Argument from consciousness - Wikipedia Argument from consciousness From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search The argument from consciousness is an argument for the existence of God based on consciousness. The best-known defender of the argument from consciousness is J. P. Moreland.[citation needed] Contents 1 Philosophical summary of the argument 1.1 Inductive form 1.2 Deductive form 1.3 Platonic form 2 Criticism 3 Notes and references Philosophical summary of the argument[edit] The argument may be stated in inductive or deductive form[1] An alternate, closely related, version of the argument uses Platonism as its premise in a deductive argument. [2] Inductive form[edit] Richard Swinburne[3] put forward an inductive form of the argument in his book The Existence of God. He uses the argument from personal identity for mind-body dualism to show that we have a non-physical mental element to our minds. He suggests that the most probable way in which the non-physical and the physical are linked in causal-interaction is by design- which implies a designer. Swinburne suggests that this designer is God. He says that whilst this argument, owing to its inductive form, is inconclusive, it does provide strong evidence for a God. Deductive form[edit] Mental states are genuine nonphysical mental entities that exist. Specific mental and physical event types are regularly correlated. There is an explanation for these correlations. Personal explanation is different from natural scientific explanation. The explanation for these correlations is either a personal or natural scientific explanation. The explanation is not a natural scientific one. Therefore, the explanation is a personal one. If the explanation is personal, then it is theistic. Therefore, the explanation is theistic.[4] Theists such as Robert Adams[5] have advanced a slightly different version of Swinburne's argument which focuses on mental/physical correlations and not merely the existence of mental states. These are similar to Swinburne's argument but take a deductive form rather than an inductive one. William Lane Craig put the argument from consciousness as follows:[6] If God did not exist, intentional states of consciousness would not exist. But intentional states of consciousness do exist. Therefore, God exists. Peter Kreeft has put forward a deductive form of the argument from consciousness[7] based upon the intelligibility of the universe despite the limitations of our minds. He phrases it deductively as follows: "We experience the universe as intelligible. This intelligibility means that the universe is graspable by intelligence." "Either this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence, or both intelligibility and intelligence are the products of blind chance." "Not blind chance." "Therefore this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence." He compares his argument to C. S. Lewis' argument from reason. Platonic form[edit] The Christian philosopher Augustine of Hippo formed a formulation of the argument from consciousness, sometimes termed the Argument from truth which is closely aligned to consciousness, whilst using neither inductive nor deductive methodology. The argument was influenced by Platonism. Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being. Truth properly resides in a mind. But the human mind is not eternal. Therefore there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside. The Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft, whilst he feels that it could be an effective argument, feels that we have too little knowledge of the workings of consciousness for this to be truly convincing as of yet. [8] Another Catholic philosopher, Edward Feser has promoted the Augustinian argument, including it in his book Five Proofs of the Existence of God. [9] He concludes that Augustine's argument is valid, having given many different reasons why Platonism, its primary premise, is true. His inclusion of the argument led to an extremely critical review of his book on the existence of God to be published [10] by Richard Carrier. His criticism is that Feser misunderstands the argument and confuses potentiality and actuality. Feser responded to Carrier's criticisms,[11] saying, "Pop atheist writer Richard Carrier grandly claims to have “debunked!” (exclamation point in the original) Five Proofs of the Existence of God. It’s a bizarrely incompetent performance. To say that Carrier attacks straw men would be an insult to straw men, which usually bear at least a crude resemblance to the argument under consideration." He deals with Carrier's objections, concluding the article by writing "It is hard to believe that Carrier actually read Five Proofs through, but I certainly did not bother to read the rest of his critique, judging that if what he has to say about the Aristotelian proof is this awful, it would be a waste of time and energy to proceed any further. If any reader has bothered to read it and found some gold among the dross, feel free to call our attention to it in the combox below." Carrier himself responded [12] to Feser's critique of his critique, by writing, "I had a good laugh when Feser fans claimed he “destroyed” my critique this week, and at first thought, “Oh gosh, did I get something wrong I need to correct?” And then I read his reply. Face, meet palm. Holy cow. His response is wildly inept. I’ll lay it out for you here." Feser replied by writing, "Carrier’s self-confidence is so absurdly out of proportion to his actual competence that he does not realize that the only deathblows he delivers are of the self-inflicted kind. In particular, in no fewer than three places in his response, Carrier has inadvertently revealed himself to be either an extremely reckless liar or guilty of malpractice that would make any actual scholar (as opposed to the online hobbyist Carrier is) a professional laughingstock." He pointed out in his article three places in which Carrier contradicts himself, and states that to reply any further to Carrier would be to give him more credit than he deserves. [13] Criticism[edit] The first premise, assertion that non-physical mental states exist, implies a dualist view of mind. Therefore, one line of attack is to argue the case for physicalism about the human mind.[14] Moreland takes the arguments for the first premise and refers to classic defenses of dualism. However, the first premise is rejected by many philosophers of mind. Frank Jackson, known for the knowledge argument in support of dualism about the mind, comments on the debate between physicalist and dualist conceptions of mind: Much of the contemporary debate in the philosophy of mind is concerned with the clash between certain strongly held intuitions and what science tells us about the mind and its relation to the world. What science tells us about the mind points strongly towards some version or other of physicalism. The intuitions, in one way or another, suggest that there is something seriously incomplete about any purely physical story about the mind ... Most contemporary philosophers given a choice between going with science and going with intuitions, go with science. Although I once dissented from the majority, I have capitulated and now see the interesting issue as being where the arguments from the intuitions against physicalism—the arguments that seem so compelling—go wrong.[15] If one is willing to accept the first premise that reductive forms of physicalism are false, then the argument takes off. Thus, one could think of Moreland as making an argument that tries to move a person from "rejecting physicalism" to "accepting theism". The crucial step in this move is the fifth premise, which asserts that naturalism can not account for non-physical mental states. A critique of this premise is offered by Andrew Melnyk: Naturalism can easily explain how the universe came to contain physically irreducible conscious occurrences. It can do so by supposing that, among the fundamental laws governing the universe, there are some according to which, whenever such-and-such complex nonconscious occurrences occur, so-and-so conscious occurrences occur; perhaps such a law says that, whenever a human brain attains a certain kind and degree of complexity, a pain is experienced. Given such laws, the capacity for consciousness that some creatures enjoy, like the capacity for breathing, can be explained as having arisen through natural selection. Through mutation, some creature was born with a brain of the requisite kind and degree of complexity to generate conscious experiences; and then, because these experiences increased the creature's fitness, such creatures were selected for.[16] However Moreland charges that such attempts to accommodate consciousness within an atheistic worldview are ad hoc and contrived and fail to take into account many features of conscious experience.[17] Moreland spends much of the book defending this premise against philosophers, such as Michael Martin, who accept pluralist naturalism. He also critiques contemporary philosophers of mind such as John Searle, Timothy O' Connor, Colin McGinn, David Skriba, Philip Clayton and Jaegwon Kim, who attempt to account for consciousness. Finally, one can also question premise eight: why does a personal explanation have to lead to monotheistic (as opposed to deistic or polytheistic) accounts of intention?[18] However, Moreland maintains that questioning these minor premises is of little consolation to the naturalist as they essentially constitute intramural theist debates, and that for most westerners theism is the only viable candidate to accommodate personal explanations. Similarly Occam's razor can be applied so only one personal agent is required. Notes and references[edit] ^ Both these are following J. P Moreland "The Argument from Consciousness" in The Rationality of Theism ed Paul Copan and Paul Moser, London:Routeledge (2003) ISBN 0-415-26332-8 and J. P Moreland "Consciousness and The Existence of God" ^ http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#11 ^ see Richard Swinburne The Existence of God Oxford:Clarendon (1979) Ch 9; The Evolution of the Soul 183-9 etc. ^ Quoted from The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, The Argument from Consciousness, by J.P. Moreland, p. 296 ^ See Robert Adams "Flavors, Colors and God" reprinted in Contemporary Perspectives on Religious Epistemology OUP (1992) pp225-40 ^ https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/does-god-exist1/ ^ http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#10 ^ http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#11 ^ http://www.religioustolerance.org/case-for-god33.htm ^ https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13752 ^ http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2018/02/carrier-on-five-proofs.html ^ https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13830 ^ http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2018/03/carrier-carries-on.html#more ^ Melnyk, Andrew (2007). "A Case for Physicalism about the Human Mind" ^ Jackson, Frank Cameron (2003) "Mind and Illusion" Archived July 6, 2008, at the Wayback Machine, in Minds and Persons, Cambridge University Press ^ Melnyk, Andrew (2007). "Naturalism, Free Choices, and Conscious Experiences" ^ Moreland,J.P. (2007). "Argument from consciousness" ^ Steven J. Conifer (2001). "The Argument from Consciousness Refuted". v t e Philosophy of religion Concepts in religion Afterlife Euthyphro dilemma Faith Intelligent design Miracle Problem of evil Religious belief Soul Spirit Theodicy Theological veto Conceptions of God Aristotelian view Brahman Demiurge Divine simplicity Egoism Holy Spirit Misotheism Pandeism Personal god Process theology Supreme Being Unmoved mover God in Abrahamic religions Buddhism Christianity Hinduism Islam Jainism Judaism Mormonism Sikhism Baháʼí Faith Wicca Existence of God For Beauty Christological Consciousness Cosmological Kalam Contingency Degree Desire Experience Fine-tuning of the universe Love Miracles Morality Necessary existent Ontological Pascal's wager Proper basis Reason Teleological Natural law Watchmaker analogy Transcendental Against 747 gambit Atheist's Wager Evil Free will Hell Inconsistent revelations Nonbelief Noncognitivism Occam's razor Omnipotence Poor design Russell's teapot Theology Acosmism Agnosticism Animism Antireligion Atheism Creationism Dharmism Deism Demonology Divine command theory Dualism Esotericism Exclusivism Existentialism Christian Agnostic Atheistic Feminist theology Thealogy Womanist theology Fideism Fundamentalism Gnosticism Henotheism Humanism Religious Secular Christian Inclusivism Theories about religions Monism Monotheism Mysticism Naturalism Metaphysical Religious Humanistic New Age Nondualism Nontheism Pandeism Panentheism Pantheism Perennialism Polytheism Possibilianism Process theology Religious skepticism Spiritualism Shamanism Taoic Theism Transcendentalism more... Religious language Eschatological verification Language game Logical positivism Apophatic theology Verificationism Problem of evil Augustinian theodicy Best of all possible worlds Euthyphro dilemma Inconsistent triad Irenaean theodicy Natural evil Theodicy Philosophers of religion (by date active) Ancient and medieval Anselm of Canterbury Augustine of Hippo Avicenna Averroes Boethius Erasmus Gaunilo of Marmoutiers Pico della Mirandola Heraclitus King James VI and I Marcion of Sinope Thomas Aquinas Maimonides Early modern Augustin Calmet René Descartes Blaise Pascal Baruch Spinoza Nicolas Malebranche Gottfried W Leibniz William Wollaston Thomas Chubb David Hume Baron d'Holbach Immanuel Kant Johann G Herder 1800 1850 Friedrich Schleiermacher Karl C F Krause Georg W F Hegel William Whewell Ludwig Feuerbach Søren Kierkegaard Karl Marx Albrecht Ritschl Afrikan Spir 1880 1900 Ernst Haeckel W K Clifford Friedrich Nietzsche Harald Høffding William James Vladimir Solovyov Ernst Troeltsch Rudolf Otto Lev Shestov Sergei Bulgakov Pavel Florensky Ernst Cassirer Joseph Maréchal 1920 postwar George Santayana Bertrand Russell Martin Buber René Guénon Paul Tillich Karl Barth Emil Brunner Rudolf Bultmann Gabriel Marcel Reinhold Niebuhr Charles Hartshorne Mircea Eliade Frithjof Schuon J L Mackie Walter Kaufmann Martin Lings Peter Geach George I Mavrodes William Alston Antony Flew 1970 1990 2010 William L Rowe Dewi Z Phillips Alvin Plantinga Anthony Kenny Nicholas Wolterstorff Richard Swinburne Robert Merrihew Adams Ravi Zacharias Peter van Inwagen Daniel Dennett Loyal Rue Jean-Luc Marion William Lane Craig Ali Akbar Rashad Alexander Pruss Related topics Criticism of religion Desacralization of knowledge Ethics in religion Exegesis History of religion Religion Religious language Religious philosophy Relationship between religion and science Faith and rationality more... Portal Category v t e Theology Conceptions of God Theism Forms Deism Dystheism Henotheism Hermeticism Kathenotheism Nontheism Monolatry Monotheism Mysticism Panentheism Pandeism Pantheism Polydeism Polytheism Spiritualism Theistic finitism Theopanism Concepts Deity Divinity Gender of God and gods Male deity Goddess Numen Singular god theologies By faith Abrahamic religions Baháʼí Faith Judaism Christianity Catholic Islam Buddhism Hinduism Jainism Sikhism Zoroastrianism Concepts Absolute Brahman Emanationism Logos Supreme Being God as the Devil Sustainer Time Trinitarianism Athanasian Creed Comma Johanneum Consubstantiality Homoousian Homoiousian Hypostasis Perichoresis Shield of the Trinity Trinitarian formula Trinity Trinity of the Church Fathers Trinitarian universalism Eschatology Afterlife Apocalypticism Buddhist Christian Heaven Hell Hindu Islamic Jewish Taoist Zoroastrian Feminist Buddhism Christianity Hinduism Islam Judaism Mormonism Goddesses Other concepts The All Aristotelian view Attributes of God in Christianity / in Islam Binitarianism Demiurge Divine simplicity Divine presence Egotheism Exotheology Holocaust Godhead in Christianity Latter Day Saints Great Architect of the Universe Great Spirit Apophatic theology Olelbis Open theism Personal god Phenomenological definition Philo's view Process Tian Unmoved mover Names of God in Christianity Hinduism Islam Jainism Judaism By faith Christian History Outline Biblical canon Glossary Paterology Christology Pneumatology Cosmology Ecclesiology Ethics Hamartiology Messianism Philosophy Practical Sophiology Soteriology Hindu Ayyavazhi theology Krishnology Islamic Oneness of God Prophets Holy Scriptures Angels Predestination Last Judgment Jewish Abrahamic prophecy Aggadah Denominations Kabbalah Philosophy Religion portal Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Argument_from_consciousness&oldid=980067080" Categories: Arguments for the existence of God Hidden categories: Webarchive template wayback links All articles with unsourced statements Articles with unsourced statements from April 2020 Navigation menu Personal tools Not logged in Talk Contributions Create account Log in Namespaces Article Talk Variants Views Read Edit View history More Search Navigation Main page Contents Current events Random article About Wikipedia Contact us Donate Contribute Help Learn to edit Community portal Recent changes Upload file Tools What links here Related changes Upload file Special pages Permanent link Page information Cite this page Wikidata item Print/export Download as PDF Printable version Languages العربية Edit links This page was last edited on 24 September 2020, at 11:55 (UTC). Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Contact Wikipedia Mobile view Developers Statistics Cookie statement