Affirming Naturalism Presupposes God

epiphinehas View Profile

Spirituality

19 May '11 10:17

jaywill
Joined
02 Aug '06
Moves
12622
21 May '11 11:51
Originally posted by twhitehead
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.
==============================
Evolution has no purpose, only an outcome.
=================================

What does this mean ?

Any old outcome ? Evolution has no purpose but only ANY random outcome ?
epiphinehas
Illinois
Joined
20 Mar '07
Moves
6804
21 May '11 18:061 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead
So although you stated it as if it followed from your argument, in reality it doesn't follow from your argument and you just take the word of Plantinga?

At best one can say that the probability of our inheriting reliable cognitive faculties is inscrutable. The question then is, is it reasonable to accept the deliverances of your cognitive faculties lly fail to see how any of this leads to the OPs claim that a naturalist must presuppose God.
So although you stated it as if it followed from your argument, in reality it doesn't follow from your argument and you just take the word of Plantinga?

The pages I refer you to contain the probability calculus that you're looking for, which you are more than welcome to assign your own values to. On the contrary, I'm taking Hume's word for it: "Our experience, so imperfect in itself and so limited both in extent and duration, can afford us no probable conjecture concerning the whole of things" (Dialogues concerning Natural Religion, p. 45). When you take God out of the equation, the probability that our cognitive faculties are aimed at truth is inscrutable at best.

Well then one should not choose to rely on their cognitive faculties based purely on a probability argument based on their origins.

What other recourse is there for the rational naturalist?

Maybe it is pure chance that evolution has led to cognitive faculties that are capable of producing true beliefs, but that in no way suggests that they are any less capable of doing so than cognitive faculties that are aimed at producing true beliefs.

I agree, but this isn't the issue. It may well be that evolution has produced in us cognitive faculties capable of producing true beliefs (most of us probably agree that our cognitive faculties are indeed reliable), but on naturalism it is impossible to determine with a sufficient degree of certainty that this is the case. Naturalism is self-defeating because it calls into serious question the reliability of the very cognitive instrument which it depends on for its affirmation.

And lastly, I totally fail to see how any of this leads to the OPs claim that a naturalist must presuppose God.

In order to affirm naturalism (that the world exists, persists and evolves without anything like God or gods) one must presuppose cognitive faculties aimed at true beliefs, the likeliness of which naturalism itself casts sufficient doubt upon to serve as a defeater. Since naturalism is self-defeating in this regard, in order to affirm naturalism one must appeal to a world-view wherein cognitive faculties are aimed at producing true beliefs—namely, the theistic world-view (as described earlier). God's existence is implied in a theistic world-view. Therefore, in order to affirm naturalism one must presuppose God's existence.
Agerg
The 'edit'or
converging to it
Joined
21 Aug '06
Moves
11479
21 May '11 18:195 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]So although you stated it as if it followed from your argument, in reality it doesn't follow from your argument and you just take the word of Plantinga?

The pages I refer you to contain the probability calculus that you're looking for, which you are more than welcome to assign your own values to. On the contrary, I'm taking Hume's word for it ld-view. Therefore, in order to affirm naturalism one must presuppose God's existence.[/b]
counter-sophistry...

In order to challenge the integrity of naturalism one must first suppose that it is a poorly justified argument; and thus implicitly, one is cornered into the position that we have a predirection for false thinking. As this situation could not manifest under the guidance of a supreme and perfect being, we are forced to conclude that the `uncaring & undirected hand' of evolution is pulling the strings.
twhitehead
Cape Town
Joined
14 Apr '05
Moves
52945
21 May '11 19:44
Originally posted by jaywill
What does this mean ?

Any old outcome ? Evolution has no purpose but only ANY random outcome ?
As with any other process, the outcome is dependent on the inputs. But no, evolution does not have ANY random outcome, a process also has a pattern and the possible outcomes are far from purely random. However, since many of the inputs are random, the exact outcome is not predetermined.
twhitehead
Cape Town
Joined
14 Apr '05
Moves
52945
21 May '11 19:52
Originally posted by epiphinehas
(most of us probably agree that our cognitive faculties are indeed reliable),
And that, as I see it is the flaw in the argument. You assume from the beginning that our cognitive faculties are reliable, then try to justify that assumption by claiming that we must assume God in order to justify it. And you tie yourself in knots until you confuse yourself and forget where you started.
Either we are able to determine whether our cognitive faculties are reliable or we are not. Whether we came about by evolution or by God will not help us since we must start with the assumption that we do not know whether or not our cognitive faculties are reliable.
I also find the assumption that the existence of God is the only scenario in which reliable cognitive faculties can reasonably be expected to be ridiculous in the extreme. If anything, if your argument is valid then it has proven the existence of fairies.
jaywill
Joined
02 Aug '06
Moves
12622
22 May '11 11:124 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead
And that, as I see it is the flaw in the argument. You assume from the beginning that our cognitive faculties are reliable, then try to justify that assumption by claiming that we must assume God in order to justify it. And you tie yourself in knots until you confuse yourself and forget where you started.
Either we are able to determine whether our cogni ...[text shortened]... the extreme. If anything, if your argument is valid then it has proven the existence of fairies.
=====================================
And that, as I see it is the flaw in the argument. You assume from the beginning that our cognitive faculties are reliable,
===================================

But that is an assumption that you are NOT making ? Is that it?

===========================
then try to justify that assumption by claiming that we must assume God in order to justify it. And you tie yourself in knots until you confuse yourself and forget where you started.
===========================

That our cognitive falculites are not reliable is the better assumption that will avoid us being tied up in knots ?

=================================
Either we are able to determine whether our cognitive faculties are reliable or we are not. Whether we came about by evolution or by God will not help us since we must start with the assumption that we do not know whether or not our cognitive faculties are reliable.
===================================

Are you committed to an opinion on this or non-committed ?

Are we able to determine if our cognitive faculties are reliable or are we not ?

It seems to me that which ever position you take it is rooted in an attitude that you can trust your cognitive falculites to inform you of the true situation.

======================================
I also find the assumption that the existence of God is the only scenario in which reliable cognitive faculties can reasonably be expected to be ridiculous in the extreme. If anything, if your argument is valid then it has proven the existence of fairies.
=======================================

I find that criticism to be ridiculous and unwarranted, given a definition of God which is the ultimate reality, uncreated, eternal.

I don't know much about faires but I never heard of them being uncreated or the ultimate ground of being.

My sense of God being the ground of being is based upon Romans 4:17 - " ...God ... who gives life to the dead and calls the things not being as being." (RcV)

God is the one ultimate authority and power which can call things into being.

Could you furnish me with a definition of fairies which assigns ultimate transcendent power to them ? Where ? I need something more than a pop reference to little winged human like creatures that exchange dimes for children's teeth put under pillows.
jaywill
Joined
02 Aug '06
Moves
12622
22 May '11 11:24
Originally posted by twhitehead
As with any other process, the outcome is dependent on the inputs. But no, evolution does not have ANY random outcome, a process also has a pattern and the possible outcomes are far from purely random. However, since many of the inputs are random, the exact outcome is not predetermined.
=========================
Evolution has no purpose, only an outcome.
============================

Is a "far from purely random" outcome a purposeful outcome ?
Andrew Hamilton
Joined
26 May '08
Moves
2120
22 May '11 16:225 edits
Originally posted by jaywill
Say an animal needs to escape from a preditor. Ie. a monkey needs to avoid being eaten by a lion.

It needs the proper belief / reaction pair to set its body in motion to avoid being eaten. Now the argument is that as long as the belief / action gets the monkey's body away from the preditor, it will survive. The reason for its removal may be based on a nd he does a much better job than I do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79SPvsZp1tY
“...
Evolution couldn't care less if the monkey's belief is factual or not. As long as the proper response of getting the monkey's body out of there, evolution doesn't care. ...”

that is correct -but that does not logically mean that cognitive faculties that help us survive could be in conflict with producing true beliefs. You have only shown a reason why we would not necessarily evolve to have true beliefs but NOT a reason why we would necessarily evolve to have an absence of a true belief; the two should not be confused. Therefore, this fact (which you stated above) is not a logical reason for the “removal” of true beliefs as you indicated in your post.
Andrew Hamilton
Joined
26 May '08
Moves
2120
22 May '11 16:35
Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=========================
Evolution has no purpose, only an outcome.
============================

Is a "far from purely random" outcome a purposeful outcome ?[/b]
No.

Example:

The formation of the complex geometric shape of a snowflake is not totally random for the outcome (the shape) has symmetry and some order.
And yet there is no purpose behind its formation nor outcome for it can be demonstrated that a snowflake is formed by mindless natural forces such as changes in temperature, humidity etc.
ThinkOfOne
Joined
15 Oct '06
Moves
10115
22 May '11 16:592 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead
And that, as I see it is the flaw in the argument. You assume from the beginning that our cognitive faculties are reliable, then try to justify that assumption by claiming that we must assume God in order to justify it. And you tie yourself in knots until you confuse yourself and forget where you started.
Either we are able to determine whether our cogni ...[text shortened]... the extreme. If anything, if your argument is valid then it has proven the existence of fairies.
ThinkOfOne
Joined
15 Oct '06
Moves
10115
22 May '11 17:182 edits
Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=====================================
And that, as I see it is the flaw in the argument. You assume from the beginning that our cognitive faculties are reliable,
===================================

But that is an assumption that you are NOT making ? Is that it?

===========================
then try to justify that assumption tle winged human like creatures that exchange dimes for children's teeth put under pillows.
Andrew Hamilton
Joined
26 May '08
Moves
2120
22 May '11 18:15
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I totally disagree 😛
LemonJello
Joined
24 Apr '05
Moves
3061
23 May '11 06:30
Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]...it is very implausible that evolution would furnish us with cognitive apparatus that produces a preponderance of false beliefs that both (1) are on the whole consistent (or "hang together" in a way that is on the whole coherent) and (2) conduce to the right adaptive behavior across the wide range or spectrum of situations that we face.

How a ...[text shortened]... n this, it seems to me that the reliability of our cognitive faculties is inscrutable at best.[/b]
According to mainstream biology, behavior is governed entirely by biochemistry—conscious belief being little more than a shadow cast by the inner workings of that biochemistry. Of what import is it to our biology whether or not the content of our beliefs are on the whole true or not? Any beliefs would have to be accidental as far as evolution is concerned.

That is just BS. Please provide some credible references that demonstrate that "mainstream biology" is committed to semantic epiphenomenalism. Supposing you can do that, then provide me reasons why I should think mainstream biology is any sort of arbiter on the question of relationship between belief and behavior. At any rate, Plantinga's argument is not restricted to epiphenomenalism: it also considers the probability of reliable cognition conditioned on the conjunction of naturalism; contemporary evolutionary explanation; and the claim that beliefs causally influence behavior both syntactically and semantically. He basically tries to argue that this probability is not as high as one might think, but his argument in that respect is not convincing.
LemonJello
Joined
24 Apr '05
Moves
3061
23 May '11 06:341 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay
The biggest reason I have is I don't believe you can get everything from nothing.
Kelly
I do not really see how that is a reason for believing in your biblical account. There are surely lots of accounts (including both theistic and atheistic ones) that deny that you "can get everything from nothing".
LemonJello
Joined
24 Apr '05
Moves
3061
23 May '11 06:401 edit
Originally posted by Conrau K
Naturalism does not mean that evolution is the source of our cognitive apparatus. In fact, there are some notable thinkers, Noam Chomsky, for example, who argue that the mind cannot be the result of natural selection. Evolution requires that each stage genetic variation have some reproductive advantage. Chomsky specifically does not think that the features at mental illness does not exist? I don't see how Plantinga's argument is any different here.
You are right. To be fair to Plantinga though, one of his arguments is explicit about including both naturalism (N) and contemporary evolutionary account (E). There he maintains the conjuction of N & E is self-defeating, not just N. Although I think Plantinga does make some additional arguments that rely basically on the premise at which your objection is directed (i.e., the premise that if one is committed to N, then E is basically the only game in town for him).