Skip to main content

Naturalism and Reason

For most of my life I considered myself to be a agnostic. I was never an atheist; it was clear to me at a very young age that atheism was a dogmatic view, as dogmatic as an religion could be. I never expected to find an argument that would get me off of that fence. It seemed to me that it could never be answered because our minds were limited by what we saw and heard. If God could not be seen by any sense, how could we know the least thing about him? Then, after leaving university no closer to any answers, and with a diminished view of what a university is and does, I began to read. Libertarian books, such as Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, and books on evolution, such as Dawkins' The Selfish Gene and Matt Ridley's The Red Queen. I was still plagued by what I call the "yes, but" syndrome. These theories sounded fine, but... I was always finding people who read them in ways that to me were too much (or too little, depending on your approach). How could I explain my resistance to things like abortion, euthanasia, promiscuity and so on? How could I say that yes, the state has no right to force you to do (or not do) that, but that you ought to find the reasons yourself. My first attempts involved arguments from utility and from biology. These things seemed destructive to me, in the long term. Couldn't people see that? They certainly told me that they didn't. Reason this and reason that, people came up with the darndest and most clever reasons for the most horrible things. Very interestingly to me, none of these people I was reading had positions that other people rallied around in large numbers. The results they were getting almost began to appear to be the result of how they defined things. The definition lead to the conclusion, but it began to seem that it could just as easily be the other way around. The more evolution I read, the less impressed I was with human reason, and the ethics people were putting forward on the basis of evolution reinforced it. So what was this thing, reason, and why did we put such faith in it, if evolution said we shouldn't? And wasn't evolutionary theory itself a product of reason? Yet there had to be something to evolution. Microbes, which have a much faster evolutionary speed than humans do, were clearly mutating and causing doctors to worry about finding new ways to combat the newly evolved "superbugs." So our minds are not completely shot after all. And yet, if our minds are the product of evolution, why is this so? Why should we have a hazy grip on ontological reality? Evolutionary utility did not seem to be enough to account for it. Here is the best answer I have seen. I think it is good enough to say that Monotheism is true, and that atheism and the naturalism it often springs from, are wrong. I have seen it in a few places, but I'll use C.S. Lewis since he is so approachable:
All possible knowledge, then, depends on the validity of reasoning. If the feeling of certainty which we express by words like must be and therefore and since is a real perception of how things outside our minds really 'must' be, well and good. But if this certainty is merely a feeling in our own minds and not a genuine insight into realities beyond them - if it merely represents the way our minds work - then we can have no knowledge. Unless human reasoning is valid, no science can be true. ... A theory that explained everything else in the whole universe but which made ut impossible to believe our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory itself would have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, be itself demolished. It would have destroyed its own credentials. It would be an argument that no argument was sound - proof that there are no such things as proofs - which is nonsense. ... Naturalism... discredits our process of reasoning... to such a humble level that it can no longer support naturalism itself.
From C.S. Lewis, Miracles. Obviously, this argument does not prove that any particular monotheistic religion is true. It did make agnosticism untenable. Evolution is true and despite this we are capable of knowing about evolution and a lot more. This suggests to me that God is at a minimum somewhat kind, because we could have had minds that were merely the result of what Lewis calls the "interlocking system of nature," which would be cruel or indifferent. From my point of view a religion that denied evolution (fundamentalism) or our ability to know (naturalism) would be fatally flawed; it would be too self enclosed to pass as reasonable. The best fit that I know if is Catholicism, which 1) has a doctrine of grace, that allows us to know through God's grace, 2) the doctrine of original sin, which explains why mankind has such difficulty knowing things, including our own nature, and 3) does not not deny that evolution could be true, and is not threatened if it is true. After doing this work, I have very little time or respect for university folk who argue for the following 1) naturalism, 2) athiesm 3) decontruction. All of them cut the floor out from under themselves and it's not that hard to see once you familiarize yourself with this particular delimma. Why this problem underlies so much of modern thought and study is a whole other subject.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi