These are the standard objections to argument #10 on the list provided here...
Here are the main points of the argument...
1 We experience the universe as intelligible. This intelligibility means that the universe is graspable by intelligence.
2 Either this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence, or both intelligibility and intelligence are the products of blind chance.
3 Not blind chance.
4 Therefore this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence.
Standard Objections
Essentially, the argument states that unthinking matter which is supposed to produce consciousness cannot produce reason. This argument is unsupported and is contradicted by the existence of computers. It is true that humans designed computers, but there’s no reason to suppose that evolution could not naturally produce a network of logic gates that assesses sensory data. It is a fact that brains exist and were produced by evolution, so the assertion that matter cannot produce reason is just an assertion.
Premise 1 is flawed because we experience the universe in a certain way, but every species experiences it in a different way, depending on their sensory organs and brain sophistication. Obviously the universe appears to be "intelligible" because every type of brain makes whatever data it receives intelligible. A species with a brain that made its surroundings unintelligible would soon be extinct.
Premise 2 is flawed because it creates a false dichotomy and includes false assumptions:
- There is no way to know that our minds are "so well suited" to "grasp" the universe and plenty of evidence to show that our minds have failed to grasp many important concepts over thousands of years and probably still do. We know what we've "grasped" because we can't know what we haven't "grasped". Our minds might be unsuited to grasp the universe. We have no way of knowing if what we've "grasped" is true or accurate.
- The universe seems intelligible to us, and to every species with a brain, because brains make our environment intelligible, even if our reasoning is wrong. Our brains create models of reality - it might be impossible to know if that model is an accurate representation of reality (it's possible there is no such thing as an accurate representation of reality), and what's more, it doesn't matter, as long as the model works.
- It is not true to assume that if the previous assertion is false then "intelligibility and intelligence are the products of blind chance." Evolutionary biology shows that evolution by natural selection is not chance. (This is an overlap with the design argument). This assumption includes a false dichotomy.
Premise 3 - "not chance" is a bald assertion with no justification.
Therefore the conclusion (4) is totally unsupported.
Perhaps the authors are assuming dualism from the outset which would be a circular argument. If we assume dualism is true for the sake of argument, it is a fact that neuroscience provides strong evidence for some sort of physicalism and no evidence for dualism. There are explanations which show how the universe came to contain consciousness and intelligence. The ability of consciousness is common to many if not all living things, and just like the capacity for breathing, its existence can be explained by natural selection. Conscious experiences are an attribute resulting from biology, and because these experiences provide a species with an advantage, those species thrive due to natural selection.
If it’s true that consciousness can by some mysterious process exist separate from the brain (which appears to be a prerequisite for the afterlife) then why is it so directly affected by the brain? Why do we - and every animal - even have brains? We know for a fact that when areas of the brain are damaged, mental faculties are lost. According to the argument for consciousness, when a brain is progressively more damaged our mental abilities should not become more and more limited. But they do. The argument for consciousness assumes that despite this, when the brain dies, our mental abilities return, possibly improved beyond anything available during life.
Good summary
ReplyDelete