I was just wondering,
how do you justify the ending to your
mostly decent essay regarding science and religion, in the section on
naturalism and science? If cognitive faculties evolved to be completely
unreliable, as the essay seems to imply, in what way could the
mechanism of natural selection have been used to evolve them? Doesn't it
make better sense to acknowledge the possibility that more accurate
cognitive faculties, at least in certain areas of thought, have a more
competitive advantage? One doesn't need to accept that all of our
faculties evolved to be reliable, either. After all, scientific
naturalism doesn't really come naturally to the common man. Personally,
our cognitive faculties seem geared toward assimilating what we
experience into what we believe is a consistent understanding of the
world around us.
Not that much of the above matters, only I am a bit bugged that the
argument at the end of your essay seems to be a weak misapplication of
statistical reasoning in an attempt to demonstrate an imagined fault of
naturalism in conjunction with evolution, as if that somehow buffets the
logical support of theistic religion. Is there a reason you ended the
essay this way? I hope it was not due to political considerations or
personal theological views, but I can't imagine what else would have
motivated such an unfair conclusion...
Sincerely,
~Jacob
No comments:
Post a Comment