Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Sins of the physicalist literature

Back before I opened Dangerous Idea, I gave this response to physicalist critics of the AFR, on Bill Vallicella's blog.

 A lot of the physicalist literature is guilty of one or all of the following sins, which in my estimation are:
1) A dogmatic pre-commitment to materialism.
2) Changing the explanandum in order to make the physicalistic explanation possible.
3) Presuming the very ideas one is trying to explain naturalistically.
4) Issuing gigantic promissory notes to future science, when we have no idea how future science will go.


Steven Carr said...

Of course, the Argument from Reason, is not an explanation of reason at all.

It is an argument for Yahweh (or possibly Allah), as the name implies.

It is just not cricket to castigate people for not explaining phenomena, while making zero attempt to explain said phenomena.

Rasmus Møller said...


you have followed this site for a very long time.

You know as well as everyone else that the Argument from Reason does not try to posit an explanation for any phenomena.

The argument from reason successfully excludes certain classes of explanations for reason, namely those limited by narrow Naturalism/Materialism.

Your comment makes you sound like a troll. I don't suppose you look or walk like one? :)

Martin said...

Steven Carr,

The argument from reason states, in one form:

1. No belief is rationally inferred if it can be entirely explained in terms of non-rational causes
2. Per physicalism, all beliefs can be entirely explained in terms of non-rational causes
3. Therefore, if physicalism is true, no belief is rationally inferred

Please show me which premise argues for Yahweh or Allah, and provide evidence for your belief that this is so.