This is a blog for anyone who wants to discuss Philosophy. You can post any ideas that you want to discuss. If you want to contribute new posts (instead of simply commenting), please send a blank email from your gmail account to jacooba9@gmail.com with the subject "Philosophy12346," so you can be added. (See the first post in July for more detailed instructions, and see "http://courses.dce.harvard.edu/~phils4" for class website.) Have fun! – Jake Beck
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Final Dialogue
Under this post will be a question lending itself to a dialogue between me and Mr. Alperen utilizing material we have covered throughout this year.
So the assertion we may want to begin with, from the point of view of a theist, would be, "Evolution could not have yielded something that produces truth, or at least, it did not intended to, so we should not trust our brains." Why believe in anything if evolution made our brains best at surviving not at producing truth? Let us work with this.
To start with my initial thoughts: Evolution helped us get brains that could solve puzzles (and think rationally to do so). In fact, most of our innate beliefs or instincts (like a fear of bugs) are flawed, irrational, and produce fallacies. But I can recognize ways in which our mind devices us, such as optical illusions. Does this not suggest that we can't distinguish perception from truth?
Why would anyone make the claim that evolution could not "yield something that produces truth?" More specifically, why is this something particular to a theist?
A theist may make the claim to show that if we believe in evolution, we should not be so confident in our perception of truth. Or, conversely, if we believe in truth, we should not believe in evolution (which is thought by some to be antithetical to the existence of God). Either way, it is meant to show a contradiction.
I could turn the question back on the theist in the same manner and say, "How do you know that your brain isn't just making you think there has to be a god? You don't actually know any truth. And so you cant know that there was a God who gave us truth."
If he says that it is possible for me to me deceived about truth than it is also possible for you! You can't use logic either if I can't!
In other words, you say we have truth so there is a god that made is this way (evolution cold not). But, how do you know that we can know truth? If we can't know truth, then there is no problem with evolution. And, if you know that we know truth you have just admitted that we can judge truth. An if we can judge truth, then I can judge evolution to be true even though it made my brain.
And finally, does it not make sense that evolution could produce a brain like ours? Is the jump in the physical composition from a simpler brain to ours that big of a jump?
Furthermore, our brains are not perfect at grasping an absolute truth, unless it is completely obvious. Take, for example, how two intelligent and rational people wind up at different conclusions given the same information.
I can still find truth with a brain that was designed to suit my environment because an intelligent brain helps you survive. Brains can still be capable of creating the concept of truth, defining it, and finding things within it without having to be designed to do so; thats what we do. science is what we use for proof. Its just another word like "logic," but with an empirical meaning.
Including poetry?
ReplyDeleteIf we covered poetry, it was only cursorily
DeleteHaha
ReplyDeleteSo the assertion we may want to begin with, from the point of view of a theist, would be, "Evolution could not have yielded something that produces truth, or at least, it did not intended to, so we should not trust our brains." Why believe in anything if evolution made our brains best at surviving not at producing truth?
ReplyDeleteLet us work with this.
To start with my initial thoughts:
ReplyDeleteEvolution helped us get brains that could solve puzzles (and think rationally to do so). In fact, most of our innate beliefs or instincts (like a fear of bugs) are flawed, irrational, and produce fallacies. But I can recognize ways in which our mind devices us, such as optical illusions. Does this not suggest that we can't distinguish perception from truth?
Why would anyone make the claim that evolution could not "yield something that produces truth?" More specifically, why is this something particular to a theist?
ReplyDeleteA theist may make the claim to show that if we believe in evolution, we should not be so confident in our perception of truth. Or, conversely, if we believe in truth, we should not believe in evolution (which is thought by some to be antithetical to the existence of God). Either way, it is meant to show a contradiction.
ReplyDeleteI could turn the question back on the theist in the same manner and say, "How do you know that your brain isn't just making you think there has to be a god? You don't actually know any truth. And so you cant know that there was a God who gave us truth."
ReplyDeleteIf he says that it is possible for me to me deceived about truth than it is also possible for you! You can't use logic either if I can't!
In other words, you say we have truth so there is a god that made is this way (evolution cold not). But, how do you know that we can know truth? If we can't know truth, then there is no problem with evolution. And, if you know that we know truth you have just admitted that we can judge truth. An if we can judge truth, then I can judge evolution to be true even though it made my brain.
And finally, does it not make sense that evolution could produce a brain like ours? Is the jump in the physical composition from a simpler brain to ours that big of a jump?
Furthermore, our brains are not perfect at grasping an absolute truth, unless it is completely obvious. Take, for example, how two intelligent and rational people wind up at different conclusions given the same information.
My final initial thought:
ReplyDeleteI can still find truth with a brain that was designed to suit my environment because an intelligent brain helps you survive. Brains can still be capable of creating the concept of truth, defining it, and finding things within it without having to be designed to do so; thats what we do. science is what we use for proof. Its just another word like "logic," but with an empirical meaning.
To restate the initial assertion in a slighly different way:
ReplyDeleteEvolution "cares" about things that work not things that are true.