Skip to content

In Defense of Natural Theology 13: Hume and the Argument from Consciousness


Moreland makes his case against a naturalistic explanation of consciousness. As usual, I don’t see how God is a good explanation. Is this what we’d call an argument from ignorance? What is a good explanation, and how can I concretely explain how this is not one of them?

I think Theism and Explanation is going to be important for me to read. Too bad it costs 100, but the whole issue might hinge on that. Of course, that assumes that naturalism can’t explain consciousness, so maybe the issue really hinges on that. If it can, this argument fails. If it can’t, maybe it still fails.

Nonetheless, I don’t know how to explain consciousness. It seems unnecessary to invoke God.

Let’s approach this a different way. Naturalists say all explanations reduced to mechanistic causes. Theists say that it reduces to a teleological cause. but if we explain something in terms of desires/intent, and if my belief that contra-causal free will is incoherent is correct, then don’t all teleological explanations reduce to “nothing caused it”? Even if it does, does that mean that teleological explanations should not be used, or is it still okay?

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: