Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Why is it that every time genetic "information" is brought up to argue in favor of design...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mediaeval" data-source="post: 71553133" data-attributes="member: 316149"><p>I would say this kind of argument is pretty non-controversial given its widespread recognition by theists and non-theists alike, theists affirming that the faithful God is the necessary foundation for knowledge and atheists affirming that naturalism undermines trust in our ability to know.</p><p>Some of the ancients wrote agreeably: “<em>The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge</em>” (Proverbs 1:6) and “<em>Faith precedes reason</em>” (Augustine).</p><p>Descartes later argued that God is the foundation of all knowledge, a fact that even Nietzsche commented on with sympathy:</p><p>"<em>It is unfair to Descartes to call his appeal to God’s credibility frivolous. Only if we assume a God who is morally our like can 'truth' and the search for truth be at all something meaningful and promising of success. This God left aside, the question is permitted whether being deceived is not one of the conditions of life</em>."</p><p>Again from Nietzsche: “<em>The causal connection between thoughts, feelings, desires, between subject and object, are absolutely hidden from us -- and are perhaps purely imaginary.</em>”</p><p>And again, "<em>Every belief, every considering something-true is necessarily false because there is simply no true world.</em>”</p><p>Isaac August Dorner: “<em>God must be by logical necessity the ultimate guarantee and source of all true certainty.</em>”</p><p>Augustus Hopkins Strong: “<em>All logic presupposes the existence of God and without this is invalid.</em>”</p><p>Charles Darwin: “<em>With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?</em>”</p><p>My philosophy professor B. P. Bowne: “<em>Truth is not independent of the world-ground [God], but is in some way founded therein and dependent thereon</em>.”</p><p>Again, “<em>In an atheistic scheme psychological expectations may be formed, but they constitute no logical warrant. Nothing is possible on such a view but dogmatic assumption. An order of law, then, becomes a rational thing and furnishes ground for rational assumption only on a theistic basis.</em>”</p><p>And again, ”<em>[Hume’s sensationalism, materialism, and all fatalistic theories, whether of finite minds or of the basal reality] are to be ruled out as fatal to the first condition of all theorizing--trust in our power to know.</em>”</p><p>C. S. Lewis: “<em>If their thoughts…are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a correct account of all the other accidents.</em>”</p><p>J. Budziszewski “<em>The motto ‘Reason Alone!’ is nonsense anyway. Reason itself presupposes faith. Why? Because a defense of reason by reason is circular, therefore worthless. Our only guarantee that human reason works is God who made it.</em>”</p><p>Frank Turek:”<em>If there is no God and we are nothing but chemicals, why should we trust anything we think, including the thought that there is no God?</em>”</p><p>Thomas Nagel: "<em>If we came to believe that our capacity for objective theory (e.g., true beliefs) were the product of natural selection, that would warrant serious skepticism about its results.</em>"</p><p>Barry Stroud: "<em>There is an embarrassing absurdity in [naturalism] that is revealed as soon as the naturalist reflects and acknowledges that he believes his naturalistic theory of the world.…I mean he cannot say it and consistently regard it as true.</em>"</p><p>Patricia Churchland: "<em>Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in the four F’s: feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing. The principle chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive.…Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism’s way of life and enhances the organism's chances of survival. Truth, whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost.</em>"</p><p>Nicolás Gómez Dávila: <em>[Without God as a foundation for knowledge] “to philosophize is to guess without ever being able to know that we are right.</em>”</p><p>Alex Rosenberg: “<em>Our access to our own thoughts is just as indirect and fallible as our access to the thoughts of other people. We have no privileged access to our own minds. If our thoughts give the real meaning of our actions, our words, our lives, then we can't ever be sure what we say or do, or for that matter, what we think or why we think it. Philosophers’ claims that by reflecting on itself thought reliably…grounds knowledge…are…challenged.</em>”</p><p>John Lennox, familiarly: “<em>If you knew your computer was the product of a mindless unguided process, you wouldn't trust it.”</em></p><p>Richard Dawkins: <em>[There is] a particular built-in irrationality mechanism in the brain</em>.”</p><p></p><p>Some of the above quotes are from Plantinga’s <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=AEnhhfR7N70C&printsec=frontcover&dq=plantinga+where+conflict+lies&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi9ocPYlKPVAhWHZiYKHadeDicQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=plantinga%20where%20conflict%20lies&f=false" target="_blank">Where the Conflict Really Lies</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mediaeval, post: 71553133, member: 316149"] I would say this kind of argument is pretty non-controversial given its widespread recognition by theists and non-theists alike, theists affirming that the faithful God is the necessary foundation for knowledge and atheists affirming that naturalism undermines trust in our ability to know. Some of the ancients wrote agreeably: “[I]The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge[/I]” (Proverbs 1:6) and “[I]Faith precedes reason[/I]” (Augustine). Descartes later argued that God is the foundation of all knowledge, a fact that even Nietzsche commented on with sympathy: "[I]It is unfair to Descartes to call his appeal to God’s credibility frivolous. Only if we assume a God who is morally our like can 'truth' and the search for truth be at all something meaningful and promising of success. This God left aside, the question is permitted whether being deceived is not one of the conditions of life[/I]." Again from Nietzsche: “[I]The causal connection between thoughts, feelings, desires, between subject and object, are absolutely hidden from us -- and are perhaps purely imaginary.[/I]” And again, "[I]Every belief, every considering something-true is necessarily false because there is simply no true world.[/I]” Isaac August Dorner: “[I]God must be by logical necessity the ultimate guarantee and source of all true certainty.[/I]” Augustus Hopkins Strong: “[I]All logic presupposes the existence of God and without this is invalid.[/I]” Charles Darwin: “[I]With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?[/I]” My philosophy professor B. P. Bowne: “[I]Truth is not independent of the world-ground [God], but is in some way founded therein and dependent thereon[/I].” Again, “[I]In an atheistic scheme psychological expectations may be formed, but they constitute no logical warrant. Nothing is possible on such a view but dogmatic assumption. An order of law, then, becomes a rational thing and furnishes ground for rational assumption only on a theistic basis.[/I]” And again, ”[I][Hume’s sensationalism, materialism, and all fatalistic theories, whether of finite minds or of the basal reality] are to be ruled out as fatal to the first condition of all theorizing--trust in our power to know.[/I]” C. S. Lewis: “[I]If their thoughts…are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a correct account of all the other accidents.[/I]” J. Budziszewski “[I]The motto ‘Reason Alone!’ is nonsense anyway. Reason itself presupposes faith. Why? Because a defense of reason by reason is circular, therefore worthless. Our only guarantee that human reason works is God who made it.[/I]” Frank Turek:”[I]If there is no God and we are nothing but chemicals, why should we trust anything we think, including the thought that there is no God?[/I]” Thomas Nagel: "[I]If we came to believe that our capacity for objective theory (e.g., true beliefs) were the product of natural selection, that would warrant serious skepticism about its results.[/I]" Barry Stroud: "[I]There is an embarrassing absurdity in [naturalism] that is revealed as soon as the naturalist reflects and acknowledges that he believes his naturalistic theory of the world.…I mean he cannot say it and consistently regard it as true.[/I]" Patricia Churchland: "[I]Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in the four F’s: feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing. The principle chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive.…Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism’s way of life and enhances the organism's chances of survival. Truth, whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost.[/I]" Nicolás Gómez Dávila: [I][Without God as a foundation for knowledge] “to philosophize is to guess without ever being able to know that we are right.[/I]” Alex Rosenberg: “[I]Our access to our own thoughts is just as indirect and fallible as our access to the thoughts of other people. We have no privileged access to our own minds. If our thoughts give the real meaning of our actions, our words, our lives, then we can't ever be sure what we say or do, or for that matter, what we think or why we think it. Philosophers’ claims that by reflecting on itself thought reliably…grounds knowledge…are…challenged.[/I]” John Lennox, familiarly: “[I]If you knew your computer was the product of a mindless unguided process, you wouldn't trust it.”[/I] Richard Dawkins: [I][There is] a particular built-in irrationality mechanism in the brain[/I].” Some of the above quotes are from Plantinga’s [URL='https://books.google.com/books?id=AEnhhfR7N70C&printsec=frontcover&dq=plantinga+where+conflict+lies&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi9ocPYlKPVAhWHZiYKHadeDicQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=plantinga%20where%20conflict%20lies&f=false']Where the Conflict Really Lies[/URL] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Why is it that every time genetic "information" is brought up to argue in favor of design...
Top
Bottom