Is TRUTH an accident

“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.”

–C. S. Lewis


If the concept of truth is only that which has been created by accidental natural laws and natural selection why does it matter for any purpose other than reproductive success and survival? Surely the concept of truth can't be TRUE, since it itself is an accidental shape of "spilled milk" (in keeping with the analogy). Our ability to think and reason, in order to grasp truth, is thus an accidental by-product of a supposedly accidental process which only preserves that which accidentally gains survival advantage. Therefore, our reasoning can only logically be trusted to provide survival advantage and nothing more. However, this previous logical statement is the result of reasonable thought and thus we begin to attempt to prove the validity of logic and that which it may affect by using logic -- an amazingly circular argument.

The reason I don't see the concept of Truth as the result of natural laws is because that would seem to be self-defeating. The concept of that which is True as played out by elecro-chemical interactions within our brains would then be subjective to whichever natural laws (random mutations and natural selection for the "purpose" of survival and reproductive success) created it, and would thus loose its definition as being the mark of objective reality. Truth, as an accidental survival bestowing concept which is observed by logical beings, would then only be able to guide us toward that which helps us to survive. Truth thus looses its mark as THE objective reality to which we seek. TRUTH becomes unknowable.

The relavance of this to ID? ID theory presumes that purpose can indeed exist and that truth may not be merely subject to random occurences and selection by survival advantage. ID theory's aim is to scientifically filter the accidental from the purposeful (ie: programmed on purpose). This would then help us to discover if the concept of truth is truly an accidental by-product of accidental occurences, or if there is at least something within our universe that is the result of purpose.

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?