CHARLES DARWIN
"...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."
Indeed. Imagine a mind created by thoughtless, mindless processes, with no outcome in mind, whose only utility is supporting survival. Truth doesn't come into it. Morality doesn't come into it. The only thing that drives it is survival value. Why would anyone believe anything that comes out of it, especially and particularly in the realms of abstract thought, reason, and moral thinking?
Darwin went on to ask:
"Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"
Indeed.
But why stop there? Would you trust the emanations of a slug's mind? A frog's? Pond scum's? A plant's? Remember: none of these minds (or non-minds) was either designed or created, and the only criteria is survival value.
Belief in darwinism undercuts the rational basis for belief in darwinism.
Rational beliefs can only be rationally believed if we posit that our minds were in fact designed for rational thought. But that necessitates a Creator who is bigger and smarter and more powerful than we are.
Otherwise, rationality is just one of those weird burps produced by a mindless, unfeeling, uncaring darwinian universe.
Strangely, this is a universe that supposedly rational creatures actually prefer to dwell in; it's their habitat of choice.
As for me, I've got my mind set on "things above".
9 comments:
Darwin struggled with his theories on evolution for decades, and always wished he could find a way to disprove them. Ultimately, however, he seems to have realized that empirical scientific evidence overwhelms the "other" argument.
"Rational beliefs can only be rationally believed if we posit that our minds were in fact designed for rational thought. But that necessitates a Creator who is bigger and smarter and more powerful than we are."
Even if we accept your premise, you just failed logic right here. There is no reason the Creator need be bigger, nor more powerful than we are.
Of course, your premise is horribly flawed as well.
Raphael --The darwinian posit that micro-evolution extends to macro-evolution is based as much if not more on interpretation of evidence than the actual evidence itself -- it is assumption and theory-driven. The darwinian idea that undirected mutation is the only adaptive mechanism at work is unprovable -- so it comes down to worldview.
It is just as reasonable to believe that "something" drives the creation of an eye or a brain or consciousness or moral sense.
Plus, there is also empirical evidence of the existence of a law-driven universe that defies darwinian explanation.
logicallyspeaking.
I assume you are kidding, or just having me on.
If the universe was created, it was created by Someone who can create matter from nothing, Someone whose grasp of mathematics is beyond ours, Someone who can create consciousness and life.
Humans can do none of these things.
The existence of the universe points to Someone of stupendous, staggering power and intellect.
And the Bible reveals his character, name, mind, and will.
Plus, the idea that an exquisite eye would evolve through undirected means is an absurdity.
It all comes down to a worldview preference. An absurd universe, or a coherent one.
God makes the universe coherent; no God makes it an absurdity.
And us communicating to each other, thought-to-thought, is just one example.
Thanks for posting.
the Bible reveals his character, name, mind, and will.
If the bible is an accurate description of god, it's worth asking: how do we know? What proof to we have that its position on god is in any way true?
M -- you have asked an excellent question. I studied 20th century philosophies and all major world religions before becoming a Christian -- based on the evidence. Let me sketch out some reasons:
1. Because a single God who created a rational material universe is a more rational view than that of polytheism -- many Gods. Our view of a monotheistic God comes from one source -- the Bible.
2. Because a just and level-headed God is a more rational view than the capriciousness of the gods depicted at the time the Bible was being written.
3. Because of the consistent testimony of not one witness (as in Islam), but of many witnesses of God's interactions with them.
4. Because of what the Bible teaches about sin and man's fallen nature. We all do things we wish we wouldn't do. If we try to obey God's law, which we may acknowledge as "good", we fail -- making us "bad". This knowledge of sin and sinfulness is empirically and intuitively available to every person.
5. Because of predictive prophecies. There is no other book claiming to be a revelation of God that contains specific prophecies that have found specific fulfillments. The latest is the recreation of the state of Israel -- as prophesied in the Bible.
6. Because of the person of Jesus Christ. His words are transcendent, pointing to someone who is more than a mere mortal. What kind of man says "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but by me"?
7. Because of the historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ. The resurrection is the best explanation for the all the facts surrounding Christ's death and the almost immediate rise of a group of fearless witnesses who proclaimed his resurrection and did so even though they were tortured and killed for so doing. Not one recanted.
8. Because of the present-day reality and convicting power of God's Holy Spirit. God can and does "speak" to people today, convicting us of sin, His righteousness, and the truth of his Son. Thus, the Bible is not just an historical record; through God's Spirit it is a living book and a source of living waters, of eternal life.
Jesus said that the sincere seeker would come to know whether he and his teaching were from God, or not.
rkball:
I'm not joking in the least. To begin with, we're not talking about the creation of the universe - we're talking about the creation of the human mind. Changing goalposts like this is one of the clearest signs that your logic is flawed.
With regards to your comment, just two hundred years ago, the idea of humans being able to create something that flies, the ability to blow-up an entire city with something smaller than a horse, the ability to send messages around the world virtually instantly, etc. - these would have all been seen as properties of a being(s) whose power and intellect was well beyond their own.
Of course, we do have more knowledge than our descendants 200 years ago, but we're not a different superior form of being. We're still just human. To say with such definitiveness that humans will never be capable of creating life or consciousness is of the utmost arrogance.
Great! Remember -- it's not just creating a mind or consciousness -- it's creating them FROM NOTHING.
Which requires more faith -- to believe that a transcendent God is capable of creating mind and consciousness from nothing -- or believing that a human being, grunt, grunt, someday, grunt, may be a able to?
Which is the more rational belief?
Post a Comment