The theology of Steven Pinker (pt. 2)

I made an argument like this a while ago in a post about the theology of Steven Pinker:

Learning requires seeing the idea or intention behind something

We learn directly from natural things and the universe.

Therefore there is an idea and intention behind the universe and nature.

If we use this as evidence for a natural theology, then, interestingly, all our knowledge of nature is based on a second-person modality. In learning from nature we are engaging with another mind who is speaking to us.

Objection: this is not enough to establish a second-person modality. If I observe someone working this can be impersonal. Indeed, I might even be spying on him.

Response: We don’t just watch nature we also co-operate with it and assume its co-operation with us. What else is exercise, eating, procreation, thought?

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: