Is Naturalism self-defeating?

Speaker: 00:00:00

We're back in another episode

of Philosophy in Faith, and last

2

: 00:00:04

episode we were talking about the

four great worldviews and how they

3

: 00:00:07

would view the questions of knowledge

in the category epistemology.

4

: 00:00:13

And Daniel, brought up something saying

that it's possible that an objection

5

: 00:00:17

can be made against materialism and

naturalism that is self defeating

6

: 00:00:24

yeah, I think a good argument

could be made that way.

7

: 00:00:27

Wow.

8

: 00:00:27

So we're going to explore that and dive

quite a bit more deeply into that today.

9

: 00:00:32

But as we get started, I just

want to ask you, okay, so , why

10

: 00:00:35

are we having this discussion?

11

: 00:00:37

What's the goal of today's episode?

12

: 00:00:39

It's good to remind ourselves of the goal

of what we're trying to do in the podcast.

13

: 00:00:43

We are not trying to add

to the noise and argument.

14

: 00:00:46

We're not trying to prove

other people are wrong.

15

: 00:00:49

our goal.

16

: 00:00:49

is rather to make the case that

theism is at least as intellectually

17

: 00:00:55

satisfying and coherent as any other

worldview, including naturalism.

18

: 00:01:00

And therefore, a person is

intellectually justified in

19

: 00:01:03

choosing that if they desire to.

20

: 00:01:05

We're just trying to free up a person

to make that choice without feeling like

21

: 00:01:10

they're leaving their brains at the door.

22

: 00:01:12

Yeah, too often you hear that faith

is blind or that kind of thing.

23

: 00:01:17

Yeah, it drives me crazy.

24

: 00:01:19

Yeah we're going to do this

one today, asking the question,

25

: 00:01:22

is naturalism self defeating?

26

: 00:01:24

And then we'll have two more

episodes on the four worldviews

27

: 00:01:27

dealing with eschatology or

history, where is history headed?

28

: 00:01:31

And then also aesthetics,

what is beautiful, in light

29

: 00:01:34

of those four worldviews.

30

: 00:01:35

So two more on the worldviews.

31

: 00:01:37

And then I think.

32

: 00:01:38

We'll have one or two dealing with the

idea of certainty and faith and doubt.

33

: 00:01:43

Some people think that you have

to have certainty to have faith,

34

: 00:01:45

and I think that's very mistaken.

35

: 00:01:47

So we'll talk about that.

36

: 00:01:50

So in this episode you're

talking about whether or not

37

: 00:01:52

naturalism is self defeating.

38

: 00:01:54

Will you talk about what it means?

39

: 00:01:56

What is self defeating?

40

: 00:01:58

What does that mean?

41

: 00:01:59

Yeah, very similar to, just saying

that it's self contradictory.

42

: 00:02:03

But in terms of analyzing arguments, self

defeating is a little bit more precise.

43

: 00:02:08

. What it means is that you are making

a claim which by its nature undermines

44

: 00:02:13

the foundation for making that claim.

45

: 00:02:16

Let me give you an example.

46

: 00:02:18

I was teaching Intro to Philosophy class

and we came to the part about truth.

47

: 00:02:23

And we were just kind of

beginning the discussion and one

48

: 00:02:25

student volunteers says, well,

I don't believe there is truth.

49

: 00:02:28

I don't believe you can know the truth.

50

: 00:02:30

There is no absolute truth.

51

: 00:02:31

And I said, Oh, so you believe

there is no truth that you can know?

52

: 00:02:34

Yes.

53

: 00:02:36

Okay, Bill.

54

: 00:02:37

I think that was new.

55

: 00:02:39

Do you mean that as a true statement?

56

: 00:02:42

And I was amazed because you could

see the light bulb going off in

57

: 00:02:45

his head and his eyes kind of got

bigger and he stepped back and

58

: 00:02:48

thought, I never thought about that.

59

: 00:02:52

And I was surprised.

60

: 00:02:53

Yeah.

61

: 00:02:54

Because that, objection to that

claim that there is no absolute

62

: 00:02:57

truth undermines the concept of

truth goes at least back to Socrates.

63

: 00:03:01

So wow.

64

: 00:03:02

He used that against the skeptics.

65

: 00:03:04

So, I thought it was going to

be pretty obvious that that

66

: 00:03:06

was a self defeating statement.

67

: 00:03:09

To say that there is no truth is making

a truth claim, but you've just undermined

68

: 00:03:14

the ability to make truth claims.

69

: 00:03:16

Wow.

70

: 00:03:16

So, that's a self defeating statement.

71

: 00:03:19

So, what we're arguing here about

naturalism is that to make the

72

: 00:03:22

statement that naturalism is true is

a self defeating statement because it

73

: 00:03:28

undermines your ability to make that

true statement and to know it's true.

74

: 00:03:34

Will you walk us through it?

75

: 00:03:35

Yeah, I'd be glad to.

76

: 00:03:36

So, naturalism is basically the worldview

that says there is no God or gods.

77

: 00:03:42

This material world is all that there

is, or this natural world And however

78

: 00:03:47

you want to define that, you can

call it the cosmos, you can call

79

: 00:03:49

it the universe, you can, this is a

more generic term, world or reality.

80

: 00:03:54

however you want to define that,

what you're doing is you're excluding

81

: 00:03:57

the supernatural element to it.

82

: 00:03:58

Okay.

83

: 00:03:59

That's at the heart of naturalism.

84

: 00:04:01

So, Naturalism is making the claim,

the natural world is the only reality.

85

: 00:04:06

So, who are, who are some of

the naturalistic thinkers?

86

: 00:04:09

Well, There's all kinds of them.

87

: 00:04:11

so Darwin would be one of them?

88

: 00:04:13

Darwin would be a yes and no.

89

: 00:04:15

Okay.

90

: 00:04:16

So he actually claimed to have

a belief in God who organized

91

: 00:04:19

and supervised evolution.

92

: 00:04:20

It's unclear to me and maybe some other

people whether he meant that or if he was

93

: 00:04:25

just trying to stave off the trouble of

being an atheist in late: 1800

94

: 00:04:29

Okay.

95

: 00:04:30

Um, but certainly most of the people

we would call Evolutionary biologists

96

: 00:04:33

or the new atheists, Richard Dawkins,

Christopher Hitchens, Steven Pinker, those

97

: 00:04:38

would, embrace the label of naturalism.

98

: 00:04:41

What's interesting here, though,

is that naturalism is almost

99

: 00:04:46

assumed in some academic fields.

100

: 00:04:49

they're going to operate on

naturalistic assumptions, even

101

: 00:04:52

if no one says, I'm a naturalist.

102

: 00:04:55

They're going to, by principle, exclude

anything but naturalistic explanations

103

: 00:05:00

for whatever data they're dealing with.

104

: 00:05:02

, like which academic areas or fields?

105

: 00:05:05

biology, anthropology, but also I

think you would say the chemistry

106

: 00:05:10

or physics perhaps medicine.

107

: 00:05:12

So if you're asking the question.

108

: 00:05:14

You're looking for naturalistic answers.

109

: 00:05:16

Now, methodologically, In my opinion,

that is exactly what you should do.

110

: 00:05:21

But there's also a drip then from,

a methodological naturalism to a

111

: 00:05:25

philosophical naturalism where more

and more people just kind of assume

112

: 00:05:29

then that there is no God, but

the natural world is all there is.

113

: 00:05:33

So you're saying that that's how it should

be methodologically because you don't want

114

: 00:05:37

to bank on the supernatural intervening?

115

: 00:05:40

Yes.

116

: 00:05:41

And you can't measure it.

117

: 00:05:42

Yeah.

118

: 00:05:42

Okay.

119

: 00:05:44

So, yeah, when you're doing

science, you operate on.

120

: 00:05:47

principles of cause and effect as

established by the scientific method,

121

: 00:05:51

but there's a drift from that to the

philosophical position of naturalism

122

: 00:05:56

that I think goes unnoticed.

123

: 00:05:58

Gotcha.

124

: 00:05:59

So anyway, that is naturalism.

125

: 00:06:01

So, naturalism making the claim the

natural world is all that there is.

126

: 00:06:07

The argument is that naturalism

is self defeating because it

127

: 00:06:11

undermines the ability to make

truth claims, including the claim.

128

: 00:06:15

Naturalism is true.

129

: 00:06:16

Okay, go on and and unpack

that a little bit for us.

130

: 00:06:19

Alright, so if we're gonna make this

into syllogism, it would, it would

131

: 00:06:22

look like this for the statement.

132

: 00:06:25

Naturalism is true.

133

: 00:06:27

To be accepted as true one has

to be able to know the tree.

134

: 00:06:31

Second premise, if naturalism is

true, one cannot know the truth.

135

: 00:06:36

And then, conclusion, therefore,

naturalism cannot be known as true.

136

: 00:06:41

That would be the basic argument there.

137

: 00:06:44

Can you say that one more time?

138

: 00:06:45

The basic form of the argument

in a syllogism form, so you got

139

: 00:06:49

premise, premise, conclusion,

would look something like this.

140

: 00:06:53

For naturalism to be known as true, we

must be able to make valid judgments about

141

: 00:06:58

the truth, about metaphysical questions.

142

: 00:07:01

And then the premise two is.

143

: 00:07:03

Premise two is if

naturalism is true, however.

144

: 00:07:06

It undermines our ability to make valid

truth claims about metaphysical ideas,

145

: 00:07:12

including naturalism, because naturalism

is certainly a metaphysical claim.

146

: 00:07:17

you know, you're, you're making as big of

a claim as you can about human knowledge.

147

: 00:07:21

And the third, then, naturalism is self

defeating and cannot be known as true.

148

: 00:07:28

So let's dive into this here,

149

: 00:07:31

you know who is the surprising

originator of this argument?

150

: 00:07:35

Um, you'll be surprised.

151

: 00:07:38

I will be surprised?

152

: 00:07:39

You will be surprised.

153

: 00:07:40

Jesus.

154

: 00:07:42

No, no.

155

: 00:07:43

Standard answer, but not in this space.

156

: 00:07:45

It may have arisen before, but this

particular argument, it takes its potency.

157

: 00:07:50

Plato.

158

: 00:07:51

No.

159

: 00:07:52

It takes its potency from,

the theory of evolution.

160

: 00:07:55

And the first one who raised the objection

that if naturalism is true, then we cannot

161

: 00:08:01

know the truth was Charles Darwin himself.

162

: 00:08:04

Really?

163

: 00:08:04

Okay.

164

: 00:08:05

Yeah.

165

: 00:08:05

Let me, quote him here.

166

: 00:08:08

This is from a letter

rd,: 1881

167

: 00:08:12

Quoted in the Autobiography of

Charles Darwin in Selective Letters.

168

: 00:08:16

He once said, The horrid doubt always

arises whether the convictions of

169

: 00:08:22

man's mind, which has developed from

the mind of lower animals, Are of

170

: 00:08:27

any value or at all trustworthy?

171

: 00:08:30

Would anyone trust the conviction

of a monkey's mind if there were

172

: 00:08:34

any convictions in such a mind?

173

: 00:08:37

Now where I don't know that he followed

through on that is this idea that

174

: 00:08:40

if that's true and all knowledge

is therefore suspect, that would

175

: 00:08:45

include his own theory of evolution.

176

: 00:08:48

Hmm.

177

: 00:08:50

So.

178

: 00:08:50

This is recognizing that on the

naturalistic premises, you have one

179

: 00:08:55

mechanism for humans developing the

way that we are, and therefore thinking

180

: 00:09:00

the things that we think right now.

181

: 00:09:02

If we are a theist, we have two options.

182

: 00:09:06

We can believe in spontaneous

creation, that God created humanity

183

: 00:09:10

in pretty much its present form

in the relatively recent past.

184

: 00:09:15

But we can also believe that God oversaw

the development of an evolutionary

185

: 00:09:19

process through many, many millions of

years to create mankind as he is now.

186

: 00:09:25

Philosophically, a theist can

believe either one of those is true.

187

: 00:09:29

But in either one of those, we can

say, yeah, we can know truth because it

188

: 00:09:32

was given to us by God, not, we can't

know truth because the process was

189

: 00:09:38

just for the purpose of reproduction,

not for the purpose of knowing truth.

190

: 00:09:43

Unless truth gave us some

sort of competitive advantage.

191

: 00:09:45

Yeah, you're getting

ahead of me a little bit.

192

: 00:09:47

Okay, okay.

193

: 00:09:47

No, that's fine.

194

: 00:09:48

On either of these viewpoints, whether

it took six days or it took, 60 million

195

: 00:09:53

years, what's important philosophically

for this point, especially in the

196

: 00:09:57

area of epistemology, is this.

197

: 00:09:59

It was guided by a rational being for

rational purpose, and that includes making

198

: 00:10:04

mankind in his own image Including a

rational ability that works like his does.

199

: 00:10:09

So, that is consistent with that premises.

200

: 00:10:11

Whichever mechanism you choose.

201

: 00:10:14

But if you reject that.

202

: 00:10:16

If you believe that the natural world

is all that there is or ever has been.

203

: 00:10:21

That there is nothing outside the universe

that caused it to come into being.

204

: 00:10:25

Or that created mankind

in any shape or form.

205

: 00:10:28

Or guided humanity's evolution

towards a certain place.

206

: 00:10:31

It all happened by

natural processes alone.

207

: 00:10:34

well, that's a horse of a different color

because you think through this now, if

208

: 00:10:41

it's true, the natural selection alone,

and we should probably define this.

209

: 00:10:46

This is just the idea that certain

traits are naturally selected to

210

: 00:10:51

increase in a proportion in the

next generation, only because it

211

: 00:10:55

gave them evolutionary, increased

evolutionary fitness, usually defined

212

: 00:11:00

as they're able to get more resources.

213

: 00:11:04

So natural selection means it's

naturally selected on that basis alone.

214

: 00:11:07

That's the only reason that any species

is the way it is, including us, every

215

: 00:11:12

species is formed by that alone.

216

: 00:11:14

Including humanity, including homo

sapiens, and that includes every organ

217

: 00:11:19

in your body, including your brain.

218

: 00:11:21

Now, if that's true then

it's also necessarily true.

219

: 00:11:24

That our brains are formed

by natural selection alone.

220

: 00:11:28

Unguided natural selection.

221

: 00:11:31

That's where the problem comes in.

222

: 00:11:32

Because then you realize, that your

brain and therefore your thoughts,

223

: 00:11:36

which arise out of your brain,

are formed not to find truth,

224

: 00:11:40

for evolutionary fitness, to be

useful for reproductive fitness in

225

: 00:11:45

different kinds of environments.

226

: 00:11:46

That's not the same as, being able to say

that your mind is formed to find truth.

227

: 00:11:51

So when you think through that, all

of a sudden then you have a problem.

228

: 00:11:56

Saying that the human mind is able

to form true statements, especially

229

: 00:12:01

about anything beyond immediate sense

experience, including the statement,

230

: 00:12:05

the natural world is all that there is.

231

: 00:12:08

So that's the argument in a nutshell.

232

: 00:12:10

So how do you know that

evolutionary fitness and finding

233

: 00:12:13

truth are mutually exclusive?

234

: 00:12:15

I mean, Can they both be true?

235

: 00:12:18

Yeah, so the question is, how do you

know that they are mutually exclusive?

236

: 00:12:21

The answer is you don't know that, but

you don't know the converse either.

237

: 00:12:24

On naturalist premises, you

cannot know evolutionary fitness

238

: 00:12:28

and truth are the same thing.

239

: 00:12:30

Or the mind development of one will

also be able to find the other.

240

: 00:12:34

So the argument you're making is one that

naturals will obviously tend to make.

241

: 00:12:39

Mm hmm.

242

: 00:12:39

But the assumption and the

premise of that argument is this.

243

: 00:12:43

If useful, then true.

244

: 00:12:46

If it's useful for producing evolutionary

fitness, if it's useful for propagating

245

: 00:12:50

more genes of that, of the species who

think that particular way, Then it's true.

246

: 00:12:56

And when you think about it

as okay, that's a premise, but

247

: 00:13:00

that's a premise that has not

been established or proven at all.

248

: 00:13:03

It's an assumption made

to say of a theory.

249

: 00:13:07

Hmm.

250

: 00:13:07

It's not been proven.

251

: 00:13:09

In fact, one can easily

think of counterexamples.

252

: 00:13:12

Many ideas that may make a person

more successful at passing on

253

: 00:13:15

genes, are maybe quite false or

at least not proven to be true.

254

: 00:13:19

The denial of a personal God who

places restrictions on human sexual

255

: 00:13:23

activity is just one of those.

256

: 00:13:26

So that certainly would not be chosen

naturally because if anything, the

257

: 00:13:30

opposite would be chosen naturally.

258

: 00:13:32

Oh, I see what you're saying.

259

: 00:13:33

So you're saying that if we're just the

byproduct of natural selection, that

260

: 00:13:38

it's unlikely that a worldview with

a God that places sexual restrictions

261

: 00:13:43

on people, it's, it's unlikely

that that would ever even emerge.

262

: 00:13:47

Probably but that's not the

main point of my argument.

263

: 00:13:49

The main point again is naturalism

has to make the unproven assumption

264

: 00:13:54

that what is useful is what is true.

265

: 00:13:57

Okay.

266

: 00:13:58

And because it's not proven because

it's not even really readily apparent.

267

: 00:14:03

I think you have to conclude

that the second premise is true.

268

: 00:14:07

The naturalism undermines a

notion of regarding our brains

269

: 00:14:11

as being able to find abstract.

270

: 00:14:13

But can't you just say that

it doesn't, matter that we

271

: 00:14:15

have to find absolute truth?

272

: 00:14:17

I mean, does that matter?

273

: 00:14:19

Well, it matters if you're trying to

develop a worldview that's coherent, that

274

: 00:14:22

the parts don't contradict each other.

275

: 00:14:25

Okay.

276

: 00:14:26

I see.

277

: 00:14:27

So if I'm arguing for a worldview,

but the premise of that worldview

278

: 00:14:30

undermines the ability to argue for

it, that's a very deep intellectual

279

: 00:14:34

problem with that worldview.

280

: 00:14:36

Okay.

281

: 00:14:37

Which is what we're talking about here.

282

: 00:14:38

Right.

283

: 00:14:39

I'm just learning all this for the first

time and trying to wrap my mind around it.

284

: 00:14:44

So obviously we are not saying

that most naturalists do not

285

: 00:14:48

believe in absolute truth.

286

: 00:14:49

I would not begin to know how to

quantify how many of you are that.

287

: 00:14:53

We're just saying that on the premises

of naturalism, it becomes difficult to

288

: 00:14:58

make truth claims about naturalism.

289

: 00:15:01

I see.

290

: 00:15:02

I see.

291

: 00:15:02

So not saying naturalists

aren't reasonable or logical

292

: 00:15:05

or anything like that.

293

: 00:15:06

Just that if you're, if you're looking

from a logical perspective, this

294

: 00:15:10

is an objection to pay attention to.

295

: 00:15:13

Yeah.

296

: 00:15:13

Because if true, it's, it's a fatal.

297

: 00:15:15

Gotcha.

298

: 00:15:16

you can't hold a worldview that has.

299

: 00:15:18

a self contradiction at its very heart.

300

: 00:15:20

Yeah, unless you're okay with,

not having internal coherence.

301

: 00:15:25

Right, but to me, I don't know how you

could be intellectually okay with that.,

302

: 00:15:30

But I'm just curious because I feel

like at the heart of Christianity is the

303

: 00:15:34

Trinitarian God and also the two natures

of Jesus, which are at least paradoxical,

304

: 00:15:39

not necessarily contradictory, I guess.

305

: 00:15:41

Yeah, I think there's a paradox that could

be worked out there, but that's not the

306

: 00:15:44

same as having a fundamental contradiction

in the ability to make the claim

307

: 00:15:49

about the heart of the belief system.

308

: 00:15:50

The only analogy would be that

someone could argue that to make

309

: 00:15:54

the statement that there is a God

undermine the ability to make that

310

: 00:15:57

statement as a true statement.

311

: 00:15:59

So it's not the same thing.

312

: 00:16:00

Oh, no, no.

313

: 00:16:01

Just an interesting point there.

314

: 00:16:03

Yeah.

315

: 00:16:03

There's a difference between a paradox

and an inherent contradiction at the very

316

: 00:16:09

basis of a, of a world peace metaphysics.

317

: 00:16:13

So anyway, let me read you a

quote here by Steven Pinker.

318

: 00:16:17

Uh, do you know Steven Pinker?

319

: 00:16:18

Who's that?

320

: 00:16:19

he's an evolutionary biologist and he

was at Harvard for most of his career.

321

: 00:16:23

I don't know if he's still there or not.

322

: 00:16:25

Anyway.

323

: 00:16:26

He was very influential, very smart

man, and he wrote a very large

324

: 00:16:31

book called How the Mind Works.

325

: 00:16:33

And he's writing this from an

evolutionary biologist's perspective

326

: 00:16:37

and as a committed atheist.

327

: 00:16:39

Okay.

328

: 00:16:39

So he's a naturalist.

329

: 00:16:41

and he gets to the chapter, after

explaining so many things about how he

330

: 00:16:45

thinks the mind developed this way, uh,

according to the laws of natural selection

331

: 00:16:48

alone, where he begins talking about

some of the questions we talked about.

332

: 00:16:52

Free will.

333

: 00:16:54

Meaning, morality, sentience, and

basically on all these, he gives

334

: 00:17:00

some half hearted explanations

of how they might've developed,

335

: 00:17:03

but even he sees that he doesn't

really have an answer for these.

336

: 00:17:09

So at the end of it, he comes and he

says on page 516, we are organisms,

337

: 00:17:16

not angels, and our minds are

organs, not pipelines to the truth.

338

: 00:17:21

Our minds evolved by natural

selection to solve problems.

339

: 00:17:24

There were life and death matters

to our ancestors, not to commune

340

: 00:17:29

with correctness or to answer any

question we are capable of asking it.

341

: 00:17:34

Let me read that again, quote, We are

organisms, not angels, and our minds

342

: 00:17:40

are organs, not pipelines to the truth.

343

: 00:17:43

Our minds evolved by natural

selection to solve problems.

344

: 00:17:47

There were life and death

matters to our ancestors.

345

: 00:17:50

Not to commune with correctness,

or to answer any question

346

: 00:17:55

we are capable of making.

347

: 00:17:57

But, but he means that

as a true statement.

348

: 00:17:59

Yeah.

349

: 00:18:00

It's just like, it's

just like your student.

350

: 00:18:02

I mean, he's, he's, right?

351

: 00:18:04

Isn't he saying the same thing?

352

: 00:18:05

He is.

353

: 00:18:05

No, I think he would qualify

that, that on other questions

354

: 00:18:09

he was able to give a point.

355

: 00:18:11

A true answer, but his

summary is, is interesting.

356

: 00:18:15

He's like, we're we aren't designed

well, I don't think he'd use that

357

: 00:18:18

word, but we are, we are here in

order to make truth statements.

358

: 00:18:23

Exactly.

359

: 00:18:25

And about the most important issues,

especially, he says, we have no

360

: 00:18:29

reason to believe that we can

commune with correctness or answer

361

: 00:18:33

any question we're able to ask.

362

: 00:18:35

Wow.

363

: 00:18:35

We are, my eyes are not

pipelined to the truth.

364

: 00:18:37

So basically his words are qualified,

but the attitude is dismissive of the

365

: 00:18:42

human mind's ability to find truth,

especially about anything of importance,

366

: 00:18:48

like we're just talking about, especially

about something like the statement

367

: 00:18:52

that nature is all that there is.

368

: 00:18:55

Wow.

369

: 00:18:56

he's a heavy hitter.

370

: 00:18:57

This isn't an offhand remark he just made

in a question and answer session, right?

371

: 00:19:02

This is the published writing

of a leading Darwinian atheist.

372

: 00:19:06

And he just came to recognize it's

hard to escape the logic of the

373

: 00:19:10

statement that if natural selection

is true, we have a truth problem.

374

: 00:19:13

Wow.

375

: 00:19:14

And, well, I don't know if it's

at the end, it's at least 500

376

: 00:19:17

pages into his, his big work.

377

: 00:19:18

Or just to the way in.

378

: 00:19:19

Yeah.

379

: 00:19:19

Wow.

380

: 00:19:20

Yeah.

381

: 00:19:22

let me read you one more quote.

382

: 00:19:23

This is by Ann Wilson,

who was a brilliant man.

383

: 00:19:28

He was a critic of theism and an

atheist for most of his years.

384

: 00:19:33

Is he still alive?

385

: 00:19:35

I don't know.

386

: 00:19:37

In April 2009, in an article

in Mail Online, he wrote this.

387

: 00:19:43

Quote, Our bishops and theologians,

frightened as they have been by

388

: 00:19:47

the pouting of secularist guns,

need the kind of bravery like Sir

389

: 00:19:51

Thomas More's more than ever now.

390

: 00:19:56

Sadly, they have all but

accepted that only stupid people

391

: 00:20:00

actually believe in Christianity.

392

: 00:20:02

And that the few intelligent people left

in the churches are there only for the

393

: 00:20:05

music, or believe it all in some symbolic

or contorted way, which when examined

394

: 00:20:10

turns out to not be belief after all.

395

: 00:20:13

As a matter of fact, he says, I

am sure the opposite is the case.

396

: 00:20:19

And that materialistic atheism

is not merely an arid creed

397

: 00:20:23

but totally irrational.

398

: 00:20:25

Materialistic atheism says that we

are just a collection of chemical.

399

: 00:20:29

There's no answers whatever

to the question of how we

400

: 00:20:31

should be able to capable.

401

: 00:20:33

or poetry if we are simply

animated pieces of meat.

402

: 00:20:40

so what's he, what's he saying?

403

: 00:20:42

basically is that we need people

who believe and have the courage

404

: 00:20:46

to act on those convictions.

405

: 00:20:49

The worldview of atheistic materialism

that he has embraced most of his life can

406

: 00:20:53

get there because we're just basically

animated pieces of meat where we're the

407

: 00:20:58

result of chemical processes that had no.

408

: 00:21:01

No rationality attached to them at all.

409

: 00:21:04

That's that's all we are.

410

: 00:21:05

So he's an atheist who at least sees

the value of Religion and society.

411

: 00:21:11

I don't know if he was an atheist

when he wrote that he was most of

412

: 00:21:13

his way Okay, that's so interesting.

413

: 00:21:16

I crossed that quote and I was surprised

because I knew And Wilson, he was

414

: 00:21:20

pretty harsh critic of, like, C.

415

: 00:21:21

S.

416

: 00:21:22

Lewis and many of his theistic arguments.

417

: 00:21:24

Wow, uh, that's kind of how I knew him.

418

: 00:21:27

So I was surprised when I read that.

419

: 00:21:29

so the view that's consistent

is, make decisions and we hold

420

: 00:21:32

beliefs based on how they help us

related to our evolutionary fitness.

421

: 00:21:38

And so, because that's the goal, the

goal is not to find truth, the goal

422

: 00:21:41

is To reproduce, and because of that

we're really in no position to make

423

: 00:21:46

absolute statements related to really

any of these philosophical questions.

424

: 00:21:50

But especially in the relation to

epistemology it's self defeating.

425

: 00:21:55

That's so, that's so fascinating.

426

: 00:21:57

And very thought provoking, because if

we want to give answers to some of

427

: 00:22:00

these questions, then we got to think

through, okay, is my mind actually

428

: 00:22:04

capable of giving some thoughts and

suggestions on these kinds of, topics?

429

: 00:22:08

Right.

430

: 00:22:09

Naturalism is a worldview.

431

: 00:22:11

It's a philosophy.

432

: 00:22:13

It's not something you have

immediate experience about,

433

: 00:22:16

like the color of your shirt.

434

: 00:22:17

It is making a statement about

the ultimate nature of reality.

435

: 00:22:21

It's a metaphysical question.

436

: 00:22:23

And yet, at its heart, it

undermines the ability to make

437

: 00:22:26

metaphysical statements at all.

438

: 00:22:29

That's the heart of what I'm arguing.

439

: 00:22:30

Wow.

440

: 00:22:32

If listeners want to go into

more depth, they can look at the

441

: 00:22:36

arguments by Alvin Flantica, who

is a professional philosopher.

442

: 00:22:40

I'm not a professional philosopher.

443

: 00:22:41

I'm just a dabbler, but he has

developed this argument and written

444

: 00:22:45

at least one book, maybe two.

445

: 00:22:47

I think the second one he

responds to people who argue

446

: 00:22:50

against him and push back.

447

: 00:22:51

So there's some good

literature about this.

448

: 00:22:53

This isn't just my idea.

449

: 00:22:55

we'll drop that title in the

show notes and maybe put some

450

: 00:22:58

links or something there.

451

: 00:22:59

Sure.

452

: 00:23:00

again, Darwin recognized as soon as

he developed and thought through the

453

: 00:23:04

theory of evolution that it had a

challenge at its heart in terms of

454

: 00:23:08

what that says about human knowledge.

455

: 00:23:10

The first person I see really

developed this fully was Arthur

456

: 00:23:13

Balfour in the Gifford Lectures.

457

: 00:23:16

And then later a book that came out

of that called Theism and Humanism.

458

: 00:23:21

And then C.

459

: 00:23:22

S.

460

: 00:23:22

Lewis carried that argument forward.

461

: 00:23:24

I forget which chapter but

it's in his book, Miracles.

462

: 00:23:28

And he goes about it a little

bit different way, his is a

463

: 00:23:30

little bit more complicated.

464

: 00:23:32

And then I think Alvin planned to get a

good job advancing that, uh, advancing

465

: 00:23:38

the, this objection to naturalism.

466

: 00:23:40

Yeah.

467

: 00:23:41

Gotcha.

468

: 00:23:42

Gotcha.

469

: 00:23:43

so this, objection is not a new thing.

470

: 00:23:45

It's been around for at

least a hundred years.

471

: 00:23:47

Yes.

472

: 00:23:47

it goes back at least a hundred years

to Balfour, maybe to Darwin because

473

: 00:23:52

he had an inkling of the problem.

474

: 00:23:53

But Alan Plantinga is the modern

theologian who has developed, I

475

: 00:23:57

think he calls it the evolutionary

argument against naturalism.

476

: 00:24:02

Okay.

477

: 00:24:03

So evolution itself argues against

naturalism on naturalism's premises.

478

: 00:24:08

So I'm sure if people Google that,

they'll find a number of articles

479

: 00:24:11

or blog posts based on the E A N,

480

: 00:24:15

all right.

481

: 00:24:15

again, our goal here is not to tell

people what to believe or recriticize.

482

: 00:24:20

What we're trying to do is say

there are some very basic families

483

: 00:24:24

of worldviews that we're going

to interact with in this world.

484

: 00:24:28

In our culture, especially, those

are theism and naturalism, or

485

: 00:24:32

sometimes called materialism.

486

: 00:24:34

And out of those two, we're

trying to argue that theism is at

487

: 00:24:38

least as intellectually coherent

and valuable and satisfying as

488

: 00:24:44

naturalism, in my opinion, more so.

489

: 00:24:47

And because of that, it allows

a person to make a genuine faith

490

: 00:24:52

commitment that they choose to

without sacrificing their intellect.

491

: 00:24:56

That's our goal.

492

: 00:24:57

We'll see if people feel like, we've

advanced towards that goal or not.

493

: 00:25:01

Well, thanks so much for your time.