An evolutionary explanation for cognition
Rabbi Shalom,
Question regarding column 496 – the assumption is that “if there is no God, reliable knowledge is not possible.”
Why can’t we say that our cognition developed reliably, otherwise we wouldn’t have survived (from an evolutionary perspective), since we can also see that people whose cognition is not in line with reality could not survive without help (schizophrenia, for example)?
In my understanding, this leads the discussion about the existence of God to the issue of evolution.
I looked at the first book in the fourth conversation, part three.
The discussion there is about morality, and apparently the matter here is different.
There you rejected the evolutionary explanation for the following reasons –
A. Scientific error – evolution does not care about emotions and judgments.
on. Evolution can explain the formation of a moral instinct, but we cannot call it morality.
third. Evolution deals with the factual level, while morality belongs to the normative level.
And in conclusion, evolution can explain good behavior but a sense of duty, a judgment for moral behavior.
In my understanding, none of these rejections are relevant to recognition, since recognition is a necessary condition for our survival in the world, as I wrote above.
I answered this in my first published book. I now see that I mistakenly referred you to Part C, which deals with moral evidence, but I meant Part B, which deals with epistemological evidence. I apologize. I will summarize here:
- Faith in the senses predates our knowledge of the theory of evolution and is present even in every child and anyone who has never heard of evolution. Therefore, it is clear that this faith is not based on evolution.
- Evolution itself is a product of scientific observations. But if you don’t trust the senses, you don’t trust evolution.
- In the background of the two previous answers: Note that the argument is “theological” and not “philosophical.” The question is how you know that the senses are reliable, not how they might have turned out to be reliable (like the train to Scotland).
- It is not true that the reliability of the senses is the condition for survival. Sometimes it is precisely if we do not know things that it is beneficial for survival. But our trust in the senses is always there.
- This trust is absolute, and therefore evolution is not a sufficient basis to justify it. There are bugs in evolution and there is no guarantee that the product is indeed reliable. It also depends on what stage of evolution we are in. After all, systems are constantly becoming more and more sophisticated.
1. But atheist children still believe in the senses even though they haven't heard about God.
Or a Christian child has heard about the Trinity, etc.
They probably have an implicit belief in God or have picked it up from someone who does.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
