Joe Carter has an excellent post on why you can’t be rational and support both naturalism and evolution.
Here’s how Joe open’s his post:
Richard Dawkins once wrote that it appears almost as if “the human brain is specifically designed to misunderstand Darwinism.” Although his statement is bursting with irony, it appears to be lost on the typically clueless Dawkins. He appears not to realize that if the human brain is “designed” (he can’t help but sneak in teleological terms for non-teleological processes) by evolution then our brains would have no way to “understand” Darwinism.
Even Charles Darwin recognized that if the human brain is a product of blind, non-teleological evolutionary processes, then we have no reason to believe that the brain is capable of producing convictions that are trustworthy:
With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has always been developed from the mind of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?
Darwin understood what Dawkins is too blind to see: If naturalism is true, then we have no justification for science. Science is crushed under the radical skepticism that weighs down the naturalist (or would if they were more logical).
Go and read the whole thing.
Aaron, I know these aren't your own words, but this is an extremely shallow reading. Do you really think that Richard Dawkins doesn't understand perfectly well that evolution is a blind process, and all of the implications therein? Have you actually read any of his books?
"Even Charles Darwin recognized that if the human brain is a product of blind, non-teleological evolutionary processes, then we have no reason to believe that the brain is capable of producing convictions that are trustworthy"
Do you suppose this is lost on Dawkins? Or on Cineaste or myself? We, as humans, have no ability to determine epistemological truths from fictions. On top of that, we have only a very limited ability to circumvent our own biological uncertainties. Our eyes betray us, our hearing plays tricks on us, we hallucinate, etc. And none of these untrustworthy aspects of humanity is at all dependent on the theory of evolution. Whether you believe that we are descended from apes or from Adam, people have the same limitations.
In short, you mind is not trustworthy. That's certainly a reason to be skeptical of any belief, but it's not a reason to suggest that one is necessarily false.
Stewart, I pity you that you cannot ever trust your own mind or thoughts.
How can you argue for anything being rational or not when, if we accept what you say is true, we can't know anything or at the very least we can't trust anything?
What meaning can life have if nothing is real?
You pity me? Give me a break.
I never said that nothing was real. That's merely your bleak interpretation of a world without God. On the other hand, I don't believe that life has a specific meaning. And I'm much happier living without that kind of pressure than I ever was when I believed that I was fulfilling some sort of mortal job for God.
Regardless, you don't seem to understand my point anyway. If you tell me that there is a country called China, how can I be certain? Maybe you're lying. Maybe there is no country called China. But then other people also tell me that it exists. Surely they're not lying too. They could be, though.
Still, I believe that there is a country called China. Why? Because, on the whole, it seems more likely to me that there is a country called China than the possibility that there is a giant conspiracy to convince me that there is a country called China that doesn't actually exist. In other words, it's just an estimation of likelihood.
It's not faith, either. I have no "faith" that China exists. I do not even "trust" that it exists. I merely think it's likely that China exists. So likely, in fact, that as a linguistic convenience I treat it as a certainty. Even if I were physically in China, I could still not be certain of its existence. Perhaps my presence there is just a dream, or a hallucination.
You can claim to have certainty that you don't possess, but that doesn't mean it actually exists.
You may not have said the exact words nothing is real, but how else can one interpret statements like: "Perhaps my presence there is just a dream, or a hallucination." You can mere think, which does amount to much seeing how it can't be trusted, that something is likely – doesn't seem like a fun way to live.
I have no "pressure" to fulfill a mortal job for God. I believe I am fulfilling my purpose and the meaning of my life by worshipping a God who loves me.
If nothing else Stewart you are honest. You see the logically conclusion of your worldview and you acknowledge and accept it. For that, among other things, I respect you.
I appreciate that comment. I do my best to be consistent. I don't find it compelling when other atheists (Dawkins, Harris, etc) claim that life has whatever meaning we give it. That's just a word-game, and I think it's more emotionally and intellectually fulfilling to accept the actual lack of "meaning" rather than trying to concoct an artificial sense of one. If neither is a "real" meaning, then what is the difference between saying "The meaning of my life is to love my fellow man", and "The meaning of all life is to serve God." Neither one reflects reality.
But if they're both invented meanings, then it doesn't really matter if either one isn't based in reality. After all, most people don't do a very good job of loving their fellow man, and most Christians aren't particularly consistent in their application of observance. So what does it mean if you die without ever having fulfilled your life's "meaning"? What kind of a meaning is that, after all? An abortive one, I suppose.
I understand why you might take my other comments to implicitly be saying that nothing is meaningfully real. Or, if it is, we can't be sure of it. I think that's basically true, and most philosophers would probably agree. It's kind of a rabbit-hole, and I don't spend too much time thinking about it, though. As Siddhartha pointed out, waiting on these metaphysical quandaries is akin to a dying man refusing treatment until he knows which province his attacker was born in.
You missed one important part of Dawkins' comment: "appears to be". Not "is", not "I say it is". Too subtle? Must be, since you go straight in to taking him to task for saying it is, while Dawkins then starts investigating what is behind the appearance of design.