I got into a debate with a Theist yesterday and he brought up some points I hadn't heard before. His basic claim that Natural Selection evolves our brains to the benefit of the survivability of our genes, not necessarily rationality. So because of this, how do we know we are rational beings? And if we can't know whether or not we are rational beings, how can we reasonably expect to perform scientific work without the possibility that we are spinning our wheels? This all tied into another point he made about how science needs philosophy. My answer at the time was that, in the long run, we don't know. Of course, his solution was exactly as expected from a Theist when presented with a complex question such as this. He invokes his god. His god wanted us to be rational beings. So he guided the evolutionary process to ensure this. Therefore, unless you believe that his god makes us rational, scientific inquiry is basically pointless.
Of course, this sounds as if it is just another cheap "2 cent" answer to more complex "million dollar" question. He invokes this "God solution" without the slightest burden of proving the existence of this "God." Yes, it would solve all these problems this were true. But is it true? At most, this is an argument for the benefits of belief, but still fails to answer the original question (in boldface). If this solution of his were acceptable philosophy, then philosophy itself is behind the times.
One problem still arises if one were to invoke an answer like this. How does one know their god exists? One could believe all day that Baylor's football team will win the National Championship this year, but it does not make it true or even remotely likely. This "God" would be a great solution to the problem, if he/she exists. But then again, one would first have the burden of proving the existence of your god in the first place, or even the likelihood. So if there were no burden of proof in this case, could one not propose ANY unproven solution to the problem? Could one not propose Allah, or Zeus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, each with their own attached dogmas? If there is no burden of proof, solutions are infinite and no single solution is more valid than any other. Once again, one would have to turn to science to test validity.
Of course there is another element of this problem that I hinted to with the Baylor analogy. This "God solution," or any similar solution, only serves as a way for us to feel comfortable with our own rationality. The question still remains. No matter how many of these "God solutions" we make up, how do we actually know we are "rational" beings. An "irrational being" may be expected to make up some authority to label the being as rational. That is, of course, if it is able and motivated to do so. So how do we know we are not these "irrational beings" and God (or Zeus) isn't the authority figure we have created to make ourselves feel rational? Once again, we end up right back at the original starting point; the boldface question.
This seems to be a common theme among Theists. When presented with a complex philosophical or scientific question, the response is to engage in wishful thinking without ACTUALLY answering the question. The main problem with the original argument from the Theist I debated was that he first invoked his God as a solution without actually proving that his God exists or even has a likely chance to exist. In all honesty, before your God can be invoked as a solution, you must also prove than not only is your God likely to exist, but is also the most likely to exist of any possible solution. This is something that, to my knowledge, has never been accomplished with ANY god.
Now we come back to the question itself and what exact solution a non-believer may have. Because this question is no new to me, I have not had that much time to think of a solution. I don't know if anyone has. Of course this Theist left me with two possible solutions: Either I believe in his god to feel as though science isn't just "spinning its wheels," or I don't believe in his god and continue down this road of futility. As I have already pointed out, simply believing in an unproven or unlikely god is not an acceptable solution for anyone who would rather live in reality then a pleasant fantasy. So is his dichotomy correct? Or is there another solution? I have an idea. Although I would like to hear the perspective of others.
I have no background in philosophy or biology but I wonder if this question is even an issue. My first question would be to define rationality. Basically, it seems as though rationality is ": the quality or state of being agreeable to reason." Now, looking at the possible definitions of reason in this context (Definition 2 on the list), I see a few possibilities. The first seems to go back to rationality, which is cyclical. The second, ": proper exercise of the mind," just poses more questions over what exactly is "proper exercise." The most i can infer is through the use of proper logic, which is what I am hoping I am using here. However, the third seems the most helpful: "the sum of the intellectual powers." Basically, it seems as though rationality is actually defined by our "intellectual powers" (I say ours because we would not consider other animals to be rational). So if there were some "higher form" of rationality, We would not necessarily call it rational by our standards, since our definition is based on our intellectual powers. Basically, my point is that we are rational because we defined rationality based on OUR concept of rationality. An analogy is to say a cat is green because we have defined that color of the cat to be green. Is there a true green that isn't our green?
I don't want this to be a red herring though. This may not really be an argument over the definition of rationality so much as the qualities of rationality. I just wanted to close that door so that we can focus on what exactly is the benefit of rationality. The most clear benefit is that it allows us to perceive and correctly analyze what we perceive as reality. And without this benefit, who honestly cares? What is the point beyond this? Now if this benefit is allows an organism to be more "fit", then it is clear that it would be favored by natural selection. At this point we would turn to biology and evolutionary psychology, to which I am no expert. I am just showing another possible train of thought for the boldface question. And I would like to see comments from people knowledgeable in these fields. If you have something constructive to say, please say it. Maybe the answer to the boldface question is obvious to someone knowledgeable in an applicable field. I don't know. I have just not personally seen this issue tackled.
No comments:
Post a Comment