The Naturalist's Problem - A Clip From Dr. Greg Bahnsen

[andyg2550]

Wouldn't it be nice if Dr Bahnsen rose form the dead to tell us all about the supernatural world that he now inhabits. With supernaturalism anything is possible.

[YHWHisSovereign]

As I have been pointing out, consistent atheists, or naturalists, have no reason to even argue. Therefore, if you find an atheist that is arguing for atheism, they are inconsistent, and have to borrow from Christian presupposition. Of course, non-Christians are always borrowing from Christian presuppositions because there is no purpose to life otherwise.

[YHWHisSovereign]

As I have been pointed out, consistent atheists, or naturalists, have no reason to even argue. Therefore, if you find an atheist that is arguing for atheism, they are inconsistent, and have to borrow from Christian presupposition. Of course, non-Christians are always borrowing from Christian presuppositions because there is no purpose to life otherwise.

[LukeoXx]

Lol, this clip looks like its from the 50s. Good video though.

[BW022]

What a complete straw man arguement. A process can be naturalistic yet not deterministic. Quantum mechanics is naturalistic yet in not way deterministic. No one has ever said that the human mind is deterministic. And of course... even if the universe was deterministic... then the fact we have no free-will to decide what the answer is... doesn't make the answer we get wrong.

[Venaloid]

Yeah, no reason to say it's true, except that the brain itself is a logical data processor that is wired to reach conclusions and make decisions.

[actionjackson864]

atheist is "good" his whole life, goes to hell forever...christian kills 50 ppl...goes to heaven.....wait WHAT?!?! lol, come on this doesnt make sense.

any "presupper" of any Abrahamic religion needs to go to

bahnsenburner.blogspot.com

and prepare to have your argument incinerated. please post on dawson's blog so he can talk some sense into you and keep you from walking around in confused circles of fallacies for the rest of your life. lol

[theocratickingdom30]

@actionjackson864: Well I certainly hope you aren't a representative of the site you posted. You misrepresented one of the basics of Christianity in your comments. How do you know he's incinerating a presupp argument if you don't even know the basics of the reformed Christian faith?

[actionjackson864]

@theocratickingdom30 I wasnt trying to represent, or misrepresent anyone or anything. Just wanted to submit that presup. is a fallacy, just as Aristotle debunked it a bajillion years ago. I know the christian faith, believe me, haha, u have no idea.

[CarlosMarti123]

@actionjackson864 And these are the foolhardy, wannabe, and pseudo-intellectual atheists who cast vote-downs on this video.

[reo345678]

@actionjackson864 If a so-called Christian kills fifty people it's pretty clear he is not a Christian. Someone claiming to be a Christian a someone actually being a Christian are 2 different things. The pharisees in the Bible were like that. They claimed to be Christians. Jesus called them a brood of vipers a white washed wall. Claiming to be a Christian and truly being one are not the same. Also, what standard of good does the atheist even have?

[suchafool990]

@reo345678 Oprah

[ProNorden]

@reo345678 ..Did Pharisees really "claim to be Christians"? Didn't they claim to be particularly observant and practicing jews, though expecting a Messiah?

[reo345678]

@ProNorden My bad, not Christians, but following God's laws.

[bangNL94]

As an Atheist I can agree with this guy. But the thing is, that you can't solve the problem (naturalism) with a lie (religion).

[kartorus]

Straw Man argument.

[a5dr3]

how so?

[kartorus]

@a5dr3 He twists naturalism into an easily refutable position then refutes it. Definition of a straw man.

[a5dr3]

Nah Thats a legitimate representation, no matter how much flesh Dennet tries to put on the bones.

[kartorus]

@a5dr3 His argument comes down to, naturalism means that all thought is undirected and uncontrollable, that is not an accurate representation of naturalism either methodological, or metaphysical.

[a5dr3]

i Dont understand what you mean. Naturalism by definition precludes the metaphysical

[scienceman030]

Well, what can we say WootWootPenguin; we can't all be as astute as you. You know, it is your impeccable mastery of the english language that most readily shows your colossal intelligence.

No doubt, you are the cannon by which all other scholars and communicators should be measured.

***Yo shore is!***

[WootWootPenguin]

hahah goddamn you christians is crazy stupid!

[chiefwigie]

i would love for you to clearly demonstrate how this is the case based on this video.

[patparks1]

Is this a meaningful proposition or just your evolutionary emotivism being activated by your chemical stimuli? Hmmm? I think you know the answer.

Cheers!

[darrinrasberry]

That being said, Bahnsen rocks.

[darrinrasberry]

Weird that a Compatibilist theologian offers this counterargument, when many Arminians say the same to his own camp regarding choices determined by sinful desires. I'm also not sure how this doesn't commit the modo hoc ("just this") fallacy, since it's the arrangement of material that is important - even in a Christian worldview men are the same composition plus one immaterial soul, so the same boat is here unless the Christian *specifies* (like the naturalist) that the body is alive.

[a5dr3]

That is not the Biblical position of the soul, or of the body.

[MavericKLongRange]

Yep, absolutely true, if there is no 'real thinking' you can't trust the statement that 'there is no real thinking'. Mix salt with water and the solution just might start thinking... Atheists are miracle believers, if they believe that, why do they find it so hard to believe for example that Jesus rose from the dead? Man, with all this scientific evidence, they should recognize the Truth. I hope they do! May God help them!

[eoosen]

This guy is a joke: the denial of free will based on a flawed notion of natural causality. He is unable to acknowledge that there is a growing body of evidence (within "naturalistic" neuroscience) that suggests complex systems such as the human brain (or an ecosystem) can have top-down (rather than this bottom-up) influence-- no supernatural or magical elements required! See, "Did My Neurons Make Me Do It?: Philosophical and Neurobiological Perspectives on Moral Responsibility and Free Will."

[eoosen]

Oops, he died in 1995. He never lived to eat his own bad science.

[a5dr3]

Could you summarize the thrust of the article? Everytime I spend an afternoon reading of "new developments" in this area of from Dennett or whoever, I regret the time I wasted. It is always the same old determinism with a shiny new even more"scientifically complex" package that to me sounds like a magical explanation, and never addresses the underlying philisophical problems.

[skurt999]

Wow. He pointed out a counterintuitive implication of hard determinism. That's a great way to argue: Theory of Relativity? Nah, that would imply time is not a steady flow of discreet units experienced universally, which our intuitions clearly don't suggest. Therefore, False!

[chiefwigie]

The problem arises when a naturalist tries to hold a view of moral responsibility. Moral responsibility is not coherently compatible with naturalism. If my thoughts are the results of natural causes acting in accordance with natural law, how can I be morally responsible for anything I do?

[skurt999]

chief- if our thoughts/actions are determined, then that determination applies to our moral judgments as well. This explains our strong intuition that some things are universally wrong... notice how we can't choose our intuitions regarding what's right and wrong. The acceptance of determinism doesn't mean you can abandon a sense of moral responsibility, because that judgment is not ours to freely choose... it is caused by evolution. Neuroscience supports this, as psychopaths' brains are diff.

[theocratickingdom30]

@chiefwigie: Exactly! 

[bigglyguy]

@chiefwigie Because the natural causes that give rise to human brains lead us into creating and generally adhering to concepts such as moral responsibility, while naturally selecting for those that can stick to it best, as a survival mechanism in an otherwise cruel and uncaring world. Dumbass.

[Drweavil]

What a load of Bullshit. I'm sorry I was going to come up with a snappy answer but that has to be the biggest load of Vacuous Tat I have ever hear.

Indoctrination and hypocrisy... line up people take a ticket and get a front row seat, this guy will fertilize your entire state.

[gunnerclark]

Please tell me this man is not educated. Please! If so I fear for our educational system because his 'logic' is so bad, and his reasoning is so bad that it hurt to listen to him. He does not understand the naturalist postition and borders on idiocy when he attempts to tell us what the naturalist thinks.

[fiacharrey]

He has, at least, a PhD. Sorry. Yes, it hurts my brain, too. But, the truth is that critical thinking is not always a requirement in a PhD program.

[fiacharrey]

Yep, no critical thinking expected: he had a doctorate in theology. He died in 1995.

[fiacharrey]

Boiled down, this argument is that, in the naturalistic world view, humans are not capable of reason. Clearly this is not true. That the human mind operates on naturalistic principles does not mean that it is incapable of reasoning, and naturalists have plenty of reasons for believing as they do.

[chiefwigie]

If all causes are merely naturalistic causes, at what point does a human mind escape this chain in order to deliberate and reason? If thoughts are naturalistic, then they must follow the laws of nature. But if that is so, how do you account for agency?

[thisissick22]

How far do you want to take it? Other animals are capable of reasoning, crows for example, can count into double figures. Intelligence is a product of evolution, making better decisions is beneficial to the spoecies.

[chiefwigie]

You're missing the point. The point isn't that we don't reason. The point is that within a naturalist's worldview, the phenomenon of reasoning cannot be accounted for. The thoughts in your brain are merely the result of natural causes being governed by natural laws. When you make a decision, according to naturalism, it's merely a more complicated version of your knee being hit and your leg kicking forward as a result.

[thisissick22]

It is a more complicated version, much more complicated. As i said before, many animals are capable of intelligent reasoning, some more intelligent than others. It is called the evolution of the brain. Reasoning is accounted for by it being beneficial to some species, ensuring their better survival than less intelligent individuals, thus passing on the gene. there is no advantage to a worm in being intelligent, where as in social animals, intelligence can be regarded with more importance.

[chiefwigie]

Yeah, you're missing the point.

[thisissick22]

You've made yours real well.

[fiacharrey]

Pragmatically, we have to act as if we have free will, whether we have it or not. Causation is so bogglingly complex, that we can't know all the causes. It's a black box that gives us the illusion of free will, basically. Here is a pretty good video that discusses "free will:" VP2VSV23Ug0