RE: rational naturalism is impossible!
October 4, 2013 at 8:15 am
(This post was last modified: October 4, 2013 at 8:33 am by Rational AKD.)
there are a few responses I would like to respond to, though i'm not going to quote and address each specific person.
"P2 is false"
the only mechanism we have to determine what drives evolution is natural selection. this concept has not been disproven or improved upon as far as I know. therefore, any and all processes developed by evolution are done so by natural selection which by its own nature is survivability.
"survivability doesn't necessarily hinge on truth is false"
it doesn't. now i'm not making an extreme claim here. when I say it's not necessarily so, I mean it's possible and thus the 50/50 chance of it being so. but lets take for example matter. we all think objects are solid, but this may not necessarily be the case. it may have been possible for us to perceive the space between the particles of solid objects, but natural selection determines it's better for us to perceive it as solid. since such an example is conceptually possible, it is thus "not necessarily" hinged on truth.
a common objection many of you have is taking my argument to the extreme and saying things like "why would it be beneficial to survival not to see objects that are actually there?" i'm not speaking of those kinds of things. of course it's more beneficial to perceive what's actually there. but when it comes to logic and reasoning, these would be most affected because such things don't necessarily have to be true for the benefit of survival. in fact, this argument was originally developed from atheists who claimed religion came about by a process of natural selection because believing in a higher power was better for survival. the problem is, the same argument can be used against them.
how do creatures with lesser cognitive functions manage to survive? our cognitive functions are not necessary for survival, they're better for survival.
if I drop a pen... yes, you perceive it falling. perceptions through senses aren't really that subject to this argument. they may be to an extent, but perceiving things that are actually there is a necessary ability for survival. what would be most subject to this are abstract concepts like philosophical beliefs, naturalism included which is what makes it self refuting.
"P2 is false"
the only mechanism we have to determine what drives evolution is natural selection. this concept has not been disproven or improved upon as far as I know. therefore, any and all processes developed by evolution are done so by natural selection which by its own nature is survivability.
"survivability doesn't necessarily hinge on truth is false"
it doesn't. now i'm not making an extreme claim here. when I say it's not necessarily so, I mean it's possible and thus the 50/50 chance of it being so. but lets take for example matter. we all think objects are solid, but this may not necessarily be the case. it may have been possible for us to perceive the space between the particles of solid objects, but natural selection determines it's better for us to perceive it as solid. since such an example is conceptually possible, it is thus "not necessarily" hinged on truth.
a common objection many of you have is taking my argument to the extreme and saying things like "why would it be beneficial to survival not to see objects that are actually there?" i'm not speaking of those kinds of things. of course it's more beneficial to perceive what's actually there. but when it comes to logic and reasoning, these would be most affected because such things don't necessarily have to be true for the benefit of survival. in fact, this argument was originally developed from atheists who claimed religion came about by a process of natural selection because believing in a higher power was better for survival. the problem is, the same argument can be used against them.
how do creatures with lesser cognitive functions manage to survive? our cognitive functions are not necessary for survival, they're better for survival.
if I drop a pen... yes, you perceive it falling. perceptions through senses aren't really that subject to this argument. they may be to an extent, but perceiving things that are actually there is a necessary ability for survival. what would be most subject to this are abstract concepts like philosophical beliefs, naturalism included which is what makes it self refuting.
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.
-Galileo
-Galileo
