Various forms of Lewis’ primary argument against naturalism are, by my observation, very popular among Christians now. I cannot help but find this slightly disturbing, because I believe that the argument has some serious shortcomings.
The gist of the argument thus follows: If I take the implications of naturalism seriously, it follows that my ability to think is merely the result of evolutionary process. Therefore, my reason cannot be trusted, including the very reason which led me to the idea of naturalism itself.
That sounds convincing. But should it be? First of all, suppose that naturalistic processes are indeed most likely to produce minds whose reasoning cannot be trusted. If so, how does a theistic worldview really improve the picture? Granted, evolution isn’t necessarily required to make us think accurately, but by the same token, neither is God. An atheist might as well invert Lewis’ argument to look something like this: if I take the implications of theism seriously, it follows that my thinking is the result of the way God made me. And why should I assume that it necessarily suited God’s purposes to endow me with epistemological accuracy?
I would argue that it would indeed have suited God’s purpose to make my mind according to His own image and make me capable of knowing and recognizing truths about Him and His world. But this is just the point. When I evaluate naturalism with full honesty, I cannot help but come to the conclusion that there is no good reason not to suppose that our mental apparatus was constructed for the attainment actual knowledge of our environment. Our thinking, according to naturalism, must have developed according to things that have actually happened to us. In this case, is it not perfectly rational to suppose that our awareness, having developed in response to actual things, would be oriented around the experience, and therefore knowing, of the actual? For an example, we can look at other life forms. Plants require light to live and grow. Therefore, according to the evolutionary model, they have developed photosensitivity, whereby they "know" (in the most primitive sense of the word) where light is, and therefore in what direction they should grow. If our knowledge is ultimately the same type of phenomenon as this, only vastly more developed, it seems that we can assume that our knowledge exists as a perception of actual realities that have bearing on us.
Having said this, I think it is important to recognize some of the excellent points that I believe are contingent to (if not a part of) the Lewis argument against naturalism. One is the fundamentally circular reasoning that is necessarily involved. One might point this out by proposing this scenario: Suppose that you ask a naturalist how he arrived at his set of ideas. There are two honest answers that he might use. He might answer the functional "how" and say that he arrived at his views by the working of naturalistic processes. This, however honest, must come from the complete presupposition of his own worldview, and is an entirely proper answer if he is reasoning from this position. However, the actual "how" by which he himself personally arrived at this worldview must be answered another way, and if he his honest, I believe he must say that his philosophy of naturalism was the result of empirical observations with metaphysical inferences taken therefrom. (Whether these inferences are appropriate is another matter altogether, which the apologist would be well-advised to consider.) But by studying in this exclusively empirical manner, he has presupposed the absence of any existent thing that would not fall under such a category. Therefore, his reasoning must run as follows: "I know that naturalism is true because empirical science proves it, and I know that empirical science is a reliable test for truth, because all existent things fall under this category (which is simply to say that naturalism is true.)
Another argument, which Lewis did articulate, and, I believe, is really the intended substance of his main argument, regardless of how successfully he articulated it, is in the ultimate difficulty of supposing that reason can emerge from non-reason, or consciousness from non-consciousness. Naturalistic psychology explains consciousness away as nothing more than an advanced kind of perception of stimuli. Yet many things have the ability to perceive: animals, and even plants, can respond to various stimuli. Yet the phenomena by which we are aware of our perceptions, and by which we can actually have experience, and ultimately reason, seems to be beyond what nature could generate on her own. Regardless of the exact nature of consciousness, it is on an entirely different level of existence from other kinds of perception, and we are forced to contemplate how a universe ultimately devoid of this type of existence can, at some point in its history, create it ex nihilo. I believe that these angles on the argument against naturalism can bear more weight than the claim that naturalistic forces themselves are not likely to give us a capacity for accurate reason. It is rather the claim that they can give us a capacity for any thought or reason at all that should compel us.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
It seems as though there is a slight confusion of terms here: you say you are a naturalist, yet you also believe in the existence of a God. Therefore, I am assuming that by naturalism, you mean an impirical or scientific view of the universe, not the absence of divinity. The divinity in which you believe, if I correctly understand, is truely one and the same with the natural reality of the universe. Therefore, you would say that God is "natural." I would say the same, given that the word "natural" refers to anything that is a part of the universe apart from what humans have made. If one were to really press the philosophical idea here, humans would be "natural", and thus all human products or activities, but at that point, we have rendered the word rather useless.
I agree that consciousness is the central issue here, and I would indeed say that the physical universe could not create consiousness, for the reason that it is itsef deviod of consciousness. The creation of thoughts and ideas is only possible for thinking beings, just as the creation of matter is only possible within a material universe. To me, consciousness points to the existence of a conscious being who created creatures in His image. If I read you correctly when you say that consciousness existed all along, I think you would agree that God (conscious energy) would ultimately fit this description.
I appreciate your recognition of the way in which such things as music, art, and self-consciousness point beyond naturalism's "sterile view of self consciousness." But yes, you are right. Labels certainly can confuse the issues.
I think that our disaggreement on God making humans in His image really comes down to the fundamental difference between our understandings of who and what God is. Your idea of an impersonal conscious energy does not accomodate the concept of humanity being the deliberate product of divine intention in the way that my idea of a personal God exhibiting individual existence does. However, I think you might agree with the basic point that I have made in this argument that God could not have produced consiousness, if consciousness were not part of His existence as well. I would place humanity as more special in comparison to plant and animal life, givin our concsious and willful nature, but again, that is another implication of my view of God as a personal being, of whom all of existence, (although most uniquely humanity) gives some reflection of His nature.
First, about beauty. I too cannot help but feel a sense of wonder-awe-at how human experience is so qualative by nature. We percieve certain things as being right, good, or beautiful: is that because they are? Certainly, our perceptions not in the least infallible. However, I find the fact that human consciousness opperates in such a mode deeply compelling, and in my thinking, it suggests that our suggests that there is a reason behind the aesthetic and moral significance that we inevitably ascribe to things. In my worldview, this reason is that there is not only a divine law (derived from His own character) that defines what is good, but that there is a picture, a kind of teleological paridigm, that is the sum of what was meant to be, and therefore is an indelible element within all of existence, including human consciousness.
Now, about my beliefs on science and the Bible. Originally, I intended to deliberately bypass that whole issue, for the reason that I think it clouds the real underlying philosophical issues. But it is right that I should finally delve into this "can of worms".
As I have said previously, I believe that the Bible is God's written revelation to mankind, and that it is therefore to be regarded as true and reliable. I am not as literal as some are in their philosophy of Biblical interpretation. However, my grounds for doing this is my very respect of God's word, and what I truly believe that the authors intended to convey to the original audiance. I could spend a long time on this subject, so I will cut myself short and get to the issue of how it relates to science.
About the creation acount of Genesis: you might already be familiar with much of this, but when word which is used in describing the six days of creation is the Hebrew "YOM", which literaly translates as "period of time." This fits in with my belief that the purpose of Genesis was not to give a scientific acount of how the act of creation took place, but that in fact God did it, and it set the stage for the human relationship with God that is from then on described. In the one sense, I find it a bit absurd to say that a "day" was a precise 24 hour period, because in the creation narrative, there could have been no preexistent standard of what a "day" was. There was no sun, nor people with a schedule who might observe it even if there was.
But having said all that, I see no reason why this would have actually been an evolutionary process lasting millions of years. If some people interpret Scripture that way, I don't condemn them as heretics, but I no Biblical reason to disbelieve that the creation account is, in the most part, literal.
So, what do I do with science? I treat it much as I have treated the Bible on this issue. I can see where evolutionary theory is coming from, and I don't simply discredit it as irrational, as some Christians do. As I've said before, it is not the theory itself that really bothers me, it's the dogmatic, naturalistic philosophy that so often accompanies it that I find to be closed-minded and absurd. Ironically, I think that it is the admission a God, of a central, universal, primary principle or law(such as conscious energy) that really makes evolution worth contending.
However, (and I know I don't score any points with you for saying this, but that's not the point) the scientific evidence that I find most compelling is that which points toward a Biblical description of the formation of life on earth. I think that evolutionary thought has for so long opperated off of the premise that there is no God that it has created the most likely scenario for how we got here if He is out of the picture. When He is "in the picture" I no longer see this as most likely, based on how I believe such a God would act, as well as the law of entropy, irreducible complexity, teleology, enormous flaws in the fossil record, and many geological, biological, cosmological arguments I have heard.
However, I believe I could accept evolutionary theory without jepordizing my faith in the Bible, just as I believe that I can accept the Bible without throughing out my faith in science.
I also feel compelled to talk about the big bang, because this is one issue on which I see no conflict at all between science and a what the Bible literally says. The Bible is silent on pre-earth history, and I think it is actually very fitting that God might have originally made the universe by a dramatic spectacle of exploding hygrogen that has sent all cosmic matter on its present course.
I know this has been a very long post, but I'd just like to say thanks for bringing this subject up. I expect you will dissagree heavily with much of what I've said, but that's OK. Feel free to ask more questions!
Hey Xeric, my reply is under my next post. Thanks!
Post a Comment