TheFiveSolas
May 31st 2003, 11:19 PM
Can evolutionary theory rationally account for the preconditions of science; human rationality, objective and universally binding laws of logic, inductive inference, objective and universally binding ethical norms, human freedom of thought/will/action, etc.?
In another thread, the following off-topic posts were made:
Monkey Boy:
How could (a) be fallacious if it was just a simple statement "fallible man wrote it".
TheFiveSolas:
The assertion begs the question of whether God superintended the writing. That is why it is fallacious.
Your probability argument also begs the question since the probability of the God described in Scripture making a mistake is zero.
A literal interpretation is one in which the literary piece in question is read according to the genre being used in the section under discussion. In other words, literalists read the poetic sections as poetry, the historical narratives as history, and hyperbolic sections as hyperbole, etc.
The challenge for those that deny Scripture is to provide an alternative worldview that can account for rationality, logic, human freedom of will/thought/action, human dignity, objective ethical norms, etc., and do so simultaneously.
Until they do, they can't even get their argument off the ground.
James:
What about those who don't believe that Christianity can account for these things?
I deny that non-Christian worldviews can account for all of the above preconditions for intelligibility, science, rationality, etc.
If you'd like make an attempt I'd be interested in hearing it.
James:
I'd argue that a literal interpretation of the Bible cannot account for rationality, logic, human freedom of will/thought/action, human dignity, objective ethical norms, etc., and do so simultaneously. Want to start a thread on this?
Lobstrocity:
Today @ 11:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113733#post113733)
TheFiveSolas:
Your probability argument also begs the question since the probability of the God described in Scripture making a mistake is zero.
Well then, given that the Bible clearly is not error-free (rabbits don't chew their own cud, for one), I guess one must assume that God did not superintend the writing, right? Listen to yourselves: the Bible is infallible because it might have been superintended by God. How do you know? Because the Bible can be interpreted to imply this.
Firstly, there's the uncertainty as to whether it was actually superintended by God--maybe Norse mythology was superintended by God(s) whereas the Bible was just embellished history compiled by man. That you cannot be certain of this means you cannot be certain of the Bible's infallibility. Secondly, if you cannot be certain of its inerrancy, you cannot use its own claims of inerrancy as proof that it's inerrant! Going in circles does tend to make one sick.
A literal interpretation is one in which the literary piece in question is read according to the genre being used in the section under discussion. In other words, literalists read the poetic sections as poetry, the historical narratives as history, and hyperbolic sections as hyperbole, etc.
Yes, and man is the one interpreting whether a section is poetry, historical narrative, or hyperbole. Since God is capable of literally anything, how do you know that a hyperbole isn't actually historical fact? How do you know that what you believe to be historical fact isn't hyperbole? This is all interpretation made by fallible men. It was faulty interpretation that caused the church to forcefully oppose heliocentrism. For example, I read Genesis and it sure sounds like hyperbole to me. Millions of other Christians would agree with me. So clearly interpretation isn't all it's cracked up to be, is it?
The challenge for those that deny Scripture is to provide an alternative worldview that can account for rationality, logic, human freedom of will/thought/action, human dignity, objective ethical norms, etc., and do so simultaneously.
Materialism does this just fine. First of all, computers operate off of logical principles and are fully capable of evaluating logic, so knock that one off your list of magical intangibles. Math and logic can exist without human beings and without magic. Second of all, there is no reason not to assume that the biological brain cannot result in all of these facets of humanity given the fact that physical impairments of the brain can render a person devoid of each of these characteristics. Drugs/brain damage can easily alter your emotions and/or ethical norms. Cutting the corpus callosum results in an impaired consciousness a soul simply cannot account for (see here (http://www.indiana.edu/~pietsch/split-brain.html) and here (http://designweb.otago.ac.nz/grant/psyc/TWOBRAIN.HTML)). In short, any non-biological explanation for consciousness is virtually impossible to posit given such studies (well, I've seen people try, but the solutions are remarkably ad hoc). As for objective ethical norms, that's nothing special. You obviously must know that there exist many different moral philosophies that are wholey independent of religion. Morality is a fairly simple concept to grasp: it is that facet of behavior that allows organisms to interact socially. Without morality, humans simply would be unable to form societies. Humans are not the only creatures on Earth to adhere to objective "moral" standards in order to achieve a social hierarchy. So, with my argument off the ground, how about getting back to Biblical inerrancy?
Joe_Sixpack:
"The challenge for those that deny Scripture is to provide an alternative worldview that can account for rationality, logic, human freedom of will/thought/action, human dignity, objective ethical norms, etc., and do so simultaneously."
Ok, here is one off the top of my head. My cat created the Universe Last Thursday with his omnipotent supernatural powers. He endowed us with memories and the appearance of age as well as the ability to reason in order to laugh at us as we consistently used our cat-created logic, reason, and rationality to come to erroneous conclusions about our environment. This amuses him. He also let us come to patently false idea that we have "human dignity" because it amuses him to see our childish arrogance.
Now on a more serious note, I find you list simply bizarre. A truly atheistic universe could easily allow for logic, which is simply formalized axioms for describing reality, rationality is simply using logic. Free will is a little more interesting because it might not really even exist - only the illusion of free might exist. Even so, telling the difference from actual and illusionary free will may be impossible, so who cares if it is not accounted for without a god (though there are of course many philosophies that account for it without needing to invoke the supernatural). Human dignity is entirely subjective and not defined, so I will ingore that one for now. "Objective ethical norms" have never been demonstrated by anyone - we have certainshared feelings regarding some ethical issues, but the exceptions and caveats to these "ethical norms" show that they are far from objective. Further, an atheist may say that certain moral/ethical behaviors provide a survival advantage to the group and since we are a social organism, those cultures with a particular set of ethical rules prospered. This is supported by the existence of "ethical" or social rules exhibited by other social mammals such as canines and dolphins.
Christianity is certainly not the only way to "account" for these things that you suggest.
In another thread, the following off-topic posts were made:
Monkey Boy:
How could (a) be fallacious if it was just a simple statement "fallible man wrote it".
TheFiveSolas:
The assertion begs the question of whether God superintended the writing. That is why it is fallacious.
Your probability argument also begs the question since the probability of the God described in Scripture making a mistake is zero.
A literal interpretation is one in which the literary piece in question is read according to the genre being used in the section under discussion. In other words, literalists read the poetic sections as poetry, the historical narratives as history, and hyperbolic sections as hyperbole, etc.
The challenge for those that deny Scripture is to provide an alternative worldview that can account for rationality, logic, human freedom of will/thought/action, human dignity, objective ethical norms, etc., and do so simultaneously.
Until they do, they can't even get their argument off the ground.
James:
What about those who don't believe that Christianity can account for these things?
I deny that non-Christian worldviews can account for all of the above preconditions for intelligibility, science, rationality, etc.
If you'd like make an attempt I'd be interested in hearing it.
James:
I'd argue that a literal interpretation of the Bible cannot account for rationality, logic, human freedom of will/thought/action, human dignity, objective ethical norms, etc., and do so simultaneously. Want to start a thread on this?
Lobstrocity:
Today @ 11:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113733#post113733)
TheFiveSolas:
Your probability argument also begs the question since the probability of the God described in Scripture making a mistake is zero.
Well then, given that the Bible clearly is not error-free (rabbits don't chew their own cud, for one), I guess one must assume that God did not superintend the writing, right? Listen to yourselves: the Bible is infallible because it might have been superintended by God. How do you know? Because the Bible can be interpreted to imply this.
Firstly, there's the uncertainty as to whether it was actually superintended by God--maybe Norse mythology was superintended by God(s) whereas the Bible was just embellished history compiled by man. That you cannot be certain of this means you cannot be certain of the Bible's infallibility. Secondly, if you cannot be certain of its inerrancy, you cannot use its own claims of inerrancy as proof that it's inerrant! Going in circles does tend to make one sick.
A literal interpretation is one in which the literary piece in question is read according to the genre being used in the section under discussion. In other words, literalists read the poetic sections as poetry, the historical narratives as history, and hyperbolic sections as hyperbole, etc.
Yes, and man is the one interpreting whether a section is poetry, historical narrative, or hyperbole. Since God is capable of literally anything, how do you know that a hyperbole isn't actually historical fact? How do you know that what you believe to be historical fact isn't hyperbole? This is all interpretation made by fallible men. It was faulty interpretation that caused the church to forcefully oppose heliocentrism. For example, I read Genesis and it sure sounds like hyperbole to me. Millions of other Christians would agree with me. So clearly interpretation isn't all it's cracked up to be, is it?
The challenge for those that deny Scripture is to provide an alternative worldview that can account for rationality, logic, human freedom of will/thought/action, human dignity, objective ethical norms, etc., and do so simultaneously.
Materialism does this just fine. First of all, computers operate off of logical principles and are fully capable of evaluating logic, so knock that one off your list of magical intangibles. Math and logic can exist without human beings and without magic. Second of all, there is no reason not to assume that the biological brain cannot result in all of these facets of humanity given the fact that physical impairments of the brain can render a person devoid of each of these characteristics. Drugs/brain damage can easily alter your emotions and/or ethical norms. Cutting the corpus callosum results in an impaired consciousness a soul simply cannot account for (see here (http://www.indiana.edu/~pietsch/split-brain.html) and here (http://designweb.otago.ac.nz/grant/psyc/TWOBRAIN.HTML)). In short, any non-biological explanation for consciousness is virtually impossible to posit given such studies (well, I've seen people try, but the solutions are remarkably ad hoc). As for objective ethical norms, that's nothing special. You obviously must know that there exist many different moral philosophies that are wholey independent of religion. Morality is a fairly simple concept to grasp: it is that facet of behavior that allows organisms to interact socially. Without morality, humans simply would be unable to form societies. Humans are not the only creatures on Earth to adhere to objective "moral" standards in order to achieve a social hierarchy. So, with my argument off the ground, how about getting back to Biblical inerrancy?
Joe_Sixpack:
"The challenge for those that deny Scripture is to provide an alternative worldview that can account for rationality, logic, human freedom of will/thought/action, human dignity, objective ethical norms, etc., and do so simultaneously."
Ok, here is one off the top of my head. My cat created the Universe Last Thursday with his omnipotent supernatural powers. He endowed us with memories and the appearance of age as well as the ability to reason in order to laugh at us as we consistently used our cat-created logic, reason, and rationality to come to erroneous conclusions about our environment. This amuses him. He also let us come to patently false idea that we have "human dignity" because it amuses him to see our childish arrogance.
Now on a more serious note, I find you list simply bizarre. A truly atheistic universe could easily allow for logic, which is simply formalized axioms for describing reality, rationality is simply using logic. Free will is a little more interesting because it might not really even exist - only the illusion of free might exist. Even so, telling the difference from actual and illusionary free will may be impossible, so who cares if it is not accounted for without a god (though there are of course many philosophies that account for it without needing to invoke the supernatural). Human dignity is entirely subjective and not defined, so I will ingore that one for now. "Objective ethical norms" have never been demonstrated by anyone - we have certainshared feelings regarding some ethical issues, but the exceptions and caveats to these "ethical norms" show that they are far from objective. Further, an atheist may say that certain moral/ethical behaviors provide a survival advantage to the group and since we are a social organism, those cultures with a particular set of ethical rules prospered. This is supported by the existence of "ethical" or social rules exhibited by other social mammals such as canines and dolphins.
Christianity is certainly not the only way to "account" for these things that you suggest.