# Consciousness reduces to Material States?



## Craig (Mar 6, 2008)

I've been seeing a number of atheists say this lately...

They'll say that material gives rise to consciousness and explain that this is where we get logic and morality.

To me, it would seem that neither logic nor morality would be *neccessary*.

How would you address this atheistic assertion?


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 6, 2008)

Craig said:


> I've been seeing a number of atheists say this lately...
> 
> They'll say that material gives rise to consciousness and explain that this is where we get logic and morality.
> 
> ...



It still requires a "leap of faith" to believe that immaterial thoughts must conform to material behavior.


----------



## Craig (Mar 6, 2008)

My conclusion...thus far is that if consciousness arises from the material....

Then different physiologies can/will produce different consciousnesses...most atheists would agree seeing that we don't seem to share consciousness....and according to them, it is here (consciousness) that logic and morality arise. Since it is the case that each person has a different consciousness, verified by the fact that different people come to different conclusions on just about everything...there is no way to establish one conclusion as being better than another...

No epistemological claim would be justifiable. Rather than establishing logic and morality as objective, it destroys their universality.

*I think* that is a pretty good critique...but would like to hear other's ideas since we seem to have a good number of apologetical gurus.


----------



## Zenas (Mar 6, 2008)

If the material gives rise to consciousness, then it cannot, if that is true. If we don't share consciousness; and we don't, and those consciousnesses have arisen from the material seperately, then the logical conclusions and moral rules set forth are either A. Inherant in nature; or B. Subjective to the person.

They must abandon A because this is not the case; conscious animals such as dogs or cats are not bound to the same mores as humans; therefore B is the only viable conclusion. If B is the only viable conclusion, then if the original statement is true, and B is true, the original statement is false because it is an objective statement and only the subjective is allowed, according to option B.


Yet another self-defeating argument. Way to go blind of this world.

When these people put forth arguments to explain the objective and how it came into being, they will always offer an objective, universal rule that claims everything is not objective and universal, but subjective and particular. Every. single. time. Never fails. The contradiction inherant in espousing that though should be obvious. Reduce the argument to these terms and then dispose of it like the intellectual garbage that it is.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 6, 2008)

Being just a bundle of chemicals sure makes love less romantic and immaterial ideals such as valor, integrity and care for others to be buffoon's traits.

Pity mankind. The animals have it so much better.


----------

