No there's no straw man argument there at all. Nor is the issue the "completeness" of our knowledge.
Do you suppose you are superior in understanding to Darwin and Churchland who understand the logical problem involved in philosophical naturalism:
Even Charles Darwin recognized that if the human brain is a product of blind, non-teleological evolutionary processes, then we have no reason to believe that the brain is capable of producing convictions that are trustworthy:
"With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has always been developed from the mind of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"
Patricia Churchland, a prominent philosopher and advocate for philosophical naturalism, also agrees that since the aim of evolution is survival, we can't expect our brains to discover "truth":
Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in the four F's: feeding, fleeing, fighting and reproducing. The principle chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive. . . . Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism's way of life and enhances the organism's chances of survival. Truth, whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost.”
As Roy Clouser ( www.freewebs.com/royclouser/ ) said:
Being able to trust our belief-forming capacities is an assumption necessary to believing in the theory of evolution.
He could have added or that anything else is true.
If we believe we have reliable belief-forming apparatus then we have reason to believe that non-teleological evolution is false. Likewise, if we believe that non-teleological evolution is true then we have no reason to believe the theory since we would have no reason to trust that our belief-forming apparatus is reliable.
Re. your statements:
"The process of biological evolution does not have a goal, so the results of evolution such as rational consciousness are a by-product because they worked, not a choice of pre-conscious ancestors. .... It is only because the process can change over time that the scientific method can get "closer to the truth" over time."
You're making a assumption humans possess rational consciousness that can uncover "truth".
Re.
"Many religons, in contrast, got as close to the "truth" as they will ever get long ago. The interlocking explanations lack the ability to allow changes without bringing the whole set of explanations into doubt. "
Criticizing religion does nothing to make philosophical naturalism more reliable as a source of true belief. |
