That's what Theists sound like when they talk about Materialism. ESPECIALLY when they throw in value judgements like "if we are just made of atoms..."

Hi, I have seen a comment you made on a free-will article and just out of curiosity can I ask if you are religious?

I honestly don't see how idealism can ever have any issues, since we see a form of it working in our dreams, which means it can work perfectly in our waking state as well. It's literally the only ontology that actually has a proven world where it works. We don't even know if the other ontologies are even possible.

The reason why (logic/reason) can't be naturally selected is because they arose out of 'materials', which in turn were determined by physical laws.
So:
1. If I were completely determined by my physical state of the brain, I would not have a 'free' will nor a 'free' thought, because it's the material that would 'make up' that thought or the 'process of thinking'. Under all such scenarios, I wouldn't even have any choice to really 'think'. Now, remember, this 'material' would be behaving under a cause/effect scenario.
2. If this material is behaving under blind forces of nature (physical laws), then why should I assume that my thinking has any positive effect, given the fact that it's simply a cause/effect scenario, where my thinking must produce equally blind results as they were happening in the past.
3. Now, simply assume a material that has a capacity to undergo mutations, but does not have any "consciousness". Assume further that this 'material' is shaped by the environment in such a way that a conscious experience 'arises out of it'. Now, it would be silly to assume that this material (the one we started with initially) would give up it's own laws in favor of whatever the consciousness 'desires'. Under such a case, why should this material now have a better chance of survival if it produces a conscious experience that "thinks more" or "reveals the reality as is"? The simple answer is that this "material" would have no better chances of survival if it did produce a consciousness that is able to "think". Thus, natural selection would be powerless to produce organisms for better thinking.

Upon reflection, I would also add the following caution: the forum linked is dominated primarily by atheists, some of whom are likely to aggressively challenge theistic positions that appear. While many of the posters, Geena included, are very respectful in doing so, there are some who are not always so. I add this so you are prepared if you choose to post there.

Hello,

Geena is no longer able to respond in this thread. However, she requested that, if you wish to engage her on this topic, please respond to her comment here . The link goes to a forum thread where she will be able to respond to you.

Before "thinking" or "beliefs" or "consciousness," as we know them, came on the stage with nervous systems, there was this thing called "learning." It is the process whereby an organism can develop and correct internal representations of the external world.

But that does not matter in any way, since the materialist view must be that, anything besides material, be it a thought, or feeling, or learning - they all are irrelevant in the explanation of behavior. That is because it is not our subjective aspect that determines behavior, but our object aspect, such as natural selection (under a materialist worldview).

Correct interpretation and motivation/instruction to correct action are the most fundamental functions of nervous systems. Learning is nearly as fundamental.

But the arrow only points from a material to the behavior, not the other way around. Thus, no matter how many other immaterial things you bring in to explain behavior (such as learning), that would never be a basis for behavior at all - because, again, it's the material that creates action, not something else.