Share
A- A A+
Free Email News
The Creation Answers Book
by Various

US $14.00
View Item
The Creation Answers Book
by Various

US $10.00
View Item
Leaving Your Brains at the Church Door?


US $10.00
View Item
Leaving Your Brains at the Church Door?


US $5.00
View Item
Christianity for Skeptics
by Drs Steve Kumar, Jonathan D Sarfati

US $17.00
View Item
Christianity for Skeptics
by Drs Steve Kumar, Jonathan D Sarfati

US $10.00
View Item

Can evolution produce rational minds?

Answering some critics of the argument from reason

Published: 24 September 2016 (GMT+10)

Feedback archiveFeedback 2016

If a rational God is not responsible for human minds, and instead they were cobbled together by unguided evolutionary processes, we should not expect them to be trustworthy. Since our minds are generally trustworthy, though, the evolutionary worldview must not be correct. This is one form of the ‘argument from reason’, covered in Monkey minds: How evolution undercuts reason and science.

bigstockphoto.com monkey

J.B., from the U.S., tried the argument on some skeptics, but needed some help responding to their counterarguments. He wrote:

Hi Mr Halley,
I used Argument from Reason with people and there were a couple objections that came up that I was wondering if you could take a look at.
1. They said that even though some of our thoughts/reasoning might be unreliable, evolution (and natural selection) would tend to produce beliefs that were accurate over time, since natural selection has been “working” on it for a long time.
2. Didn’t quite understand what they meant by this, but they also said that using the scientific method overcomes any difficulty in interpreting data (or information), therefore any false beliefs/thoughts that we had would be nullified.

3. The other one I couldn’t answer well was that they said just because we can’t prove that our thoughts are reliable doesn’t mean they aren’t, and that it’s no different than saying that we as Christians trusting God.

Any help in answering those would be appreciated. I love this argument and wish I was better at communicating it.

In Christ,

J.B.

Keaton Halley of CMI–US replied:

Hi J.B.,

Thanks for writing in. Please see my responses interspersed.

Hi Mr Halley,

I used Argument from Reason with people and there were a couple objections that came up that I was wondering if you could take a look at.

1. They said that even though some of our thoughts/reasoning might be unreliable, evolution (and natural selection) would tend to produce beliefs that were accurate over time, since natural selection has been “working” on it for a long time.

Presumably, you’ve read my article, Monkey minds: How evolution undercuts reason and science. I encourage you to re-read that, because this first objection is already answered there. As I pointed out, natural selection is not concerned with truth, but behavior. Adaptive behavior can occur without requiring or even encouraging creatures to have reliable minds. Indeed, it can occur without minds at all. So, it doesn’t matter how long you give the process, natural selection will not generate rational minds from scratch.

2. Didn’t quite understand what they meant by this, but they also said that using the scientific method overcomes any difficulty in interpreting data (or information), therefore any false beliefs/thoughts that we had would be nullified.

Your critics haven’t really grasped the argument. The problem is not that an evolutionary scenario would leave us with “difficulty in interpreting data”. The challenge is more fundamental. If the evolutionary account were correct, we would not even be able to do science because we could have no confidence in our ability to reason properly. In order to do science, we must first be able to think rationally. We couldn’t use the scientific method to begin with unless we already possessed the capability of reason.

It’s key to understand what I said in the article—this part of the argument is not asking about how things do work in the actual world. Instead, it’s asking about how things would work in an evolutionary world. But, here, your critics are helping themselves to the actual world in which human beings can do science. That’s an illegitimate move. They need to show how evolution endows us with the capacity to think logically in the first place. What they’ve offered merely smuggles rationality in the back door and therefore begs the question.

3. The other one I couldn’t answer well was that they said just because we can’t prove that our thoughts are reliable doesn’t mean they aren’t, and that it’s no different than saying that we as Christians trusting God.

Again, they’ve misunderstood the argument. We’re not claiming that our thoughts are unreliable. Nor are we claiming that it’s unproven whether we reason reliably. On the contrary, our argument insists that we do reason reliably. It can be outlined thus:

  1. If human beings were solely the product of a blind evolutionary process, our minds would not be generally reliable.
  2. Our minds are generally reliable.
  3. Therefore, human beings are not solely the product of a blind evolutionary process.
istockphoto diagram

It’s the first premise that the critics need to address. Note, again, the first premise is not about the way the world is. It’s about what follows from the atheist’s claims about our origin and composition. In Monkey minds, I offered several reasons why an atheistic, evolutionary world would fail to produce rational creatures, and defended them against objections.

Interestingly, your critics admit that they are “trusting”, but they are confused about where their trust is placed. They think that they can avoid the conclusion above by simply trusting that our minds are reliable. That’s incorrect. That claim actually agrees with the argument because it affirms the second premise! Rather, what the critics have to trust, despite every indication to the contrary, is that natural processes can produce reliable minds—a repudiation of the first premise.

That kind of wishful thinking is quite different from the Christian’s faith in God, so there’s no stalemate here. The Bible does not ask us to have blind faith, or faith that is contrary to the evidence. Rather, we trust God because He has shown Himself to be trustworthy. Notice how Jesus asked people to believe on the basis of the miracles he performed (John 10:38; 14:11), or how the Apostle Peter appealed to his readers with eyewitness testimony (2 Peter 1:16). The Bible says that God has made Himself known to all, but people “by their unrighteousness suppress the truth” (Rom. 1:18–23). Even when Jesus, "the light of the world” (John 8:12), appeared, he was rejected not because people lacked evidence, but because “people loved the darkness rather than the light” (John 3:19).

Therefore, Christians have good grounds for trusting in God. But atheists cling to naturalism even when the evidence points strongly in another direction.

Any help in answering those would be appreciated. I love this argument and wish I was better at communicating it.

In Christ,

J.B.

Kudos for trying this out on some skeptics. Hopefully, this has helped you to refine your thinking even further.

In Christ,

Keaton Halley

Related Articles

Further Reading


Derek C. wrote: “This is an awesome website. As a Christian who’s finally just turning my life over to God (for good), I needed somewhere to look for answers when I had no one to ask.” Help keep the ‘awesome’ going! Support this site

Comments closed
Article closed for commenting.
Only available for 14 days from appearance on front page.
Readers’ comments
Brendan J., Australia, 6 October 2016

Natural Selection is such a powerful, insightful force in evolving the human mind.

If I read it correctly from SA-Aug 25,2009, the author indicates that depression is actually a natural adaptation and nature's way of helping us solve complex social problems. In fact, because the 5HT1A receptor is 99% similar between rats and humans, this fact suggests that it is so important that natural selection has preserved it.

So if I have understood the article correctly, NS kept 5HT1A in the DNA code so that in future, it may help a distant descendant to solve social problems. Unless of course depressed rats and the animals they evolved into also solved social problems and therefore were more appealing to potential mates and then passed on this trait to successive generations.

It is not an irregular occurrence to hear so called evolutionary explanations of so many physical, emotional and social characteristics of humans.

Thanks for your article.

Keaton Halley responds

I have not read the article, but natural selection by definition has no foresight. I can almost guarantee that the authors held to something more like your second interpretation, that 5HT1A helped organisms to pass on their DNA, and any dramatic change to 5HT1A was harmful to reproductive success. But that doesn't mean their story is remotely plausible.

Bill P., United States, 26 September 2016

A more basic question is how did abstract thought arise from dead chemicals in the first place? An atheist (I wish I knew the source) was quoted as saying "I don't like to think about where my mind came from; it's too depressing."

"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them." Romans 1:19

Greg A., United States, 24 September 2016

I think the questioner needs to first establish some agreed upon foundation with their friend about what they are discussing; you can't really debate someone without some agreement of this nature. A fantastic framework for this is the logic of C. S. Lewis in his book "Mere Christianity". He wrote it for the atheist and begins with non-christian concepts and builds from there. Chapters 1 and 2 will likely excite you greatly. For example he draws the distinction between the laws of nature that we must follow (like gravity-we have no choice) and the law of human nature-our conscience-in which we do NOT have to follow (much of the time we ignore it and make excuses etc). Lewis even shows multiple written examples across the Chinese, Greek, Roman, Jewish, Hindu and Christian cultures of a common "good" or conscience throughout history (To see them refer to the appendix of his book "The Abolition of Man"). He establishes the "law of human nature" as not developed by cultures (or evolution) but as obviously being from another source OUTSIDE of ourselves. He gets into more detail and builds from there-speaking of our instincts, impulses etc as being like keys on a piano but "good" being like a musical score that determines what notes get played-get emphasized. I also recommend Watchman Nee's "The Spiritual Man" which gets into the ontology or makeup of man (why people think, do and say as they do). When an atheist (like C. S. Lewis had been) starts to understand the weakness of their position logically, then Psalm 14:1 (it is the fool who says in his heart there is no God) takes on new meaning-Lewis wrote he went "kicking and screaming" into the kingdom; he just could not deny the obvious. Amen

Joseph M., United Kingdom, 24 September 2016

The atheists or evolutionists are unable to answer any argument that has absoluteness as its fundamental properties.

With the first answer, if natural selection can select on "reason" (i.e. a series of immaterial abstract concepts) then the fundamental properties of reason i.e. logic has to be explained. Logic is impossible to explain under an answer of natural selection because logic implies absoluteness but natural selection requires change over time.

With the second answer, the same would apply to the scientific method which relies on the pre-existence of logic as an absolute (which requires an evolutionary worldview being suppressed) and other things such as reliability of senses.

With the third answer, if you can't prove your thoughts are reliable; then you can't prove they are unreliable; then you can't prove evolution; which becomes a self-refuting argument.

if atheists really want evidence for God, then the atheists should look for evidence that has transcendental, immaterial absolute properties. God, by definition, is immaterial and transcends the universe and is not dependent upon it nor subject to its properties.

Comments closed
Article closed for commenting.
Only available for 14 days from appearance on front page.
Copied to clipboard
11536
Product added to cart.
Click store to checkout.
In your shopping cart

Remove All Products in Cart
Go to store and Checkout
Go to store
Total price does not include shipping costs. Prices subject to change in accordance with your country’s store.