Why Richard Dawkins Is Wrong About The Afterlife
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ก.พ. 2024
- In this video I discuss Richard Dawkin's claim that the materiality of the intellect prevents an realistic hope for an afterlife, and demonstrate how we can know that the intellect is immaterial and that an afterlife is therefore possible.
Have questions? You can reach me at thomascahillquestions@gmail.com.
With regard to the part of your argument that deals with the immateriality of the intellect where you say that only an immaterial thing can grasp an immaterial object,
you might be interested in the philosopher Alva Noe’s take on this in his book, Action in Perception, and the more accessible version, Out of Our Heads.
He discusses the impossibility of the electro-biological-mechanical theory of knowledge through the hard problem of consciousness and the problem of interpretation which cannot be accounted for by mechanical-biological factors.
I’ve come to favor this argument over Thomas’s - especially when (due to enlightenment thinking) many aren’t ready to entertain metaphysics as a legitimate science.
There's absolutely no evidence that the intellect can operate independently of the brain; and an absolute mountain of evidence that not only is it dependent on brain function, but is directly compromised when brain function is adversely affected by either disease (like dementia) or by substances such as drugs and alcohol. This is demonstrable fact, however much you may wish it were otherwise or try to philosophise it away. Even our moods can affect brain function. Our ability to pigeonhole objects into different categories and to visualise things yet unseen or purely imaginative has nothing whatsoever to do with some supposed immaterial brain function.
Every scrap of evidence points towards the brain and intellect developing in tandem...and deteriorating in tandem.
The claim that there is “absolutely no evidence that the intellect can operate independently of the brain” is proven wrong by the fact that we can grasp immaterial concepts, as demonstrated in my video.
It is true that our ability to exercise our intellect is impacted when our brain function is impacted, but all this shows is that the intellect needs the brain to apply concepts to concrete situations, not that it needs the brain to hold concepts.
@-Cahill Grasping immaterial concepts is called imagination. It's not a proof of anything other than imagination.
An intellect that exists independently of the brain works both ways.. It would precede as well as succeed a material brain; and we'd be born with fully-developed intellects. The fact that we're not and that our intellect develops along with our brain during childhood is proof positive of my previous points. Denying such precedence is an admission that intellect and brain activity are firmly bound together.
I just cannot understand why some people long for an eternal 'life' after death; it would be terrifying. They've clearly never thought very deeply about the actual nature of either life or eternity.
As a species we thrive on both change and challenges. We even have the expression 'A change is as good as a rest'. Our intellect and character is further shaped by our physical development...nurture rather than nature. As for challenges, some are certainly unwelcome to varying degrees, but we are lost without them. When not faced with any challenges, we invent them, even if it's only solving a crossword puzzle...or compiling a TH-cam video. There would be no challenges in a disembodied, post-life existence. You'd be an impotent 'brain in a jar' for all eternity without even death as a way out. Even if you were to have some profound insights, like Stephen Hawking, you would have no way of communicating them to anyone else to act upon...unless you are going to fantasise further and claim that you'll be able to mysteriously telepathise with other disembodied intellects. There's certainly no evidence of such supposed intellects 'communicating' with the still-living, which can't be readily explained by psychosis. Not just a lifetime in solitary confinement, but all eternity. Be very careful what you wish for.
Before I respond to your argument, I want to make sure we're on the same page. What do you mean by “imagination?”
@@alfresco8442 "An intellect that exists independently of the brain works both ways.. It would precede as well as succeed a material brain; and we'd be born with fully-developed intellects"...
I don't think you could even get that far. Let's suppose that the human brain (or any animal brain) somehow evolved the ability to spawn an immaterial mind (that supposedly is required to hold immaterial concepts though that conditional relationship has yet to be demonstrated rather than asserted), then unless we came up with a method to communicate directly with the mind (say telepathy) we could not know whether the mind went on to exist without the brain. There's no obvious requirement for an immaterial mind (even if it actually existed) to survive the brain, hence without testing via communication, no assumption could made on pre-existence or post existence of the brain.
Indeed as you point out, unless the mind could directly communicate with other minds then everlasting existence would mean being locked into a kind of eternal hell of self awareness but without external senses. A mind would quickly be reduced to madness, just as humans (and other animals) do if completely isolated and all senses shut down. Of course we can solve that problem piling up more and more claims of an eternal theme park where you experience endless lollipops and rainbows with friends and families forevermore.
@@downshift4503 Agreed! I was merely exposing the illogicality of the claim. The Abrahamic longing for an eternity in Paradise isn't thought through at all. In fact it's a very shallow concept. I use the metaphor of a theme park myself. We had a wonderful week in Disneyland when the kids were younger; but that's the point...it was a week...not all eternity. Imagine being locked-in, listening to It's A Small World After All for all eternity, without any chance of a reprieve...ever. Even that assumes that you can still communicate with other beings in a disembodied state. Frankly, the only kind of me that could survive that kind of fate would be one that had already been lobotomised. Give me oblivion (and a retention of some dignity and humanity) any day. All good things come in small doses.
Even as a ten-year-old I remember wondering which 'you' goes up to heaven; or in the context of this video, which intellect survives death? The toddler you, or the possibly senile, or bitter, twisted and grieving at life's hard knocks you? Logic would dictate it's the latter...the you at the point of death (assuming any of this were true.) But I'm guessing that those who hope for this imagine that it's the you at the peak of your intellectual powers, when everything is just peachy. How terribly convenient. What about the mentally sub-normal who never 'peak' at all, or those who die in early childhood? Are they doomed to spend all eternity in a sub-optimal state? It's an ill-thought-out mish-mash of unevidenced fantasy and wishful thinking.
Well explained but I am not convinced that just because the brain is able to hold concepts, ideas, universals etc that are immaterial therefore the part of the brain that achieves that MUST be immaterial. Your conclusion does not follow (though I am not saying your conclusion is impossible, just that your methodology doesn't get you there). Unfortunately we do not currently understand how the mind works, ie, how the brain is able to hold concepts and ideas etc so testing is somewhat limited. Of course we currently have no examples of a mind operating without a brain (which would prove your conclusion) but we do know that by damaging the brain it impacts our intellect (which does suggest your conclusion is wrong, but is not proof it is wrong).
In addition, your conclusion would also suggest that animals with brains and the ability to think also go on to live in the afterlife (not just humans) and that this afterlife commenced at the point the animal brain developed the ability to think.
Thanks for the comment. Would you agree that, if a concept is understood as “what a thing is,” then the only way for matter to hold a concept is to hold “what that thing is” materially, and would you agree that something holding “what x is” materially requires is to have the physical attributes of x? If I, for example, hold “what it is to be an elephant” in myself materially, doesn’t that mean that I must have all the physical attributes of an elephant in me materially?
@-Cahill No I don't agree. Your logical argument appears intuitive but is unfounded. It's just an assertion. You haven't demonstrated how you go from
P1 Brain is material
P2 Some concepts are non-material
P3 ONLY immaterial things can hold concepts that are non-material
Conclusion.... there must be an immaterial part of the brain that lives on after it's material death.
I would reject P3 as it hasn't been demonstrated. Edit... demonstrate "ONLY" (or perhaps demonstrate material things CANNOT hold immaterial concepts)
I would also reject the conclusion even if P3 was demonstrated as you would need to show the immaterial part of the brain could act without the brain in order to continue existing.... ie there needs to be a P4 that the immaterial mind can survive without a physical brain.
Practically ALL of the attributes "what it is to be an elephant" aren't material.... eg, a list of its atoms, but how those atoms form a chemical and biological structure... and what those structures do / behave rather than what they materially are. I could take what we call an elephant and reduce it to its basic material, put it into a box and no-one would recognise it as an elephant.
We don't know how the brain understands what a thing is (whether the thing is material or immaterial). The brain is material (can be reduced to atoms) that I agree with, but what we call the mind might be better described as a property or process of the brain rather than a physical part of the brain ( though it's currently unknown), ie something that the brain DOES.
An analogy (not a perfect one) might be an argument that I am alive, but my atoms aren't alive, therefore the "material" part of me isn't alive, whatever being alive is must be immaterial and coming from somewhere else (and hence souls / afterlife etc) . Without that, my body would just be a bunch of atoms. However we know that atoms form part of a chemical and biological structures and being "alive" is something that the chemical and biological structure do, it's a set of complex processes not an immaterial "thing". As far as we know, I am alive in the same way that all other living things are (and hence souls not required).
The point of my analogy is that we know a lot more about chemistry and biology and can arrive at the conclusion (of how we are alive while our atoms aren't alive) through science. We currently don't know enough about how the brain (it's atoms, chemistry and biology) achieve a collection of processes of what we call the "mind".
I can see one or two strawmen cropping up, a wee bit of conflation and a some dubious examples in your arguments. Good job over all. You might have wanted to mention, because this is all very Aristotelian, the real distinction, man as a hylomorphic being and the notion of abstraction. It's a real challenge to combat other arguments when each party is starting at seemingly opposite ends of the philosophic tradition. I do like the first part of the video, but the second part falls a bit off the rails :)
Keep doing the good, brother!
Das ist alles sehr interessant, machen Sie weiter so!
Being able to understand abstract concepts is a fascinating way to prove that the mind is immaterial. This would make sense too why only humans are granted an afterlife, as our species is the only one capable of conceptual knowledge. A dog can recognize what a duck is, but he is incapable of recognizing that his stuffed toy duck is modeled after that animal. I very much enjoy the content so far, looking forward to seeing how your channel progresses.
Humans are "granted" an afterlife? How do you know that?
Our species is the only one capable of conceptual knowledge? how do you know that?
I watched this to see if you made a sound point, based on fact. But since the afterlife can't be factually proven, your ramble is smart sounding, but no tangible evidence was given.
Hahaha such builsh@@&kr