Embracing the grand evolutionary view that the sensory organs and cognitive faculties of human beings are the result of random and purposeless natural process raises an issue of trust regarding that which is observed. Does one’s observations and thoughts actually correspond to reality? As a matter of reasonable practice, a person doesn’t typically accept the idea that information, knowledge, and truth can come from a random, accidental source. How can such rational enterprises as logic, mathematics, and science be reasonably justified when the human brain and mind are the result of a non rational, mindless accident? Naturalism, in effect, purports that life, the mind, person hood, and reason came from a source that lacked each of these profound faculties and qualities. This would certainly be an effect much greater than its cause!
— Kenneth Richard Samples, from Without a Doubt, kindle location 152
Perhaps the most troubling question of all is, Why should I trust the workings of my own mind when it is completely impersonal, unwitting, undesigned matter in motion?
— James Sire, from Why Good Arguments Often Fail, p. 107
But we can go further. It would be impossible to accept naturalism itself if we really and consistently believed naturalism. For naturalism is a system of thought. But for naturalism all thoughts are mere events with irrational causes. It is, to me at any rate, impossible to regard the thoughts which make up naturalism in that way, and, at the same time, to regard them as a real insight into external reality. Continue reading
Thus strict materialism refutes itself for the reasons given long ago by Professor Haldane: “If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motion of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true, and hence, I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.”
— Amy Orr-Ewing, from Is the Bible Intolerant? at 24:39
Philosopher Owen Flanagan bluntly asserts, “There are no such things as souls or nonphysical minds”—adding that if they did exist, then “science would be unable to explain them.” But there aren’t minds and souls; so science can explain such things. He claims that “the mind is the brain in the sense that perceiving, thinking, deliberating, choosing, and feeling are brain processes.”
— Paul Copan, from “How Do You Know You’re Not Wrong?”, kindle location 884
Nobel laureate Francis Crick declared that “you” are merely “the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.”
— Paul Copan, from “How Do You Know You’re Not Wrong?”, kindle location 883
Materialists thereby deny the reality of mind (while they use their minds to advance materialism), determinists deny the reality of human choice (while they choose determinism), and relativists deny the fact of right and wrong (while they judge you if you disagree).
— Nancy Pearcey, from Finding Truth, kindle location 97
With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?
— Charles Darwin, quoted in A World of Difference by Kenneth Richard Samples, kindle location 2248