In previous posts we have discussed how the entire physical content of a person’s brain is replaced constantly while we live, and that this has no discernible effect on our consciousness. But even if we did not know this, the faith of naturalists in the idea that we are cosmic accidents imbued with an sense of consciousness that is unintended cannot be rationally maintained. Here are some reasons why:
1. If I am hostage to the chemistry and physics of my brain, I cannot possibly have free will. This means I cannot choose to think or do something. Yet think of a time when somebody asked you think of something…remember? See you just chose to think of something after being prompted by a person who is not subject to the chemical reactions, or physical properties of your brain. This demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that your ability to think something or do something can be intentional. This can only mean that ‘you’ are not controlled by the matter in your brain, but rather ‘you’ utilise your brain, in the same way you use a computer.
2. If my thoughts are controlled by the random firings of neurons, these firings should be just that -random. If the firings were random, the thoughts produced of them of necessity would also be random. It would not be possible for blind accidental chemical reactions to all match up consistently and allow me to have a consistent sense of personal experience, and co-ordinate my thoughts in a way that would allow me to write this article. If Einstein’s thoughts were random, he would not have been able to work consistently on the theory of relativity! So for thoughts to be consistent and organised, it is necessary that there be a ‘self’ over and above the physical structure of the brain, and its electrochemical events.
3. If ‘I’ was an illusion created by the brain’s biochemistry or physical composition, this would mean all my thoughts and beliefs are known to me only because my brain,which is a hunk of matter with random chemical reactions going on within it. If this was true, this would also mean that Darwin believed in evolution by natural selection because his brain forced him to do so, not because he was convinced of its truth by the scientific evidence. If on the other hand atheists accept that he chose to believe in it, because of scientific proof, they are inadvertently accepting that Darwin was not controlled by the chemistry, physics or biology of his brain, but was able to use his brain to think freely, and intentionally. This can only mean that there is a ‘controller’ of the physical brain, which is itself non-physical.
4. Scientists can explain in great detail the biological, chemical and physical facts that underpin my ability to see a ‘picture’ in my mind’s eye. However, the brain itself does NOT contain this picture. The picture which my brain ‘connects to’ is purely non-physical. If my brain was transparent all that we could see within it would be chemical and electrical activity. The image – maybe of my best friend or favorite film star-would be nowhere to be found anywhere within the physical structure of the brain. The mind is therefore non-physical, although it connects to the brain to transfer consciousness onto the physical plane of existence.
5. Evolution by natural selection is claimed to have preserved traits that help an organism in the battle for survival, and passed them on to the next generation. However, humans could have survived even if they did not understand science, maths, philosophy or have any concept of truth or falsehood. As Alvin Platinga points out the probability of human reason being reliable is low if naturalism is true. However if this is the case, then the probability of Darwinian evolution is also low, being known to us only by unreliable means! The only way out of this to accept that our consciousness and cognition is not dependent on our biological structure and was produced by a rational Agency i.e. God.
More to come…