The Inconvenient Truth: Consciousness and the Limits of Atheism

Atheism, in its various forms, often relies on the assumption that consciousness can be explained by natural processes alone. However, this stance is plagued by the fundamental question: How did non-conscious matter give rise to conscious beings? This inquiry has sparked intense debate among philosophers, scientists, and scholars, with many arguing that atheism’s inability to provide a satisfactory answer constitutes a significant weakness.

The Hard Problem of Consciousness

Philosopher David Chalmers famously distinguished between the “easy problems” of consciousness, which can be addressed through natural sciences, and the “hard problem,” which concerns the subjective nature of conscious experience. The hard problem questions why we have subjective experiences at all, rather than just being complex processing machines.

Atheists often rely on materialism, positing that consciousness arises from brain activity and neuronal interactions. However, this perspective fails to explain why these physical processes give rise to subjective experiences. As philosopher Galen Strawson puts it, “We have no conception of how to get from the purely physical to the mental” (Strawson, 2006).

The Inadequacy of Emergence

Atheists may appeal to emergence, suggesting that complex systems exhibit properties not present in their individual components. However, this concept only pushes the problem back a step, as it does not explain how these emergent properties arise from non-conscious matter.

Furthermore, emergence is often used as a placeholder for ignorance, rather than a genuine explanation. As philosopher William Lane Craig argues, “The claim that consciousness emerges from brain activity is little more than a euphemism for ‘we don’t know how to explain it’” (Craig, 2013).

The Failure of Natural Selection

Atheists often invoke natural selection as the driving force behind the evolution of complex features. However, this mechanism is limited in explaining the origin of consciousness.

Natural selection can only act on existing variation, and it is unclear how non-conscious matter could have given rise to the initial emergence of conscious experience. As biologist Michael Behe notes, “The probability of convergent evolution and the number of new proteins gained in a specified interval” remains an open question (Behe, 1996).

The Unaddressed Questions

Atheism’s inability to explain consciousness raises several inconvenient questions:

• Why do we experience subjective reality?: If consciousness arose from non-conscious matter, why do we have subjective experiences at all?
• What is the nature of reality?: Does reality consist solely of physical processes, or is there a deeper, non-physical aspect that gives rise to consciousness?
• Is there a higher power?: The unexplained emergence of consciousness from non-conscious matter opens the door to considering the possibility of a supreme intelligence.

Atheism’s Cop-out: Convenient Ignorance

In light of these challenges, it is reasonable to argue that atheism’s stance on consciousness amounts to a convenient cop-out. By relying on emergence and materialism, atheists sidestep the difficult questions surrounding the origin of consciousness.

As philosopher Alvin Plantinga puts it, “The atheist who denies the existence of God must also deny the existence of his own thoughts” (Plantinga, 2000). This stark reality highlights atheism’s inability to provide a coherent explanation for conscious experience.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the notion that consciousness arose from non-conscious matter is indeed a convenient cop-out for those unwilling to consider the existence of a supreme intelligence. Atheism’s failure to address the hard problem of consciousness, its reliance on emergence and materialism, and its inability to explain the origin of complex features all contribute to a fundamentally flawed worldview.

By acknowledging these limitations, we are encouraged to reexamine our assumptions about the nature of reality and the possibility of a higher power. As we continue to grapple with the mysteries of consciousness, it becomes increasingly clear that atheism’s cop-out is no longer tenable.

References

Behe, M. J. (1996). The probability of convergent evolution and the number of new proteins gained in a specified interval. Journal of Molecular Evolution, 43(2), 147-155.

Chalmers, D. J. (1995). Facing up to the hard problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3), 200-219.

Craig, W. L. (2013). The cosmological argument and the existence of God. In R. K. Loftin & J. M. DePoe (Eds.), Debating Christian Theism (pp. 115-134). New York: Oxford University Press.

Plantinga, A. (2000). Warranted Christian Belief. New York: Oxford University Press.

Strawson, G. (2006). Realistic monism: Why physicalism entails panpsychism. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 13(10-11), 3-31.