I’m really tired of hearing about how the internet atheists have solved the mystery of consciousness. Whenever the topic comes up, with all of its nuances and particulars, atheists try to find a way to over-simplify consciousness, and offer a bumper-sticker explanation for it that no philosopher or neuroscientist in the world accepts.
It goes like this: ‘Consciousness evolved out of the simulation capacity developed by the brain, that evolved a capacity to simulate dangerous situations in anticipation of them. Somehow, the simulation capacity evolved to include the one-who-simulates being included in the simulations.’
Viola!
Consciousness.
Now, there are problems with this explanation. Chief of these is that if you are going to propose that consciousness evolved in this way, how do you propose that natural selection acted upon a non-physical attribute?
And if consciousness is merely a part of the brain, then it has no power to do anything of itself and by itself, and we are back to the first problem mentioned above.
Furthermore, consciousness is such an incredibly complex structure, that even today, a sound and concise definition of it eludes us. It is still very much a hot topic in philosophical and scientific circles. Which begs the question: why would natural selection evolve such complex machinery, when simpler forms do just fine in this world of ours?
We all know people who are in their 40s, spending their days playing video games or accumulating real estate instead of passing on their genes. How did consciousness improve the fitness of reproductive life, exactly?
And there are many more objections.
But I want to focus on a particular trend within internet atheist circles right now, which is the offering of a could-be explanation, as if it was fact. There is no science behind it, no physical evidence, no paleontological evidence, or anything of the sort. If you really look at it, it explains nothing.
Atheists also like to offer wild conjectures as a response to other seemingly intractable problems, such as the when they are trying to debunk the kalam cosmological argument, you will always hear them bring up the multiverse theory of the origins of the universe. The multiverse suffers from the same issues, that there is a lack of evidence for it being true. It is just a theory, and may always just remain as a theory. To be honest, it borders on the fantastical.
It is something that sounds reasonable enough, but really explains nothing.
It is a word salad that is little more than pop psychology flapdoodle.
But to the atheist, when they find their back against the wall, philosophically, they have to reach for something. What they are offering is little more than a rhetorical device. They are content with responding, and any response will do, as long as they have something, anything to say as a retort.
Remember, these are the same people who will lecture you about the soundness of the scientific method, and will talk about evidence, repeatability of tests and studies and experiments, and focus on the concrete results that science offers.
As soon as they run into a gap in knowledge, they lean back on fringe theoreticals, unproven assertions, and just-so explanations.
Evidence is no longer a thing. Ego takes over.
They have responded to the theist and his argument, and that is all that matters. Suddenly, there is a serious and convenient lapse in their standards.
Read about The Argument from Consciousness here.
Move on to read about how Racism Does Not Exist.
