How do we procure true belief. It seems we form a belief by cognitive faculties, and only if the function as these faculties operate in a proper cognitive environment for the way those faculties were designed to function and when that design plan is aimed at obtaining truth. In order to be designed for acquiring truth (knowledge = warranted true belief) those cognitive faculties must operate normatively (as they were designed to function), not statistically usual
It is easy to understand normative function in, say a carburetor, intelligently designed and we know it functions as it was meant to work. So it seems that knowledge presupposes that those beliefs were produced by cognitive operations operating normatively (as designed). Therefore knowledge presupposes a designer. It seems the atheist, naturalist, Darwinist owes us an explanation of what it would mean have proper cognitive function and reliable knowledge acquisition without proper designer of that cognitive function selected for to acquire knowledge.
The issue is this: if knowledge exists and if properly functioning mental (not neurological) requires a designer of those faculties, which cannot be explicated from a naturalistic standpoint, isn't it reasonable to conclude that metaphysical naturalism is false? I would remind you that this 'natural selection' selects for fighting, fleeing, feeding, and fornicating (reproduction). Your theory does not say it selects for true beliefs. In fact it is violative of naturalism to say invariant abstract entities even exist, and truth is an abstract invariant entity. There are many theories which say there is no survival value for truth. So, I ask you, "Why do you believe in anything at all?"
One final question......
Do you KNOW it is TRUE that Darwinian evolution accounts for the diversity of biological life on earth today? This is a yes, no, or I do not know question. I am not interested in explaining why you believe yes, no, or I do not know.....
Thank you.
Of course, metaphysical naturalism equals atheism, and is a false religion.
Science itself is not metaphysical naturalism, is not a religion, and is not in that sense "false".
But, scientific enterprise begins with the a priori assumption of methodological naturalism.
Indeed, that term "methodological naturalism" defines the basics of what is or is not "science" -- it means "natural explanations for natural processes".
That limits "science" to what is found in nature, and forbids it from realms like religion, theology, metaphysics, philosophy, spirituality, etc.
Science itself makes no pretense of being ontologically "true" -- science doesn't even know what "true" is.
Sure, science can define a "fact" as "confirmed observation", but makes no claims that such "facts" are "true".
For all such affirmations, you must turn to your religion or philosophy, not science.
Science's one great claim, "ontological claim", if you wish is this: it works.
If that's not enough for you, then seek your answers elsewhere.
Texas Songwriter: "Do you KNOW it is TRUE that Darwinian evolution accounts for the diversity of biological life on earth today?
This is a yes, no, or I do not know question.
I am not interested in explaining why you believe yes, no, or I do not know....."
Sorry, but when you ask a trick question, you must expect some sort of tricky answer.
Evolution theory does "account for the diversity of biological life on earth today".
It is a scientifically confirmed theory, meaning it's as close to truth as we can get, so far.
But no real scientist would claim it as absolute "truth" or certain "knowledge".
Those categories belong to other schools of study, not science.
The most science says is: the data fits & confirms its theories.