>>12133972>It is a matter of a sort of "game without any rules." If there ISN'T some transcendent basis for the legitimacy, utility, and reliability of logic itself, then all bets are completely off -- we are set adrift on a sea of metaphysical uncertainty.There we go. This is more of an argument. I'm a pragmatist, I dispute the point that you need a transcendent basis at all to make sense of logic and mathematics. Numbers and concepts exist as semi-real conventional entities ("constructs") that justify themselves to us via their utility, and that utility was originally survival-based (record keeping, agriculture, etc.) But, even if you think a transcendental basis is required for math and logic, this is still not mutually exclusive with evolutionary theory; many Realists who subscribe to both evolution and Christianity.
You also fail to qualify the possibility that we are, indeed, "adrift on a sea of metaphysical uncertainty". Why should we refuse to consider this possibility as true, merely because we don't like it? Why should it defeat reasoning at all? The onus is on you to show how evolution being true (or whatever) prevents logic from being useful. Plainly, it looks like both the theist and the atheist are in the position of having fallible knowledge, as evidenced by the historic of science and scientific error (which doesn't seem to discriminate, really).
