After discussing this topic in numerous atheist forums, I have found it to be one of the strongest arguments leading to the idea of God.
This discussion begins with the problem of consciousness, specifically addressing how to explain human consciousness in a material world. The materialist explanation for consciousness posits that the brain and its physical processes account for all functions of our consciousness. However, there is one aspect of the mind that this explanation fails to address: the concept of "qualia." Qualia refer to the first-person experience of all brain activity, which is subjective, personal, and impossible to transfer.
To grasp the concept of qualia and why it is so challenging (if not impossible) for science to address, I recommend reading Thomas Nagel's famous paper, "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?"
The fundamental issue here is that materialism assumes that matter is inert—matter itself cannot experience anything. Yet, it also asserts that we are made entirely of matter. This leads to a contradiction: if we are made of matter and matter experiences nothing, how is it possible for us to experience our own existence?
While materialism can perfectly explain brain function, it cannot account for the first-person experience that accompanies it. In other words, materialism predicts a world of "philosophical zombies" (see David Chalmers)—beings who are identical to us in behavior and brain function but lack any first-person experience. However, this is not what we observe in reality, indicating that something is missing in the materialistic description.
This is where things get interesting. When materialism attempts to imbue matter with properties that allow for the emergence of first-person experience, either as an inherent property of matter or as an emergent property, it inevitably leads to the idea of panpsychism—the notion that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of all matter.
At this point, atheism begins to falter, as logic and reason lead directly to the idea that the universe, far from being devoid of consciousness except for us, is instead filled with various forms of consciousness. This includes the possibility of a universal consciousness that encompasses all others. While this idea does not exactly align with the Christian concept of God—which I believe is the correct one—it causes many atheists to reject this line of reasoning, often leaving them unable to offer any alternative that does not involve serious logical flaws, such as the problem of hard emergence (see David Chalmers for clarification).
Of course, panpsychism has its own problems, but it is far less problematic than classical materialism when it comes to explaining the origin of qualia and represents a step toward the idea of God.
What do you think?
This discussion begins with the problem of consciousness, specifically addressing how to explain human consciousness in a material world. The materialist explanation for consciousness posits that the brain and its physical processes account for all functions of our consciousness. However, there is one aspect of the mind that this explanation fails to address: the concept of "qualia." Qualia refer to the first-person experience of all brain activity, which is subjective, personal, and impossible to transfer.
To grasp the concept of qualia and why it is so challenging (if not impossible) for science to address, I recommend reading Thomas Nagel's famous paper, "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?"
The fundamental issue here is that materialism assumes that matter is inert—matter itself cannot experience anything. Yet, it also asserts that we are made entirely of matter. This leads to a contradiction: if we are made of matter and matter experiences nothing, how is it possible for us to experience our own existence?
While materialism can perfectly explain brain function, it cannot account for the first-person experience that accompanies it. In other words, materialism predicts a world of "philosophical zombies" (see David Chalmers)—beings who are identical to us in behavior and brain function but lack any first-person experience. However, this is not what we observe in reality, indicating that something is missing in the materialistic description.
This is where things get interesting. When materialism attempts to imbue matter with properties that allow for the emergence of first-person experience, either as an inherent property of matter or as an emergent property, it inevitably leads to the idea of panpsychism—the notion that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of all matter.
At this point, atheism begins to falter, as logic and reason lead directly to the idea that the universe, far from being devoid of consciousness except for us, is instead filled with various forms of consciousness. This includes the possibility of a universal consciousness that encompasses all others. While this idea does not exactly align with the Christian concept of God—which I believe is the correct one—it causes many atheists to reject this line of reasoning, often leaving them unable to offer any alternative that does not involve serious logical flaws, such as the problem of hard emergence (see David Chalmers for clarification).
Of course, panpsychism has its own problems, but it is far less problematic than classical materialism when it comes to explaining the origin of qualia and represents a step toward the idea of God.
What do you think?
