Faith, in the truest sense of the term (belief without sufficient [or any] reason), is not merely “not admirable”, but I’d say it’s more responsible for human misery over the millennia, than any other factor.
Perhaps not; Cartesian Doubt is, ultimately, unanswerable. We might all be in a holodeck sim, dreaming, insane, etc.
But if we make a few general and useful assumptions – like, “reality is real” and “cause and effect actually operate” – then, yeah, we can know an awful lot of true things. Basically, the things that are true for everyone. Blood is red, hammers fall when you drop them, those blue-and-yellow frogs are poisonous (but if you dip the points of your arrows in them, like, wow!)
Knowing the truth has a high survival bonus. Knowing that those frogs are poisonous, and being able to tell your kids about it, has tremendous survival value.
Sure: to begin with, survival value. “Okay, tribe, let’s not get into feuds with each other.” Because if we do, we die. “Let’s only get into feuds with other tribes.” Because, if we steal their food, we might live longer.
David Quammen, in his book “Flight of the Iguana,” has an essay, “The Desert as a Mnemonic Device.” He explores the relationship of survival and morality. Basically, morality is good for survival.
It feels like it to me, and to most of the people I’ve talked to. Shrug. If it doesn’t, then we’re wasting our time. Like, who am I talking to, anyway? And who am “I” that is doing the talking? As with the basic assumptions of cause and effect, we live more productive lives if we assume that “we” are real.
You’re asking too much from reality. You know the famous guy who kicked a stone and shouted, “I refute it thus?” Well, when you do that, it hurts.
So… Don’t do that.
Trinopus
I don’t think you really understand the issues involved. The question is not whether we can actually know things, whether morality is objectively real or whether the self actually exists. I think we can assume that all of these things are true. The question is whether or not these things are plausibly true if we accept naturalism. In other words if we adopt naturalism, does that give us reasons to believe these things are true, or does naturalism actually suggest that they should not be true. If naturalism suggests that they are not true, then we have a contradiction and we have to abandon either naturalism or one of the other premises. Since the other premises are foundational then I think it demonstrates that naturalistic atheism is not a viable position.
This misses the point because the point is not whether reality is objectively real, but whether or not we are equipped to be able to understand the objective reality around us. Under naturalism we are the product of a blind evolutionary process, and in that sense no different to any other animal. I think it entirely possible under naturalism that humans are either unable to sense important parts of reality or understand reality incorrectly. This is even more evident when you consider things like dreams or mental illness. Clearly there is brain activity that we would say does not connect to external reality. Who is to say that our current thoughts exactly match the reality around us?
I don’t think that truth has the survival value that you think it does. To evolution, all that matters is survival. In that sense evolutionary processes have no way of distinguishing between those that survive by correct thought and those that survive through incorrect thought. For instance whether you run away from a tiger because you think that is the best way to make it your friend, or you run away from it because you think it will eat you makes no difference. You survive, and that is all that matters.
Secondly I think that saying truth has a high survival bonus is really just a naturalist “just so” story. When you think about it humans have a much larger intelligence than any other organism that exists now on earth, or indeed that has ever existed. Many species that have existed now for millions of years have very limited mental processes. Indeed plants have no mental processes and yet some have manages to survive for millions of years. Knowing truth does not seem to give humans the evolutionary edge when every other organism ever seems to be able to do quite well without it.
If people act in an arbitrary way called “moral” they may or may not survive longer. That however does not make morality objectively real or give the concept of morality any objective meaning. Under naturalism the universe does not care whether humans survive or not. It has existed for billions of years without humans, and with countless other species coming in and out of existence. Why should the existence of a few humans of one species type really matter? Morality in that sense is completely arbitrary.
Secondly, I don’t really think that morality in that sense is really all that important for survival. Since under naturalism humans are just another animal species, lots of animal species live in ways that we would consider “immoral” and yet still survive. Probably a species that acted completely immorally may die out, but some immoral actions may not reduce the survivability of the group or indeed may enhance it. Secondly there is the problem that morality is often bad for the individual, as it in many cases requires giving up competitive edges against others. Human history is full of examples of people who have acted appallingly, and yet lived relatively happy, full lives. Not everyone is always punnished for the evil that they do, and so simply if you can get away with it you are often better off acting immorally than morally.
Again this misses the point. The question really is not whether or not we really exist, I assume that we do. The question is under naturalism is there any way in which the self can exist. My argument is basically:
- If naturalism is true, then all things are caused by external physical laws
- The self, if it exists, must form its own cause otherwise it is indistinguishable from the natural world and cannot exist
- The self exists
- From 2 and 3 there therefore exists causes other than external physical laws
- Therefore from 1 and 4 naturalism is false
My point is not to try and deny that the self of personhood actually exists. My point is to demonstrate the self of personhood is incompatable with naturalistic materialism and therefore if you believe in the self you cannot consistently believe in naturalism.