Greg Koukl: The Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism
Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason explains the evolutionary argument against naturalism.
#StandtoReason #Apologetics #Christianity
————— CONNECT —————
Website: https://www.str.org/
Stand to Reason University: https://training.str.org/
Stand to Reason Apps: https://www.str.org/apps
Twitter: https://twitter.com/STRtweets
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/standtoreason93
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/standtoreason
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/stand-to-reason/
Have a question or comment? Call Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason live Tuesdays 4-6pm Pacific Time – (855) 243-9975. If you’d like to submit your question ahead of time, fill out the online form here: https://www.str.org/broadcast.
————— GIVE —————
Support the work of Stand to Reason: https://str.org/donate
source
The EAAN just provides a naturalistic explanation as to why religion arises haha
I don’t assume naturalism is true a priori, I just haven’t been convinced of a supernatural realm.
We do actually believe a lot of false things that make us survive better. That’s where we get stuff like in-group out group and that’s how racism works.
But I’m pretty sure that if you’re 100% delusional it wouldn’t help with survival.
Anyways, yeah: we assume that the universe exists, and we can learn something about it, but we cannot know that for sure.
But it’s a pretty good assumption to make ! For obvious reasons. Cause then we can learn stuff and avoid pain and whatnot
You're assuming that evolution select for specific beliefs. Rather, it selects for the mechanisms that enable us to acquire beliefs that promotes survival and flourishing. Among them, intuition and rationality…. Rationality, although we often fail at it, happens to be able to produce true beliefs, which in turn promote survival and flourishing.
Naturalism doesn't deny free will or claim a deterministic universe. Modern physics completely accepts random and utterly unpredictable events as being natural. Evolution certainly doesn't select for irrationality in general but indeed it could select for specific types of irrationality — if those types were reproductively beneficial.
option 3, we stop pretending evolution isn't fake
I don't have any problem with that. I do sense, however, that because we are so far apart in our perspectives -our premises- it may have the appearance of talking past each other. For example, when you mention something 'about' god, I hear you, but I don't move past the 'word' god in order to follow your reasoning. But caring is an attribute many people give to god, which to me is testable claim, hence the study of disease, premature deaths, and prayer, as evidence against this claim.
From my view, and area of study, there is no original sin- I see the evidence for a very old earth on which life evolved from a single common ancestor- where perfect sense can be made of disease, death, and even morality. A correction from yesterday: In all human history, the estimated prematurity loss (kids, infants, and prenatal) is in the area of 350 billion. The number who have lived to maturity approaches 50 billion. That’s an approximate 7 to 1 loss ratio (not 3 to 1 which I said before).
And if it's not troubling to you, I would like to suggest to take this to private messaging because the youtube layout is starting to get me mixed up with the multiple replies in separate places.
The obedience he calls us to is that of love. And the disobedience will always bear its fruit in the consequences thereof. That will always be because God will not stop abhorring sin/disobedience, so He will make the result of that disobedience known to us constantly as a means of making us come to our senses. We do reap what we sow.
God created a world where we have the choice to obey or disobey. As much as I've delved into the theological and philosophical ramifications that may or may not come up as a result, our genuineness is there. Otherwise, how can we be held accountable to either obeying or disobeying? Would responsibility have any meaning at that point? He makes (and has made) it perfectly clear that we are not absolved from our responsibility. Many of the problems we face today are indeed our responsibility.
But where does that reasoning come from? Where is the final or rather justified source of authority that tells us that our reasoning is actually sustainable in helping us to understand reality as it truly is? We all do work from what is known and it shouldn't take long for the problem of ultimate sources arises and people end up falling into various circular logical thinking; as I've seen many on any side of the discussion fall into.
I may be mistaken in what you're asking. If you mean original sin as it continues today then perhaps I am speaking of it. I think it's more important to understand that we do indeed sin and fall short of the glory of God now as opposed to discussing into oblivion of where exactly it came from specifically. When I said "has done", it may have been better to state "how man continues to rebel", bringing it to the present tense and not just the past tense.
What matters is the truth of reality. What we think has to line up with the truth and the truth only comes from Him. We cannot make sense of reality, otherwise.
The myth comment I made wasn't in response to anything you've said in particular. Forgive me if that's what your impression was.
I'm not exactly sure if you equating original sin with the sinful nature we have. I'm not really all that concerned where it came from or why we have it. Many have tried to figure it out but if Scripture doesn't tell us explicitly, then it's not our priority to find out why. Why? Because the priority is that we do indeed sin. We cannot escape that. It's not about any old exit strategy, it's about our relationship with the one who made us and sustains us.
Again- you brought up original sin, i.e. the stain, the sickness, you think all humans are born with- from which we must find the appropriate exit strategy. As if nothing matters except what a god thinks about what WE think of him/it.
"God has given us the capacity to think and reason; not to stifle them with superstitions and myths"
I'm curious: what have I said that could -in any light- be considered a superstition or a myth?
You said "If humanity deserves nothing but judgement for what it has done in rebellion against God, then it's by His mercy that we are not facing that judgement this very moment."
Your claim there is overflowing with the concept of original sin. But you weren't talking about it? Really?
If we dont work from what is known then any reasoning about what is true, or what is evidently true, quickly takes on the appearance of pretending, not to mention self projection of one's own desires (e.g. the concept/belief in God being simply a projection of one's self). That said, if you can make sense out of a god who would create a world where the number of miscarriages, perinatal, and childhood deaths outnumber survival to adulthood by roughly threefold then I am interested in knowing how.
What good is a limb restored if the person faces judgment with vain confidence?
I've had my run through a fair bit of philosophy; it's only by God's grace that I didn't go tumbling down rabbit holes on scavenger hunts for some abstract concept(s) of the truth about reality. God has given us the capacity to think and reason; not to stifle them with superstitions and myths (philosophical or otherwise).
I wasn't even talking about original sin and my intention wasn't to do so. However, I don't have much interest in debating with you about various takes man has on religion.
People want proof yet have little stomach for the proof because of it's implications. Usually nobody will deny the reality of evil but they will always downplay their part in it, much less being accountable to the only Judge who can and will pass the just verdict on them. There's no conviction of the reality of the matter.
I don't know for certain the destiny of infants (in or out of the womb), I really don't think that's what we should be concerned about atm. What matters is why someone who supposedly knows good from evil will kill an infant; passing judgment on that child as unworthy of life before that child can even do anything. God on trial? I think it would be a better thing to put ourselves on trial before we try to accuse the sovereign Author over life and death of doing evil, lest we be hypocritical.
"saying that there's no evidence is just as extraordinary"
Let's delineate between ideas because I'm asserting that there is zero evidence for a *caring* god (i.e. never replaces lost limbs, no statistical evidence of answered prayers, etc). The burden of proof is on those who assert the existence of a *caring* god, not me. Plus, our brains have no intuition with regard to emerging universes, black holes, etc. So to *use* this limitation to make claims about ultimate reality is extraordinary.
I am constantly amazed that most people don't see right through these propositions for what they are/were. Original sin: that people still make any sense out of children paying for the crimes or 'sins' of their fathers is both sad and fascinating. And Scapegoating: where the killing of an animal or person can absolve one of a responsibility or debt. This is bronze age superstition and morality. You'd pity any culture who'd practice this stuff today, yet at the same time revere it in the bible.
Saying that there is no evidence is just as extraordinary.
If humanity deserves nothing but judgement for what it has done in rebellion against God, then it's by His mercy that we are not facing that judgement this very moment. More than that, in mercy unparalleled, He sacrificed His own Son on the cross to pay the penalty for whoever repents and believes in His Son, Lord Jesus Christ. He cares for justice more than humanity likes to think that it cares.