Let’s consider that atheistic, Darwinstic materialism is true. Let’s say that what we believe and think are evolution-generated phenomena, the result of the physics of biology as it interacts with the environment. For instance, if I believe in God and think demons are real and that putting my socks on before I put my pants on brings me good luck, I think those things for no reason other than that I have been compelled by the cumulative interactive physics of billions of years of physical processes to believe such things and think such thoughts.
If this is so, am I responsible for my beliefs and thoughts in any significant manner other than, say, I am responsible for what color my skin is or how tall I happen to be? One might say that because “I” (this particular amalgation of physics/biology at this particular location) “have” or “am” those thoughts, that I am “responsible” for them; but if that is true, then I am equally responsible for the color of skin I have. These qualities of the “I” are just what a long line of interacting molecules happened to generate via evolutionary processes – same as my skin color, height, etc.
Q1: If whatever I think and believe is as much an evolutionary product as the color of my skin, how is criticizing what I think/believe any different than criticizing me for my skin color?
Let’s say that Darwinists hold “success of progeny”, or our meaningful “evolutionary quotient”, if you will, as the only significant measure of the success of evolution in any particular species unit. By this standard, features that provide evolutionary success are “better” than features that diminish one’s successful progeny rate. The only real measure, then, of how an evolutionary feature is “better” than another is determined by thie evolutionary quotient differential (in terms of successful progeny).
Q2: If we hold that “success of progeny” is the only significant measure of the success of evolution in any particular species unit, and thoughts and beliefs are evolution-generated features, why argue about whether or not any belief or thought is “true”, when what matters is only if the biological entity with those beliefs produces more successful progeny than those with different beliefs?
and —> Q2.1: If all of the above is true, then isn’t arguing about the “trueness” or “validity” of a thought or a belief the same, categorically, as arguing about which shape of leaf is true, or which pattern of freckles is “true”, or “logically valid”?
Q3: Why isn’t the first question an evolutionary materialist asks in a debate something like:”How many offspring are you responsible for?”as a means of determining if whatever their opponent believes is something they should consider believing?
BTW, my EQ (evolutionary quotient) is 18 (children and grandchildren, so far), which means – roughly – that you should take whatever I say and consider it worth 18 times the value as what someone says with no offspring. After all, it doesn’t matter how intelligent or rational I am, because we simply don’t know if those things are – by themselves – advantageous towards evolutionary success. The only fact we have to determine the value of anyone’s argument – under the Darwinistic paradigm – is how many successful offspring they produce. IOW, their Evolutionary Quotient.
What’s your EQ?