Q&A: Taylor’s Proof
Taylor’s Proof
Question
With God’s help,
Hello Rabbi,
I’m reading with great fascination the fourth booklet you wrote. I saw that you brought Taylor’s argument, and you explained it very well as follows:
“Anyone who challenges this should ask himself whether he trusts his eyes. Is the fact that he sees something enough to convince him that this thing really exists out there? If so, he should step back and examine himself: if he truly believes in a spontaneous process responsible for the formation of the eyes (evolution), then there is no way to justify the trust he places in them. Just as someone who believes that the stones on the hill were arranged by a random process cannot trust the message they convey to us, since according to his view this is mere chance. The connection between the arrangement of the stones and the state of affairs in the world could be anything whatsoever (if there is any connection at all). So too, someone who thinks the eyes are the product of blind chance cannot trust the information they convey to him.”
My question is: why can’t one say that a person relies on his eyes and his other organs as a result of experience? That is, he grows up with them from an early age and simply notices that they guide him correctly. It may be that at the very beginning (that is, when he is a baby) he really does not trust them, but the trial and error over the years leads him to the unequivocal conclusion that they are right. (This is not similar to the possibility you raised there, that he assumes this because it is uncomfortable for him to be a skeptic.)
Of course, this itself proves that the eyes were created in an intentional and intelligent way, in the direction of the “philosophical” proof (the physico-theological argument), but seemingly it undercuts the “theological” direction presented there.
I would be happy to hear the Rabbi’s explanation.
Thank you, and Sabbath peace!
Answer
And why does he believe in experience? (Hume’s problem of induction: what is the assumption based on that what was will be?) Alternatively, why does he trust the confirmation that the eyes receive (for example, touch, which confirms that the eyes saw correctly)?
But the comment is important, and I added an update in that section. Thanks.
Discussion on Answer
Moshe,
If you trust the eyes in order to survive, there is a certain logic to that (though the problem of induction still remains). If you trust them in order to obtain valid information, there is no logic to that at all (and if so, you also won’t be able to trust them in receiving the information that leads to the conclusion about a process that achieves survival-producing results).
Yishai,
Right. It is indeed plausible that survival is consistently achieved not because of valid information.
And where does that plausibility come from? From observation? (As the verse says: “But where shall wisdom be found?”)
The eyes are not the product of blind chance but of a process that achieves survival-producing results. I trust the process.