I got an email from a reader arguing that rational thought could be an evolutionary development, which came about because it enabled species to survive more successfully. While I've always had difficulty imaging the short-term survival advantage of sentience, I thought I'd consider the idea of evolution giving rise to rational thought in more detail. I developed this in response to his email, but I thought it might be useful as its own post.
I'm not sure I can accept the proposition that a non-rational universe gives rise to rational creatures. I'm not sure I understand how that could be possible.
Naturalism proceeds from the assumption that natural processes are all that exist, essentially that everything that happens proceeds according to cause and effect. I can accept this with respect to animals. When a dog learns a lesson, such as "don't go on the couch," he does so because some sort of negative reinforcement indicates that something bad will happen if he goes on the couch. He doesn't understand the reasoning behind this rule, only the cause and effect. He may avoid couches altogether, because he is unable to make a logical connection, only a cause and effect relation between being on the couch and pain.
When we consider things rationally, we assume that we are operating outside the bounds of cause and effect. We must be, because we make claims about what is true, not simply about what we're thinking -- the theory of naturalism itself makes claims about truth. If we were not operating outside the bounds of cause and effect, our thoughts could still be useful, but they could make no claim to being true, being non-rational effects of physical processes. The dog's association of couch and pain is useful, but it is not true that couches cause pain or that pain will always follow being on the couch. We are able to make the logical leap that the dog cannot. The "understanding" we see in creatures that are not sentient is useful, but not rational. It is an "understanding" born of trial and error and has utility, but it has no real relationship to truth.
On the other hand, humans use reason to draw a conclusion that must be true, regardless of observation; we can draw a conclusion about truth that we have not yet observed, or in some cases may not be able to observe. For example, we can use physics equations to anticipate what we will see when we carry out an experiment. This sort of thought, rational thought following logical implication, is of a different kind than the way animals are able to think.
I can't accept that rational thought is a byproduct of a non-rational universe. It's like a painting giving birth to a real person: the painting simply does not contain anything which could give rise to such a byproduct. A universe of cause and effect cannot give rise to rational thought because rational thought operates outside of cause and effect, and must do so to be what it is. If our minds operated exclusively inside the universe, if thought was exclusively the output of non-rational physical inputs, then it would be enslaved by the non-rational inputs that generated it. Thought cannot rise above what feeds it, any more than a stream can rise above its source. Non-rational inputs can generate random outputs in some cases, so the output need not be exactly the same every time, but non-rational inputs cannot generate an output which can act freely to defy what generated it. In any configuration I can imagine, thought would still be the effect of a non-rational cause, and must therefore be non-rational itself.
As far as I can conceive, in order for thought to be unconstrained by the cause and effect relationship which we observe everywhere else in nature (a requirement for it to be capable of discerning truth), the rational mind must contain a component which does not exist within the physical universe. Each consciousness must have an element which is not a part of the physical universe, but rather utilizes the physical component of the human brain to manifest in the physical world. C.S. Lewis describes this relationship as a voice coming through a speaker: if the speaker is damaged, the quality of the transmission will be reduced; but there must be a person speaking on the other end, or else the voice would not come through at all. It is this element, unconstrained by cause and effect because it does not exist in the physical world, which allows us to use reason and act outside the otherwise universal reach of cause and effect. If there were not a component which was exempted from the laws of cause and effect, we would be cursed to think only what we must due to the physical state of the atoms which compose our brains.
That, at any rate, is what I think on the subject. I should note that all of this draws heavily from the C.S. Lewis book Miracles, in which a much smarter man than I makes the case in a more logically sound way, though I hope my version is a bit easier to understand. I highly recommend that book if this topic is of interest to you.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Naturalism: Only Natural?
Atheism has been both more widespread and more vocal in our society recently. I'd like to take some time to consider one of the primary versions of atheism, known as naturalism. The assertion of naturalism is that the elements which are within nature compose the whole of reality -- that there is nothing outside of nature, defined as the observable universe.
As an engineer, my immediate reaction to such a theory is to see if it works all the way out. If we assume this theory is correct, can it explain everything we know about the universe? Does it fit with our observation of the world?
Naturalism would seem to explain most everything within the universe. As far as we can tell, everything in nature operates according to the laws that apply to it. There's no obvious and irrefutable evidence of intrusion from outside, and what circumstantial evidence we have to that effect we can explain away. We can explain most things which suggest an influence from outside our universe as random occurrence, and what's left after that we can ignore because the quantity of such events is relatively small.
The primary problem we run into when we try to accept naturalism is ourselves. I can explain a rock in terms of the materials which compose it -- but human beings contain something more than our atomic materials, a spark which seems to set us apart both from inanimate matter and from the animals.
We may consider life in terms of biological processes and evolution; for the sake of argument, let's accept that as a full explanation for how life came about and operates. What remains as a stumbling block to naturalism is our own ability to think, our own ability to consider theory at all. In the end this inflicts a fatal wound on the theory of naturalism, as I will seek to explain.
Consider the structure of an argument. In order to be persuasive, an argument must consist of a chain of linked statements which connect to some foundational proposition which is accepted by all. Here's an example:
Argument: The minimum wage should be raised.
1. The minimum wage should be raised, because
2. A higher minimum wage will raise the incomes of workers who currently make minimum wage, and therefore
3. Lower-paid workers will make more money total, therefore
4. These workers, with more money, will have a higher quality of life.
All can agree that workers having a higher quality of life is a positive thing. Therefore this argument is constructed in a logical chain, starting at that foundational proposition. The argument may not be persuasive for other reasons (and in this case I believe it is not persuasive), but in order to have logical coherence, the argument must link logically from a foundational proposition. Consider the following:
1. The minimum wage should be raised, because
2. Someone on the street just told me that the minimum wage should be raised.
This argument cannot be persuasive. It does not rest on a chain of logic, but rather on top of an event. The fact that someone on the street made a certain statement has no bearing on whether it makes sense or not. In this case my argument is based on an event, rather than logic.
The difference here is in the kind of connection between the supporting information and the argument. In the first case, the relation is logical implication: everyone agrees that A is true, A implies B, B implies C, therefore C is true. The second case is merely cause and effect: someone said A, therefore A is true.
Everyone would recognize cause and effect as an invalid method to reach a logical conclusion. Causes are inherently non-rational, that is they occur not due to some specific rational reason, but simply because they happen. They are based on the laws of nature occurring, not on any sort of logic. Any conclusion which is merely the effect of a cause is similarly non-rational.
However, we consider logical implication to be of a different class than cause and effect. Logical arguments can be constructed from logical implication because it is a different kind of relationship than cause and effect, and it is rational. It is here where naturalism runs into problems.
Naturalism states that the human mind is nothing but the atoms of which it is composed. According to naturalism, logic and reason must be an illusion, because everything that happens in the universe merely represents the laws of nature being applied to the matter and energy in the universe. I'm thinking of this topic only because the atoms in my brain are in a particular state, and if the atoms are in that particular state, I couldn't be thinking of anything else.
This is the problem: if thought is only the product of the atoms in my brain being in a particular state, then all thought is the effect of a physical cause. The physical cause is non-rational, therefore my thought is also non-rational, being only the effect of a non-rational cause. However, I used rational thought to come up with the idea of naturalism! Thus, I cannot rationally conclude that naturalism is true, as it has undercut the very possibility that I can come to a rational conclusion.
We end up in a "stopped clock" scenario. If naturalism were true, there would be no way to know it, because we would lack the capacity to rationally draw that conclusion. We might be right to believe in it, but only in the sense that a stopped clock is sometimes right -- not because the correct answer was chosen, but because the arbitrarily chosen answer happened to be correct.
In the end, we can see that it is meaningless to believe in naturalism. Even if naturalism were true, it claims that its adherents lack any rational way to come to the correct conclusion, meaning that believing in it is essentially irrational.
Often, naturalism is presented as "obvious" and "rational," as opposed to religious belief. However, looking deeper we can see that the theory of naturalism can't even explain the rational thought required to believe in it, and indeed denies its existence. Whatever this theory may be, it is neither "obvious" nor "rational." It is useful to keep in mind that these theories are far less effective at explaining our world than religion, and require just as much faith to believe in.
As an engineer, my immediate reaction to such a theory is to see if it works all the way out. If we assume this theory is correct, can it explain everything we know about the universe? Does it fit with our observation of the world?
Naturalism would seem to explain most everything within the universe. As far as we can tell, everything in nature operates according to the laws that apply to it. There's no obvious and irrefutable evidence of intrusion from outside, and what circumstantial evidence we have to that effect we can explain away. We can explain most things which suggest an influence from outside our universe as random occurrence, and what's left after that we can ignore because the quantity of such events is relatively small.
The primary problem we run into when we try to accept naturalism is ourselves. I can explain a rock in terms of the materials which compose it -- but human beings contain something more than our atomic materials, a spark which seems to set us apart both from inanimate matter and from the animals.
We may consider life in terms of biological processes and evolution; for the sake of argument, let's accept that as a full explanation for how life came about and operates. What remains as a stumbling block to naturalism is our own ability to think, our own ability to consider theory at all. In the end this inflicts a fatal wound on the theory of naturalism, as I will seek to explain.
Consider the structure of an argument. In order to be persuasive, an argument must consist of a chain of linked statements which connect to some foundational proposition which is accepted by all. Here's an example:
Argument: The minimum wage should be raised.
1. The minimum wage should be raised, because
2. A higher minimum wage will raise the incomes of workers who currently make minimum wage, and therefore
3. Lower-paid workers will make more money total, therefore
4. These workers, with more money, will have a higher quality of life.
All can agree that workers having a higher quality of life is a positive thing. Therefore this argument is constructed in a logical chain, starting at that foundational proposition. The argument may not be persuasive for other reasons (and in this case I believe it is not persuasive), but in order to have logical coherence, the argument must link logically from a foundational proposition. Consider the following:
1. The minimum wage should be raised, because
2. Someone on the street just told me that the minimum wage should be raised.
This argument cannot be persuasive. It does not rest on a chain of logic, but rather on top of an event. The fact that someone on the street made a certain statement has no bearing on whether it makes sense or not. In this case my argument is based on an event, rather than logic.
The difference here is in the kind of connection between the supporting information and the argument. In the first case, the relation is logical implication: everyone agrees that A is true, A implies B, B implies C, therefore C is true. The second case is merely cause and effect: someone said A, therefore A is true.
Everyone would recognize cause and effect as an invalid method to reach a logical conclusion. Causes are inherently non-rational, that is they occur not due to some specific rational reason, but simply because they happen. They are based on the laws of nature occurring, not on any sort of logic. Any conclusion which is merely the effect of a cause is similarly non-rational.
However, we consider logical implication to be of a different class than cause and effect. Logical arguments can be constructed from logical implication because it is a different kind of relationship than cause and effect, and it is rational. It is here where naturalism runs into problems.
Naturalism states that the human mind is nothing but the atoms of which it is composed. According to naturalism, logic and reason must be an illusion, because everything that happens in the universe merely represents the laws of nature being applied to the matter and energy in the universe. I'm thinking of this topic only because the atoms in my brain are in a particular state, and if the atoms are in that particular state, I couldn't be thinking of anything else.
This is the problem: if thought is only the product of the atoms in my brain being in a particular state, then all thought is the effect of a physical cause. The physical cause is non-rational, therefore my thought is also non-rational, being only the effect of a non-rational cause. However, I used rational thought to come up with the idea of naturalism! Thus, I cannot rationally conclude that naturalism is true, as it has undercut the very possibility that I can come to a rational conclusion.
We end up in a "stopped clock" scenario. If naturalism were true, there would be no way to know it, because we would lack the capacity to rationally draw that conclusion. We might be right to believe in it, but only in the sense that a stopped clock is sometimes right -- not because the correct answer was chosen, but because the arbitrarily chosen answer happened to be correct.
In the end, we can see that it is meaningless to believe in naturalism. Even if naturalism were true, it claims that its adherents lack any rational way to come to the correct conclusion, meaning that believing in it is essentially irrational.
Often, naturalism is presented as "obvious" and "rational," as opposed to religious belief. However, looking deeper we can see that the theory of naturalism can't even explain the rational thought required to believe in it, and indeed denies its existence. Whatever this theory may be, it is neither "obvious" nor "rational." It is useful to keep in mind that these theories are far less effective at explaining our world than religion, and require just as much faith to believe in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)