Tag Archives: Naturalism

Underpinnings of logical thought

4 May

Here’s an argument:

The biblical worldview is the optimal worldview to support logic because it best explains why we can declare a premise to be either TRUE or FALSE.

True or false

Let me explain what I mean.  To use the tools of logic, we must assume several conditions about the building blocks of an argument.  At its most basic analysis, there are 3 component parts to an argument:

-terms (individual words or phrases that represent a concept like: chocolate ice cream or dogs)

-premises (statements that provide a judgment about a concept like: red hair is thick or cats are quirky)

-syllogisms (the ensemble of at least 2 premises and the conclusion that follows like:  PREMISE 1 – All boys are strong  PREMISE 2 – Joe is a boy  CONCLUSION – Joe is strong)

When evaluating terms, premises and syllogisms, logicians use this measurement:

  • terms are either clear or ambiguous (to the degree that they unequivocally and explicitly describe a concept)
  • premises are either true or false (to the degree they accurately match reality)
  • syllogisms are either valid or invalid (to the degree they follow the ‘rules’ of logic)

So why do I make the claim that the biblical worldview should be adopted in order to use logic?  If I understand Darwinian naturalism or materialism correctly, truth is not something that is necessary.  The species survives and continues by adapting. So what is ‘good’ for a population is what ensures its ongoing viability.  That MIGHT intersect with truth, but it does not depend on truth.

When a materialist or naturalist argues for his point of view, he borrows the concept of truth to advance a point of view. And in conversation with said materialist, if we avoid pointing out the inconsistency between her beliefs and practices we are being gracious. But there might be an occasion gently to point out this ‘inconvenient truth’.  I grow more confident when I write out my thoughts regarding this assumption about logic.

You might be thinking, what is the linkage between a biblical worldview and truth?  Good question!  Christians believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired account of God’s creation and rescue of a people He loves.  The very character and nature of God is grounded on personal attributes such as His:

  • truthfulness
  • immutability
  • eternality
  • goodness
  • wisdom
  • infinite power and knowledge

Christians believe in absolute truth because of who God is, an immaterial being who defines and models perfect truth. The evidence we have that God is true and speaks truth is that the Bible corresponds to reality.  Vast numbers of written records document both the historical and the archeological reliability of most of the Bible including the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.

Therefore, without going into that kind of detail, I argue that the use of logic rests on the presupposition that truth exists.  And the only worldview that supports THAT belief is the biblical one.

 

Logical Gal muses about naturalism and homosexuality

6 May

When was the last time you walked a premise or position as far as you can, applying with consistency all aspects of the ‘stand’?

I’ve been thinking about naturalism, that way of describing our universe as a closed system. Built into this worldview is the fundamental belief that nothing exists beyond the natural or physical. I’ve also considered the theory of evolution.

I’m not a scientist, but what I understand about evolution is that organisms reproduce but sometimes with random mutations – a descent with modification.  If the change promotes self-continuation, also called being ‘good’ for the species, then the change continues.  If the change weakens the species in some way, systems that promote ‘survival of the fittest’ kick in. This built in self-regulatory guidance is a way to explain how nature will take care of ‘mistakes’.  And these ‘mistakes’ are just the changes that turn out to be not ‘good’ for the species.

Evolution thoughts

As you might attest yourself, claiming that something is ‘good’ all depends on what you mean by the concept of ‘good’.

It USED to be that most folks could say without pause that ‘good’ or ‘bad’ fell into the arena of ethics and philosophy. Aristotle wrestled with what constitutes our highest good and how that plays into virtue, especially excellence. And Judaism and Christianity have long defined ‘good’ as aligning with God’s character.  Our Creator is good and He created us in His image to BE good as well.

But according to atheist Sam Harris, the concept of ‘good’ is more akin to an effective chess move, a change that will win the game.  So in baseball, to say that a batter is ‘good’ would be a way of describing his ability to hit the ball so as to bring in the most runs.

This idea of what I’m calling ‘natural goodness’ (as opposed to ‘ethical goodness’) has some interesting ramifications for the theory of evolution and the phenomenon of homosexuality.

I want simply to raise a few questions.  Addressing them will take more time.

  • If the process of evolution envisions species self-optimizing, then how can homosexuality be good for the species?
  • Isn’t reproduction the goal of a species?
  • And if species survival IS critical, then why are certain 21st century societies willingly bringing on ‘PAN-upheavals’, that downplay the propagation and nurturing of the next generation?
  • How many Americans are actually gay?

Just a quick on-line search produced reports that document a lower-than-thought percentage. Studies show that in fact only 2 % of the US population self-identifies as gay, although some have dabbled in same-sex attraction. Link to Atlantic Monthly article

Final question:

  • How can naturalists and those who support the theory of evolution maintain that promoting homosexuality via mandated government policy is GOOD for a society, since it doesn’t encourage the continuation of our species?

Just thinking…..

Supreme Court