Philosophy - Better Right Than Happy

J.P. Moreland tries to defend substance dualism – and anti-gay bigotry.

In the above video from Peaceful Science, philosopher JP Moreland argues for the existence of immaterial souls and minds, and is challenged by the scientists S. Joshua Swamidass, a Christian, and Nathan Lents, an atheist. Despite the fact that all three participants hold quite different views on the subject, the discussion is respectful and collegial. And I’m not entirely sure it should have been.

Is panpsychism as crazy as it sounds?

Panpsychism is the idea that mental properties are not restricted to humans and other organisms with highly developed nervous systems, nor even to living things. Rather, according to panpsychism consciousness is a property of everything in the natural world. That is to say, in addition to possessing physical properties such as mass, energy and charge, every constituent of the natural world also possesses mental properties.

An Attempt to Solve the Dualist Problem of Interaction.

Substance dualism is the philosophical position that the mind is composed of a fundamentally different substance than is the body, and therefore the functioning of the mind cannot be explained or understood in terms of physical entities and processes. While it has roots going as least as far back as classical philosophers like Plato, it is probably most strongly associated with Rene Descartes. Today, the position is a decidedly minority one among philosophers of mind and neuroscientists. In large part, this is simply a reflection of the prevailing attitude, particularly in intellectual and academic circles, which does not take seriously claims of the immaterial and supernatural. But there are also specific problems with substance dualism that, while long recognized, remain insuperable.

Is Science Limited by Methodological Naturalism?

Watch this video from a few months ago in which creationist philosopher Stephen Meyer argues that the practice of science should not entail methodological naturalism:

Why I Am Not a Materialist

There is a rumor going around the internet that I am a “materialist”. This seems to have started with David Klinghoffer, a senior fellow with the creationist organization the Discovery Institute. On their website “Evolution News” (which generally contains very little actual news about evolution), he writes in reference to my ongoing debate with Michael Egnor, “(T)he question before the (sic) Faizal Ali and Michael Egnor is whether the mind, with its power of abstract thought, can be fully accounted for just with reference to a physical organ, the brain. Ali thinks so — as a materialist, he would have to do so….” And in a more recent article he continues to imply that my disagreement with Egnor is motivated by a prior commitment to “materialism” (though I will say that his analysis of the reasoning behind my choice of banner art is bang on.)