Monday, March 12, 2012
Rebuttal of Atheist Reasoning
An Atheist worldview must be based on naturalism. That is to say, the view that there is nothing transcendent of the natural universe (or multiverse as some would argue). The naturalist says that all existence has a natural explanation even if we haven't arrived at it yet. The problem with naturalism is that it is ultimately self defeating. If naturalism were true, it would mean that the cognitive faculties (reason, logic, decision making etc) necessary for determining truth and worldview came through natural selection. If by natural selection, then the main function of the cognitive faculties is survival rather than truth. Granted, many times truth and survival go hand in hand, but that is obviously not always the case. As a result, it becomes impossible to trust ones own cognitive faculties. How would you know that your reasoning was sound? After all, according to naturalism, what is reason but an illusion created by chemical reactions in the brain? Atheists like Sam Harris and Stephen Hawking even go so far as to say that humans have no free will but that all is determined by our biological chemistry. That begs yet another question: even if your cognitive faculties were trustworthy, how would you be able to tell? If your naturalistic worldview is ultimately determined by chemistry then shouldn't the same be true of the man who has a Christian worldview? Why would natural selection produce in humanity so many conflicting points of view unless the survival of the race depended upon its own inability to determine any truth? If you are an Atheist or otherwise proponent of naturalism, you must concede that to be at least a probable scenario. But if that is true, then any claim to scientific knowledge is empty. It is just as likely that your brain is leading you to believe something in order to preserve the human race as it is that the same something actually be true. At that point all terms like truth, reason, choice, etc all become meaningless and the argument for naturalism breaks down. A transcendent explanation is required and I would even argue perfectly reasonable.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
take this a little further - explore WHY a transcendent explanation is required and reasonable. (also, though black backgrounds and white writing are awesome, it's a little hard on the eyes...if you want wide readership, I would find a color combo a little less likely to create the effect of a flash camera) :)
ReplyDeleteThanks! I will look into changing the background. Also, I could and probably will go into the reasons for a transcendent explanation in another post. In this one I just wanted to lay the groundwork. Thanks for the ideas.
ReplyDeleteA transcendent explanation could be argued as being reasonable, but not necessarily required. Besides, a more feasible explanation, other than the Biblical God needs to be found as a reasonable alternative to naturalism. Though I'm not necessarily a naturalist, they do have a much stronger argument than the Christian god, one who's basis rests upon a collection of hearsay stories with all their inconsistencies and flaws.
ReplyDeleteTerry: Thanks for replying and being willing to express your opinions. I hope for the sake of intellectual discussion that people will not jump in and make the typical rash message board type of comments. I wasn't even going so far as to argue for the God of Christianity in this particular post. I was merely making an argument for the necessary existence of an intelligent transcendent creator. I would like to challenge you on the points of contention that you raise. Can you explain to me what alternative to a transcendent creator there could be that would not fall under the heading of "natural causes"? Because it seems like you are simply agreeing with the naturalist who often says there is a natural explanation but we just haven't found it yet. And as to your last two points, can you give me some examples of a Biblical inconsistencies and flaws that trouble you? Thanks!
ReplyDeleteThis is Plantinga's Evolutionary argument against naturalism. That is, if evolution AND philosophical naturalism were true, our brains are successfully aimed at survival and not truth apprehension.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism
The naturalist could say that whatever truth is apprehended is meant only for our survival. That is, we would have some kind of epistemic filter that weeds out "unnecessary" truths imprimus and automatically. How that could be proofed is beyond me (rimshot!) because, were it true, it's not a truth essential to our survival.
Interesting! I have heard of Plantinga, and often wondered if I should check out his stuff, but I have never actually read any of his work. And while I certainly never would have claimed any of my thoughts in this blog (or any other) as "new" or "revolutionary", it makes me feel good to know that someone much more intelligent than myself would have come to such a similar conclusion. Now I am definitely interested in getting a book by Plantinga. Any suggestions? Thanks!
DeleteAs far as books of his, I've only read "Warranted Christian Belief", twice. I wrote a review on my blog that sort of summarizes it: http://www.jaydinitto.com/?p=1053
DeleteI've also read many of his essays, which are available online. Here's a good compilation:
http://philofreligion.homestead.com/plantingapage.html
There's also some youtube videos of him speaking, etc.