If the study of physics shows that nature is a closed system and it is, strictly speaking, a scientific fact that miracles and freedom are impossible, then it would seem that a theist could not do physics well. But what about the fact that there are and have been successful physicists who believe in God and freedom? Apparently theism did not keep George Lemaitre from discovering the big bang! If, on the other hand, one's ability to do physics is not adversely affected by theism etc., then the exclusion of miracles and freedom is not so much a scientific fact as as a philosophical inference--or perhaps an act of faith.
This is a nice way to try to avoid being cornered re the irreality of the self if you're a reductionist, for you can assert that a pattern obtains at the microscopic level that is not all that unlike the pattern found at the societal level. No need for the one self that does it all: instead, you have many sub-selfs that compete for dominance or take turns guiding the whole. The problem with this is, however, that the voters/officials are all zombies. None of them thinks about the whole as such. And perhaps none of them thinks even about themselves (unless one is a panzoist). None of them makes a comparison of alternatives. The more this proposed democracy seems like a zombocracy, the more consciousness will be seem to be epiphenomenal. Furthermore, if the oneness of the self is less real than the multiplicity of explanatory neural parts, then why can't each of these neural parts be conceived of as democracy as well? And why not parts of these parts, et...
Comments