Reality Cheque: In materialistic worldview truth may not be discoverable (part 1)

Sir Francis Bacon, "Novum Organum"

“Lastly, there are others who appear anxious lest there should be something discovered in the investigation of nature to overthrow, or at least shake religion, particularly among the unlearned. The two last apprehensions appear to resemble animal instinct, as if men were diffident, in the bottom of their minds, and secret meditations, of the strength of religion, and the empire of faith over the senses; and therefore feared that some danger awaited them from an inquiry into nature. But any one who properly considers the subject, will find natural philosophy to be, after the word of God, the surest remedy against superstition, and the most approved support of faith. She [i.e., natural philosophy=science] is therefore rightly bestowed upon religion as a most faithful attendant, for the one exhibits the will and the other the power of God.”

J. B. S. Haldane

But if death will probably be the end of me as a finite individual mind, that does not mean that it will be the end of me altogether. It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have a no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter. But as regards my own very finite and imperfect mind, I can see, by studying the effects on it of drugs, alcohol, disease, and so on, that. its limitations are largely at least due to my body.” “When I Am Dead”, Possible Worlds: And Other Essays

C. S. Lewis

If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts - i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy - are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.

G. K. Chesterton

. . . The Darwinians have this mark of fighters for a lost cause, that they are perpetually appealing to sentiment and to authority. Put your bat or your rhinoceros simply and innocently as a child might put them, before the Darwinian, and he will answer by an appeal to authority. He will probably answer with the names of various German professors; he will not answer with any ordinary English words, explaining the point at issue. God condescended to argue with Job, but the last Darwinian will not condescend to argue with you. He will inform you of your ignorance; he will not enlighten your ignorance. And I will add this point of merely personal experience of humanity: when men have a real explanation they explain it, eagerly and copiously and in common speech, as Huxley freely gave it when he thought he had it. When they have no explanation to offer, they give short dignified replies, disdainful of the ignorance of the multitude. (published in 1920)

Robert Jastrow

A sound explanation may exist for the explosive birth of our Universe; but if it does, science cannot find out what the explanation is. The scientist’s pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation. This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: In the beginning God created heaven and earth… At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

Thursday, December 14, 2006

In materialistic worldview truth may not be discoverable (part 1)

Understood basically, natural selection edits that which accidentaly functions to aid survival and reproduction in its given environment. The correlation between this and the ability to logically judge truth from falsehood, I can not see.

Is everyone’s reasoning ability ultimately based on random chance, accidental mutations, and survival. Is reasoning the result of blind interactions between matter and energy as dictated by blind physical and chemical laws? The reasoning ability that has developed through evolutionary processes is only, supposedly, the one which confers the largest survival advantage and reproductive success, not the one which necessarily discovers actual truth claims and true laws of logic or any idea of truth for that matter. Indeed, in this evolutionary scenario, we have no idea if reasoning and interpretation of certain observations has anything to do with discovering actual facts and truths, as opposed to merely being that reasoning program and interpretation of observations which has been passed on through random mutation and natural selection, and has caused the most reproductive and survival success. How would we know if possibly truthful interpretations (correct reasoning ability) of certain observations that are not necessarily life threatening (such as discovering truth and knowledge for the sake of truth and knoweldge) indeed did give any survival advantage? How do you know that your answer to the previous question is not just a programmed evolutionary result of random mutation, natural selection, and survival of the fittest? Also, are there ideas which are wrong, yet pose great survival advantage? If everything is based on survival advantage, including our reasoning ability, how are we to decide between two competing ideas. Are the rules of logic a subjective construct of the human brain, created by evolution, or is it an objective reality that humanity is now intelligent enough to discover? If natural selection tells us that evolution preserves that which is most useful to survival and reproduction, is it also true that an idea or interpretation of certain observations which is most useful is always that which amounts to a statement or an idea of truth or fact (as based upon the rules of logic), instead of merely being an idea that works for the time being in its present environment (as based on survival of the fittest/natural selection)? Why or why not?

Reality Cheque

New Moderation Policy

A Case for a Naturalistic Hypothesis of Intelligent Design

Clearing the Air of Anti-ID Obfuscations

Welcome

Blog Archive

Links

ID relevant mathematics

Politics

Galileo Galilei

Albert Einstein

Robert Wright

Sir Francis Bacon, "Novum Organum"

J. B. S. Haldane

Max Planck

Louis Pasteur

C. S. Lewis

Cyril Burt (British neurologist)

G. K. Chesterton

Robert Jastrow

Thursday, December 14, 2006

In materialistic worldview truth may not be discoverable (part 1)

No comments:

About Me