|
Philosopher Alvin Plantinga's argument against evolutionary naturalism goes like this:
1) If purely natural, random evolutionary processes created our cognitive faculties, then our
cognitive faculties are not reliable tools for finding truth.
2) Evolutionary purposes do not have truth in mind, only adaptability anbd survivability.
3) Therefore to use our cognitive faculties to attempt to discover truth is to use them in a way
contrary to their nature.
4) The evolutionist must therefore agree that any use of one's cognitive faculties to argue for the
truth of evolution is misguided.
Plantinga writes: “if the general reliability of our cognitive faculties is under question, we
can’t hope to answer the question whether they are reliable by pointing out that these faculties
themselves deliver the belief that they are, in fact, reliable.”
That would be logically contradictory.
Put another way:
1. Naturalistic evolution caused us to develop our cognitive faculties in ways conducive to
survival, not truth.
2. If naturalistic evolution is true, there is no reason to believe that our cognitive faculties are
reliable.
3. If you’ve used your cognitive faculties to come to believe in evolutionary naturalism, you have
a defeater for the conclusion that evolutionary naturalism is true.
4. Therefore you ought not believe that evolutionary naturalism is true.
Darwin wrote: "With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which
has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would
any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Um,...No.
I have to admit, if I value reason and truth, that all things wear down in time, and become rounder
and more pliable.
(modified string theory).
All things change.
We call it "Maturity", when it applies to humans.
But Maturity is still a form of evolution: Its Evolving in time.
Changing.'Changing in nature, even in form.
But not in substance: Still the same person, different body, different mind, with age.
Evolved.
Even our souls evolve.
Even our spirit, it evolves.
But in substance? No.
And that, is why we did not come from primates, even though we are in the same genus. A different
species.
Separate.
Different. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Our cognitive faculties have become so sophisticated as to allow logical analysis and spontaneity.
These two things show that we are fit to see truth, as we can have an idea and then analyze it.
As finsch pointed out, just because something has been designed for one purpose does not mean it can
not perform another. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Your argument against evolution is circular and incoherent. True enough, discoveries and theories in
the natural world are not inherently true as something would be if it was divinely or supernaturally
inspired, however that is far saying that it is necessarily false. Further more, please remember
just because you desire or even require the supernatural to exist for the moral certainty that it
provides does not mean it actually does exist. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
If you say so, chump. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Brains enhance survival value. Development of intelligence thus does NOT shoot evolution in the
foot, it's actually one more proof of evolution at work. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Nice try. But evolution isn't a "product of the brain". It's merely something we discovered. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
17 Jul 2008 01:31
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
