Podcasts

Six reasons why you should believe in non-physical souls

2 Comments

This podcast is a must-listen. Please take the time to download this podcast and listen to it. I guarantee that you will love this podcast. I even recommended it to my Dad and I almost never do that.

Details:

In this podcast, J. Warner examines the evidence for the existence of the mind (and inferentially, the soul) as he looks at six classic philosophical arguments. Jim also briefly discusses Thomas Nagel’s book, Mind and Cosmos and discusses the limitations of physicalism.

The MP3 file is here. (67 MB, 72 minutes)

Topics:

  • Atheist Thomas Nagel’s latest book “Mind and Cosmos” makes the case that materialism cannot account for the evidence of mental phenomena
  • Nagel writes in this recent New York Times article that materialism cannot account for the reality of consciousness, meaning, intention and purpose
  • Quote from the Nagel article:

Even though the theistic outlook, in some versions, is consistent with the available scientific evidence, I don’t believe it, and am drawn instead to a naturalistic, though non-materialist, alternative. Mind, I suspect, is not an inexplicable accident or a divine and anomalous gift but a basic aspect of nature that we will not understand until we transcend the built-in limits of contemporary scientific orthodoxy.

  • When looking at this question, it’s important to not have our conclusions pre-determined by presupposing materialism or atheism
  • If your mind/soul doesn’t exist and you are a purely physical being then that is a defeater for Christianity, so we need to respond
  • Traditionally, Christians have been committed to a view of human nature called “dualism” – human beings are souls who have bodies
  • The best way* to argue for the existence of the soul is using philosophical arguments

The case:

  • The law of identity says that if A = B’ if A and B have the exact same properties
  • If A = the mind and B = the brain, then is A identical to B?
  • Wallace will present 6 arguments to show that A is not identical to B because they have different properties

Not everyone of the arguments below might make sense to you, but you will probably find one or two that strike you as correct. Some of the points are more illustrative than persuasive, like #2. However, I do find #3, #5 and #6 persuasive.

1) First-person access to mental properties

  • Thought experiment: Imagine your dream car, and picture it clearly in your mind
  • If we invited an artist to come and sketch out your dream car, then we could see your dream car’s shape on paper
  • This concept of your dream car is not something that people can see by looking at your brain structure
  • Physical properties can be physically accessed, but the properties of your dream care and privately accessed

2) Our experience of consciousness implies that we are not our bodies

  • Common sense notion of personhood is that we own our bodies, but we are not our bodies

3) Persistent self-identity through time

  • Thought experiment: replacing a new car with an old car one piece at a time
  • When you change even the smallest part of a physical object, it changes the identity of that object
  • Similarly, your body is undergoing changes constantly over time
  • Every cell in your body is different from the body you had 10 years ago
  • Even your brain cells undergo changes (see this from New Scientist – WK)
  • If you are the same person you were 10 years ago, then you are not your physical body

4) Mental properties cannot be measured like physical objects

  • Physical objects can be measured (e.g. – use physical measurements to measure weight, size, etc.)
  • Mental properties cannot be measured

5) Intentionality or About-ness

  • Mental entities can refer to realities that are physical, something outside of themselves
  • A tree is not about anything, it just is a physical object
  • But you can have thoughts about the tree out there in the garden that needs water

6) Free will and personal responsibility

  • If humans are purely physical, then all our actions are determined by sensory inputs and genetic programming
  • Biological determinism is not compatible with free will, and free will is required for personal responsibility
  • Our experience of moral choices and moral responsibility requires free will, and free will requires minds/souls

He spends the last 10 minutes of the podcast responding to naturalistic objections to the mind/soul hypothesis.

*Now in the podcast, Wallace does say that scientific evidence is not the best kind of evidence to use when discussing this issue of body/soul and mind/brain. But I did blog before about two pieces of evidence that I think are relevant to this discussion: corroborated near-death experiences and mental effort.

You might remember that Dr. Craig brought up the issue of substance dualism, and the argument from intentionality (“aboutness”), in his debate with the naturalist philosopher Alex Rosenberg, so this argument about dualism is battle-ready. You can add it to your list of arguments for Christian theism along with all the other arguments like the Big Bang, the fine-tuning, the origin of life, stellar habitability, galactic habitability, irreducible complexity, molecular machines, the Cambrian explosion, the moral argument, the resurrection, biological convergence, and so on.

News

Did you miss this recent historically-accurate World War 2 movie?

3 Comments

In this post, I wanted to alert you to some books that I’ve been reading, and post a couple of videos that review a recent movie that fits in with those books. I’m trying to encourage everyone to ween themselves off of fiction, self-help, sports and modern movies. And in order to get people to do that, I have to find something better.

So, in World War 2, the Allies (UK, USA and USSR) were fighting in two main areas of the globe: Europe and the Pacific Ocean. Previously, I had ignored the Pacific, because island fighting didn’t seem to me to be as interesting as fighting in Europe. It just seemed too “close quarters” for any real tactics or strategy. But I had stupidly neglected the naval battles, which are full of tactics and strategy. So, I’ve been reading books about American aircraft used in the Pacific theater, the US submarine forces, as well as the major battles of our surface fleets.

Here are some of the aircraft books:

Here are some of the submarine books:

And a few surface ship books:

These are all available as audio books.

I wanted to specifically highlight the book on the Battle of Midway, by Craig L. Symonds. There was a recent movie made about the battle, and it had surprisingly few historical mistakes. This 2-part video review was excellent.

Part 1:

Part 2:

The movie is from 2019, and you can still stream it, or get the DVD. It will help you to have a broad overview of the battle, and then when you read the book, it makes sense. If you have never seen a war movie, this is an excellent one to start with. It really sticks to the historical facts. It is superior to the previous 1976 Midway movie with Charleton Heston and Henry Fonda.

Battle of Midway Map
Battle of Midway Map

What makes this particular battle interesting is that the American Navy was actually outnumbered and outgunned by the superior Japanese Navy at that time. They had more ships, better planes, and better trained airmen and sailors. But we had a secret weapon – you’ll have to watch the movie to find out what it was. Midway was the turning point of the Pacific War. It’s a good reminder why we always need to keep our “blue water” naval force in the trim. I wish we spent more on our armed forces than we do on all these spending programs to transfer wealth from taxpayers to other people – subsidies and welfare. At least when we spend money on the armed forces, it’s Constitutional, and we get something useful for it.

We really should not know the names of famous actors, artists, musicians, athletes, etc. These people are pretty and talented, sure. But they never did anything to fight against evils like Marxism and Japanese Imperialism. Christianity is a faith that pits good against evil, so naturally, I am very interested in people who battle against evil. The American armed forces have an excellent record of battling against evil, often at great personal cost. Something that the current generation of entertainers cannot match.

News

Pro-abortion feminist academic justifies divorcing the man she loved

18 Comments

In the past, I’ve written about how we need to get rid of no-fault divorce laws, if we expect men to feel comfortable about getting married. I’ve explained that men have seen what divorce does to other men, and to children. Some of us, like me, have read books and studies about it. And it’s a major reason why men don’t marry.

In today’s post, we’re going to look at an article in the far-left New York Times, written by a pro-abortion progressive feminist professor, who divorced her husband, making her two children fatherless.

What did he do wrong? Nothing.

Behold:

There was no emotional or physical abuse in our home. There was no absence of love. I was in love with my husband when we got divorced. Part of me is in love with him still. I suspect that will always be the case. Even now, after everything, when he walks into the room my stomach drops the same way it does before the roller coaster comes down. I divorced my husband not because I didn’t love him. I divorced him because I loved myself more.

[…]I made choice after choice to prioritize my career because I believed fervently in the importance of the work I was doing… [children of divorce] benefit because happier mothers are better parents.

[…] I knew that trying to force myself to subordinate my ambitions and always put our children first would have been impossible without lopping off a vital part of myself.

At the time of her decision, the children were aged 5 and 3! If she chose her career, that means that she was not raising them, during that critical first five years. Daycare is proven to be a poor substitute for the mother during those early years.

CafeMom notes:

No one is more acutely aware than Bazelon is of the many things she’s missed as a mother — things that have stuck with her through the years so strongly, she can mentally list them off one by one. They include, in her words: “My daughter’s seventh birthday, my son’s 10th birthday party, two family vacations, three Halloweens, [and] every school camping trip,” she writes. “I have never chaperoned, coached or organized a school event.”

My daughter’s seventh birthday was the worst. She cried… But I had a trial starting the next day, six hours away.”

Now, what about her statement about divorce being good for children, because if she is happy, then they will be happy? Many women believe this, and most communities for women affirm this. But is it true? What does the peer-reviewed data say?

Here’s a famous study (PDF) that says: (H/T Philip Greenspun)

This follow-up study of 131 children, who were 3–18 years old when their parents divorced in the early 1970s, marks the culmination of  25 years of research. The use of extensive clinical interviews  allowed for exploration in great depth of their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors as they negotiated childhood, adolescence, young adulthood, and adulthood. At the 25-year follow-up, a comparison group of their peers from the same community was added. Described in rich clinical detail, the findings highlight the unexpected gulf between growing up in intact versus divorced families, and the difficulties children of divorce encounter in achieving love, sexual intimacy, and commitment to marriage and parenthood. These findings have significant implications for new clinical and educational interventions.

Specifically: (I stole this from Philip)

Hardly any of our subjects described a happy childhood; in fact a number of children told us that “the day they divorced was the day my childhood ended.” … By the 25-year mark, the majority had decided not to have children.

No child of divorce in our study was invited by both parents, either separately or together, to discuss college plans. … Only 57% of the divorce group achieved their bachelor’s degree as compared with 90% in the comparison group. … Unhappy, [those who did attend college] settled for fields of study that were not their first choice, at lower ranked institutions than their parents had attended. It was at this time that one young person, echoing the emotions of many others, commented bitterly, “I paid for my parents’ divorce.”

The central finding of this study is that parental divorce impacts detrimentally the capacity to love and be loved within a lasting, committed relationship.

This study was actually made into a book, and I read it. That’s partly how I formed my views of divorce. In her column, the feminist refutes data like this with an anecdote. She “knows a person” whose experience refutes the peer-reviewed evidence. I don’t find that kind of self-serving rationalization very convincing. But it’s common.

By the way, I also read books about daycare when I was thinking about marriage, and I hate daycare, too. You would think that a smart feminist academic would read books about marriage, divorce and parenting like I did, and respect the evidence in her decision-making, rather than being led by her feelings.  I’m just a senior software engineer with 22 years of private sector experience. But I sure wouldn’t make decisions about marriage and children without reading books and studies first. What’s that old familiar saying in Information Technology? RTFM. Read The Freaking Manual. Engineers read the manual. Emotion-based people don’t.

Women may say to all this, “well, what do you expect me to do? Be unhappy with a bad man?” And the answer is – if you have children, then yes. The time to avoid getting married to a bad man is before you marry him. And we should teach women to disregard feelings, feminism, and peer approval. They should instead prepare themselves for marriage with chastity and sobriety, and choose men who are sober, chaste and have demonstrated commitment ability.

So here’s my conclusion. I don’t recommend that any man marry a feminist. If they are willing to kill their own children, then they are willing to abuse their own children with divorce. If they believe in same-sex marriage, then they don’t think that children deserve a mother AND a father. Don’t marry a secular leftist woman. You’ll pay, and your children will suffer.

Homeschooling moms who influence their neighbors, their local church, and the local university, for Christ, have the better end of the marriage deal. If I were married, I would trade places with my wife in a minute, if I could. It’s far more interesting to homeschool kids in great literature, science, economics, and computer programming, than it is to keep your mouth shut all day in an environment that is hostile to Christian convictions.