1) Metaphysical Naturalism and evolution by natural selection are both true, or 2) Theism and evolution by natural selection are both true. The argument is then two pronged - on one hand, the EAAN proper intends to establish that believing in N&E (Naturalism and Evolution) is an irrational position because their combination entails that our reasoning faculties are unreliable; on the other, a complimentary (often implicit) argument is that G&E (God and Evolution) are compatible, as God provides a foundation for our rationality that is maintained regardless of the truth of evolution.
| Attributes | Values |
|---|
| rdfs:label
| - Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism
|
| rdfs:comment
| - 1) Metaphysical Naturalism and evolution by natural selection are both true, or 2) Theism and evolution by natural selection are both true. The argument is then two pronged - on one hand, the EAAN proper intends to establish that believing in N&E (Naturalism and Evolution) is an irrational position because their combination entails that our reasoning faculties are unreliable; on the other, a complimentary (often implicit) argument is that G&E (God and Evolution) are compatible, as God provides a foundation for our rationality that is maintained regardless of the truth of evolution.
|
| sameAs
| |
| dcterms:subject
| |
| dbkwik:atheism/pro...iPageUsesTemplate
| |
| abstract
| - 1) Metaphysical Naturalism and evolution by natural selection are both true, or 2) Theism and evolution by natural selection are both true. The argument is then two pronged - on one hand, the EAAN proper intends to establish that believing in N&E (Naturalism and Evolution) is an irrational position because their combination entails that our reasoning faculties are unreliable; on the other, a complimentary (often implicit) argument is that G&E (God and Evolution) are compatible, as God provides a foundation for our rationality that is maintained regardless of the truth of evolution. In this page we'll attack both propositions. In the first section we will critique the EAAN proper, showing that it is derived from armchair philosophizing that misunderstands evolutionary theory and reason itself. We will distinguish between naturalist Reason (RN) and the Reason posited by theology (RG). We will show that P(RN|N&E), the probability of naturalist Reason given metaphysical naturalism and evolution, is high. In the second part we will show that indeed P(RG|G&E), the probability of theistic Reason given God [regardless of evolution] is high, but that since in practice we have RN (naturalistic Reason) this actually is an argument against God's existence.
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)