by jimwalton » Thu Apr 11, 2019 3:29 pm
> We don't. Your example doesn't show the distinction between evaluating perceptions of reality and "abstract truth judgements".
It's one thing to see a bear too close to me and make an "accurate perception" that I need to act in a certain way or I'm going to die. It's quite another to establish a network of telescopes across the planet to work together to take a snapshot of a black hole. It's one thing to recognize the truth that I need to eat food to survive and also to avoid poisonous food. It's another to contemplate the heliocentricity of the solar system. But if my reasoning power is the result of genetic mutation and natural selection, I have no particular ground to trust the veracity of any thought that comes to my head that has nothing to do with survival. I supported this line of thinking with quotes from five brainiacs.
> This is a profoundly silly thing to say. Just because there are 2 options doesn't mean it's 50/50, nor that 50/50 is the default. You need evidence of this probability.
If there are only two options, and there's no way to discern truth, then which one I choose to believe is a toss of the coin.
> Do you presuppose that logic works like I do? If yes, then my point is made. If no, then you presuppose that something else accounts for it. Like other presuppositionalists who reject logical principles being axiomatic you would assert that God is the reason we can know things, right?
I know that logic works, as you do. You haven't supported your case that evolutionary naturalism can reliably lead you to truthful reasoning. The principal function or purpose of our cognitive faculties is not that of producing true or near true beliefs, but instead that of contributing to survival by getting the body parts in the right place and by perceiving survival and threat properly. What evolution underwrites is only (at most) that our behavior is reasonably adaptive to the circumstances in which our ancestors found themselves, and therefore it doesn’t guarantee true or mostly true beliefs. Our beliefs might be mostly true, but there is no particular reason to think they would be: natural selection is not interested in truth, but in appropriate behavior. Evolution without God gives us reason to doubt two things: (a) that a purpose of our cognitive systems is that of serving us with true beliefs, and (b) that they do, in fact, furnish us with mostly true beliefs. Nietzsche, Nagel, Stroud, Churchland, and Darwin, all nontheists, concur that naturalistic evolution gives every a reason to doubt that human cognitive faculties produce for the most part true beliefs.
> Like other presuppositionalists who reject logical principles being axiomatic you would assert that God is the reason we can know things, right?
I am mostly an evidentialist, but I also understand that every discipline, science included, has to have some presuppositions to function. Necessary scientific presuppositions are things like (1) truth exists, (2) truth can be known, (3) the external world exists, (4) sense perception is basically reliable, (5) nature is intelligible, and such.
I think the reason we can know things is because God, an intelligent source, created us with the ability to reason. Therefore evidence and science are part of how we know what we know.
> If God let everyone off the hook would that not be more merciful than not?
No. If God let everyone off the hook it would not be just. Mercy has a certain place in justice, but mercy doesn't replace justice.
> Again, no. I'm not assuming any type of hell other than one where people suffer.
It depends what kind of suffering you mean. The Bible describes hell as spiritual suffering due to separation from God, and it uses various images to convey that agony: darkness, loneliness, fire, and destruction. The suffering people experience in hell is the result of their own choice to separate from God and all that He is (life, love, mercy, etc.). It's not a physical suffering as if you're being burned for eternity.
> Are you ignoring the other options I described?
You're right that I didn't address them. I will now.
Reincarnation, at least as taught by Hinduism, is the ultimate meaninglessness. Beings circle through an eternal chain of human being, animal, insect, cow—whatever—in search of the almost impossible to grasp golden ring of Nirvana. Each cycle is weighed according to “goodness” as to whether or not one advances upward in the line or downward, but how can one be a good cat or a good bug? And since they are told in life that life and even their station in life is determined by fate (karma), and it cannot be changed (and they shouldn’t try), their theology teaches them they are hopelessly caught in a meaningless string of determined life cycles that they cannot alter, from which they will likely never escape, and therefore, at core, life for most is ultimately meaningless. This is a poor option.
"They could also be sent to heaven anyway and given an opportunity to undeniably see how they f***ed up and have an opportunity to repent." This is actually a possibility. As I have mentioned several times now, possibly you're just looking at hell from a traditional viewpoint and haven't entertained the reality. There are a number of Christians who do not believe in the traditional concept of hell. There are theories about reconcilationism, semi-restorationism, modified eternalism, and annihilationism, all with some kind of scriptural backing. In other words, hell isn't necessarily eternal for all who enter it. It may only be eternal for those who refuse to be reconciled. The idea we hang on to most in the Bible is that God will be fair with people.