Affirming Naturalism Presupposes God

Originally posted by LemonJello
These kinds of isolated examples are cute, but remember that we are involved in all sorts of challenges and situations all the time, and one's beliefs, of course, have to hang together in a coherent way all the time. It is totally implausible that evolution would provide us with a cognitive apparatus that produces a preponderance of false beliefs that ju ...[text shortened]... eally consider it. On the other hand, true beliefs necessarily hang together in a natural way.

It is totally implausible that evolution would provide us with a
cognitive apparatus at all. So God must have done it.
God 2 Evolutionists 0.

Originally posted by LemonJello
These kinds of isolated examples are cute, but remember that we are involved in all sorts of challenges and situations all the time, and one's beliefs, of course, have to hang together in a coherent way all the time. It is totally implausible that evolution would provide us with a cognitive apparatus that produces a preponderance of false beliefs that ju ...[text shortened]... eally consider it. On the other hand, true beliefs necessarily hang together in a natural way.

It is totally implausible that evolution would provide us ...
I realize you are using language of accommodation, but one is drawn nevertheless to the question: what is evolution after, exactly?

Originally posted by LemonJello
It is totally implausible that evolution would provide us with a cognitive apparatus that produces a preponderance of false beliefs that just happen to hang together in a coherent way while at the same time affording us the right kind of adaptive behavior across all those numerous challenges (and challenge types) we face and have faced. It is actually pr ...[text shortened]... really consider it. On the other hand, true beliefs necessarily hang together in a natural way.

But it seems that evolution has furnished us with a cognitive apparatus that produces false beliefs. The fact that they don't 'hang together' doesn't seem to bother most people. Of course I don't think we have a preponderance of false beliefs, nor is true belief impossible nor rare.
However the obvious fact that some people hold some false beliefs seems to argue against the claim in the OP that Gods existence guarantees true belief.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Except he seems to be saying we must first assume we can trust our cognitive faculties before we can trust our cognitive faculties. Surely theism suffers from the same recursive pitfall?

Frankly, I don't see how this cannot be a difficulty for naturalism. A belief, materialistically speaking, is an electro-biochemical event, the content of which need not necessarily be true in order to be evolutionarily advantageous and selected for. Who would trust the convictions of a dolphin's mind? And if human beings have evolved from the lower animals like dolphins, what makes our convictions any more valuable than theirs?

Perhaps our cognitive faculties are trustworthy, but since, on naturalism, cognitive faculties are developed for their survival value rather than their capacity for producing true beliefs, it is unlikely, on naturalism, that they are trustworthy.

For the theist, on the other hand, who believes that human beings are created in God's image, there is no reason to doubt that our cognitive faculties are aimed at producing true beliefs, since God presumably constructed us, whether by evolutionary means or not, to resemble him in the capacity of perceiving truth.

Originally posted by Palynka
I don't understand your argument.

You say that evolution is not sufficient to guarantee "cognitive faculties aimed at producing true beliefs". But unless something prevents evolution from EVER achieving "cognitive faculties aimed at producing true beliefs" by itself, then naturalism can still be true.

The problem for naturalism is that the purpose of evolution is decidedly not the achievement of cognitive faculties aimed at producing true beliefs. Of course, it is possible that natural selection has left us with cognitive faculties aimed at producing true beliefs, but how likely is it?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Frankly, I don't see how this cannot be a difficulty for naturalism. A belief, materialistically speaking, is an electro-biochemical event, the content of which need not necessarily be true in order to be evolutionarily advantageous and selected for. Who would trust the convictions of a dolphin's mind? And if human beings have evolved from the lower animals like dolphins, what makes our convictions any more valuable than theirs?

I don't trust the convictions of a humans mind. Who does? You surely don't as you don't trust my conviction that I evolved.

Perhaps our cognitive faculties are trustworthy, but since, on naturalism, cognitive faculties are developed for their survival value rather than their capacity for producing true beliefs, it is unlikely, on naturalism, that they are trustworthy.
Now you have made an assertion that you did not support in your prior argument. You claimed earlier that evolution did not guarantee a trustworthy mind. Now you assert that "it is unlikely". Where does the probability argument come into it and where is your calculation of the odds?

For the theist, on the other hand, who believes that human beings are created in God's image, there is no reason to doubt that our cognitive faculties are aimed at producing true beliefs, since God presumably constructed us, whether by evolutionary means or not, to resemble him in the capacity of perceiving truth.
So the fact that our cognitive faculties are quite clearly flawed (the two of us hold conflicting beliefs so at a minimum one of us holds a false belief) is proof that either your God did not create us, or your argument is flawed.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
The problem for naturalism is that the purpose of evolution is decidedly not the achievement of cognitive faculties aimed at producing true beliefs. Of course, it is possible that natural selection has left us with cognitive faculties aimed at producing true beliefs, but how likely is it?

Evolution has no purpose, only an outcome. To determine how likely it is, one would have to determine whether true beliefs are better for survival than false ones. I think it depends on the circumstances. I also think that what we see amongst humans bears this out - we hold both true and false beliefs depending on the circumstances.
However, I believe that it is possible to rationally determine which are true beliefs and which are not.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
The problem for naturalism is that the purpose of evolution is decidedly not the achievement of cognitive faculties aimed at producing true beliefs. Of course, it is possible that natural selection has left us with cognitive faculties aimed at producing true beliefs, but how likely is it?

Your language betrays ignorance. Evolution has no purpose. It's just an explanation of how the genetic composition of populations change over time.

As for the probabilistic argument, I think it's very likely.

Originally posted by Palynka
Your language betrays ignorance. Evolution has no purpose. It's just an explanation of how the genetic composition of populations change over time.

As for the probabilistic argument, I think it's very likely.

How likely is anything about our existence? It's very hard to say.

Can we count, not only the physical multiverses, but the metaphysical ones, that would enable us to make a judgment?

Frankly, I am agog (not a God, agog) that things happen to be the way that they are. I feel it to be very odd. But I don't think this is a probabilistic argument.

I don't buy Plantinga's argument either. It is more clever than cogent, like a lot of metaphysical arguments, including the ontological argument.

But his argument is nonetheless informed by an intuition that I share.

It is this: The existence of truth and falsity, which presupposes explicit conscious cognition, cannot be fully explained in terms of a theory of biological change. To do so is to fall prey to some version of the genetic fallacy.

Originally posted by IshDaGegg
How likely is anything about our existence? It's very hard to say.

Can we count, not only the physical multiverses, but the metaphysical ones, that would enable us to make a judgment?

Frankly, I am agog (not a God, agog) that things happen to be the way that they are. I feel it to be very odd. But I don't think this is a probabilistic argument.

If I understood correctly, the likelihood was not about our existence or even Naturalism versus God. It was about evolution leading to a certain cognitive ability.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Frankly, I don't see how this cannot be a difficulty for naturalism. A belief, materialistically speaking, is an electro-biochemical event, the content of which need not necessarily be true in order to be evolutionarily advantageous and selected for. Who would trust the convictions of a dolphin's mind? And if human beings have evolved from the lower a ...[text shortened]... s, whether by evolutionary means or not, to resemble him in the capacity of perceiving truth.

If we say God created us with the purpose of forming true beliefs, but we observe that a lot of people have a lot of false beliefs, what does that say about God's handiwork?

Originally posted by Palynka
If I understood correctly, the likelihood was not about our existence or even Naturalism versus God. It was about evolution leading to a certain cognitive ability.

Which is one aspect of our existence.

Originally posted by IshDaGegg
Which is one aspect of our existence.

Sure, but that's irrelevant to the question of likelihood of evolution leading to X.

Originally posted by Palynka
Sure, but that's irrelevant to the question of likelihood of evolution leading to X.

No it isn't.

On the basis of what do you adjudge it more or less likely that the evolutionary process will produce the capacity to entertain true beliefs?