Reductive materialists have 'lost their mind'?

Article - scientistic adherents of reductive materialism deny the reality of the immaterial realm altogether. In doing this they also end up denying the reality of their own immaterial minds. Thus they have actually, literally and figuratively, ‘lost their minds’:

Excerpt: 

"Barr rightly observes that scientific atheists often unwittingly assume not just metaphysical naturalism but an even more controversial philosophical position: reductive materialism, which says all that exists is or is reducible to the material constituents postulated by our most fundamental physical theories.
As Barr points out, this implies not only that God does not exist — because God is not material — but that you do not exist. For you are not a material constituent postulated by any of our most fundamental physical theories; at best, you are an aggregate of those constituents, arranged in a particular way. Not just you, but tables, chairs, countries, countrymen, symphonies, jokes, legal contracts, moral judgments, and acts of courage or cowardice — all of these must be fully explicable in terms of those more fundamental, material constituents. (Note: we're still waiting for something valid for that, not including Darwinism)

In fact, (even) more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities."

The article has conclusions I believe are correct, and sorta has the right reasons, but IMO it plays a little too fast with its arguments?

- Why is it that materialism entails the "loss of mind"? Need to show materialism -> eliminativism. Start with a negative definition of matter (it lacks mental phenomena) and show contradiction of something fundamental like Cogito Ergo Sum.

- Why is mathematics non-material, and why does this imply something about our minds is also immaterial? Start with determinate nature of thought and work your way back to the lack of any isomorphism that would privilege any particular interpretation of matter as representing any particular thing.

Those two things noted, I think there would still be an issue. To say God is necessary beyond pragamatic desire is to speak of an entity that possess the traits of something eternal, the very Ground of Being - and thus it is hard to reconcile such an entity with any particular religion, or even a sense that such an entity would intervene in our lives.

IIRC Plotinus himself mentions this, that the One grants nothing from worship and one instead should look to the lesser gods if one seeks religion...

He's arguing that numbers wouldn't exist if materialism was right, and therefore materialism must be wrong?

He's arguing that numbers wouldn't exist if materialism was right, and therefore materialism must be wrong?

It's a bit fast and loose as written in the article, but the argument - if I understand the author - is that for mathematics/logic to exist is for abstract entities to exist that are eternally true. Their truth value is not contextual to any time/space/persons.

To quote Frege:

'Thus the thought which we expressed in the Pythagorean theorem is timelessly true, true independently of whether anyone takes it to be true. It needs no bearer. It is not true for the first time when it is discovered, but is like a newly discovered planet.'

If this is not the case, and there is nothing fundamental about math/logic, it is difficult to see what intrinsically separates a rational thought process from an irrational one.

That's the short version, longer treatments can be found here.

I think it's either far too clever for me to understand, or else the silliest thing I ever heard.

I think it's either far too clever for me to understand, or else the silliest thing I ever heard.

The author is essentially just asking what, at the level of atoms, would distinguish a rational thought process from an irrational one.

Which would then mean nothing within the realm of matter can account for the universal authority of truth we grant logic/mathematics. One can attempt to make an evolutionary argument, but this suggests closer & closer approximations of abstract entities such as the logical syllogisms...and how can you approximate a syllogism without already having a sense of its logical validity?

The mistake the author makes, IMO, is to try and then elide this argument into something about the pragmatism of faith in God which I think is a leap.

The author is essentially just asking what, at the level of atoms, would distinguish a rational thought process from an irrational one.

Which would then mean nothing within the realm of matter can account for the universal authority of truth we grant logic/mathematics. One can attempt to make an evolutionary argument, but this suggests closer & closer approximations of abstract entities such as the logical syllogisms...and how can you approximate a syllogism without already having a sense of its logical validity?

The mistake the author makes, IMO, is to try and then elide this argument into something about the pragmatism of faith in God which I think is a leap.

Far too clever for me, by the sound of it.