Rational thinking

Posted on Jun 1, 2011 in Logical Fallacies

If evolution were true, there wouldn’t be any rational reason to believe it! If life is the result of evolution, then it means that an evolutionist’s brain is simply the outworking of millions of years of random-chance processes. The brain would simply be a collection of chemical reactions that have been preserved because they had some sort of survival values in the past. If evolution were true, then all the evolutionist’s thousands are merely the necessary result of chemistry acting over time. Therefore, an evolutionist must think and say that “evolution is true”, not for rational reasons, but as a necessary consequences of blind chemistry.

How can we even account for rational thinking in a universe that was created by accident and random chance? That in itself is NOT rational. A materialistic atheist does not believe in anything beyond the physical universe. In this view, all that exists is matter in motion. But of course laws of logic has nothing to do with matter; they are not part of the physical universe (ie cannot be touched or seen). Therefore, laws of logic cannot exist if materialism is true! Not only is the materialistic atheist unable to account for the existence of laws of logic, but they are actually contrary to his worldview. His worldview is necessarily irrational. If the universe and our minds are simply results of time and chance as evolutionists say, why would we expect that the mind could make sense of the universe? If evolution were true, science would not make sense because there would be no reason to accept the uniformity of nature on which all science and technology depend. Nor would there be any reason to think that rational analysis would be possible since the thoughts of our mind would be nothing more than the inevitable result of mindless chemical reactions.

Whenever non-Christian asks you to be rational, you should ask him “Why?” Only in a Christian worldview do we have a moral obligation to follow the laws of logic (which themselves only make sense in a biblical worldview.

An evolution may say “I believe in naturalism and that all things are observed by the senses“, the answer by a Christian should/can be “I don’t accept your belief in naturalism or your belief that all things must be observed by the senses. In fact if (for the sake of argument) naturalism were true, you couldn’t have laws of logic anyway since they are not part of nature. You say you only believe things observed by your senses; if that’s true, then you can’t believe in laws of logic since they cannot be observed by the senses. Logical reasoning would be impossible if y our beliefs were true. So why do you ask me to be logical? Laws of logic only makes sense in biblical creation is true“. This response makes use of the ultimate proof. As such, there can be no rational rebuttal.

See “Uniformity of Nature

Comments are closed.