalism a viable option. So instead, what I’ll do is post that on one final blog posting. This has ended up going a little longer than I originally planned. Hope that’s ok.
First, the practical… let’s think about justice and our justice system. I’ll approach this from a slightly different angle, so bear with me. At what point does a car cease to be the car it has always been? How many parts can you replace and still consider it to be the same car? I mean, ok, you replace the tires and the brakes. You may get a new paint job, but when does it actually become a different car than the one you bought. I mean, if you hang on to a car long enough you do body work, engine work, etc. and there comes a point where you do not actually even have a majority of original parts, much less all of them. At this point, can we actually say that we have the same car that we started out with, unless we assign some non-material essence to the car? In actuality, there comes a point where we have a different car that just happens to have some of the original parts. Now let’s apply this to people…
If matter is all there is, then there is no such thing as a mind or soul. There is a brain. There is a body. But what makes me an individual, who I am, is tied up in the cells of my body: nothing more and nothing less. If that is the case, then at what point to I cease to be the individual I once was. After all, the cells and atoms of our bodies are consistently deteriorating and being replaced by new ones. Even our brains are not, in some manner, the same ones that we had in times past; they have changed and developed through chemical processes and growth to be different than they once were. If this is the case, can we rightly punish one conglomeration of matter (body) for the actions of a previous, different conglomeration (body)? If I commit a crime, and I have no non-material essence to me as a person, then how can my future body be justifiably punished for what my current body does? After all, a massive number of cells in my current body will no longer be in existence in that future body, and there will be a massive number of new cells that took no part in the crime. Is it right to punish all equally? (Think about the implications of this in cases like Nazis who escaped prosecution for 30-40 years. How much of their “war-crime” cells still remain? Why can we hold those new cells responsible for something they had no part in?)
Even our sense of justice requires that there is some non-material essence existing within each person and which continues to exist for the duration of that person’s life. That non-material essence does not fit within a scientific naturalist worldview because it is non-physical. But this non-material essence (soul/mind) is required for justice to truly exist. It is this non-material essence which justice holds accountable for past actions, regardless of whether or not the “criminal” cells remain. Practically speaking, the scientific naturalist stands on very shaky ground in areas of justice. In fact, it seems illogical in a scientific naturalist worldview to believe in justice… legal systems, maybe, but true justice… no. I wonder how many scientific naturalists are able to consistently live with that?
Well, at this point I realize that this blog post will be way too long if I go into the next topic I mentioned at the beginning, regarding the lengths to which some highly respected modern thinkers have gone to try to make scientific naturalism a viable option. So instead, what I’ll do is post that on one final blog posting. This has ended up going a little longer than I originally planned. Hope that’s ok.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment