The Materialist’s Dilemma (Tsouloufis post)

(the following is a guest post by Dan Tsouloufis)

It would seem to defy both reason and common sense to even pose the following two questions, but in our current, hyper-secular age of scientism and non-reason, we are often compelled to consider such things.

1. Can a collision of atoms produce transcendent self-awareness?
2. Can hard matter produce consciousness?

Unfortunately, according to many atheists and evolutionary materialists, the answer is a shocking “yes”.

In response to such notions, I would argue that you cannot get things like thought, consciousness, and self-awareness from purely material stuff (like atoms and particles).  For example, one’s own awareness of the material universe is not itself part of the universe, since the knowledge of a thing cannot be one of the thing’s parts.  Thus, one’s knowledge and awareness must be transcendent to the material thing, an addition from without.  Philosophically, this argues for a metaphysical, immaterial reality that transcends the material world.  In the Judeo-Christian worldview, we call this the “soul” or “spirit” of a man.  But in the atheist, materialist worldview, we must ask: From where does man derive his consciousness and his self-awareness?

Ironically, in the atheist, materialist worldview, the unguided evolution of the species is a dogmatic philosophical theory purported by those who believe they are composed merely of a collision of atoms.  If that’s the case, then our first logical question should be: How could such a composition of atoms produce a theory at all, let alone an immaterial philosophical theory?  Our second logical question should be: Why do evolutionary materialists adhere to an immaterial philosophical theory in order to maintain their materialism?

For the sake of argument, even if evolution does occur, no one can scientifically prove that evolution has always occurred, or that it was always unguided.  Nor can one scientifically prove that evolution precludes a metaphysical, immaterial reality.  These are merely philosophical assertions, not empirically verifiable deductions.  Naturally, if one holds to an atheist, materialist worldview, the net result will only be materialist conclusions.  That should be obvious to everyone.

But such is the dilemma of the materialist.  To establish their worldview, they must fashion a metaphysical theory while at the same time denying any metaphysical reality.  Thus, they must forgo coherence and live with their inconsistency.  In our age of non-reason, such incoherence is nonetheless called “science”.  It isn’t science, of course, but rather a gaping hole in their worldview.