I agree that we appear to be rational beings. No argument there.
Following your own definition, you cannot make this claim unless you accept Philosophical Naturalism.
Incorrect. I can
believe that we are rational beings because if God created us and equipped us with the ability to be rational then I have the Source for that ability. You need to show how naturalistic evolution can produce reliable true beliefs….and not by demonstrating that we can observe that they are reliable…but because the process
of evolution is capable of producing reliable beliefs. You evolved according to naturalistic processes that could give two hoots whether your beliefs are true or not. Evolution produces biological structures that either adapt and survive or they don’t….regardless of truth value.
Evolution does not create beliefs.
If evolution is the cause of everything we are, including our perceived cognitive faculties, then I fail to see how beliefs are excluded. Where else could they have come from?
That means your belief that we are rational beings has a low probability of being true....and, if that is the case (as probability would suggest), you have nothing to ground rationality in and must consider the real possibility that everything that you think you believe is true is just an illusion.
Invalid consequences of a bad argument.
An explanation for why you indicate this would be appreciated. Actually, your explanation is critical on this point.
If there is no God then you are correct.
Here's the catch....and, again, this is based on there being a God. If God exists, then my mind can be relied upon to produce rational beliefs because the Creator is a rational Being and has equipped us with agency (a mind) and the physical faculties capable of producing rational thought.
I can identify the Source of my rational thought.
There is a bigger catch, following your own definition of Philosophical Naturalism, it is impossible for you to identify the source of anything, or know that you are interacting with reality in a rational way, or that there is a god, or what any god might be like, or that you are capable of any rational thought at all, unless you assume Philosophical Naturalism.
No ma’am. As I indicated to Add Homonym
, what you are claiming is true only if
there is no God. If there is a God then Philosophical Naturalism is false and there is no need to consider whether my cognitive abilities can be relied upon to produce true beliefs.
The non-theist can hypothesize a source of rational thought but the likelihood that naturalistic evolution produced it in the sense that it can be deemed reliable is low....in fact, very low.
An explanation for why you indicate this would be appreciated.