ANOTHER FATAL FLAW OF NATURALISM AND EVOLUTION

Both naturalism and the theory of evolution maintain that, through natural selection, we have evolved a brain that has conferred upon us many survival advantages by enabling us to accurately perceive and to rationally think about our world.

However, there are other forms of our neurological wiring that the naturalist dismisses as irrational, although perhaps adaptive. Theologian and pastor, Timothy Keller, has written about this inconsistency:

·       Evolutionists say that if God makes sense to us, it is not because he is really there, it’s only because that [irrational] belief helped us survive and so we are hard wired for it. However, if we can’t trust our belief-forming faculties to tell us the truth about God, why should we trust them to tell us the truth about anything, including evolutionary science? If our cognitive faculties only tell us what we need to survive, not what is true, why trust them about anything at all?

·       What is not fair is to do what so many evolutionary scientists are doing now. They are applying the scalpel of their skepticism to what our minds tell us about God but not to what our minds are telling us about evolutionary science itself. (The Reason for God, Dutton, 2008, 137-38)

The evolutionist claims that both rationality and irrationality (for example, the belief in God) have enabled us to successful adapt. Keller points to the fact that the evolutionist is not applying his scalpel evenly. If our brains and their beliefs have enabled us to successfully navigate this world and even to understand more abstract things, why not also apply this to our intuition or belief in God? According to the evolutionist, this form of irrationality had once conferred a survival advantage, but how could irrationality – seeing the world through a distorted lens – do so? Perhaps then, their own theories are irrational, serving only a temporary purpose?

Besides, the evolutionist takes his scalpel to many other ideas or intuitions that do not fit into their naturalistic worldview. C.S. Lewis reflects on this tendency in regards to love and music:

·       You can’t, except in the lowest animal sense, be in love with a girl if you know (and keep on remembering) that all the beauties both of her person and of her character are a momentary and accidental pattern produced by the collision of atoms, and that your own response to them is only a sort of psychic phosphorescence arising from the behavior of your genes. You can’t go on getting very serious pleasure from music if you know and remember that its air of significance is a pure illusion, that you like it only because your nervous system is irrationally conditioned to like it. (141)

According to Lewis, a naturalistic meaningless universe does not accord with our intuitions about it. It is these intuitions that take us beyond what is evolutionarily “rational” and infuse life with meaning and fullness. Are these hot-wired intuitions feeding us a distorted message? Does evolution “win” by tricking us? Are our brains filled with evolutionary distortions? If so, won’t these “distortions” intrude into all other areas of life? And won’t such “irrational” thoughts distort the rational?

Today, based upon the naturalistic worldview, many deny the existence of freewill. In a materialistic world governed entirely by the laws of science, there is just no room or basis for freewill. Instead, although adaptive, believing that we have freewill is just another necessary prank of evolution.

However, we have the intuitive perception that we are freely, at least to some degree, making freewill decisions. Are we mistaken? If so, because these intuitions are so basic, if we doubt our freewill, what then can we not doubt? Should we not also doubt that perhaps we are an individual person rather than part of a corporate consciousness? Should we not also doubt that a physical world exists and that our thoughts and perceptions are all just imaginary?

Consequently, if we are to doubt our freewill, love, the fullness of vision we receive from music, and the existence of God, perhaps we must doubt everything else. But perhaps we should also doubt doubt itself.

Perhaps, instead, these beliefs are not only “necessary,” but they are also an accurate reflection of reality. And to doubt them is also to doubt everything else that we believe in.

This same problem exists in the area of morality. Naturalism instructs us that there are no objective moral laws. Instead, morality is just something that we create, even if largely based on our biochemical intuitions.

Instead, we intuit that when we violate our conscience, we violate objective moral laws, which exist beyond our biochemistry, and deserve punishment. We sense that something or Someone greater than us is condemning us, and that we need to confess our wrongdoing. This sense is so powerful, that when we don’t confess, we find ourselves forced to justify our misbehaviors. We are not able to simply say “who cares!” and walk away. Instead, the sense that we have done something wrong is so vivid and compelling that we have to address it in some way.

Does this sense grant us an accurate picture of reality? According to the naturalist, it might be necessary, but it is also irrational, since there is no Judge, no objective means of judgment, and no ultimate punishment.

The naturalistic worldview forces them to regard these various intuitions as necessary but also as irrational. But how can so many irrational beliefs have survival value? And won’t they permeate into what is “rational,” undermining our entire existence? And if these intuitions are irrational, perhaps also the naturalistic worldview?

Logic: A Needless Hindrance if you’re Trying to Influence

Buddhist and Hindu philosophers tend to quote from the New Testament, claiming its wisdom as their own, offering an interpretation that erroneously coincides with their own beliefs. Eckhart Tolle, Oprah’s guru, quotes liberally from the NT. Here’s one example:

• “The wisdom of this world is folly with God” [1 Cor. 3:19]. What is the wisdom of this world? The movement of thought, and meaning that is defined exclusively by thought. (A New Earth, 196)

What did Paul mean by “the wisdom of the world?” He was contrasting the “wisdom of world” with the “wisdom of the God.” He denigrates the “wisdom of the world,” claiming that this arrogant wisdom is blind and fails to acknowledge God (1 Cor. 1:20-21). However, Paul claimed that he was teaching a godly wisdom – a real wisdom - to the mature (1 Cor. 2:6).

The Bible is not opposed to wisdom, but rather an arrogant, human-based “wisdom.” Even the context, from which Tolle quotes, affirms this fact:

• Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a "fool" so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. (1 Cor. 3:18-19)

Tolle wrongly extracts this verse from its context to argue that Paul writes against all wisdom. However, Paul writes only against an arrogant wisdom that thinks itself wise. Instead, such a man would have to humble himself so that he might really “become wise.” Consequently, it is not wisdom that is denigrated but an arrogant wisdom.

In light of the many biblical affirmations of wisdom, Tolle’s interpretation has to be rejected.

However, according to Tolle, there is absolutely no wisdom, because all “wisdom” relies on thought:

• Thinking isolates a situation or event and calls it good or bad, as if it had a separate existence. Through excessive reliance on thinking, reality becomes fragmented. This fragmentation is an illusion, but it seems very real while you are trapped in it. And yet the universe is an individualistic whole in which all things are interconnected, in which nothing exists in isolation. (196)

According to Tolle and many Eastern thinkers, reality is one, and therefore, one part can’t be separated from the rest. In essence, there are no parts but a single unity. It would be like trying to study the function of the heart by ripping it out of the body, of which it is part, to measure its functioning. Likewise, according to Tolle, our thinking is based upon studying parts in isolation – a distortion of reality.

Tolle then applies his concept of oneness to morality, claiming that we can’t make moral judgments about isolated events. We cannot say that one action is “good” and another one is “bad.”

• The deeper interconnectedness of all things and events implies that the mental labels of “good” and “bad” are ultimately illusory. They always imply a limited perspective and so are true only relatively and temporarily. (196)

In order to support his claim, he tells a story about a man who wisely refused to judge “bad” events. At the end, what had seemed to be bad turned out for good. While it is true that many things that seem to be bad really produce good, his conclusion that “good” and “bad” are “ultimately illusory” depends upon making a moral judgment – the very thing that he claims we can’t do!

Besides, if we can’t make moral judgments because of the “interconnectedness of all things,” then we also cannot make judgments about the physical world. Hence, we cannot do science!

Also, if wisdom and thought are ultimately illusory or even “true only relatively and temporarily,” then what can we make of the books he has written. They are laden with thoughts. If these thoughts are “true only relatively and temporarily,” then we shouldn’t take anything he has written seriously.

If his stance seems illogical, perhaps it is. Perhaps Tolle needs to go back to the drawing board. Meanwhile, some Eastern thinkers retort that logic is the “invention of little minds.” However, if this is so, how then can we assess any claim? I guess all that we can do is to eat, drink and be merry. But I fear that logic is required for even these elementary activities.