tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883551996126668365.post4559723377376151041..comments2024-01-11T21:24:44.379-07:00Comments on A Blog of Tom: Evolution is Not Your FriendTom Cantinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06234109728445439457noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883551996126668365.post-53944647749197837462012-04-11T21:45:28.359-06:002012-04-11T21:45:28.359-06:00I'm not absolutely certain that morality has a...I'm not absolutely certain that morality has an objective basis in the sense that the same moral principles must apply to all entities capable of choice. Perhaps ethics really is nothing more than exquisite rationalization of conclusions we're genetically predisposed to reach, and if we were intelligent but solitary creatures like octopi, we might have different moral predispositions that we would rationalize just as cleverly. Yet I think if we start from the premise that there exists some form of free will, and those beings who have it have various interests, some way of comparing states of well-being, then there's a fair bit that follows logically from that. Some, perhaps much, of what follows logically might seem at first to be at odds with our evolutionary predispositions, but such is the path of moral progress; there was once a time when slavery was considered acceptable.<br /><br />As for the evolution of intellect, I think it's becoming clear that our minds ARE the product of an evolutionary process that imbued us with tendencies and heuristics that are more aimed at survival in the ancestral environment than at sound reasoning. Our brains are not well adapted to processing statistics or probability, and we still tend to vote for political candidates based on how they look rather than any attempt to assess their reasoning skills. But another important aspect of our brains, perhaps THE important aspect, is their plasticity and capacity to learn. They're certainly not perfect thinking machines, and they have many systemic flaws, but that doesn't mean they're utterly useless, either, and at any rate, they're all we have.<br /><br />So no, I can't claim with certainty that my way of thinking has the ability to reach truth, but as I've argued before, I'm not so much concerned with attaining perfect knowledge, anyway; it is far more worthwhile and attainable to seek improved understanding. We can understand things better than we do, and we should always strive to do so. <br /><br />Do the axioms of our reasoning have a basis in reality, then? I cannot provide a deductive argument that they do, but there is some inductive evidence: it seems to work pretty well. There may be better axioms more rooted in fundamental reality, and maybe some day we'll identify them, but the ones we use now have served us very, very well so far.Tom Cantinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06234109728445439457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883551996126668365.post-71164612341600565522012-04-11T21:12:07.549-06:002012-04-11T21:12:07.549-06:00You deal with teleology (though not with the teleo...You deal with teleology (though not with the teleological argument) but you seem to have glossed over the moral implications. You accepted on faith, intuitively, that morality has a logic to it. Do you believe that morality has an objective basis? If yes, to what premise do you appeal?<br /><br />You also skipped over or ignored Platinga's naturalistic argument against evolution - the real trouble with evolution is that, as you pointed out, it only selects for survival. It does not necessarily select for the ability to reason soundly, if at all. Do you accept on faith that it has done so? If not, on what premise do you argue that your way of thinking has any ability to reach truth? Moreover, on what basis do you argue that the fundamental axioms from which you reason have any basis in reality?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com