« Last post by BibleStudent on Yesterday at 07:24:27 PM »
I would like to know what your best rational argument is.
I wouldn't say that I have a best argument. There are a few that I find more compelling than others but nothing I would say is my best.
It was his mistakes which made the difference, not because some of what he said was correct.
Which mistakes? You didn't say? They may be important mistakes.
Evolution produces rationality and reliability of thought in two ways, by intuition and by method.
Evolution has to develop rapid intuitive responses. It is necessary to intuitively understand some of the basic concepts of the universe such as distance and time and combine these to understand speed. Distance, time and speed are needed to hunt and escape from other animals. No doubt early humans threw stones to protect themselves, so they would also have evolved the more difficult intuitive concepts of gravity, force and trajectory, since a moving animal would have to reach the same place at the same time as a thrown stone or other object. We can do all these things intuitively without any conscious mathematical calculations in our heads but the physics is not easy to do consciously.
Evolution also has to develop a conscious method of data collection and analysis. Data has to be collected on terrain and plant types, when they can be eaten, and if they are poisonous. Hypotheses also need to be formed about when and where the plants can be found again, about the weather and safety of travel, plans for dealing with dangerous animals which might be met, crossing rivers, making tools, and finding source materials for tools. Early types of humans also made tools, not just modern humans.
So we evolved the basic method we need for complex science from simple problems of survival.
We did NOT evolve the intuitive ability to understand all the processes of the universe and reality just by thinking about it, but we did evolve the conscious method to try. Gods are one of the mistakes made because we have evolved to think that any unexpected event might be caused by a hiding predator, so we tend think that living beings are behind natural events when they are not. How many times have you instinctively froze or reacted to a shadow in the corner of your eye in the dark?
Intuition does not get you any further along in demonstrating that evolution produces beliefs that can be known to be true or false. The intuition may be correct and, then again, it may not be. So, an evolved being may act on their intuition and even though it is false, it may still enhance adaptation and survivability. Again, intuition is something you could never know to be capable of producing true intuition....which still makes naturalism irrational.
I'm sure what you've presented here represents a plausible model of how primitive beings may have utilized intuition. However, natural selection did not and does not favor what evolution has produced based on truth. It favors what is capable of surviving.
Mathematics shows that we can think rationally. Science tells us what we can do rationally and intutively and what we cannot. Successful applications and predictions show that we have been successful, regardless of the origins of the ability.
Yes, but how do you know that what we believe about science is true? Absent a means for demonstrating that evolution is capable of producing true beliefs, you cannot know if anything you believe is true, including science....no matter how true it may appear to be. As I said, you are a product of evolution...a process that generates physical biological structures that could be acting on true beliefs or false beliefs. Natural selection is oblivious as to whether a belief is true or not.
The argument probably gets attention because of the qualifications of Plantinga which could lead people astray and so the argument needs to be refuted because it is so obviously false.
Actually, you have not demonstrated that it is false. You have not even come close.