Occam's Razor, atheism, theism and polytheism.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Do you think chimps have souls?  How about bacteria?  Your arguments, to me, as an atheist, sound like the classic "god of the gaps".  How about lightning?  Do you believe that we need God to explain lightning?

Unfortunately, I do not have time to give you a full and proper account for how neo-Scholastic philosophy approaches those kinds of questions. What I can do is give you some flavor of what that would look like. The classical Christian concept of God handed down to us from the fathers and doctors of the church, is less of a gap-filler; but rather, more of a "god of the expanse." Because God is the Absolute on which all depends his action and presence are universal not only in external phenomena but also most profoundly linked to our mental being, including mental activities that do not rise to the level of conscious awareness.

The notion that souls are some kind of secret sauce added on top of the physical body is a modern misconception. In classical terms, human beings are hylomorphic, a unity of matter and substantial form. Souls are what what makes things what they are. It means something to be a chimp. It means something to be a bacteria. And it means something to be human, i.e. human nature**

Naturalism/Physicalism/Materialism are all terms of art making essentially the same basic arbitrary assumption that all forms of causation are bottom-up, third person processes, i.e. material and efficient causes. It is not the default position as some suppose; but rather, an interpretation of reality based on willfully ignoring first-person observations of formal and final causes. Both formal and final causes are top-down processes. The potential of matter needs to be informed before it can actualize. Efficient causes (agents and bodies) are disposed towards a limited range of ends. We simply cannot make sense of the world without recognizing, either tacitly or explicitly, that teleology operates at all levels of reality and describing the world in terms of intentionality. Consciousness is directed towards phenomenal content. Reason assigns meaning. Animals have desires. Organs have functions and unthinking bodies have regular tendencies.

In contrast to this modern naturalism says that all these obvious features of reality (qualia, forms, intentions, and moral imperatives)magically 'emerge' if you combine undirected physical processes, chance encounters, and unconscious matter in some unspecified way. The magician waves his magic wand over the empty hat of the physical world and out pops the rabbit of consciousness. To continue the analogy, the naturalist/physicalist/materialist (take your pick) isn't trying to figure out where the rabbit came from; but rather, how wand waving and hats can generate rabbits or saying that the rabbit itself is an illusion. Either option is absurd, but they will repeatedly assert that someday/maybe they'll figure it out.

**hence moral imperatives flowing from our rational nature. Unless there is a way you ought to be then there is no basis for what you should do.

[The Grand Nudger]

In contrast to this modern naturalism says

-nothing that follows. Fixed.

**hence moral imperatives flowing from our rational nature. Unless there is a way you ought to be then there is no basis for what you should do.

Awesome, a moment of agreement.  That's exactly what a great many secular moral systems are built upon.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Awesome, a moment of agreement.  That's exactly what a great many secular moral systems are built upon.

Probably not. The missing piece for naturalism is the notion that human beings ought to be a certain way. Observations of physical processes can tell you facts about how things are but not how things should be.

[The Grand Nudger]

Awesome, a moment of agreement.  That's exactly what a great many secular moral systems are built upon.

Probably not. The missing piece for naturalism is the notion that human beings ought to be a certain way.

There isn't a -single- moral system..secular or otherwise, missing that piece.  By definition, moral systems are things that tell you how you ought to behave.,..and they all have their justifications for that ought.

More theater?  This is why you can't drum up a serious conversation about the topics you're clearly obsessed with, Neo.  Because you, yourself, are incapable of having one.  If you can't think of a single "ought" that does not require magic and fairies...then, as another poster has already said - don't you ever stop believing. It would be horrific. If you can - but just don't agree with it..or maybe think yours is better...then drop the bullshit already, huh?

Observations of physical processes can tell you facts about how things are but not how things should be.

-and? Is there some point at which you're going to explain how this is a problem for any secular moral philosophy?

[Angrboda]

Simon's question was if there were things naturalism cannot explain. I listed three. The problem isn't that someday, maybe natural explanations will appear. The problem is that naturalism (based on the arbitrary self-imposed rules of analytic philosophy) either logically excludes any kinds of solutions or wishes away phenomena that require explanation. Maybe you know about a kind of naturalism with which I'm not familiar.

All I can say for now, without knowing any specific theory naturalistic theory of mind Simon Moon or you think will save you from absurdism, is that any appeal to 'emergent properties' (ghosts out of the machine) or 'epiphenominalism' (i.e. ectoplasm) is itself the real magical thinking. Likewise, ignoring the obvious contingency of the physical universe is really just hand-waving. Or thinking that undirected and irrational physical processes can supply rational moral imperatives to a complex electro-chemical reaction is just...to put it diplomatically, not very bright.

Intentionality and moral imperatives are things that naturalism has not explained. You overstep by claiming naturalism "cannot" explain those things. As usual when you confront naturalism, you fall into a stereotypical argument from ignorance.

[The Grand Nudger]

What other play is there, when you cannot demonstrate your own explanation to be accurate, than to boldly proclaim that no other framework is even capable of explanation?  

[Jehanne]

Do you think chimps have souls?  How about bacteria?  Your arguments, to me, as an atheist, sound like the classic "god of the gaps".  How about lightning?  Do you believe that we need God to explain lightning?

Unfortunately, I do not have time to give you a full and proper account for how neo-Scholastic philosophy approaches those kinds of questions. What I can do is give you some flavor of what that would look like. The classical Christian concept of God handed down to us from the fathers and doctors of the church, is less of a gap-filler; but rather, more of a "god of the expanse." Because God is the Absolute on which all depends his action and presence are universal not only in external phenomena but also most profoundly linked to our mental being, including mental activities that do not rise to the level of conscious awareness.

The notion that souls are some kind of secret sauce added on top of the physical body is a modern misconception. In classical terms, human beings are hylomorphic, a unity of matter and substantial form. Souls are what what makes things what they are. It means something to be a chimp. It means something to be a bacteria. And it means something to be human, i.e. human nature**

Naturalism/Physicalism/Materialism are all terms of art making essentially the same basic arbitrary assumption that all forms of causation are bottom-up, third person processes, i.e. material and efficient causes. It is not the default position as some suppose; but rather, an interpretation of reality based on willfully ignoring first-person observations of formal and final causes. Both formal and final causes are top-down processes. The potential of matter needs to be informed before it can actualize. Efficient causes (agents and bodies) are disposed towards a limited range of ends. We simply cannot make sense of the world without recognizing, either tacitly or explicitly, that teleology operates at all levels of reality and describing the world in terms of intentionality. Consciousness is directed towards phenomenal content. Reason assigns meaning. Animals have desires. Organs have functions and unthinking bodies have regular tendencies.

In contrast to this modern naturalism says that all these obvious features of reality (qualia, forms, intentions, and moral imperatives)magically 'emerge' if you combine undirected physical processes, chance encounters, and unconscious matter in some unspecified way. The magician waves his magic wand over the empty hat of the physical world and out pops the rabbit of consciousness. To continue the analogy, the naturalist/physicalist/materialist (take your pick) isn't trying to figure out where the rabbit came from; but rather, how wand waving and hats can generate rabbits or saying that the rabbit itself is an illusion. Either option is absurd, but they will repeatedly assert that someday/maybe they'll figure it out.

**hence moral imperatives flowing from our rational nature. Unless there is a way you ought to be then there is no basis for what you should do.

I am an ex-Catholic.  I wonder what the 'neo' in neo-scholasticism is for?  After all, what's wrong with scholasticism?  Could it be that you have come to regard scholasticism as being antiquated?  After all, Saint Thomas put Hell at the center of the Earth and God created the Heavens and Earth not in six days but in one.  Could it be that someday you'll be an ex-scholastic?

Most scholars are naturalists; if neo-dualism is as self-evident as you claim, why are not more scholars dualists?  It seems to me that dualism is but a tiny fragment of what it was during the era of scholasticism.  Materialism does not seem at all to be in retreat.  In fact, a number of Christian theologians are materialists, who simply believe that when a human being dies, that person's conscious self is destroyed (contrary to the so-called "infallible" teaching of the Catholic Church), and at the general resurrection in a billion or so years, God will rearrange the atoms in such a way as to revive the individual.

Now, if the soul and brain are so intertwined as to be one entity, why appeal to a soul at all?  After all, are not a 100 billion neurons with a thousand synaptic connections between them sufficient?  Why appeal at all to something for which there is no evidence?  Why not just say that consciousness is an emergent property of a brain, one that is not reducible to its individual constituent parts?  Why appeal at all to something "immaterial", which, if it acted against the material brain, would be in violation of all of the conservation laws known to physics?  And, if what applies in the entire Universe and this World does not also apply within your head, is not that an extraordinary claim?  And, don't such claims demand extraordinary evidence?  After all, what about the talking donkeys living on a planet about Alpha Centauri?

Just because something silly is believed by lots of people does nothing to change the fact that it is still absurd.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Unfortunately, I do not have time to give you a full and proper account for how neo-Scholastic philosophy approaches those kinds of questions. What I can do is give you some flavor of what that would look like.

---

The classical Christian concept of God handed down to us from the fathers and doctors of the church, is less of a gap-filler; but rather, more of a "god of the expanse." Because God is the Absolute on which all depends his action and presence are universal not only in external phenomena but also most profoundly linked to our mental being, including mental activities that do not rise to the level of conscious awareness.

The notion that souls are some kind of secret sauce added on top of the physical body is a modern misconception. In classical terms, human beings are hylomorphic, a unity of matter and substantial form. Souls are what what makes things what they are. It means something to be a chimp. It means something to be a bacteria. And it means something to be human, i.e. human nature**

Naturalism/Physicalism/Materialism are all terms of art making essentially the same basic arbitrary assumption that all forms of causation are bottom-up, third person processes, i.e. material and efficient causes. It is not the default position as some suppose; but rather, an interpretation of reality based on willfully ignoring first-person observations of formal and final causes. Both formal and final causes are top-down processes. The potential of matter needs to be informed before it can actualize. Efficient causes (agents and bodies) are disposed towards a limited range of ends. We simply cannot make sense of the world without recognizing, either tacitly or explicitly, that teleology operates at all levels of reality and describing the world in terms of intentionality. Consciousness is directed towards phenomenal content. Reason assigns meaning. Animals have desires. Organs have functions and unthinking bodies have regular tendencies.

In contrast to this modern naturalism says that all these obvious features of reality (qualia, forms, intentions, and moral imperatives)magically 'emerge' if you combine undirected physical processes, chance encounters, and unconscious matter in some unspecified way. The magician waves his magic wand over the empty hat of the physical world and out pops the rabbit of consciousness. To continue the analogy, the naturalist/physicalist/materialist (take your pick) isn't trying to figure out where the rabbit came from; but rather, how wand waving and hats can generate rabbits or saying that the rabbit itself is an illusion. Either option is absurd, but they will repeatedly assert that someday/maybe they'll figure it out.

**hence moral imperatives flowing from our rational nature. Unless there is a way you ought to be then there is no basis for what you should do.

---

...if neo-dualism is as self-evident as you claim, why are not more scholars dualists?  It seems to me that dualism is but a tiny fragment of what it was during the era of scholasticism.

If after reading the post I carefully crafted just for your benefit you are still under the impression that I advocate substance dualism then you did not do me the courtesy of trying to understand it. I'm sorry I wasted my time.

Intentionality and moral imperatives are things that naturalism has not explained.  You overstep by claiming naturalism "cannot" explain those things.  As usual when you confront naturalism, you fall into a stereotypical argument from ignorance.

If all people look for are efficient and material causes, then that's all they will find.

[Jehanne]

...if neo-dualism is as self-evident as you claim, why are not more scholars dualists?  It seems to me that dualism is but a tiny fragment of what it was during the era of scholasticism.

If after reading the post I carefully crafted just for your benefit you are still under the impression that I advocate substance dualism then you did not do me the courtesy of trying to understand it. I'm sorry I wasted my time.

If you are not a substance dualist, then you are not a scholastic, neo or otherwise.  That would be equivalent to saying that Donald Trump is a progressive socialist.

[Angrboda]

Intentionality and moral imperatives are things that naturalism has not explained.  You overstep by claiming naturalism "cannot" explain those things.  As usual when you confront naturalism, you fall into a stereotypical argument from ignorance.

If all people look for are efficient and material causes, then that's all they will find.

How does one "look for" formal and final causes?