ABSTRACT
Some argue that, while finite mental entities may be inexplicable on a naturalist worldview, they may be explained by theism, thereby furnishing evidence for God’s existence. In this chapter, I shall clarify and defend this argument from consciousness (AC) by describing three issues in scientific theory acceptance relevant to assessing AC’s force, presenting three forms of AC and offering a brief defense of its premises. Among other things, I hope to show that an important factor in theory acceptance-scientific or otherwise-is whether a specific theory has a rival. If not, then certain epistemic activities, e.g. labeling some phenomenon as basic for which only a description and not an explanation is needed, may be quite adequate not to impede the theory in question. But the adequacy of those same activities can change dramatically if a sufficient rival position is present. In chapter one, we saw reasons for a naturalist to deny the existence of emergent mental properties/events that followed solely from naturalism itself. In this chapter, we shall discover additional reasons for naturalists to eschew emergent mental entities that follow because of the presence of AC. The combined force of chapters one and two will place a severe (and increasing) burden of proof on any naturalist who seeks to reconcile the existence of emergent mental entities (from emergence2a to emergence3) with naturalism.
