I don’t see how that follows. The fact that reason is one of the attributes of the methods we use to analyze nature does not mean it is above or beyond nature. You’ve made a statement about how we analyze nature, not a statement about nature itself, or the relationship between nature and reason.
I’d say the same thing for logic and reason here, they are axioms necessary for rational analysis. If we do not assume that the rules of reason or logic obtain, then we can do no meaningful analysis of anything. This is not a statement about the ontological status of reason itself, or of nature, it is a statement about the prerequisite for rational analysis.
I don’t see how reason being an axiom for us to be able to do any kind of rational analysis somehow means reason has some particular ontological status. I’m sorry but what you write is very obscure to me and I have a hard time making sense of it.
Yep, I understand, @Timothy_Horton. But the example is frequently used, revealing the originator’s poor grasp of population survival vs. individual survival.
We see the same thing with sickle-cell traits in populations that face long term exposure to Malaria. Sickle-cell doesn’t do much for the individuals with both genes… but it is an important survival factor for the population as a whole.
Ok but it seems like you were banging on Djordje for words that weren’t his.
The current scientific assessment is non-hetero sexual orientation is caused by a combination of genetic factors, in utero hormonal factors, and to a lesser extent post natal environmental factors. There is no “one size fits all” cause. As it turn out the genetic component is also strongly correlated with increased fecundity in female family members who carry it, which explains why the genetic component hasn’t been eliminated by natural selection. Of course no one consciously selects their sexual orientation of any stripe.
Thanks, I’ve seen similar argument before and I have some problems with it.
It seems to me that nothing could justify belief in reason for which you wouldn’t have to use reasoning in your attempt demonstrate or justify it’s validity. If you argue that God makes it so reason is “reliable” or something to that effect, first of all you’re using the very thing you’re supposed to be establishing the validity of. That would make it, well, circular reasoning.
Second, you can of course just believe on faith that God has made reasoning valid, but how would that be different from simply assuming that reasoning is valid? And is it not possible that God has made reasoning invalid? How do you know God is not a deceptive trickster that takes some sort of pleasure in watching His creations flail around in essentially invalid trains of thought? You have to simply assume something about the nature of God, and then assume God made reasoning (whatever that even means).
I don’t see how theism offers a way out of this quagmire about the reliability or “veridicalness” of reasoning that doesn’t essentially boil down to blind faith, and so it isn’t in any way superior to the naturalistic position.
Neither of us can rationally justify reason “externally”, we both have to take it as an axiom of meaningful discourse. We have no other choice if meaningful discourse is something we desire to have.
There is a difference between an educated leap of faith … and just “blind faith”.
It might not be enough of a difference for you … but that’s why poker is interesting. What another person thinks is a sure thing… someone else considers too much of a gamble.
How can you do an “educated” leap of faith for the “veridicalness” of reason itself, when the thing that would make your faith “educated” has to assessed rationally?
Assuming i can even tell what you mean by the words you are using, there are categories of evidence that can provide some degrees of confidence despite the lack of formal proof.
we can expain it by the molecular clock. if 2 different species were very similar in their initial state- then we can get almost the same result, without a common descent.
The evidence you speak of would have to be assessed using reason. Bur reason is the very thing you’re called upon to justify.
You can’t get out of this. Neither can I. I don’t claim to be in a position where I can rationally justify the use of reason without having to use it. In this instance, when it comes to reason itself, both naturalism and theism are caught in the same quagmire. Reason has to be an axiom and it would be incoherent to try to justify it rationally as you’d have to be using the thing to show it’s reliability. That’s circular reasoning!
It’s analogous to gauging the accuracy of a ruler by holding it up in front of a mirror and comparing it to it’s reflection. Look, they’re exactly alike!
The point is that it’s a comparison of each worldview’s coherency. In the naturalist worldview, there is no known mechanism (yet) that ensures our rational faculties are truth-seeking. Using “regular” logic, we see that naturalism is self-defeating. In contrast, in the theistic worldview, it is possible that God endows sentient beings with rational faculties that are truth-seeking, because he wants them to know him and discover his creation. Thus, the theist can say, “The faculties that I use to reason, including in crafting this very argument, are those endowed by God.” The naturalist can say nothing of the sort.
It’s not so easy to just assume valid reasoning as a “brute fact”, for in the naturalistic worldview there seems to be evidence against the proposition that our rational faculties are truth-seeking. It seems very unlikely that the evolutionary processes that created our brains are perfectly geared towards truth-seeking. Instead, evolutionary processes are more likely geared towards survival, which may sometimes be truth-seeking but very often not. In fact, naturalists themselves have said as such, by positing that being religious possibly gives you or your group evolutionary advantages, even if the claims of religion are false.
What coherency do you gain by having a “possible” way to “ensure your rational facilities are truth-seeking”? Naturalists can say that human reason shows itself to be reliable in judging reality in countless situations for countless people every day. It’s essentially as reliable as gravity and not merely “possible”.
Survival seems to me to depend on having as accurate a picture of reality as possible, and truth is a reflection of reality. It seems to me that we should expect our rational faculties to have evolved to give us as accurate a picture of reality as is possible. People whose rational faculties fail in some way and who therefore lose an accurate picture of reality clearly have many additional problems surviving. Religion has a lot to do with thought in areas in which we have an incomplete or even totally absent knowledge of reality. I believe it can give advantages to us as a social animal, but I don’t think that changes the larger picture.
But you think God gave you your eyes so you can AVERT YOUR GAZE from the miles of sedimentary evidence that defy “flood physics” and galactic cosmology.
Tell me where the Bible says you are supposed to ignore the obvious. Evolutionary processes are not really mysterious. They are obvious and even unavoidable at times.
If God can use gravity to make planets work, he can certainly use evolution to make the creatures that work.
).
