It is true that the seat of reason, at least in humans, is matter. Man
cannot reason without matter--obviously God does. However. I was referring
more to the theories that explain material and "mindless" processes and that
such theories is evidence of mind humans.
From: David Campbell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Friday, April 30, 1999 12:29 PM
Subject: Re: Phil's remarks on Focus on the Family
>>One may say that at the molecular level molecules behave in a mindless
>>which they do. However, statistical mechanics describes the regularity of
>>the macroscopic behavior of such a system. When a theorist writes down a
>>mathematical model that describes nature and makes correct predictions,
>>that certainly is not mindless. If to create the theory that successfully
>>describes nature is not mindless, how can the whole thing come about
>>a Mind? The mindlessness that educators are telling us about is pure
>>nonsense. It is logically inconsistent to insist that one needs a mind to
>>understand nature and to claim, at the same time, that nature is mindless.
>>It is true that matter cannot reason but its behavior is "reasonable."
>>certainly reasons and that is the image of God in man.
>I would agree. However, minds regularly use material processes to achieve
>their goals. Thus, evidence for material and "mindless" processes is
>useless for assessing the presence or absence of mind.