Can The Atheist Account For Reason?

[_james]

I say no. That we have no logical basis to conclude that the non-rational forces of nature can produce rational beings.

[Guest]

Or even more basic, do we have any basis to belief that matter itself popped into being if there was previously nothing. Or did matter always exist?

[_james]

Or even more basic, do we have any basis to belief that matter itself popped into being if there was previously nothing. Or did matter always exist?

No. But the problem of late is the atheist's claim that theism is irrational. We hear it from Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et al. Yet they have no basis or ground for said rationality - they just assert.

The Christian says that a rational God creates rational beings. That is logical and follows nicely. The atheist must claim that the non-rational forces of nature create their opposite - rational beings.

[Guest]

Can't the atheist argue that reason emerged as an evolved response to the environment? Those ancestors whose reasoning processes best approximated reality were better able to respond to the environment, more likely to leave offspring who would inherit the benefit, etc.?

Regards,

CThomas

[Guest]

I say no. That we have no logical basis to conclude that the non-rational forces of nature can produce rational beings.

Forces of nature aren't non-rational.

[_james]

I say no. That we have no logical basis to conclude that the non-rational forces of nature can produce rational beings.

Forces of nature aren't non-rational.

You mean that the forces of nature that created biological life were rational, intentional - thinking? How so?

[_james]

Can't the atheist argue that reason emerged as an evolved response to the environment? Those ancestors whose reasoning processes best approximated reality were better able to respond to the environment, more likely to leave offspring who would inherit the benefit, etc.?

Regards,

CThomas

But why would the evolutionary process care about truth or reality? It wouldn't - it would only care about what "works." Here is an example:

A man runs from the tiger because:

A. He has an irrational fear of the color orange.

B. He has a rational fear of being eaten.

The irrational response works, the man is saved. The evolutionary process cares not whether the response was rational or irrational - it is only concerned (or furthered) by what works.

Hence, the material process offeres no ground or basis for truth or rationality.

Of couse the atheist must agree. They hold that belief in a god or gods is irrational. Yet the vast majority of mankind for the majority of human history have held this belief. And most evolutionists agree that god belief has some real survival advantage. So here, according to atheists, a wide spread false belief, worked...

This would not give us a lot of confidence in our reasoning process - if materialism is true...

[Guest]

Thanks, James. Interesting argument. I'm a Christian and I would be all for this sort of argument, but to play devil's advocate a bit, if I were an atheist I might respond that an irrational fear of the color orange might save the guy from the tiger in this particular instance, but would not be likely to be helpful, and would likely to be harmful, in most other contexts. The atheist might argue that evolutionary "advantage" of having rational beliefs -- it seems to me -- is that they will allow you to act sensibly in all sorts of different situations, and that it's very unlikely that non-rational beliefs will work in lots of different contexts. Do you see what I'm saying? I'd like to be wrong about this, so I hope you'll correct me.

Regards,

CThomas

[Guest]

You mean that the forces of nature that created biological life were rational, intentional - thinking? How so?

It might be conducive to discussion if you were to post the context of the definition of rational that you are using in order to avoid confusion.

[_james]

Thanks, James. Interesting argument. I'm a Christian and I would be all for this sort of argument, but to play devil's advocate a bit, if I were an atheist I might respond that an irrational fear of the color orange might save the guy from the tiger in this particular instance, but would not be likely to be helpful, and would likely to be harmful, in most other contexts. The atheist might argue that evolutionary "advantage" of having rational beliefs -- it seems to me -- is that they will allow you to act sensibly in all sorts of different situations, and that it's very unlikely that non-rational beliefs will work in lots of different contexts. Do you see what I'm saying? I'd like to be wrong about this, so I hope you'll correct me.

Regards,

CThomas

Well CT, the point is that the irrational fear always saves him from the tiger. As a matter of fact we can imagine an irrational response in almost any situation, or context, that would confer survival advantage. Again, this is not a slam dunk, but it doesn't give us a lot of confidence that the evolutionary process would necessarily produce truth.

And like I said, the atheist must agree. The vast majority of mankind for the majority of history believed that there really was "something/someone" out there that we were accountable to. And this wide spread and false belief certainly conferred advantage.

So no, I do not believe that the evolutionary process can or does ground reason.

‘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 milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.’

C.S. Lewis , The Business of Heaven