A recent article in Science & Theology News refers to a survey of neuroscience by Anthony Matteo, a professor of philosophy at Elizabethtown College. Neuroscience could be the next (and perhaps the last) refuge of Intelligent Design, a view implied by Dr. Matteo's argument:
Evolutionary epistemology is an attempt to provide a thoroughly “naturalized” epistemology; that is to say, there can be no appeal to any nonnatural power to explain the origin and proper functioning of our intellectual abilities. Yet, clearly, an epistemological theory that could not give a credible account of the “reliability” of theory in general is disappointing, to say the least….
In other words, why is the theory of evolution so reliable? (And why does irony have such irresistible appeal?)
The point is that the mindless interaction of physical processes in the brain seems not to be just different in degree, but also in kind, from the mental processes we rely on for determining the validity of our beliefs. If such physical processes alone are in fact doing all the real causal work in belief formation, and the mental processes are a mere epiphenomenal afterglow, then indeed such beliefs have a nonrational foundation….
The problem is that this argument won't impress anyone who isn't anxious to be impressed. Is it remarkable that humans developed a capacity to tell the difference between a reliable theory and one that's not reliable? On the face of it, no. After all, if we hadn't developed a fairly canny ability to distinguish what's reliable from what isn't we wouldn't be here, so the debate really must go beyond that, to whether we're equipped with profound abilities (or a unique constellation of abilities) that have no survival value. A few weeks ago Wretchard posted an interesting piece about a theory by Julian James on the "bicameral mind." It concerns the idea that humans used to think differently, objectifying and projecting part of their own skill and insight. This was the origin of our belief in "supernatural beings" from forest spirits and muses, to angels. But how is it that we know what's beautiful, and does beauty extend beyond what enables us to reproduce and nurture the next generation? The real question has to do with the fact that we're a seeming constellation of technologies attempting, with modest success, to understand our own intimate nature. Who is the angel in Jacob's dream? Is the dislocation reliable evidence of someone who left a blessing?
Posted by Demosophist at May 31, 2006 03:43 PM | TrackBack