Somebody came across my recently article, "An Argument Against Materialism From Immaterialism" and offered their analysis. I will keep his twitter handle withheld unless he explicitly asks otherwise. My original statement is plain, his is italic and my response is bold italic.
There are truths throughout our world that science cannot prove, for the simple
reason that science assumes them. I will begin by dissecting the truth that is truth itself.
True; logical axioms for example.
>Truth is immaterial in that it exists independently of whether anybody agrees
>with it or not. In demonstration of this I offer this scenario. If all human
>There are truths throughout our world that science cannot prove, for the simple
> reason that science assumes them. I will begin by dissecting the truth that is
> truth itself.
True; logical axioms for example.
> Truth is immaterial in that it exists independently of whether anybody agrees
> with it or not. In demonstration of this I offer this scenario. If all human
> beings in the world died tomorrow, the truth would be that there are no living
> human beings, despite that we would not be there to agree with it. Consensus
> does not define or negate truth. In the words of Winston Churchill, "Truth is
> incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. Hate may deride it. But at the end of
> the day, there it is."
Correct.
> I submit that the nature of relative truth is self-refuting. For if you apply
> the statement "All truth is relative," to itself, the question that imposes
> itself is "Is that a relative truth?" If this statement is a relative truth,
> then obviously, it is not wholly true and therefore cannot be trusted. If it is
> not a relative truth, then it contradicts itself in that all truth must be
> relative. Truth must exists because we cannot even say that truth does not
> exist without contradicting ourselves.
Correct.
> Further, there are mathematical truths that exist independently of whether
> anybody agrees with them or not. Science does not prove them, but rather, it
> operates under the assumption that these immaterial truths exist. It is on this
> foundation that I claim that the scientist who tries to prove that materialism
> is true cannot justify his own method.
Correct, if you're talking about logical axioms. Mathematics does in fact
prove mathematical truths (from simpler mathematical / logical truths).
> Rather than proving materialism, science only further confirms the existence of
> the immaterial, as it operates on the assumption of immaterial mathematical
> truths. In conclusion, if you agree that 2+2=4 independently of whether anybody
> agrees or not, then you cannot hide from the falsehood that is materialism.
Yes and no. We'd have to go into mental masturbation about what "exists"
means. I don't think anyone sees materalism as the rejection of the claim that
2+2=4 regardless of who thinks so. If you wish to define it that way, then
you're attacking a position that no one really holds.
> Finally, I contend that morality is objective and is therefore an immaterial
> element pointing directly at the existence of God. I do understand why the
> atheist becomes frustrated upon this point. That is not to say that I think
> they have a good point, but rather that I think they become frustrated because
> it is so easy to walk into self-contradiction when contending that morality is
> subjective.
Morality is objective, yes. But you have not made any argument to support
your claim that morality being objective means it "points directly at the
existence of God", any more than "2 + 2 = 4" points at the existence of God.
> For instance, the atheist cannot claim that an action like torture or rape is
> more moral than another. The atheist cannot assess the moral difference between
> Hitler's ethics and modern American ethics, because there is no objective
> standard on which to judge them. On an atheistic view, it was simply a hiccup
> in the course of our evolution. Hitler's actions were not moral abominations;
> they were nothing more than a man acting in poor etiquette; in the words of
> William Lane Craig, like the man who belches at the dinner table.
Actually an atheist is perfectly qualified to make this judgment. "Hitler's
actions caused massive suffering" is an objective statement. It's worth
examining your claim that there is a definite dividing line between
"etiquette" and "morality". In fact it's much more consistent to realise that
both of these things exist on the same scale. If I know you prefer
chocolate ice cream to vanilla, and I give you vanilla anyway, I am objectively
creating a worse reality than if I had given you chocolate. In this case the
difference is rather trivial so we tend not to use such an emotionally-charged
word as "immoral" to describe it. Likewise, towards the other end of the scale
we have acts like those of Hitler or Moses, causing massive suffering to
huge numbers of people. But where exactly along this scale does "morality" begin?
The question doesn't seem to produce anything of value; it's like asking "where
does 'large' begin"? So saying "[Hitler et. al] were nothing more than a man
acting in poor etiquette" is in a sense true, but it has as much relevance as
saying "a galaxy is nothing more than a grain of sand", just because both
objects fit into the same scale by having "size".
> Despite the belief that they are forced to submit to, atheism's adherents
> continue to speak the language of objective morality. I can appropriately sum
> this argument in this manner: if you agree that modern ethics are an
> objectively moral progression from Hitler's ethics, then you inescapably agree
> to the immaterial truth that is objective morality.
I'm ok with this.
I am glad that you agree on the first fold of my argument; that truth, mathematics, and morality are in fact all objective in that they exist independently of whether anybody agrees with them or not. That is precisely what I intended to display.
However it is odd that you agree that morality is objective but go on to say that it is difficult to distinguish the line between etiquette and morality. I think they are quite different studies, but my only point was that on atheism there is no distinction between the two.
You demonstrate this point quite properly for me by your comparison of etiquette and morality with small and large. You hold this position, yet you go on to say that you agree that morality is objective. Yet these two positions contradict each other. Morality is either sliding, or it is objective.
> There are two folds of this argument that need to be acknowledged. The first,
> which I have outlined is that immaterial elements exist. I contend that this is
> explicitly in contrast with materialism, and therefore, one must be true, while
> the other must be false.
You haven't proved they're not abstract though.
> However I think as I have demonstrated, there are immaterial elements, because
> we cannot even say there are not without walking into contradiction. In light
> of this and since there is no logical contradiction of the proposition that
> materialism is false, it follows that materialism is in fact false.
You haven't proved they're not abstract though.
I find your format a little condescending. It would be more efficient to write "You did not prove that they are not abstract," only once. It would even more efficient if you distinguished when it is that I am attempting to prove they are abstract. Perhaps your inability to distinguish that is precisely why you overlooked it.
> In expansion of this, I believe that the three realities, namely truth,
> mathematics, and morality are best explained by theism and cannot be explained
> by atheism. I submit that on atheism, there is no reason for an abstract
> immaterial to impose itself upon us.
Let's look at "truth". What are some of the most fundamental truths? How
about "if a statement A is true, then the statement (not A) is not true"; ie,
if two statements contradict each other, they cannot both be true. Or "if A is
true, and B is true, then (A and B) is true". It's generally accepted even
among theists that God himself is subject to these laws in the same way we are.
Hence, theists accept the proposition that "God cannot create a four-sided
triangle", even if they do not accept this as a contradiction of his
"omnipotence". If they do not accept the proposition, they must open
themselves to ridiculous questions like "why does God not just make everyone
behave perfectly all the time, without detracting at all from free will?". So
where do the logical axioms come from? Not from God; he is subject to them,
they are not subject to him. It seems the only sensible conclusion is that
they are as you say, abstract. Can they "impose themselves on us"? Well, yes;
they determine what is and isn't possible.
I have two points to make. The first being that the argument does not aim to show that God is the immaterial personality, just that an immaterial personality is required. So whether God fits satisfyingly to you in this instance is simply irrelevant.
Secondly, this statement is in stark contrast with the philosophy of God. God is not victim to logic and all of the elements that define Him, but rather, these elements abide within God. I find it rather silly to propose that because God cannot do what is logically absurd, that He is impotent. This is just pitting elements of God's infinity against itself. It's like the old 'unstoppable force' versus 'immovable object'. Except in this instance, God is both. It's like asking: if God were in a fight with himself, who would win? It's just a silly question, and quite frankly, even if I grant it for charity, it does absolutely nothing to refute my claim that the immaterial is grounded in a personality. It only offers the possibility that these personalities are beyond God.
So if "A being true implies that
(not A) is not true" does not depend on a personal being, why should "2+2=4",
or indeed, any fact based on a combination of logical reasoning and observation?
This is just your reciting of what you regard as truth.
> There is no reason that we should be compelled to oblige truth or morality
> unless they are in themselves personal entities or grounded in a personal
> entity.
Not sure what "oblige truth" or "oblige morality" really mean.
Might I suggest a dictionary. -.-
> Consider the number four. It has no bearing on us at all, because it is merely
> an abstract immaterial. Consider another persons' immaterial thoughts. They are
> only imposed upon us when a personal decision is made to do so. To impose the
> immaterial on us is a personal action and thus requires a personality.
This doesn't make much sense.
I would really just be repeating myself if I said it again. Certainly, even if you disagree with the point, you cannot possibly be unable to grasp this.
> In critical expansion, I explain that it would be impossible for the immaterial
> to interact with the material unless the material had an immaterial essence.
> Atheist physicist Doctor William Stenger agrees on this point, as he indicated
> in his book God: The Failed Hypothesis. I think Doctor Stenger is right.
Not sure this makes much sense either. For this point to support your argument
you'd need to claim that the fact that a particular (physical) shape can't be a
four-sided triangle proves that the shape has an "immaterial essence", which would
be a rather difficult claim to justify.
That is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that the immaterial cannot interact with the material. This is reflective of the old alleged contradiction of God's attributes. Basic philosophy refutes it in saying that human beings have an immaterial essence. Obviously described as their soul. Therefore there is no contradiction there.
However I agree that the immaterial would not be able to interact with the material unless the material had an immaterial essence. I cannot conceive of any reason that anybody should disagree with this.
You affirm that the immaterial exists in truth, mathematics, and morality. You may not be persuaded that a personal action taken by these immaterial elements requires a personality. However, upon the given philosophy, that the immaterial cannot interact with material, and on atheism, there is absolutely no reason that the immaterial should be able to interact and affect you. Therefore you must either reject the existence of the immaterial (or acknowledge that you cannot grasp it) or challenge one of the most firmly held positions of philosophy.
> On this foundation I submit that the atheist must maintain that not only do
> human beings lack an immaterial essence, but they must also maintain that if
> there are objective immaterials such as truth or morality, we cannot grasp
> them, because as Doctor Stenger reminds us, the immaterial cannot interact with
> the material.
>
> Therefore, the atheist must take opposition to the first fold of my argument -
> that any immaterial elements exist, thus rendering truth, on the view that they
> must assume, completely subjective and based on individual genetics. If atheism
> or materialism is true, they cannot even say that it is true because to say
> that it is true would be to affirm the existence of an objective, immaterial,
> personally grounded entity called truth.
You've just smuggled "personally-grounded" in that last sentence without
adequate justification. Here's another problem for you: consider a possible
world in which there is no god. (I assume you're willing to concede that this
does not entail a logical contradiction. To make it really easy, let's say
there is no conscious life in this universe at all). If your claim about truth
were correct, then in this universe, it would not be "true" that there were no
god, even though, in fact, there would be no god. This seems to defeat your
point.
Not at all. If theism is indeed true, and God is the source of truth, there is no reason to believe that in this bizarro universe that you have imagined that truth would exist. So while we can apply what we regard as true to the other universe, it does not follow it would have to adhere to our version of truth.
> I think there remain only two possible options for the atheist. They can either
> affirm their ability to grasp the immaterial by affirming their immaterial
> essence; traditionally referred to as the soul. But by doing so, they also
> affirm the existence of objective truth, and that entails an immaterial
> personality. The second option is that they could also deny that truth exists,
> to which the simple question that would be imposed is, "is that true?"
>
> Either way, they walk into self-contradiction, and therefore, the statement
> "atheism is true" is self-refuting.
In conclusion, I don't think you've proved anything. Your article is mainly
word play on "immaterial" and "existence", with nothing that really connects
these "immaterial entities" to a personality beings in the world.
In summary, I find these notes rather unintimidating, to say the very least. You fail to, and indeed even refuse to address the very core of my argument, that being the need for a mind behind an action. You further refuse to recognize the point that I raised about the immaterial interacting with the material, and remarkably, your motivation for dismissing these two arguments were grammatically influenced. Which, in all humility, I state that I am quite skilled in that field. So to your "This does not make sense," I can only reply, "Yes it does."
You either dismissed it because you were unable to grasp it, rendering you completely unqualified to offer a critique in the English language, or you simply had no answer for it. I am fairly certain that it is the latter. If I were to grade your review, and to honestly account for your refusal to dissect the central issue, and the short-sight that you applied to issues that were for the most part, irrelevant, I could only fairly offer an F.
This is not the devastating critique that you thought it was. In fact it is rather insulting that you would think I would be taken in by it.
To read more of my articles, go to my Christian Articles section by clicking here