Why are you annoyed Arcus or more to the point, why are you annoyed with us? This man seems shallow to me and it seems many on this page. Can you explain how this argument could be valid?
@Robertson: Your line of reasoning is the one of the ones I would also pursue.
@Schumacher: There is a difference between disagreeing and disrespecting. It's equally annoying when atheists argue poorly as when religious people do, at least that is my opinion. I did have to parse this specific 'Argument from Reason' (vs the Lucretian argument) in my civil confirmation course and had my logic torn apart since it is deceptively simple. It should be recalled that Lewis was an atheist before he became christian, and I doubt too many Oxford scholars publish thoughtless arguments in general.
For a more sophisticated presentation of this argument see Plantinga's "An Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism".
Do you have a link to that @Kevin Harris?
@Arcus, since you have had formal experience and training in dealing with the argument, could you provide a decent rebuttal?
No formal experience or training, the point of the exercise was to teach humbleness. It was also 17 years ago when I was 14, and I can't quite recall the line of reasoning I prepared to this day (and in any case, as mentioned, it was poor).
I don't see the flawed logic in the passage quoted above. What he is saying is
1) (implied) I (Lewis) believe in a higher intelligence which created mine.
2) If I didn't believe in that, what grounds would I have to believe my own intelligence was intelligible?
3) If I didn't have any grounds on which to believe that, what could I therefore believe in for certain?
4) Atheists don't believe there is a higher intelligence that created theirs. To them, their intelligence is not by design but by natural selection.
5) How can they trust their intelligence, therefore?
I think it is a good point, actually, in that from the point of view of natural selection, what we are naturally selected for has to do with one thing and one thing only: survivability (and reproduction, okay, that's two). The fact that we survive does not prove that our brain is capable of being "right", it only proves that it has been capable of directing us towards biological survival.
I don't see how it's full of crap, actually. It's not a 'proof' for existence of God, it's just a comment on the fact that we all have to ultimately have blind faith in something. Don't we? Is there anyone who doesn't?
The flaw is how do you trust that other "intelligence" to put our minds together any better than natural selection? We don't have to have "blind faith" in anything. We just accept that the universe doesn't justify trust and hope for the best anyways. :)
And why shouldn't an atheist trust their own intelligence? What would make an intelligence that resulted from natural process (and demonstrably successful!) be any less trustworthy for that origin? He avoids the question and demands the acceptance of a conclusion without showing any accountability for the same.
The brain evolved to improve our odds of survival, if it is inefficient or "not in tune with reality" it wouldn't have survival value.
Terry Goodkind discusses this topic quite well in the book "Naked Empire". It's quite good. The main character discovers an "empire" of people who embrace the philosophy that nothing is real, that they cannot trust their own senses to tell them what is happening around them as they are living it. I feel it strongly resembles this quote from C.S. Lewis
The fact that the brain evolved does not mean that it is in line with reality or able to come to truth. It does make it efficient. What is good for survival is not always the 'truth'. There are a lot of times we already know when it is better for survival to NOT be in the truth about things. For instance, it is clearly shown that people repress traumatic memories or unconsciously distort memories to favor themselves. These are clear cases where the brain DID not evolve to be in truth. How many more cases like that are there?
It is human nature to insist that your own memory of something is correct; we all instinctively trust our memories. And yet science has clearly shown that memory is very untrustworthy. Look how many people have been exonerated by DNA evidence after having been convicted by eyewitness.
So, being 'in tune with reality' does not always have survival value. People who think things that are not true have sometimes survived much better than the ones whom history has proven were right. I could give probably a hundred examples right off the bat.
So I still think Lewis has a valid point that no one has answered. He is saying that, as a Christian, he puts 'faith' in his intellligence because he has already put faith in a higher intelligence, whereas an Atheist has to put faith in the hope that natural selection has left him a trustworthy intelligence.
I came on here hoping to find some good arguments for atheism and I am not finding them. I hope someone can do better, cause some of the arguments on here seem to be supporting the idea that atheists shouldn't trust their intelligence.
My cat is frequently wrong and mistakes friend for foe and foe for friend and her species still survived to reproduce for millenium upon millenium. People are frequently wrong and yet it's undeniably human nature to believe we aren't. So why should anyone believe natural selection has given us an intelligence capable of being right about anything besides where the food and sex are?
Join Think Atheist
Welcome toThink Atheist
Get Started Nowor Sign In
Or sign in with:
Started by Mercedes in Welcome to Think Atheist. Last reply by Tom Sarbeck 25 minutes ago.
Posted by Dan on May 23, 2013 at 11:53pm
Added by Dan
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.