Our Nature to Reason (evolution, eternal, God, Christian, Christ)

[Nick Soapdish]

Undoubtedly, the naturalist assumes the Christian believes in God because of some inherent psychological condition, arisen out of a genetic predisposition and the proper environmental stimulus and influences. In short, because it is in his nature.

Likewise, the naturalist must admit their own world view is a consequence of their own nature and based wholly on his or her psychological formation.

According to the naturalist, we all must be what nature caused us to be. And with the indifferent ways of evolution, our ability to think and reason has developed for no higher cause than the sole purpose of adapting to our environment.

One thing that is in common from person to person, despite each of our differing views, we all think we have things figured out. Wouldn't the naturalist have to admit that it is our fancy that we have found the truth that benefits our survivability, and not the fact that we really know the truth?

Following this, does the naturalist have any grounds for claiming a truth can be known, or is reason simply an instrument for improving technology and our ability to survive? Are we fooling ourselves by thinking that our dispositional world views have any real authenticity?

So if naturalism tells us the truth cannot be known, does naturalism undercut itself?

[michel]

Originally Posted by atofel

Undoubtedly, the naturalist assumes the Christian believes in God because of some inherent psychological condition, arisen out of a genetic predisposition and the proper environmental stimulus and influences. In short, because it is in his nature.

Likewise, the naturalist must admit their own world view is a consequence of their own nature and based wholly on his or her psychological formation.

According to the naturalist, we all must be what the nature caused us to be. And with the indifferent ways of evolution, our ability to think and reason has developed for no higher cause than the sole purpose of adapting to our environment.

One thing that is in common from person to person, despite each of our differing views, we all think we have things figured out. Wouldn't the naturalist have to admit that it is our fancy that we have found the truth that benefits our survivability, and not the fact that we really know the truth.

Following this, does the naturalist have any grounds for claiming a truth can be known, or is reason simply an instrument for improving technology and our ability to survive? Are we fooling ourselves by thinking that our dispositional world views have any real authenticity?

So if naturalism tells us the truth cannot be known, does naturalism undercut itself?

Oh, erm, yes, of course...............

[Named]

Undoubtedly, the naturalist assumes the Christian believes in God because of some inherent psychological condition, arisen out of a genetic predisposition and the proper environmental stimulus and influences. In short, because it is in his nature.

Nah, I would say the Christian grasps the bossom which remedies uncertainty and fear of the unknown.

One thing that is in common from person to person, despite each of our differing views, we all think we have things figured out.

I contend this, also... I've yet to meet a 'naturalist' professing unwavering truth in his/her conception of reality. I see scientists, embarking on the eternal quest for truth. Unless I wasn't invited to the boastful "We know everything" parties... That is a possibility.

Now i'm sad ********, think they're too good for Named!

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by atofel

Undoubtedly, the naturalist assumes the Christian believes in God because of some inherent psychological condition, arisen out of a genetic predisposition and the proper environmental stimulus and influences. In short, because it is in his nature.

Likewise, the naturalist must admit their own world view is a consequence of their own nature and based wholly on his or her psychological formation.

According to the naturalist, we all must be what the nature caused us to be. And with the indifferent ways of evolution, our ability to think and reason has developed for no higher cause than the sole purpose of adapting to our environment.

One thing that is in common from person to person, despite each of our differing views, we all think we have things figured out. Wouldn't the naturalist have to admit that it is our fancy that we have found the truth that benefits our survivability, and not the fact that we really know the truth.

Following this, does the naturalist have any grounds for claiming a truth can be known, or is reason simply an instrument for improving technology and our ability to survive? Are we fooling ourselves by thinking that our dispositional world views have any real authenticity?

So if naturalism tells us the truth cannot be known, does naturalism undercut itself?

A fairly good argument! However the conclusion comes from an undefined term "truth" introduced in the 4th premise (the part highlighted).

The 1st premise is also open for discussion

Add another premise before the 4th to deal with the "truth" and we'll talk about your conclusion. But I suspect that "truth" may be the sticking point.

[Sunstone]

I agree with Pah that it's a fairly good argument, Atofel. But the rub is in your definition of truth. The truth of the naturalist is the operational truth of the scientist. The truth of the religious person is the absolute truth of philosophy and theology. These are different kinds of truth, different meanings for the same word, and they should not be confused. I think perhaps that you might be confusing them. Could you elaborate on your definition of truth?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by atofel

... with the indifferent ways of evolution, our ability to think and reason has developed for no higher cause than the sole purpose of adapting to our environment.

This gets so tiresome. Evolution says nothing of the kind.

Originally Posted by atofel

... does the naturalist have any grounds for claiming a truth can be known

Shame on the naturalist who talks in such a sloppy fashion.

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by pah

A fairly good argument! However the conclusion comes from an undefined term "truth" introduced in the 4th premise (the part highlighted).

The 1st premise is also open for discussion

Add another premise before the 4th to deal with the "truth" and we'll talk about your conclusion. But I suspect that "truth" may be the sticking point.

I think I may have miscaharacterized the 4th "premise" - it is probably the only oberservation. The arguement still needs a premise dealing with "truth".

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

I agree with Pah that it's a fairly good argument, Atofel.

I'm at a loss. I see nothing but reification and a naive understaning of evolution. Would someone please restate the argument?