Dear David,

<<The driver is not part of the car>>

Nor am I a part of my body.

If they amputate my legs and my arms, am I less me?
If my retina is damaged and I cannot see, am I less me?
If my brain has a stroke and cannot find words or numbers, or cannot remember, am I any less me?

Or on the contrary, if I receive a car and a computer to enhance my body by extending my mobility and ability to plan and communicate, am I more me?

Is there any body part, which if taken apart I would be in it rather than in the rest of my body? Or would I then be in two or more places at once?

Science tells us that every single atom in the body, including the brain, is replaced at least once in seven years: Am I therefore now someone else than who I was when I had a baby's body with much fewer and completely different atoms?

Or am I now perhaps part of a different body to which one of those atoms, previously in my baby-body, migrated?
(more likely, I would then be part of the earth, the ocean or the atmosphere, or luckily of some plant or animal-body)

My name (how others call me) can change, my form (how others see me) can and does change over the years, the qualities of my body and mind also change and so are my abilities, first increasing then decreasing, but who is the one whose name, form, qualities and abilities has changed and constantly continue to change? Could it possibly ever become someone else?

<<but we do not exist apart from our bodies.>>

Possibly so, and I even tend to agree with a stronger statement: that we do not exist anyway, even while we do have an existing functional body.

So what? This makes no difference because I still am what I am regardless whether I possess this property of existence or otherwise (a property which I have already, elsewhere here, claimed to be illusory anyway).

.

Dear JP,

.

You ask :

« Are you happier with materialistic universe? »

No more than with, say, my materialistic mother, my materialistic brother, my materialistic dog, my materialistic apartment, my materialistic car or my dear materialistic JP.

I don’t think there is any doubt about which universe we are discussing. Just call it “the universe”. I’ll know what you mean - even if it's not exactly what you have in mind.
.

« What is this “nature” you refer to? Do you simply mean by this word, physical matter? »

I refer to the universe and everything in it, such as plants, animals (including human beings), mountains, oceans, stars, energy, etc.
.

« You then use the word “bestow” which means to present, give or confer, all of which have the implication of something being deliberately done by a conscious being. Does physical matter deliberately do anything for human beings? »

Bestow is as good a word as any, but I beg to disagree that it necessarily implies “being deliberately done by a conscious being”. Something may also be bestowed on us by chance. I agree with Monod, that life is the result of chance and necessity (necessity, in this sense, meaning an inevitable event).
.

« In a purely physical mechanistic universe what can free will or autonomy possibly mean? »

Autonomy means independence, the freedom to determine one's own actions, behaviour, etc., without or despite any outside influence.

Plants have more autonomy that inert objects. Animals have more autonomy than plants. Human beings have greater autonomy than all other forms of life.

Though there may be important differences in the rate of development of autonomy among individuals due to all the variables that contribute to its evolution, progress is nevertheless achieved during the lifetime of each individual. Beneficial mutations and experiences continue to accumulate over time, multiplying and diversifying choice patterns to an ever greater degree of complexity until the individual is no longer held to obey any particular predetermined course of behaviour, gaining in the autonomy we call free will.
.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

You concluded :

« In a materialistic universe there is no necessity for anything to survive. »

Once again, I beg to disagree. Life is a self-sustaining process. It is the result of chance and necessity (necessity, in this sense, meaning an inevitable event). In addition, as I stated previously, there is no right or wrong in nature, just what is efficient for its survival and development.
.

Thank you for the link to your article on OLO, “The absolute weirdness of a deterministic universe”. I shall read it with interest.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

This conversation is silly. You are nothing but your body.

You may lose parts of it and still function. However, when your body no longer functions at all you no longer exist.

If you want to believe you don't exist that's fine with me. Eventually neither you nor I will exist.

JP
Your argument from creation to an ordered universe and hence to value has been tried before and found wanting. This is especially illustrated in England in 16-17 hundred when natural theology was all the rage following the work of Hook, Boyle and Newton. The problem from a Christian perspective is that this god who orders the world could be Aristotle's prime mover or the god of Islam. This god is an unspecified and undifferentiated deity that does not correspond the YHWH or the triune identity.

There is a tendency to deify nature. I think Darwin is essentially right, there is no guiding hand. The universe is governed by un-minded process, it is natural in that it does not contain spirit. This materialist view of the world does not erase faith because faith is not about how nature works but how we find ourselves as human. This finding requires more than a knowledge of mere biology because we are historical beings who can look backwards and forwards in time.

In other words, faith is cultural in the original meaning of the world in that it brings life. Our protagonists in this thread do not seem to get this and insist on arguments from nature. That is why we are at cross purposes.

Dear Sells,

You wrote, "The problem from a Christian perspective is that this god who orders the world could be Aristotle's prime mover or the god of Islam. This god is an unspecified and undifferentiated deity that does not correspond the YHWH or the triune identity."

If one doesn't have a Christian perspective why should YHWH or the triune identity be preferred over Aristotle's prime mover, the god of Islam or no God at all? The same problem exists with your argument against abortion rights. You are appealing on the basis of your perspective, but those who do not share that perspective have no reason to accept your argument.

In that regard Obama wrote: “Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns Into universal, rather than religion-specific values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or [invoke] God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.”