The other antireductionism argument I can think of looks a little like this:
Anti-reductionist: “If the laws of physics are sufficient to explain reality, then that leaves no room for God or the soul. God and souls exist, therefore reductionism is false.”
And the obvious counterargument, is of course...
Reductionist: “One man’s modus tollens is another man’s modus ponens. Reductionism is true; therefore, there is, in fact, no God.”
At this point, the anti-reductionist gathers a lynch mob and has the reductionist burned at the stake for heresy.
It’s still possible to have a little bit of respect for people who are obviously wrong.
I read this book once about how when we’re looking at other people who we know are wrong we have to see their ignorence and try to solve it instead of making them into the enemy. We have to see the disease behind the person.
The other antireductionism argument I can think of looks a little like this:
Anti-reductionist: “If the laws of physics are sufficient to explain reality, then that leaves no room for God or the soul. God and souls exist, therefore reductionism is false.”
And the obvious counterargument, is of course...
Reductionist: “One man’s modus tollens is another man’s modus ponens. Reductionism is true; therefore, there is, in fact, no God.”
At this point, the anti-reductionist gathers a lynch mob and has the reductionist burned at the stake for heresy.
It’s still possible to have a little bit of respect for people who are obviously wrong.
I read this book once about how when we’re looking at other people who we know are wrong we have to see their ignorence and try to solve it instead of making them into the enemy. We have to see the disease behind the person.