RE: rational naturalism is impossible!
October 4, 2013 at 4:14 am
(This post was last modified: October 4, 2013 at 4:31 am by genkaus.)
(October 4, 2013 at 2:28 am)bennyboy Wrote: @genkaus
You can say evolution has no goals. However, it's a process which results in adaptation, i.e. the improved ability of the species to survive in its environment. Therefore, it's fine to say improved fitness is the goal of evolution-- so long as nobody tries to equivocate that to meaning evolution has a God-given purpose or something. RAKD hasn't said anything like this.
I think that is precisely the equivocation he has in mind. The assumption of natural teleology and the commission of naturalistic fallacy is very common with this kind of argument. Its better to set the boundaries from the start.
(October 4, 2013 at 2:43 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Does a caveman running away from perhaps a lion necessarily need to know that a lion is a four-legged carnivore that is closely related to other felines, or could he believe it to be a sack of potatoes dressed in a scary way yet *still* have the urge to run away and *survive*, despite whatever falsehoods he might believe?
I think this is called a "hasty generalization" fallacy.
A: Caveman needs to be able to determine the truth in order to survive.
B: Caveman needs to be able to determine the whole truth in order to survive.
B does not follow A.
The urge to run away is the result of the knowledge that the lion in front of you is dangerous and about to kill you. The false belief that it is just a sack of potatoes dressed in a scary way would not produce the same response. So, while the whole truth of the lion's genealogy is not required, the truth about its carnivorous nature is.
(October 4, 2013 at 2:45 am)bennyboy Wrote: @Lemonvariable72
I don't think you got the point. The point is that we may have evolved with a SYSTEMIC inability to perceive or comprehend certain kinds of information. Appealing to other humans for confirmation isn't going to do anything.
For example, it may be that there are magical fairies all around us. However, they have no bearing on our survival, so we have not evolved any mechanism for perceiving them. If worms could communicate, they would uniformly confirm to each other that rainbows do not exist, since they have no way to infer the existence of light.
I think you are missing the point of the original argument. The systematic inability to perceive certain kinds of information does not negate the ability to perceive the truth through the forms of perception that are available. The ability to perceive truth does not require the ability to perceive the whole truth.
(October 4, 2013 at 3:17 am)FallentoReason Wrote: So we both agree that for the caveman to survive, he needs to be able to go "arghh.. scawey!" but such a reaction is independent of whether the caveman believes he's running from a lion, or a bunch of goblins hiding beneath the skin of what appears to be a lion. In essence, the caveman's survivability was independent of what he believes to be true.
Not quite. His reaction of "arghh... scawey!" is dependent upon his knowledge of the danger the lion represents.
