Parallel Answer to CMI

1) Are Proofs of God's Existence Compatible with Christianity? · 2) Parallel Answer to CMI

This letter was sent to CMI, the one I am quoting from.

I am not looking at Halley's answer, but giving mine.

I used Argument from Reason with people and there were a couple objections that came up that I was wondering if you could take a look at.

• 1. They said that even though some of our thoughts/reasoning might be unreliable, evolution (and natural selection) would tend to produce beliefs that were accurate over time, since natural selection has been “working” on it for a long time.
  
  
• 2. Didn’t quite understand what they meant by this, but they also said that using the scientific method overcomes any difficulty in interpreting data (or information), therefore any false beliefs/thoughts that we had would be nullified.
  
  
• 3. The other one I couldn’t answer well was that they said just because we can’t prove that our thoughts are reliable doesn’t mean they aren’t, and that it’s no different than saying that we as Christians trusting God.

Let us take it one by one.

1.

They said that even though some of our thoughts/reasoning might be unreliable, evolution (and natural selection) would tend to produce beliefs that were accurate over time, since natural selection has been “working” on it for a long time.

Answer:

Natural selection (as understood by evolutionists) favours survival fitness, not truth.

a)

In certain cases too much accuracy would not add survival fitness, but rather an overload and therefore detract from survival fitness.

Therefore natural selection could have eliminated accurate modes of reasoning because not survival fit - if the story were true.

And therefore, we would not be able to tell whether the story is true. If it is and is the whole story. Only if it isn't.

b)

Then Natural selection can only select from what is there. It cannot produce mind. It can only favour it, if it emerges, but not produce it.

In animal "minds", it cannot produce what we mean by mind, it cannot produce reason, only favour it should it emerge.

Therefore we have no reason to believe it would have emerged as an universally valid "tool" from mindless matter, via irrational life.

And therefore, we would not be able to tell whether the story is true. If it is and is the whole story. Only if it isn't.

c)

Furthermore, objectioner seems to have forgotten what reason means.

Reason does not mean "reliable thoughts" as opposed to "unreliable thoughts". Reason means one can with universal validity decide whether a thought is reliable, and that we sometimes do.

Evolution does not even give any plausible scenario for unreliable thoughts, let alone reliable ones, and let alone reason, able to judge between the two.

And therefore, we would not be able to tell whether the story is true. If it is and is the whole story. Only if it isn't.

2.

Didn’t quite understand what they meant by this, but they also said that using the scientific method overcomes any difficulty in interpreting data (or information), therefore any false beliefs/thoughts that we had would be nullified.

Answer:

Scientific method is only a certain narrow (and in some versions even mistaken) application of reason.

Therefore it is as reliable as reason, at the best, or less.

If we have no reason to trust reason, we have no reason to trust the scientific method either.

And as it happens, see 1, evolution story gives us no reason to trust our reason.

And therefore, we would not be able to tell whether the story is true. If it is and is the whole story. Only if it isn't.

3.

The other one I couldn’t answer well was that they said just because we can’t prove that our thoughts are reliable doesn’t mean they aren’t, and that it’s no different than saying that we as Christians trusting God.

Answer:

We can prove there is a God.

And they not only cannot prove their thoughts are reliable.

They cannot even disprove a very strong suspicion that, if they were right on evolution, it is not.

Or, for very strong suspicion, make it certainty.

This being one of the proofs for an eternal and universal mind, which everyone calls God.

Now, go and read Mr. Halley's answer to the same letter.

Can evolution produce rational minds?
Answering some critics of the argument from reason
Published: 24 September 2016 (GMT+10)
http://creation.com/evolution-rational-minds

I only looked at the top, before the letter, not to the rest.

If a rational God is not responsible for human minds, and instead they were cobbled together by unguided evolutionary processes, we should not expect them to be trustworthy. Since our minds are generally trustworthy, though, the evolutionary worldview must not be correct. This is one form of the ‘argument from reason’, covered in
Monkey minds: How evolution undercuts reason and science.
http://creation.com/monkey-minds

I take some objection at Halley just saying "reliable" rather than "universally valid", which reason per se is.

This undercuts his argument a bit, and is responsible for some of the criticisms given.

Now I am reading the response. His response to 1 equals my Answer + points a and b, and I presume they are covered in the link to previous. Point c seems lacking. And to C. S. Lewis in Miracles, it was crucial.

His response to 2 is equal to mine and covers some of my 1c.

His response to 3 is very well argued, and I covered it also by my use of unreal mode in several of the responses previous and in my response to this. Confer his:

• If human beings were solely the product of a blind evolutionary process, our minds would not be generally reliable.
• Our minds are generally reliable.
• Therefore, human beings are not solely the product of a blind evolutionary process.

It’s the first premise that the critics need to address. Note, again, the first premise is not about the way the world is. It’s about what follows from the atheist’s claims about our origin and composition.

And mine above:

2

...And as it happens, see 1, evolution story gives us no reason to trust our reason.

And therefore, we would not be able to tell whether the story is true. If it is and is the whole story. Only if it isn't.

3

...They cannot even disprove a very strong suspicion that, if they were right on evolution, it is not.

Or, for very strong suspicion, make it certainty.

This being one of the proofs for an eternal and universal mind, which everyone calls God.

So, though I did not look on his answers, I came to the same conclusion. Of course, we both looked at certain chapters in C. S. Lewis' Miracles before that. In my case years ago. But if I hadn't understood them, how come I am saying same thing as another of his readers, and that without actually copying him?

The proof of God's existence from reason (and human reason, like day and night, are among the things that are made and so falls under Romans 1:18-20) was therefore well put by C. S. Lewis in his book Miracles.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Our Lady of Mercy
24.IX.2016

PS, one reason why Evolutionists might be shrinking back from debates more and more is that debating does very obviously appeal to the universal validity of reason. It appeals to the fact that a mode of syllogism which is valid in one debater remains valid in the other debater, just like a fact which is correct in the one debater remains correct when taken up by the other debater. Therefore, it may be that many Evolutionists now are arguing "correctness, yes, that WE have, universal validity, no, that NO ONE has". And the refusal to argue their case in debates may be a way of inculcating that./HGL

See:

Creation vs. Evolution : Were Evolutionists More Willing to Debate in Early 80's?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/09/were-evolutionists-more-willing-to.html